Special issue: Youth work and social pedagogy
Introduction
In this article, we explore how youth work can be viewed through a social pedagogical lens, considering both the potential benefits and drawbacks this perspective may offer. A growing body of academic literature has critiqued contemporary youth work for its increasing individualism and the dominance of market-driven ideals (De Winter, 2012, 2024; Furlong and Cartmel, 2007; Slovenko and Thompson, 2016). In this context, Slovenko and Thompson (2016) argue that the overemphasis on achieving government-mandated outcomes and targeting specific groups of vulnerable young people1 leads youth work to overlook its core principles, such as equity, justice, integrity, empowerment and inspiration. Youth workers are faced with the dichotomy of meeting targeted policy agendas and maintaining the core principles that form the foundations of youth work (Dunne et al., 2014; Mason, 2015). The report Youth Policy Toolkit, published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2024), demonstrates that an individualised and market-driven approach is currently still dominant in youth policy, reflected in a continued focus on monitoring, measuring and targeting individual skills and specific groups of vulnerable young people.
The field of social pedagogy can be a positive framework for contemporary youth work. Rather than processes of managerialism and bureaucracy, a social pedagogical perspective foregrounds collaboration, dialogue and the creation of a supportive environment with young people (Edwards and Evea, 2025). Thus, it could support a shift from achieving quantifiable outcomes, such as the number of organised activities, to less quantifiable but more impactful co-creation outcomes for the empowerment, independence and interdependence of young people (Eichsteller and Holthoff, 2011).
However, it is crucial to situate these considerations within the diverse realities of youth work. Youth work encompasses various dimensions of a social, cultural, educational, environmental and political nature, carried out by, with and for young people. When conducted as a professional practice, youth work is typically commissioned to an organisation through a formal mandate and is carried out by paid youth workers. However, youth work can also take informal and voluntary forms that emerge from community-based practices. Nonetheless, both professional and voluntary youth work are rooted in informal learning methods that emphasise the involvement and participation of young people (Council of Europe, 2020). In the Netherlands, youth work is generally organised as a formal, professional practice funded at the decentralised level, with local authorities responsible for its provision and oversight (Dutch Youth Institute, 2024). Youth workers are considered professionals who play a crucial role in the pedagogical infrastructure of neighbourhoods through their engagement with young people and their communities, promoting their active participation and inclusion in community life (Council of Europe, 2020). Youth workers create opportunities for young people to develop and practice their agency through dialogue and public participation; for example, through supporting young people in establishing youth councils that advise local policymakers. Additionally, youth workers also foster connections between other groups and sectors within society, such as introducing young people to the labour market through organised company visits (Dutch Youth Institute, 2024). Consequently, youth work intersects with many aspects of society and youth workers can be considered an integral part of communities. We therefore argue for moving beyond a perspective that describes youth work purely as a profession (Davies, 2016) towards one that perceives the role of youth workers as a social role within the community.
In countries where youth work is organised by the state or through local municipalities (as is the case in the Netherlands), the focus is often placed on meeting empirical targets. Consequently, commissioning entities are more inclined to trust large, well-established youth work organisations that can accurately report their reach and have demonstrated strong administrative accountability (Coleman, 2020; Gulikers, 2016; Noorda and van Dijk, 2017). The emphasis on results, effects and evidence-based practices in the domain of formal education, which is accompanied by moral and epistemological challenges (Biesta, 2007; Coleman, 2020), may also be applicable to the field of youth work. The requirement for measurable evidence reflects the neoliberal model (Coleman, 2020) that has characterised Western democracies since the Second World War (Evans and Sewell, 2012). Neoliberalism strongly emphasises market mechanisms, competition, individualisation and privatisation, typically leading to an increase in the influence of commercial enterprises at the expense of collective services (Hathaway, 2020). This focus on financial value has caused a major change in the way society has developed. After all, social well-being is difficult to express in terms of quantifiable measures of production or monetary value (Evans and Sewell, 2012; Huygen and Fortuin, 2021). Moreover, a growing trend in Western societies is for citizens to become increasingly dependent on the state for support, rather than their own social network. Parenting responsibilities that were formerly held by families and communities shifted towards the state. In the Netherlands, it has been argued that these developments have contributed to social patterns of undermining parenthood and a decline in responsible citizenship (De Winter, 2012). This pattern of pronounced defamilisation appears to be more prevalent in northern European countries than in southern European countries (Angel and Montes-de-Oca Zavala, 2021, chapter 2).
In the context of youth development, neoliberalism refers to the excessive dependence on market-based solutions to address complex community issues and undermining community knowledge in favour of expert knowledge (Coleman, 2020). Such a mindset is detrimental in the context of youth development, as it focuses primarily on the most immediate problem and therefore tends to offer only surface-level, targeted solutions, rather than understanding the issue from a holistic perspective (Coleman, 2020). This demand-driven approach is inherently risky and leads to substantial costs for youth care services. In the Netherlands, these consequences led to the introduction of the Dutch Youth Act on 1 January 2015, which marked the decentralisation of social policy (Vermeulen, 2015). The goal of these reforms was to increase societal participation among individuals who are unable to achieve positive development independently by providing accessible support opportunities within their neighbourhoods (Vermeulen, 2015). However, evaluations of the Dutch Youth Act indicate that implementing a positive, strengths-based approach remains a challenge (Friele et al., 2018). In this context, the community-based approach of the act appears to conflict with the individualistic mindset of contemporary society. For example, when a young person drops out of school, they are typically referred to an expert who offers individual coaching, rather than turning to role models or mentors within their neighbourhood for support. This highlights the need to reconsider the system in which experts assume responsibilities that could otherwise be embedded within community structures. Therefore, this study describes a practice-based experiment, called the Pedagogical Community Project (PCP), in which a well-considered action plan, using the interests and strengths of citizens, was implemented in a Dutch village to create a more positive environment with and for young people. This article examines the success factors and challenges of a community-based approach as the foundation for a flourishing village and the empowerment of young people by investigating the following research question. What are the practical benefits and difficulties of implementing a sustainable social pedagogical approach to youth work?
