What Are the Experiences of Those Engaged in Professional Youth Work in a Formal Education College in the UK?

Abstract

Further Education in the UK aims to provide strong educational outcomes for young people. However, some young people are facing a range of complex issues that often require extra support or different interventions. A college developed a programme that combined professional youth work, support services, and formal teaching to see if this approach would improve outcomes. This research took a mixed-method approach to explore if the professional youth work approach has any impact on outcomes for young people. The research showed that professional youth work was considered a unique approach that allowed for more safeguarding concerns to be disclosed, and greater support for additional needs, resulting in improved attendance at college, and better outcomes in Math and English GCSE results. The qualitative data identified five themes that highlighted the effectiveness of this approach: soft skill development, improved familial relationships, unique youth work approaches, effective professional adult relationships, and cohesive professional working. The research concludes that youth work has a positive influence on young people’s formal education experience but must be recognized and supported to be effective.

1. Introduction

Formal educational spaces, such as schools and colleges, are often praised for being safe environments where young people can develop both their intellectual and social skills (sometimes referred to as soft skills), as they learn to be part of wider society (Nickerson et al., 2021; Meherali et al., 2025; Orih et al., 2024). However, for some young people, formal educational spaces can be non-supportive and detrimental to their development (Hunt et al., 2023; Civitillo & Jugert, 2024; Guzman-Holst et al., 2025). Yet, young people in the UK must remain in education until the age of 18. This paper explores whether a different approach to education could improve educational outcomes for young people. This paper is written from a UK context and as such recognises that some aspects might not be easily transferred or applied in different places.

1.1. Further Education (FE) in the UK

Officially, Further Education (FE) in the UK refers to education that is delivered to all ages and “includes any study after secondary education that’s not part of higher education” (UK Government, 2025). FE is frequently called using the more localized term of ‘Sixth form college’ or simply just ‘college’ as it typically takes place in college settings and schools. The college’s main demographic is primarily 16–18 year olds, and FE has a perception of working with disaffected and disengaged young people (McPherson, 2016).

In a recent blog, the Education Policy Institute (2024) stated that “the FE sector remains a key piece of the puzzle for developing a sustainable and effective post-18 system, one that would both drive social mobility and ease the woes of universities in the long-term” but noted that FE is often overshadowed by Higher Education (HE) discussions. The UK Parliament (2025) initiated an inquiry to make FE fit for the future—a place where young people can develop, gain skills, and be offered necessary support, especially around poor mental health and barriers related to special educational needs and/or disabilities, improving a pipeline to HE. There has been a long-standing commitment to widening participation and reducing the impact that social inequalities can have on students accessing and succeeding in further education (Scott, 2010; Bathmaker, 2016; Allison & Clarke, 2024). However, the FE sector has faced a series of crises, including safeguarding, crisis management, the poor mental health of staff and students, and a wide range of social issues (Kondirolli & Sunder, 2022; Arikawe et al., 2024; Harris & Morley, 2025). For some young people with complex lives or additional needs, accessing college prevents them from being labelled as unproductive young people; however, some young people can often struggle to cope on the fringes of continued formal educational environments. Sometimes seen as the opposite of formal education, professional youth work is a non-formal educational approach that seeks to directly challenge social injustice and combat social inequalities, by providing professional adult relationships and critical thinking skills for young people to co-develop their independence.

1.2. Youth Work as Informal Education

Coburn and Gormally’s (2015) work alongside the work by Seal and Chivers (2025) provides a theoretical framework for this paper. Although both are focused on youth work in schools, they highlight the conflict of informal education and voluntary participation in formal educational environments. Coburn and Gormally (2015) specifically highlight the contested context with the field of youth work and the variety of opinion on this subject. They continue to highlight the lack of recognition of ‘soft outcomes’, and youth work being used to deal with ‘problem young people’. Seal and Chivers (2025) is focused on the Welsh context and draws parallels to Youth Work principles and the Curriculum for Wales, and that youth work has the power to work beyond the classroom environment and broaden the student voice.

