��ɫ����

Youth work as relational practice

Youth work is a relational practice (NYA, 2025). The relationship between a youth worker and the young people they engage with is not incidental – it is fundamental to its pedagogy.

Yet, this relationship has rarely been analysed in detail beyond the role of the ‘Trusted Adult’, a term that can be problematic given its associations with abuse, grooming and self-styled role models. In this blog post I explore the ways in which youth work as relational practice can be more accurately described and can support better practice in formal educational settings.

Opportunities in formal education

There are historical examples of relational practitioners supporting formal education. However, a comprehensive and systematic approach has become more challenging due to changes in the youth work delivery landscape since 2008, leading to increased reliance on a disparate and atomised voluntary sector.

Nonetheless, the following characteristics set youth work apart from other pedagogies, but they also offer opportunities to support and improve them. Formal education, which measures success through attainment and attendance, is limited by its structure and scope. Interventions are often restricted to making lessons more engaging, improving pastoral support, or using punitive measures.

‘Youth work’s relational approach allows the worker to identify barriers to improvement through their “privileged witness” status.’

Youth work’s relational approach allows the worker to identify barriers to improvement through their ‘privileged witness’ status. They can engage with young people in areas of life outside school and offer a wider diversity of interventions in more flexible settings. The relationship’s holistic, trusting, democratic, voluntary and flexible nature improves the chances of co-identifying areas for development, codeveloping activities, and maintaining engagement.

Core purpose and characteristics

According to the National Youth Agency, the key purpose of youth work is to: ‘Enable young people to develop holistically, working with them to facilitate their personal, social and educational development, to enable them to develop their voice, influence and place in society, and to reach their full potential’ (NYA, 2025).

Trust

Trust is fundamental – young people must feel safe enough to share thoughts, feelings and dilemmas. They need to feel comfortable showing vulnerability and making mistakes, as these are often the circumstances through which learning occurs. Youth workers receive disclosures both actively and passively – through conversation and by witnessing young people’s lives in youth centres, neighbourhoods and peer groups. Therefore, safety is an essential addition to trust.

Challenge and democracy

Good youth work also depends on the offering and acceptance of challenge in the relationship (Davies, 2005). Youth workers support young people in maximising their potential, but for this to be effective, young people must expect and accept it. The negotiated and democratic nature of youth work means that workers don’t solve problems but walk alongside young people as they find their own solutions. Hence, youth work is not only about problem-solving but also about helping young people thrive by building on strengths.

Holistic and contextual practice

Youth work is holistic, it is concerned with all aspects of young people’s lives, not just academic achievement, employment or health. Any aspect of a young person’s life is relevant if the youth worker is invited to be involved, within ethical boundaries (see NYA, 2024).

A key part of forming the youth work relationship is understanding the young person in the context of their peer group, community and authorities (Davies, 2005). This process provides a rich, contextual understanding of the actors and interactions influencing their life, and places the young person centrally in the process. Fundamentally, the youth worker is interested in the person for who they are rather than for what they can achieve. Hence, it is process led where the quality of the relationship is what counts and from within this relationship ethical goods emerge – that is, patience, temperance and perseverance.

‘Fundamentally, the youth worker is interested in the person for who they are rather than for what they can achieve.’

Challenges of integration

Implementing this relational pedagogy in formal education presents challenges. The content-led curriculum limits cocreation. Attendance requirements and prescribed success measures (grades) restrict the relationships educators can develop. There is also an element of crowd control (NYA, 2023).

However, the advantages of introducing relational pedagogy into formal spaces go beyond improved attainment and attendance. Schools could play a more central role in communities, possibly collocating wider services brokered through relational practitioners. Informal learning could extend beyond the school day into evenings and holidays.

The contextual nature of youth work could support schools in becoming agents for social or community change through social action projects. These benefits seem worth the effort.

A call for collaboration

The main challenge is not a clash of incompatible pedagogies but the focus on how particular pedagogies reach outcomes. We must shift our focus to how different systems can work together more effectively. The invisible wall between the formal and the non/informal has for too long prevented us from seeing what each could gain from the other side.

References

Davies, B. (2005). Youth work: A manifesto for our times. Youth and Policy, 88, 5–27.

National Youth Agency [NYA]. (2023). Better together: Youth work with schools.

National Youth Agency [NYA]. (2024). Youth work in England: Policy, practice and the national occupational standards.

National Youth Agency [NYA]. (2025). National youth work curriculum.