The Pedagogical Community Project
Informal social network
The PCP is a multi-phase intervention carried out over a three-year period. The PCP has a community-centric social pedagogical approach and aims to establish ‘a pedagogical civil society’ (PCS) (Hämäläinen, 2013), meaning that the society aims to reconnect community members2 and create social networks to collectively raise children (De Winter, 2012). Inspired by the idea of it takes a village to raise a child, the community is considered an informal educational network, where community members can learn from each other and share the responsibility for raising children and young people (Hämäläinen, 2013). This means that parents and young people can seek support to help them grow up in their community, from other parents, neighbours, family, friends and peers, for example. Such peer support helps address minor issues early, preventing them from escalating and potentially reducing the need for professional intervention later (De Winter, 2012). Accordingly, the PCS is a counter-movement to the professionalised, risk-oriented approach, in which parents and young people turn to professionals for support when facing problems while growing up (De Winter, 2012; Dutch Youth Institute, 2010).
An important condition for the PCS is the existence of social ties within neighbourhoods. Nowadays most families prioritise their nuclear family over support from community members (Kulkarni et al., 2024). People in neighbourhoods need to find each other again to provide support (Maguire-Jack and Wang, 2016). The social capital theory explains how investing in social ties creates social networks, which in turn can rebuild social cohesion among residents (Putnam, 2000). Social capital is often categorised into three categories: bonding, bridging (Putnam, 2000) and linking (Szreter and Woolcock, 2004). Bonding involves strong ties between community members from the same social background, while bridging relates to a social network between community members from different social backgrounds. Linking refers to the vertical connections between community members and actors or institutions with power, crucial for accessing (local) resources in the neighbourhood. These three categories contribute to community engagement and can create support systems in the community outside the nuclear family (Maguire-Jack and Wang, 2016; Ruelo et al., 2008).
Initiative group and interviews
Building on the social capital theory, the PCP aims to contribute to community engagement by establishing an initiative group with a broad social network within the community, organising dialogue sessions and facilitating community activities. In the case discussed here, the initiative group included representatives from professional and resident organisations, such as primary schools, (sports) clubs, a social work organisation and a community association. The members of the initiative group had a broad overview of the initiatives and were in a good position to facilitate opportunities for young people in the community. The social capital concepts of bonding, bridging and linking are integrated in the PCP as it facilitates dialogue sessions and community activities.
Furthermore, the PCP’s bottom-up approach consisted of conversations at the beginning of the PCP project with the aforementioned stakeholders. These conversations gave an in-depth and overall picture of the village, identifying wishes and concerns, and provided an opportunity to gather residents’ ideas for community initiatives. One commonly expressed wish was to create more opportunities for engagement between different age groups. An action plan was made based on the wishes and concerns of the stakeholders’ input in the interviews.
Dialogue sessions
Throughout the PCP, dialogue sessions were organised that stimulated community members to have conversations on norms and values and to explore opportunities for joint community initiatives. During the dialogue sessions community members exchanged their experiences about living in the village, such as things that they appreciated, things they would like to improve, shared norms and values and relating rules of engagement (Warner, 2014). Examples of shared norms and values that were mentioned were ‘rubbish belongs in the bin’ and ‘greet each other’. Establishing shared norms and values in the village helps increase trust among community members (Warner, 2014). When communities have high social cohesion, community members are often looking out for each other, are willing to adhere to shared norms and values and hold each other accountable when these norms are violated (Hirschi, 1969; Sampson et al., 1997). Holding others accountable involves using de-escalating and problem-solving strategies when confronting others, which stimulates collective efficacy (Ohmer, 2016; Ohmer et al., 2010).
In addition, dialogue sessions were directed at discussing what potential new initiatives could be established in the community. Between October 2017 and December 2018, a total of 15 sessions were organised, involving 146 community members, of which 25 per cent were young people and 75 per cent were adults. Moreover, local organisations and professionals, including the police and youth work practitioners, participated in the dialogue sessions to recognise their role in the community and to help connect community members with existing local resources. As such, the dialogue sessions aimed to not only encourage bonding and bridging social capital among community members, but also to contribute to linking social capital. Through activating community engagement and connecting social capital, the PCP aims to foster community initiative and empowerment. This emancipative character of the PCP, by collecting community member’s input, is in line with the social pedagogy approach (Hämäläinen, 2013).
Community activities
Based on the ideas for community initiatives gathered in dialogue sessions and during interviews, the PCP facilitated and supported community members in setting up community projects and organising activities in the village. Previously, Beck et al. (2012) found that organising activities in a neighbourhood can enhance community engagement. The bottom-up approach stipulates that the content of the activities is shaped according to the interests of the local community. In this village, examples of such activities were the opening of a village park and a visit to a penitentiary institution. The village park created a meeting place for community members to gather and interact, with its maintenance becoming a shared responsibility for people of all ages. Initially, a small group of community members took the lead in organising activities, but over time participation spread gradually and more community members became involved in their neighbourhood.
Training
The PCP offered two types of skills training course, aimed at active community members and young people, to foster competencies that are necessary for active citizenship. The first training course focused on practical competency learning, ranging from effectively engaging with various actors in the PCP to organising neighbourhood activities. The second skill training course, focused on young people, took place in 2018 and is called Young Leaders (Noorda and van Dijk, 2015). This training programme consists of 10 sessions carried out by a certified Young Leaders trainer and a local youth worker. A total of 12 young people participated in the Young Leaders programme. Based on the theories of positive youth development and role models, the programme aims to encourage young people’s participation by improving their living environment and to support their development through meaningful relationships and opportunities.