Youth work in the UK is a profession that has existed for over a century and a half, rooted in grassroots movements and recognized for its unique approach to education, which Fernández-de-Castro et al. (2021, p. 319) describe as “offering pedagogical responses to social problems through social intervention actions and projects”. Youth work became more formalized in the 1960s after ‘The Youth Service in England and Wales’ report (Ministry of Education, 1960), which saw the government endorse this approach to the education of young people. However, youth work as a profession has experienced periods of neglect from UK governments leading to a de-professionalisation of the field (Williams & Richardson, 2025; Davies, 2024; Abreu, 2024). Youth work is not a protected title, and as such, there is a vast variety of youth work projects that include voluntary and community groups to local authority-supported projects, which can be delivered by unqualified and qualified individuals. Formal youth work is seen as practice that is delivered by ‘JNC-qualified’ individuals in the UK; these are individuals who received and completed formal training in this role (National Youth Agency, 2025). This article discusses what is commonly called ‘professional youth work’, which is youth work delivered by level 6/7 JNC-qualified youth workers, as this was the standard of delivery for the programme that is the focus of this study.

Professional youth work is situated in the non-formal and informal educational space, offering a creative and critical setting that can aid the development of individuals to live, function, and excel in wider society. These approaches are useful for all learners, but non-formal and informal education can be particularly effective in providing an alternative approach to formal education for those who might learn differently, have additional needs, or have been excluded from formal education. Almeida and Morais (2024, p. 123) comment that “non-formal education assumes that education can occur beyond the space delimited by traditional classrooms”. Informal and non-formal education is usually person-centred and utilizes individual and community experiences to develop creative shared learning, leading to the development of skills. This community practice of learning aids the development of character, skills, and education, in addition to opening doors to social capital and wider community connections, leading to a holistic development process (Melania et al., 2024; Ramarni, 2024; Sukoco et al., 2024). Non-formal and informal education is more naturally obtained through interaction with communities and family. Therefore, there are innate differences from formal education that are experienced; for example, in terms of resources, participation (voluntary/enforced), assessments, and outcomes (Elice et al., 2023; Jones, 2025; Shohel & Howes, 2019; Howard et al., 2024; Smith & Seal, 2021).

Youth work can be understood differently in different countries, with different areas focusing on different outcomes, approaches, and evaluation of practice. Within the UK, professional youth work is youth work that adheres to the National Occupational Standards underpinned by professional values (National Youth Agency, 2023b). This has a core focus on trusting professional adult relationships, which lead to activity and conversation, that support the learning journey of young people (Hennell, 2022; National Youth Agency, 2025; Cooper et al., 2024; Stewart, 2009). It is not a set methodological approach, where every professional youth worker undertakes the same approach in practice. However, it is also due to this diversity that often causes the field problems in being able to effectively evaluate its practice and value (de St Croix & Doherty, 2022; Hall et al., 2024).

The educational approach of professional youth work supports the development of critical thinking, reflective practice, inquisitive development, and political awareness. This can aid in building aspirations and developing life-long skills that support personal and work life and reduce risky behaviours (Melvin, 2017; Silliman et al., 2020; Sonneveld et al., 2021). Professional youth work supports young people who are going through a significant stage of development and experiencing a range of changes while transitioning into adulthood with personal, social, emotional, and spiritual development through informal and non-formal educational techniques. Professional youth work happens in a variety of places, including open access provision, detached (work on the streets), faith organizations, hospitals, educational establishments, and generally wherever young people are (McFeeters et al., 2021; Marshall & Waring, 2021). Professional youth work provides trained trusting adults, which allows the development of open and honest conversations to develop critical thinking. However, for this style of education to be effective and not just a colonization of young people, there must be voluntary engagement in the process from young individuals (Belton, 2010; Williams, 2025; Howard et al., 2024). The key aspect of professional youth work is that young people can engage and disengage from the process at any time. This is usually a marked difference from young people’s involvement with other professionals in their lives but is key in balancing the power dynamics. This balance, often described as a provision of ‘safe spaces’, allows a shared learning experience that enables effective engagement to move toward critical learning. ‘Safe spaces’ is a contested and unhelpful term, but professional youth work provides safe adult trusting relationships where young people can ask difficult questions and not be judged for exploring ideas and concepts. The relationships provided by professional youth work allows young people to reflect, understand other points of view, and be more politically and socially aware. As a result, professional youth work spaces are often where young people disclose safeguarding and other wellbeing concerns (Batsleer, 2013; Brewster et al., 2023; Hallett, 2023; Howard et al., 2024).

