I asked Sarah if any specific requirements had been set down from the funding agency in terms of what needs to be included in each program, or the format the program should take. Sarah responded:
Nup, which I think that’s a good thing in a way because then we can build the program, otherwise just if they dictate it’s going to be based on the same model somewhere else.
Even though the youth workers thought they were not being dictated to by the policy makers, throughout the year there were many examples where it became obvious that whilst there may not have been a visible dictation of program content, there was an invisible, although very real, top- down determination of how the program should be rolled out. Whilst it was not the staffers within the funding agency specifically handing down instructions on what the program should look like, the initial format they requested, the participation numbers set as key performance indicators early on, and the yearly need to re-apply for funding, ensured that the youth program would be joining a space where it would be contending for influence within the wider policy and youth work arena. This is an arena dominated by administrative procedures, individual and organisational
accountabilities, and program reporting that rewards compliance over critique. As the policies entered the youth work arena they entered into relations with institutions through the interactions with the people within them, moving back and forth between those involved in the process. This led to a divergence of interpretations and ultimately a conflict of ideologies which in turn led to an internal struggle for power over the program within the organisation.
159 The current approach to managing public services and the consequences of the move to adopt a business culture model, means that the current policy climate requires youth workers and youth work organisations to ‘analyse the interests of stakeholders, develop partnerships with other service suppliers and create networks so that the expectations of all stakeholders for efficient and effective provision can be met’ (Merton 2010, p. 93)29. Ma Rhea (2012) referring to partnerships between families and communities and policy makers in an Indigenous education setting, suggests that:
unlike previous engagements with missions and governments that had their own ‘logics of exchange’…the neoliberal approach has bought a business-like, contractual element to relationships between Indigenous peoples and education service providers that has direct impact on how government policy of ‘partnership’ is being mobilised(p. 48).
Partnerships can have both advantages and disadvantages; an advantage may be a wider choice of services, activities and opportunities for the young people. Consequently an increase in services and options leads to an increase in partner organisations involved in the process. This makes decisions around resources, methods and information-sharing more difficult and more time consuming, creating conflict over issues such as claiming credit and taking responsibility for results (Merton 2010). In such situations the need to maintain and manage the patron/client relationship and demonstrate efficiency and effectiveness as well as contend for influence in the policy and youth work arena is in danger of becoming the underpinning purpose of partnership development, with the result that the disadvantages of partnership involvement outweigh the advantages.
Mosse (2005) states that:
viewed from an individual’s perspective project implementation is not only, or primarily about executing policy, or even putting schemes in place, but a matter of sustaining a set of relationships that secure a person’s identity and status, and which are a pre-condition for action at every level. Effective relationships are necessary to win support, sanction the flow of resources, build reputations, trust and reliability; to fend off the arbitrary judgement … Stability in the world of action does not come from coherent policy but from effective relationships (p. 130).
In the case of the youth workers, their skills and willingness to form and maintain effective
relationships was at times at odds with their sense of their own identities as youth workers, leading to an ongoing struggle to maintain power and influence over the direction of their program, and
29
Merton (2010) describes a stakeholder as being ‘any individual, group or organisation that has a material, legal or political interest in your organisation and may be effected by its activities and performance’ (p. 105), for example a regional government office, a state department of education and in this case and most importantly the young people themselves. On the other hand a partner is defined as ‘any service provider or agency whose activities and responsibilities affect young people directly’ (p. 105), for example other youth organisations.
160 whilst not necessarily breaking down relations, leaving them at the bottom of the power hierarchy. In the following chapter I explore the consequences of the reshaping of the youth work environment on the youth workers themselves within the framework of identity; their professional identity as youth workers as well as their personal identity as Aboriginal.
161