The positive youth development theory highlights the importance of internal and external protective factors in a young person’s development. Protective factors include qualities, developmental plasticity and internal and external developmental factors of young people. Internal developmental factors can consist of elements such as school engagement, interpersonal competence and sense of purpose (Benson, 1997). External factors can be family support, availability of youth programmes and the extent that the community values young people (Benson, 2011). The presence of such protective factors can buffer against negative influences and promote resilience. Youth programmes can take on a protective role in case of an unsafe environment in the neighbourhood and have been positively linked to outcomes such as peer support and skill development (Anderson et al., 2018). The Young Leaders programme contributes to positive youth development by helping young people identify their qualities and developing skills such as cooperation and coping with peer pressure. Additionally, the training encourages young people’s participation and provides the opportunity to use their qualities through organising community activities (Noorda and van Dijk, 2015) – in this case it resulted in a successful pool party. In so doing, the PCP contributes to social pedagogy by increasing active citizenship for young people in the community (Hämäläinen, 2013).
Young Leaders also emphasises the importance of role models (Noorda and van Dijk, 2015). According to Bandura (1986), individuals tend to imitate positive or negative behaviour of people they look up to, especially when those behaviours are rewarded. Hurd et al. (2011) found that adolescents exposed to role models who showed prosocial behaviours were less likely to endorse violence and were more likely to adopt constructive behaviours. Hurd et al. (2009) also showed that positive role models can serve as protective factors for adolescents who show externalising behaviours such as theft and violence. However, young people have agency, which means that they do not simply imitate the behaviour of role models (Soenens and Vansteenkiste, 2020). Young people have the ability to interpret behaviours and based on their perception of the behaviours they will act accordingly. Factors that impact on their perception are age, social domain and cultural background. This means that the relationship between role models and young people is bi-directional (Soenens and Vansteenkiste, 2020). Therefore, in Young Leaders special attention is paid to the interaction between role models and young people. The goal is to cultivate positive and relatable role models within the community in two ways:
-
by connecting young people to relatable positive role models; for example, a certified trainer is chosen based on their compatibility with the participants, making it more likely that young people will identify with the trainer and see them as a role model;
-
by raising awareness among participants that they have an impact on the people around them and activating their own potential as positive role models. As such, Young Leaders aims to create a snowball effect: young people inspiring other young people towards positive, community-orientated actions and behaviour.
Methods
Study design
The current research is a participatory action study and has an explorative and qualitative character. Participants played a central role in the design of the PCP and subsequently also in the research project. To answer the research question, in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with young and adult community members and professionals who were involved in the PCP. These interviews were carried out immediately after the completion of the project in 2020,3 with the goal of evaluating the project through the eyes of the community members. To gain more insight into the medium-term outcomes of the project, a focus group was held in the spring of 2025 with five key figures of the community. The aim was to discuss the benefits and challenges that had emerged from the project over the five years following the completion of the PCP.
The village where the project was carried out was chosen because its local government was looking for a preventive and positive youth approach. In the village, adult community members experienced youth nuisance behaviour and were concerned about youth substance use. By giving young people a role in the positive and pedagogically activating PCP, the goal was to co-create space for participation and new norms regarding positive behaviour and establish a positive living environment from the bottom up.
Participants
Interviews
In the first round of interviews in 2020, a total of 70 persons were interviewed. The participants can be categorised into young people (n = 10), professionals (n = 8), key figures (n = 36) and other community members (n = 16). Age data were available for 53 participants, who ranged in age from 16 to 77 years (M = 39.49, SD = 20.55). Participants were found using the snowball sampling method (Goodman, 1961): active community members and professionals were interviewed about their experiences and then asked to refer the interviewers to other community members. Participants were also recruited through field interviews. Interviews were carried out by a group of executive researchers from Noorda & Co who were also project members in the PCP. The only inclusion criterion for participation in the study was that the participant lived or worked in the village where the PCP was conducted. The average residential duration of participating community members was 25.67 years (SD = 18.42). Of the interviewees, 37.14 per cent were male and 61.43 per cent were female, with the remaining 1.43 per cent being unknown.
Focus group
To gain a more longitudinal perspective, in the spring of 2025, five community members were contacted telephonically to participate in a focus group on the medium-term outcomes of the project. The focus group was carried out by two researchers from Noorda & Co and included representatives from all target groups involved in the project, including the local government, young people, adult community members and two local initiatives (n = 5). Inclusion criteria for the focus group were that the participant had been interviewed in 2020 and represented a specific group of community members in the village.
Ethical considerations
Participation in this study was voluntary, and all participants provided verbal informed consent for research purposes. All participants were 16 years or older. Personal identifiers were initially collected for the purpose of the PCP but were later anonymised to ensure participant confidentiality. Because the initial interviews were conducted five years ago, an extra round of phone calls was conducted to obtain explicit verbal permission from key figures to use their data for this publication. During the focus group, the representatives of the diverse target groups also gave their approval for audio recording and including the data in this article. Additionally, the village involved in this study was not depicted in any way that would make it identifiable. Data was stored on encrypted servers, in accordance with data protection regulations.
When discussing ethical considerations, special attention should be paid to the role of young people in the PCP and research project, since ‘youth work is a value-driven social practice which produces actions that have moral, social and political consequences’ (Petkovic and Bárta, 2019, p. 4). Young people in this project are seen as competent agents capable of working together to create a positive and liveable community and living situation in the village. However, the goal of the project was explained more simply to young people, to ensure understanding of the PCP and research project. Furthermore, important adult key figures were closely involved to ensure safety and give the option to discuss consequences of involvement in the project with a familiar person.
Instruments
Qualitative data was gathered, to gain insight into the experiences of community members with young people, professional and voluntary youth work and social work practices, and experiences with the PCP. The interviews and focus group were semi-structured.
Interviews
The interview questions were designed with the goal of evaluating the PCP and were chosen using the knowledge of the researchers and the input of some community members. The designs of the interviews differed depending on the group of participants. In general, participants were asked about their experiences in the neighbourhood, community initiatives, their opinion on the necessity of improving the village and their experience with the PCP. For the group of key figures and professionals, additional questions about their specific roles within the community and insights about the village were added. For the young people, the questions focused specifically on youth issues and their living environment.