For context, in the UK, safeguarding is considered the action of keeping everyone safe and reporting incidents where children or adults are at risk of abuse or neglect. It is everyone’s responsibility to ensure individuals can live in safety. The UK has a range of policy and laws that support and enforce this practice. Safeguarding referrals are where it is reported about potential risk of abuse or neglect, sometimes disclosed by the individuals or where others have noticed potential signs of abuse or neglect (Social Care Institute for Excellence, 2025; National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, 2024; National Health Service England, 2025; National Youth Agency, 2021).

McPherson (2016, p. 310) commented that college-based FE and youth work are two institutions that are key in effectively engaging with young people who are struggling, or who struggled, with school. Whilst the potential of youth work has been recognised in some policies, confusion and underappreciation still persist. Professional youth work is often seen as contrary to formal education; however, professional youth work can be effective in working in partnership with formal education settings, given that each is allowed to maintain professional autonomy. Research has shown that the experience of youth work in schools is a growing reality of practice but is diverse in its delivery (Howard et al., 2024; National Youth Agency, 2023a; Millard & Diggle, 2024; Williams, 2018). However, there is very little research about youth work in the college space, which this pilot study addresses.

This paper examines a Further Education college in the UK that hosts a programme delivered by professional youth workers to support and work with young people in an informal way to aid their formal studies. The research sought to investigate whether the involvement of professional youth work in a formal educational space had any impact (positive or negative). The research was conducted by two researchers; one was a member of staff at the college who is not a professional youth worker, and the other is a professional youth worker who does not work for the college. This approach was undertaken to help identify, challenge, and avoid potential bias, but also provide professional expertise. The research took a mixed-method approach to identify and explore data. The mixed-method approach examined numerical data of educational outcomes. These outcomes were defined from the college’s aims and what the college is measured against in OFSTED (government quality control) reports. The research worked with participants who were current and past students, their family members, and the staff team, which included teachers, professional youth workers, and managers. The data suggests that this approach evidenced an increase in safeguarding and wellbeing referrals, attendance, and retention. The qualitative data from the research suggested that the informal approach of the programme significantly impacted young people’s lives, improving parent/child relationships and the development of ‘soft skills’, such as confidence and communication.

2. Materials and Methods

The research question this study aimed to answer was as follows: To explore if youth work has any negative or positive difference on how students at (name removed) college experience and engage with the (name removed) Programme. The researchers were especially keen to explore if there had been any impact (negative or positive) on attendance and retention, destination of students after studies, family engagement, and opinions of youth work as a profession. On reflection, the research question was limited and did not recognise the potential wider aspects (beyond the programme, college, and the UK) the data could explore. The data offers more to wider academic discussions around professional youth work and informal education, which is explored in the results and discussion section. This study was designed to be a mixed-methods phenomenological study. Phenomenological philosophy seeks to explore participant’s conscious experience. Conscious experience is subjective, but it allows for a lived reality of individual experiences. Phenomenological study recognises that individuals perceive, and experience, based on their own history and positionality, and this approach seeks to understand how individuals live and learn (Neubauer et al., 2019; Dodgson, 2023). This approach allows the researchers to explore how young people experience education and what might influence their learning to enable an effective, deep discussion of the data. Martiny et al. (2021) comments that there are only a few examples of phenomenological studies conducted with mixed methods, as quantitative data does not normally sit well with this philosophy. Several other authors have debated the effectiveness of mixed-methods and phenomenological studies and concluded that the ‘snapshot’ of lived experience can still be found through the mixed-methods approach and that the lived experience is informed by past as well as current experiences (Fisher & Stenner, 2011; Mayoh & Onwuegbuzie, 2015; Aguas, 2022). Taking this approach to the study allowed us to see what patterns were presented in the quantitative data and explore deeper into individual’s experiences and explore the reasons behind the numbers. This allows for a deeper understanding of how individuals engaged with the education system, allowing some aspects that were not said out loud to present themselves.