Focus group
For the purpose of gaining insight into the medium-term involvement of community members, a semi-structured focus group with five active community representatives was organised. Questions were focused on the situation regarding resident involvement, the situation regarding young people and local initiatives over the past five years.
Procedure
Interviews
Interviews were held during the last phase of the project, between March and August 2020, either in person or on the phone. Most interviews were held individually, but in a few cases with two or three participants. Before starting the interview, participants were informed about the research purposes and asked for verbal consent. The interviewer took notes during the interview to analyse the data afterwards.
Focus group
The focus group was conducted in person in the spring of 2025, five years after the completion of the project. Before starting the focus group, participants were informed about the purpose of writing a research paper and asked for consent to record the group discussion.
Triangulation
Various researchers were involved in distinct phases of the study. The implementation of the PCP and the initial data collection were carried out by one group of executive researchers, whereas the data analysis was conducted by another group of researchers. None of the researchers lived in the community and there were no conflicts of interest. The separation of roles contributed to researcher triangulation, enhancing the credibility of the findings by reducing potential bias and allowing for a more objective interpretation of the data (Denzin, 1978). However, to guarantee correct understanding and reporting of the data, two executive researchers were involved in reviewing the paper since they had knowledge of the community and research context.
Data analysis
Interviews
Inductive thematic analysis based on Verhoeven’s (2020) step-by-step plan was carried out to interpret key patterns and provide insights into practical benefits and difficulties of the implementation of the PCP. This step-by-step plan is based on the thematic analysis approach for psychology by Braun and Clarke (2008). During the first step, the data transcripts were reviewed, searching for success factors and challenges which were noted in an excel document (exploring). Subsequently, the citations were analysed into suitable codes (coding). The most occurring themes were listed in a table and categorised under umbrella themes (thematising). Next, the abstracted themes were revised and compared to the initial data, to guarantee accuracy. Finally, a definitive list of codes was drafted, and the data was reported in the results section. See Table 1 for an example of the code tree. Relevant citations from the anonymised transcripts were used to further clarify the results.
Example of code tree: success factors
| Theme | Axial code | Open code |
|---|---|---|
| Participation and personal development | Increased youth engagement | Helps with the organisation of activities for children (girl, 17 years old) |
| Social cohesion | Reduced generational divide | Young people learnt to engage with older people through the project |
| Conditions | Effective promotion activities | Easy entry into volunteer work through word of mouth |
Focus group
The audio recording of the group discussion was transcribed verbatim and anonymised. Next, the transcript was analysed using the same thematic analysis procedure (Braun and Clarke, 2008; Verhoeven, 2020) as was used for the interviews. However, instead of a fully inductive approach, the codes that were abstracted from the interviews analysis were also used as a priori codes in the data analysis of the focus group.
Results
Interviews
The PCP as a community approach to youth work has its success factors but also has some challenges. Seventy community members of the village in which the project was implemented were asked about their experiences with the PCP and success factors and challenges were abstracted.
Success factors
Statements from participants about success factors were divided into five key themes:
1. Positive impact on the living environment: 50 participant statements mentioned that the liveability and social safety of the village improved. Community members stated that the village had become more vibrant (six times) and positive (three times), more community-building activities were organised (26 times) and that a decrease could be recognised in youth nuisance behaviour (15 times). A participant said about this:
I think the PCP played a role in the positive developments and caused some vibrancy. People started thinking about their role and responsibilities. (Woman, age unknown)
2. Participation and personal development: in 34 statements a positive impact on participation and personal development was mentioned as a consequence of the PCP. Ten participants talked about the growth in the number of volunteers during the project, and in nine statements it was mentioned that community members have developed their personal and social skills during the project:
Residents have developed themselves. I know someone who used to remain on the sidelines and was not active at all. That person had recently set up free running in the village … I, myself, have also developed. Like organising things, getting permits and inviting people. I have developed myself in different ways. (Woman, 37 years old)
Regarding young people, it was stated that young people have become more engaged (11 times) and a voluntary youth organisation was established (four times). Finally, four participants mentioned that involving young people and giving them responsibilities proves effective.
3. Social cohesion: 30 statements from community members were about how the PCP improved social cohesion in the village. It was mentioned that community-led initiatives increased 18 times, and seven participants talked about how the generational divide had reduced. Consequently, improved mutual understanding among community members arose (five times):
The conversations [between elderly people and young people] in [residential care facility] were good to hear and [helped] to understand each other’s positions. In the short term it resulted in some friction, but in the longer term it resulted in a spot for young people to hang out and youth nuisance decreased. (Man, 40 years old)
4. Effective organisational processes: Sixteen participant statements showed that organisational processes became more effective during the PCP. This had to do with increased collaboration between the organisations in the village (nine times). Furthermore, active community members mentioned how organising manageable-scale activities worked better than planning an activity that was too ambitious (five times) and how groups of people could stimulate each other (twice). They recognised that it was easier to involve others in the organisation process when small tasks could be divided:
Short, more concrete social activities make it easier for people to take an organising role. People really want to do something, but it must be doable. (Woman, age unknown).
5. Preconditions: During 12 interviews, participants talked about preconditions that made the project successful. It was mentioned that the promotion activities were effective eight times and four participants stated that the budget for activities provided by the project gave them opportunities to become active in the village.
Challenges
Statements from participants about challenges were divided into five key themes:
1. Communication: 35 participant statements revealed that the communication about the PCP was poor. On the one hand, this had to do with not reaching every community member due to limited promoting of the activities (30 times). On the other, it was mentioned that the communication tone, especially about the young people in the village, was negative (five times). One participant talked about how this antagonises people:
Notice that particularly the young people have achieved good things. That young people also recognise that they are not always the bogeyman. (Woman, age unknown)
2. Engagement: 33 statements were about low willingness of other community members to participate. It was mentioned that there was a lack of interest in the project ten times, and 17 participants talked about the passive attitude among community members:
It is hard to mobilise people to help organise a social activity. That succeeds one or two times, and then the battery is dead [Dutch saying for: people are tired of it]. (Man, 58 years old)
Regarding young people, it was mentioned that young people lack motivation and/or time (six times).
3. Organisational structure: in 25 interviews, structural barriers were mentioned as challenging. Participants revealed that bureaucratic obstacles (12 times) and inadequate facilities (seven times) impeded the organisation of community activities:
Halloween is a successful initiative. There were people from [big Dutch cities] who joined the ghost tour every year. You can’t get any better than that. There were so many people, around 800 to 900. But you needed different permits each time, so it kept getting more difficult … At times you are busy every evening. (Woman, 34 years old)
Some participants also had difficulties with initiatives organised by external organisations (six times).
4. Volunteer capacity: this was mentioned as a challenge 24 times. The most mentioned issue was that the village had to deal with an insufficient number of volunteers (18 times), but also the excessive burden was seen as a strain on already active community members (six times).
5. Perceived impact: in 11 cases participants experienced no change in liveability in the village during the project. Primarily the interviewed youngsters stated that they perceived no change in vibrancy and the organisation of activities. A 19-year-old (young woman) said about this:
As far as I noticed, nothing has changed. I had my usual group of friends and family, and continued spending time with them. I was never really involved in activities or even aware of them.
Young people
When specifically focused on young people, a discrepancy arose. On the one hand, the participants state that the village has changed in a positive way for them: ‘The village has become more peaceful over the last years, there is less mischief’ (man, 22 years old); and ‘Over the last period, there is more to do for us [young people]. Before, there was not much, but now there are more and more initiatives’ (woman, 17 years old). On the other, most of the young participants stated they did not know much about the PCP and nine of the ten young participants mentioned that there is a need for more activities: ‘Yeah, what we need are some activities for young people themselves’ (woman, 19 years old).
Focus group
In addition to the aforementioned experiences of community members directly after the completion of the PCP in 2019, a small group of community members was asked about the situation in the village five years later.
Liveability
In general, the liveability in the village was mentioned to have improved over the past five years. According to both community members and local enforcement officers, perceived youth nuisance behaviour decreased and the village became more peaceful. One participant added how the regional government noted this improvement in terms of policy:
Well, I think it’s a great example of how we [the village] went from being an ‘area of concern’ to [the village] becoming a ‘flourishing zone’. (Participant 2)
Engagement in dialogue
Part of this improvement might be a result of the improved social cohesion in the village that the participants described. Although there are still groups of young people who sometimes cause noise disturbances, community members affected by this became more willing to engage in dialogue about it. This also holds true for interactions among young people themselves:
But it’s just the case that, especially the girls, are always yelling. Also, when we’re outside in the evenings. I just send them inside then, telling them that they should not shout like that because of the neighbours. (Participant 4; adolescent)
Community involvement
Although the participants agree on the statement that social cohesion in the village increased over the past five years, there is disagreement among the community members regarding the increase or decrease in active community members. For example, Participant 5 stated:
I don’t think it [community involvement] has increased significantly, but those who already were active have become more engaged.
Yet Participant 1 mentioned:
You do see more initiatives emerging. Our [voluntary youth organisation] actually went into standby mode because of [personal circumstances]. And because of that, you saw other groups stepping up. They started organising activities and things like that.
However, it was also noticed that residents’ associations have faced hard times in recent years and the number of associations in the village have decreased compared to 30–40 years ago.
Youth work
More specifically focused on young people, participants talked several times about the importance of being involved directly with the young people in the village and ensuring activities are organised by young people themselves, rather than arranged for them. The adolescent participant mentioned the professional youth work organisation that is subsidised by the municipality:
It’s always the same types of people working there with a peculiar way of thinking about young people and how they can help us with things that they actually don’t need to help us with.
The other participants added that there is a high turnover rate among professional youth workers in the village and therefore building rapport is impossible. In contrast, the community members who are invested in young people are more stable, more flexible (no "9-to-5" attitude) and more intrinsically motivated to do something for young people in the village. On a more abstract level, Participant 1 added:
[The professional youth work organisation] reinforces the negative views some community members have about young people, while [voluntary youth organisation] actually changes those views for the better. We stand up for them, whereas [professional youth work organisation] ends up making things worse.
Finally, the Young Leaders programme was acknowledged as a positive approach to empower young people and to portray them in a positive light.
Discussion
In this qualitative study we investigated what the practical benefits and difficulties are of implementing a sustainable social pedagogical approach to youth work. For this study, the outcomes of the PCP were investigated by analysing 70 interviews and a focus group discussion.
In general, the participants in this study are positive about the changes in liveability, social safety and community involvement as a result of the PCP. Although some community members perceived no impact of the project, a more substantial part of the community recognised more vibrancy, more organised activities and a decrease in youth nuisance behaviour. One very concrete result of the project was the establishment of a voluntary youth organisation, in which both adults and young people participate to improve the quantity and quality of leisure activities for young people in the village. Their voluntary, flexible and bottom-up approach in the context of youth work seems effective in reaching and understanding the target group of young people (Corney et al., 2023; Orazani et al., 2023). Although the project seems to play a role in improving liveability and empowering the (young) community, a substantial number of community members mentioned that they were only aware of the PCP to a very limited extent. Most community members did not know what the project entailed exactly. Possible explanations are limited interest and passivity of some community members, but also poor promotion strategies, which is in accordance with the findings of Botes and Van Rensburg (2000).