Phenomenological approach to research has been championed as it allows for a deeper individual understanding of lived experience to reach a wider universal experience. Phenomenological research can be useful for exploring themes and understanding shared experiences but is not used to generate theoretical frameworks. Phenomenological approach should support a distancing of researchers to reduce bias and positionality by focusing on participants’ experiences and understandings. Phenomenological approaches usually support data analysis through an interpretative lens. Because of this approach, there is often a large amount of data collected that can often be quite complex. There also needs to be careful consideration that the experiences of participants many not always lead to a universal experience. Researchers undertaking this methodology must be fully aware of their own preconceived ideas, positionality, and biases to allow the data to speak, rather than the researchers’ interpretations. Due to this, phenomenological research is often small-scale and is seen as lacking the scientific rigour as it can fail to reach a determined ‘cause-and-effect’ outcome (Devlin, 2018; Lochmiller & Lester, 2017; Cohen et al., 2018; Pérez-Gatica, 2025).

We acknowledged the debate around the limitations of this research approach but recognised that this approach allowed for a deeper acknowledgement of the experience of young people engaging in professional youth work, instead of looking at action-based outcomes. However, the data analysis required the researchers to be more conscientious of their own positionality. To support this, researchers were aware of ‘Insider–Outsider’ positionality allowing for critical discussion during research and analysis of data. This was primarily in terms of professional background, ontological background, gender, and age. Often, we had to revisit the data to make sure the data was ‘talking’, and it was not positionality driving through. The recognition of both insider and outsider knowledge and engaging in reflexivity practices allowed a more critical space (Baily, 2025; Ademolu, 2024; Rajasinghe et al., 2024; Zhang, 2023).

The research study was a mixed-methods approach that involved several stages in collecting data. The research project was given ethical approval from a UK university. All participants gave informed consent to be involved in the research, which included clear instructions for withdrawal. Participants were given a full debriefing as part of the process to offer support should it be needed; this debriefing also included a reminder of how to withdraw from the research. The researchers wanted to use a wide range of data to ensure there was limited space for unbalanced data and bias to influence the data analysis. The data was collected from several different sources to provide both qualitative and quantitative data. The researchers used the college quantitative data from 2015 to 2023. The specific programme that this research was based around employed professional youth workers in September 2019, this allowed the researchers to examine the four years pre- and post-involvement of youth workers in the programme to effectively measure if any impact had occurred. It is noted that the COVID-19 pandemic happened during this period, and may have unrecognised impact on the data, although the researchers did not identify any specific connections. The data for this study was collected in the academic year 2023–2024, but the data from this academic year was not included in the data set as the academic year was not completed. This data provided statistics ranging from attendance and retention to grade outcomes and safeguarding referrals. The data provided by the college was centralized and used in other quality reporting mechanisms. This provided the core quantitative data for the study. For the qualitative data, a series of interviews and focus groups were used. Bradbury-Jones et al. (2009) and Vella (2025) support the use of focus groups in phenomenological approaches suggesting that the group approach helps to support individual reflection, engagement, and meaning-making. The first focus group was conducted with all non-youth work staff involved in the delivery of the college project (eight staff members), and included teachers, support staff, and tutors. This was so other professionals could comment on the impact of youth work and not be potentially intimidated or influenced by the presence of a professional youth work colleague, allowing openness around any negative experiences. A separate focus group was conducted with the youth work professionals to collect their data. It was important to collect this data, but we wanted to do it separately so we could recognise any potential bias. We conducted individual semi-structured interviews for participants who were current or recent students and family members of students. We felt this was important to be held individually, as we were expecting some potentially sensitive data to come out of these. This allowed participants to discuss freely about their experiences. We used a semi-structured approach so we could collect core data in response to the same questions but also allowed the participants space to drive the narrative of their own experiences. All sessions were recorded using a protected recording device; these were immediately transcribed and deleted from the device. Transcripts were stored on a protected computer. All the above (focus groups and interviews) were asked the same questions, to provide parity across the data collection; this included questions such as

• Can you reflect on the impact of youth workers, and if this has affected your (or your child/students) attendance to college?
• Before engagement with youth workers on the programme what was your opinion of youth work?
• Have you noticed any difference in the way family engages with the college since engagement with the youth workers on the programme?

Based on the feedback from the teaching team, we additionally conducted an online questionnaire (using Microsoft Forms) with the same questions for current students to respond to, which allowed for a wider and swifter collection of data across the current cohort. This asked the same questions as the face-to-face data collection. This collected data from 29 participants (out of 34 potential students) who ranged in age from 16–18.

The full study was open to all current students, students who had been involved in the programme within the last year, and all staff involved in the delivery of the programme. The study excluded anyone who was not involved in the programme. The face-to-face participants included eight members of staff, two professional youth workers, six interviews with students and family members, and twenty-nine respondents to the online student questionnaire.

All qualitative data was collected over ten days to capture the immediate snapshot of individual experiences and to reduce any influence from participants potentially discussing the research (Cameranesi & Piotrowski, 2024). The quantitative data was analysed initially through a data management, analysis, and interpretation approach, which allowed the recognition of missing data, or changes in terminology (Kotronoulas et al., 2023; Tumiran, 2024). Due to the small fluctuation of student numbers over the years, the researchers took the approach of using averages to showcase differences. As the researchers were using quantitative data over eight years, some terminologies had changed through this time, so we needed to see if we should remove the data or find an equivalent from historical data. An example of this is students on Education, Health, and Care Plans (EHCPs) were not recorded from 2015 to 2017, so this data was missing and the researchers decided to remove this from the data set.

The use of quantitative and qualitative data allowed connections to be made between the statistical data and the potential reasons for those statistics (Chikovore & Sooryamoorthy, 2023; Milaney et al., 2024). The quantitative data was analysed using Naeem et al.’s (2023) approach to thematic analysis, which involved a step-by-step process of the following: Familiarization with the data and selection of quotations, selection of keywords, coding, theme development, and conceptualization. The data was reviewed and themed into groups or similarity and closeness. This was then revisited multiple times to check and amend the themes, this process narrowed down the themes and larger themes became more prominent. This approach allowed for ethical consideration in protecting anonymity, but made sure the data represented the lived experience of the participants. It allowed for observation of repeated patterns and to ensure clarity (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Themes were analysed together with both researchers, the core themes developing were clear and agreed by both researchers. Both researchers returned to the data (individually and together), to review the process and to make sure bias was not driving the development of the themes. Nvivo was used to support the theming of the data. To help contextualise the data, direct quotes have been grouped rather than referring to an individual. For example, direct quotes will be referenced as ‘Teaching team’ rather than ‘Participant 2’ to more clearly show where the comment is coming from.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Quantitative Data Analysis

Examining the quantitative data showed that the involvement of youth workers on the programme had a significant impact on student outcomes in a variety of areas, but there were some areas where the involvement of youth workers did not seem to make a difference. In the data presented below, the programme existed in its previous form without the inclusion of youth workers (2015–2019) and shows the difference with the inclusion of youth workers (2019–2023).

The involvement of youth workers on the programme increased the average retention rate of students by 6.25% (

Table 1. College Retention.

	15/16	16/17	17/18	18/19	19/20	20/21	21/22	22/23
	No Youth Workers				Inclusion of Youth Workers
Study Programme Retention Percentage	91	89	89	93	94	98	99	96
Average	90.5%				96.75%

). However, overall attendance (

Table 2. College Attendance.

	15/16	16/17	17/18	18/19	19/20	20/21	21/22	22/23
	No Youth Workers				Inclusion of Youth Workers
Attendance to the Study Programme Percentage (Excluding Authorised Absence)	86	76	83	81	82	80	79	79
Average	81.5%				80%

) saw a decrease on average of 1.2%; this is likely linked to the increase in the retention rate. Despite this, there has been a visible increase in attendance at GCSE sessions. Attendance to GCSE English has shown an increase of 9%, and GCSE Maths has shown an increase of 10%.

Students with specific needs saw a marked increase through the involvement of youth workers on the programme. Students who received Free Meals saw an increase of 10.25% in retention and a small increase of <2% in attendance (

Table 3. College Meal Students.

	15/16	16/17	17/18	18/19	19/20	20/21	21/22	22/23
	No Youth Workers				Inclusion of Youth Workers
College Meal Students Retention Percentage	92	88	89	95	96	100	100	97
Average	91%				98.25%
College Meal Students Attendance Percentage	83	76	82	80	81	83	82	80
Average	80.25%				81.5%

). Students who were classed as High Needs saw an increase in retention of 7% and attendance of >4% (

Table 4. High Needs Students.