Limited motivation to become involved with the project and not being engaged with the PCP also occurred for some of the young people in this study. However, it is noteworthy that some of those that got involved in the PCP – for example, through participation in Young Leaders – showed long-term community involvement and remain active in local initiatives five years after the project ended. The PCP thus shows how a social pedagogical approach to youth work that empowers young people to participate and make an impact on their (neighbourhood) environment encourages long-term agency and community involvement. However, a major issue that remains is how to attract and encourage young people to become involved in project activities from the start. The young people in this study mention that they did not know much about the PCP and that they would like to have more activities organised for their age group, even though they report that the situation in the village has changed for the better over the last five years. Engaging young people in a social pedagogical approach to youth work appears to require a dual strategy: first, involving a diverse group of young people from the outset in project-based activities, and second, ensuring their sustained participation in long-term community initiatives. These strategies are anchored on the idea of adapting to the young person and building trust. For example, multiple different motivating strategies and sources for different categories of young people could be used. School seems to be an important information and communication source for young females, whereas for young males, friends are more important, and for ethnic minorities faith groups generally play an important role (UK Youth, 2025). Once again, the importance of involving the broad community in all its diversity comes into play.
A direct example of the benefits of close personal contact arose in this study, when participants found that a small group of community members connected more effectively with the young people in the village than the professional youth work organisation that is active there. This raises the question of whether voluntary youth work could play a more important role in supporting young people within their own living environment and during more flexible hours. In this case study, the voluntary youth organisation was embedded directly in the social communal network and therefore better able to build trusting relationships. However, the practicability and desirability of broadening the role of voluntary youth work necessitates further consideration. Voluntary youth work in this case study is very dependent on a small group of community members, and in that sense is a less stable facility than a professional youth work organisation that is subsidised by the local government. Yet professional youth work could learn from practices and relationships developed by voluntary youth workers within the village; for example, by being available at times that fit young peoples’ schedules, by decreasing turnover among professionals to establish continuity, by collaborating with (adult) community members that have trusted relationships with the young people, and by positively approaching young people, such as in the form of a positive pedagogical activating programme like Young Leaders. However, emphasis should be placed on the benefits of the stability that is guaranteed by professional youth work (Griffith and Johnson, 2019; Tamilina and Tamilina, 2018). Therefore, to leverage the best of both worlds, collaboration between professional and voluntary youth work might be most desirable.
Limitations
This study has several limitations. First, the questionnaire was initially designed to evaluate the PCP, and the research focus was only defined afterwards based on the collected data. Consequently, the data did not answer every aspect of the research question. To overcome this gap, supplementary data was collected to be able to fully answer the research question and to verify the answers given in the questionnaire. Although the focus group provided enough extra information to answer the research question, relevant themes present in the interview data originally collected for project evaluation may not have been explored in sufficient depth. Moreover, the focus group that was conducted consisted of a small and selective group of active community members which could make triangulation and extrapolation difficult. As a result, this may distort the perceived outcome of the PCP for the entire community.
Nonetheless, the focus group was conducted five years after finishing the PCP, which can give insight into how the effects of the project have remained or have changed over time. Another strong point of this research is the large number of interviewed participants. Moreover, the wide age range of the participants reflects the diversity of life stages in the village’s population and provides a general overview of the success factors and challenges various community members experienced in relation to the PCP. Lastly, the researcher triangulation between the executive researchers and reporting researchers enables an objective analysis preventing research bias. In doing so, the triangulation contributes to the validity and credibility of the research since multiple perspectives are taken into consideration.
Implications
This study indicates several success factors and challenges that can be taken into consideration when implementing the PCP in other settings. First, for future implementation of this project or similar social pedagogical approaches to youth work, it is important to engage community members in organising activities for the community and stimulate dialogue between young people and adults to establish shared norms. However, given the project’s collective approach, which contrasts with the individualistic nature of contemporary society, the PCP is likely to raise resistance, particularly at the start of the project. Therefore, to engage people in the PCP or a similar approach, it is important to align with the mindset of community members and adapt communication strategies to different audiences. Additionally, word-of-mouth communication among community members appears to be particularly effective.
Conversely, this project and similar pedagogical approaches to youth work have several points to improve on. First, activities have to be promoted more frequently and effectively, so that the project becomes more visible for all community members – for example, on social media platforms, making the promotion more visible for young people. Additionally, it is important to use positive communication when referring to young people. Furthermore, the support base of volunteers must be broad, ensuring that the workload is carried by a large and alternating group of volunteers.
An important question in approaches such as the PCP is whether the effort during the project period is sustained after the completion of the project. This specific case demonstrates that in the medium term, most initiatives that were started by community members during the project continued to exist. Community members are likely to demonstrate ongoing effort for initiatives they have personally developed, as noticed in the current case study. In theory, this makes a project such as the PCP very adaptable to different contexts. However, the approach seems primarily useful for countries where the social domain is individualised. This is the case for northern and western Europe and societies in North America, but to a lesser extent for eastern Europe and other continents where the prevailing norms are more collective (Hampton and Varnum, 2017; Hofstede, 1980).
Future research
A longitudinal research design could give insight into how contextual factors change over time and how this is related to the effectiveness of the PCP. Additionally, it would be interesting to investigate differences in effectiveness and stability between professional and voluntary youth work. More in-depth research on how community members can also be stimulated to participate in the PCP would also be useful. Lastly, since the research outcomes are possibly strongly connected to the particular community context, more research must be done to explore whether these factors are also effective in other settings. For example, other cultural or socio-economic contexts could face different challenges and success factors when implementing the PCP.
Conclusion
Through this project, it became clear that a social pedagogical approach to youth work that is largely voluntary, flexible and operates from the bottom up, such as the PCP, can encourage community engagement and might be helpful in reconstructing youth work from an exclusively professional concern towards a collective responsibility. When youth work becomes a collective responsibility, where youth workers are part of and work together with the community, the community can turn into an educational network, where young people, parents and community members feel empowered to give and seek support from each other. Although this is a gradual process that takes time, in this way youth work can be really embedded in the daily lives of young people. This study shows that it is important that projects such as the PCP incorporate the knowledge and interests that are already present in the community. Current youth work practices can benefit from these insights and from considering the success factors and challenges of the PCP mentioned in this study when working towards a sustainable social pedagogical approach. We argue that the PCP and similar social pedagogical approaches are essential to bring about the fundamental transformation from an individualised risk-oriented approach to a community-centric approach to youth work.