	15/16	16/17	17/18	18/19	19/20	20/21	21/22	22/23
	No Youth Workers				Inclusion of Youth Workers
High Needs Students Retention Percentage	100	84	93	86	92	99	100	100
Average	90.75%				97.75%
High Needs Students Attendance Percentage	85	64	86	87	88	93	80	76
Average	80.5%				84.75%

).

It was recognised that the experience of those on the programme could be very different from the rest of the college, so the researchers wanted to explore the programme’s data in comparison to the wider college. This comparison of data showed that there was a high positive trend of disclosures from students involved in the programme. The data shows a marked increase over the years of disclosures at enrolment (double the college rate), which would be related to the prework undertaken by youth workers, in the summer, before students formally started. The programme has had a significant increase in the number of students disclosing concerns during the year and is at least double, and sometimes triple, that of the college. The data suggests that students felt safer on the programme to be more comfortable disclosing serious issues, discussing their mental wellbeing, and talking about external influences that affect their educational journey. This data is shown in

Table 5. Comparison of Programme and the College.

20–21	Programme	College
Number of Students	99	7281
Disclosure of Poor Mental Health concerns at enrolment/application	2%	3.2%
Disclosure of Poor Mental Health concerns by the end of the year	29%	11.5%
Amount of Safeguarding referrals by the end of the year	11%	2%
Amount of Welfare Referrals	25%	8.5%
21–22	Programme	College
Number of Students	80	7770
Disclosure of Poor Mental Health concerns at enrolment	6%	2.6%
Disclosure of Poor Mental Health concerns by the end of the year	33%	9.8%
Amount of Safeguarding concerns by the end of the year	25%	2.1%
Amount of Welfare Referrals	15%	7.2%
22–23	Programme	College
Number of Students	89	8264
Disclosure of Poor Mental Health concerns at enrolment	7.9%	2.9%
Disclosure of Poor Mental Health concerns by the end of the year	20%	9.3%
Amount of Safeguarding concerns by the end of the year	20%	6%
Amount of Welfare Referrals	4.5%	3.6%

.

Quantitative data from the questionnaires (29 respondents) also showed that 17 respondents said engagement with youth workers had a positive influence on their attendance and retention. Twelve said engagement had influenced the way they thought about their future educational and career options. Twenty participants agreed that engagement with the youth workers had also created a more positive opinion of youth work as a profession.

The data here supports the ideas presented by Coburn and Gormally (2015) that state that youth work is an emancipatory process, encouraging young people to be critically aware and to act. The data could suggest that young people, working with youth workers, become more critically aware and taking action to seek support, through the youth work process. The data is supported by Coburn and Gormally (2015) around the formal environment. Coburn and Gormally (2015) suggest that the formal nature of the classroom instantly impacts power and the ability to build rapport, yet skilled workers can find ways to overcome this. The nature of this college programme meant youth work took place in a range of spaces around the college and power dynamics were acknowledged, responded to, and different due to the college setting.

3.2. Qualitative Data

While the quantitative data suggests some positive outcomes from students engaging in the programme, the why of this is not clear in the quantitative data. Therefore, the analysis of the qualitative data was essential to explore whether the outcomes of this data had any correlation with professional youth workers in this practice. The qualitative data was thematically analysed and produced five main themes. These were as follows: the Impact on parents and their relationships with their children on the programme; the development of ‘soft skills’ in students; safe adult relationships; cohesive working across professionals; and the uniqueness of the youth work approach.

3.2.1. Impact on Parents and Their Relationships with Children on the Programme

Both parents and students commented on the significant difference the programme had made to their relationship within their family. Many commented on the development of skills that supported better communication, emotional intelligence, resilience, and future focus. This was related especially to the way youth workers provided a space where young people felt safe to talk and explore their experiences, which is evidenced in the following direct quotes.

“Parents contact [us] after students have moved on [for advice, guidance and support], as [the parents] see youth work as a positive approach that fully supports their child”.