Notes
- In this article young people describes people between the ages of 12–26. ⮭
- to reflect the scope of the PCP, we use the term community member(s) to refer to local residents. Although the project also sees youth workers as part of the community, for clarity we will be referring to them as professionals. ⮭
- By completion of the project, we mean that the intensive two-year implementation phase has been completed. However, the goal of the PCP is to stimulate young and adult community members so that their active involvement continues after the formal project deadline. In that sense, the project is never entirely concluded. ⮭
Funding
The local and regional government was involved and financially contributed to the project, including a part of the data collection.
Acknowledgements
We would like to express our gratitude to Hasse van der Veen and Rosita Linssen for their efforts in collecting the interview data back in 2019 and 2020. We also thank Jetske Hoppen and Sarah Rouffaer for their valuable input and contributions to this research; Annelieke van Dijk for her thoughtful suggestions and constructive feedback to help shape the direction of this research and for bringing it to a coherent whole; and Gabie Roldán Waals for her constructive feedback on our use of British English.
Declarations and conflicts of interest
Research ethics statement
The authors conducted the research reported in this article in accordance with the Dutch Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. An ethical board was not involved in this study, as the research was conducted by a small independent research organisation that does not have such a committee.
Consent for publication statement
The authors declare that research participants’ informed verbal consent to publication of findings – including photos, videos and any personal or identifiable information – was secured prior to publication.
Conflicts of interest statement
The authors declare no conflicts of interest with this work. All efforts to sufficiently anonymise the authors during peer review of this article have been made. The authors declare no further conflicts with this article.
References
Anderson,S; McDermott,E R; Elliot,M C; Donlan,A E; Aasland,K. (2018). Youth-serving institutional resources and neighborhood safety: Ties with positive youth development. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 88 (1) :78–87, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ort0000220 27991821
Angel,R J; Montes-de-Oca Zavala,V. (2021). When strangers become family: The role of civil society in addressing the needs of aging populations. Routledge.
Bandura,A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice Hall.
Beck,E; Ohmer,M; Warner,B. (2012). Strategies for preventing neighborhood violence: Toward bringing collective efficacy into social work practice. Journal of Community Practice 20 (3) :225–240, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705422.2012.700278
Benson,P L. (1997). All kids are our kids: What communities must do to raise caring and responsible children and adolescents. Jossey-Bass.
Benson,P L. (2011). The contribution of the developmental assets framework to positive youth development theory and practice. Advances in Child Development and Behaviour 41 :197–230, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-386492-5.00008-7 23259193
Biesta,G. (2007). Why ‘what works’ won’t work: Evidence-based practice and the democratic deficit in educational research. Educational Theory 57 (1) :1–22, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2006.00241.x
Botes,L; Van Rensburg,D. (2000). Community participation in development: Nine plagues and twelve commandments. Community Development Journal 35 (1) :41–58, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cdj/35.1.41
Braun,V; Clarke,V. (2008). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2) :77–101, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Coleman,B R. (2020). Managing the disconnect: A critical case study of neoliberalism in youth development practice. Journal of Community Psychology 49 (4) :907–926, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22350 32237158
Corney,T; Marion,J; Baird,R; Welsh,S; Gorman,J. (2023). Youth work as social pedagogy: Toward an understanding of non-formal and informal education and learning in youth work. Child and Youth Services 45 (3) :345–370, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0145935X.2023.2218081
Council of Europe. (2020). Youth work, https://www.coe.int/en/web/youth/youth-work.
Davies,R. (2016). Youth work and ethics: Why the ‘professional turn’ won’t do. Ethics and Education 11 (2) :186–196, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17449642.2016.1182309
De Winter,M. (2012). Socialization and civil society: How parents, teachers and others could foster a democratic way of life. Sense Publishers.
De Winter,M. (2024). Medemenselijk opvoeden. Uitgeverij SWP Amsterdam.
Denzin,N K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill.
Dunne,A; Ulicna,D; Murphy,I; Golubeva,M. (2014). Working with young people: The value of youth work in European Union. European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/assets/eac/youth/library/study/youth-work-report_en.pdf.
Dutch Youth Institute. (2010). De kracht van de pedagogische civil society: Versterking van een positieve sociale opvoed- en opgroeiomgeving, https://www.nji.nl/uploads/2021-05/DekrachtvandepedagogischecivilsocietyNJi2010.pdf.
Dutch Youth Institute. (2024). Jongerenwerk in Europa: Grote variatie met een stevige basis, https://www.nji.nl/uploads/2024-03/Jongerenwerk-in-Europa-grote-variatie-met-een-stevige-basis.pdf.
Edwards,S; Evea,R. (2025). Resisting the professional turn: Revisiting youth work as a covenantal process. International Journal of Social Pedagogy 14 (1) :9. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14324/111.444.ijsp.2025.v14.x.009
Eichsteller,G; Holthoff,S. (2011). The art of being a social pedagogue practice examples of cultural change in children’s homes in Essex. Thempra. https://thempra.org.uk/downloads/Essex_Report_2012.pdf.
Evans,P; Sewell,W H. (2012). Neoliberalism: Policy regimes, international regimes, and social effects. Social resilience in the neo-liberal era. Hall,P A, Lamont,MM(ed s .), Cambridge University Press, pp.25–68, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139542425
Friele,R D; Bruning,M R; Bastiaanssen,I L W; de Boer,R; Bucx,A J E H; de Groot,J F; Pehlivan,T; Rutjes,L; Sondeijker,F; van Yperen,T A; Hageraats,R. (2018). Eerste evaluatie Jeugdwet: Na de transitie nu de transformatie (Reeks evaluatie regelgeving nr. 43). ZonMw, https://www.nivel.nl/sites/default/files/bestanden/eerste-evaluatie-jeugdwet.pdf.
Furlong,A; Cartmel,F. (2007). Young people and social change: New perspectives. McGraw-Hill/Open University Press.
Goodman,L A. (1961). Snowball sampling. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 32 (1) :148–170, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177705148
Griffith,A N; Johnson,H E. (2019). The role of trust in youth-adult partnerships: Insights from a youth development program. Journal of Youth Development 14 (4) :80–96, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.54718/GLAF9820
Gulikers,H. (2016). Sociaal verantwoord. Betekenisvolle, leerzame en democratische verantwoording van sociaal werk. Universiteit voor de Humanistiek.
Hämäläinen,J. (2013). Defining social pedagogy: Historical, theoretical and practical considerations. The British Journal of Social Work 445 (3) :1022–1038, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bct174
Hampton,R S; Varnum,M E W. (2017). Individualism-collectivism. Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences. Zeigler-Hill,V, Shackleford,T KT K(ed s .), Springer.
Hathaway,T. (2020). Neoliberalism as corporate power. Competition & Change 24 (3–4) :315–337, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1024529420910382
Hirschi,T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. University of California Press.
Hofstede,G. (1980). Culture’s consequence: International differences in work-related values. Sage Publications.
Hurd,N M; Wittrup,A; Zimmerman,M A. (2011). Role models. Encyclopedia of adolescence. Levesque,R(ed.), Springer, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32132-5_230-2
Hurd,N M; Zimmerman,M A; Xue,Y. (2009). Negative adult influences and the protective effects of role models: A study with urban adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 38 (6) :777–789, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-008-9296-5 19636780
Huygen,A; Fortuin,K. (2021). ABCD: Naar veerkrachtige gemeenschappen. Over gemeenschappen, impact en handelingsperspectieven voor gemeenten. Programma leefbaarheid en veiligheid. Huygen,A, Fortuin,K;Kand Jeuring,KK(ed s .), LSA. https://www.lsabewoners.nl/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/ABCD-naar-veerkrachtige-gemeenschappen-Wijkwijzer.pdf.
Kulkarni,R; Sujatha,K; Laya Sree,C; Sneha,A. (2024). A study on understanding child behaviour and their psychology in nuclear families. Journal of Community Service 1 (1) :13–23, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.62569/hjcs.v1i1.18
Maguire-Jack,K; Wang,X. (2016). Pathways from neighborhood to neglect: The mediating effects of social support and parenting stress. Children and Youth Services Review 66 :28–34, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.04.017
Mason,W. (2015). Austerity youth policy: Exploring the distinctions between youth work in principle and youth work in practice. Youth & Policy 114 :55–74. https://womensworkshop.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/mason-austerity-youth-policy.pdf.
Noorda,J; van Dijk,A. (2015). Young leaders: Positieve rolmodellen in kwetsbare wijken. VU University Press.
Noorda,J; van Dijk,A. (2017). De actuele noodzaak van effectmeting in het jongerenwerk. Jeugdbeleid 11 (4) :255–261, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12451-017-0159-5
Ohmer,M L. (2016). Strategies for preventing youth violence: Facilitating collective efficacy among youth and adults. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research 7 (4) :681–705, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/689407 34408708
Ohmer,M L; Warner,B D; Beck,E. (2010). Preventing violence in low-income communities: Facilitating residents’ ability to intervene in neighborhood problems. The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare 37 (2) :161–181, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15453/0191-5096.3518
Orazani,S N; Reynolds,K J; Osborne,H. (2023). What works and why in interventions to strengthen social cohesion: A systematic review. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 53 (10) :938–995, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12990
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2024). OECD youth policy toolkit. OECD Publishing, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/74b6f8f3-en
Petkovic,S; Bárta,O. (2019). Ethical standards in youth work and how they support education and career pathways of youth workers [Working paper], https://pjp-eu.coe.int/documents/42128013/47262613/06_SCRIB.pdf/41cea176-d7fa-3167-a716-11af717b1559.
Putnam,R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.
Ruelo,A; Allik,J; Greenfield,B. (2008). Radius of trust in relation to familism and institutional collectivism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 39 (4) :447–462, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022108318096
Sampson,R J; Raudenbusch,S W; Earls,F. (1997). Neighbourhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science 277 (5328) :918–924, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.277.5328.918 9252316
Slovenko,K; Thompson,N. (2016). Social pedagogy, informal education and ethical youth practice. Ethics and Social Welfare 10 (1) :19–34, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17496535.2015.1106005
Soenens,B; Vansteenkiste,M. (2020). Taking adolescents’ agency in socialization seriously: The role of appraisals and cognitive-behavioral responses in autonomy-relevant parenting. Child & Adolescent Development 173 :7–26, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cad.20370 33029916
Szreter,S; Woolcock,M. (2004). Health by association? Social capital, social theory, and the political economy of public health. International Journal of Epidemiology 33 (4) :650–667, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyh013 15282219
Tamilina,L; Tamilina,N. (2018). Formal institutions and trust: Testing the mediating effect of institutional performance and fairness. Social Indicators Research 139 (2) :709–733.
UK Youth. (2025). Barriers and enablers to participation in youth activities research: Final report, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/688b2d741affbf4bedb7b12e/Barriers_and_Enablers_Final_Report_accessible.pdf.
Verhoeven,N. (2020). Thematische analyse. 2nd ed. Boom Uitgevers.
Vermeulen,W. (2015). Decentralisation of social policy in the Netherlands. Decentralisation of education, health and social protection: Issues and challenges. The Copenhagen Workshop 2015. Kim,J, Mau,N JN J(ed s .), The Korea Institute of Public Finance & Danish Ministry for Economic Affairs and the Interior. https://pure.vive.dk/ws/files/1927788/copenhagen_workshop_2015_pdfaa_1_.pdf#page=127.
Warner,B D. (2014). Neighborhood factors related to the likelihood of successful informal social control efforts. Journal of Criminal Justice 42 (5) :421–430, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2014.07.001