(Youth Worker)

“Youth work bridged different cultures building relationships which improved parental engagement”.

(Teaching Team)

“Our relationship is so much better now. Every day he messages me… he tells me he loves me…Our relationship has done a complete turnaround”.

(Parent reflecting on relationship with their child)

Part of the reasons explored in the data was why the involvement with the youth workers seems to provide a difference in parental relationships. The data showed that the relationship between parent and young person was improved, but also the relationship between parent and college. The teaching team on the programme stressed the advantages of the youth work relationship as evidenced here:

“[Youth work] provided something to do, talk about with their parents—not just Maths and English”.

(Teaching Team)

“Students have more opportunities; they go home in a good mood and are more open with family”.

(Teaching Team)

“Positive communication between us [teachers] and them [parents] because they say that their child is learning”.

(Teaching Team)

“The youth workers make college less intimidating”.

(Teaching Team)

“Youth workers are involved in a holistic approach to young people”.

(Youth Worker)

“A previous college would just kick me out. I didn’t want to be there. My parents saw the difference with [The Programme], I wanted to go, I was smiling, improving. They [Parents] felt at ease knowing I’m in a good place. Less stress on their heads, they know I’m well, I’m safe”.

(Student)

The teaching team and parents all explored that the youth work approach made a significant difference due to the relationships that youth workers were able to build. That of a trusting relationship with an adult, that was voluntary, and focused on the young person’s holistic wellbeing and young people saw the youth workers as not just focused on educational attainment. This was evidenced by one parent’s comment:

“As a mother, I’m in that category in terms of how he sees me. I was seen as an authority figure who he couldn’t talk to about certain things and I know for a fact he talked to [youth worker] about things he couldn’t with me, and I was massively grateful, massively grateful, that he had someone to talk to”.

(Parent)

The improvement in relationships could link to better attendance and outcomes with students feeling more supported in their home space. The data here supports the work by Seal and Chivers (2025) which highlight that parent relationships impact on student engagement and outcomes. Seal and Chivers (2025) highlight the need for effective parent communication; this data supports that parents need different types of effective communication, and this can have serious implications on young people’s mental health and engagement in other services.

3.2.2. Development of Soft Skills

The above allowed the development of exploring the impact of youth work with young people, and what education was undertaken through the youth work process (informal and non-formal) that supported their formal education. Many involved in the research highlighted the development of ‘soft skills’ as key to being the foundation that enabled young people to find a firmer base to then engage in formal education. The ‘soft skills’ mentioned by participants are shown in

Table 6. Soft skills developed from youth work.

Belief in Self	Confidence	Recognizing social and emotional barriers	Independent living	‘Opening up’
Seeking support	Learning to be self-supporting	Personal and social development	Check own behaviour	Discuss feelings
Take opportunities	Reflection	Focus

.

The data showed that the teaching team recognized the limitations around needing to focus on educational outcomes which left little or no room to holistically develop young people, especially if those young people had compounding issues.

“Youth workers don’t focus on grade improvement but provided opportunities for reflection, to check their [Students] own behaviours, discuss their feelings, develop the soft skills, that enable them to engage in study and work practices”.

(Teaching Team)

The teaching team commented that youth workers “have more time to build skills”, “have the capacity to explore wider education”, and allow the “holistic development of a young person”. One youth worker commented, “We [youth workers] support young people to believe in themselves and have confidence in taking the next step”. The youth workers were able to provide a range of activities and space for young people to work together to develop. Young people were often able to engage in activities they had not been able to experience before; for example, visiting a farm, going outside of the city, and going for walks. This allowed young people to be “exposed to things they might not have been exposed to” (Youth Worker). Young people articulated clearly the impact of youth workers working alongside them as they learned a large variety of skills that underpinned their educational journey. Young people particularly focused on the reduction of fear that surrounded education, commenting that youth workers made college less intimidating, and less scary but also showed care for young people that they felt they had not experienced in education (or with other adult professionals) previously, which enabled them to have space to think more positively about their future. One young person showcased this when they said

“My previous college made me scared to enter education. Youth Workers didn’t treat me like crap. It really helped me see a future that I could get to. That wasn’t just me being mentally ill for the rest of my life”.

(Student)

This data might also support the achievement in outcomes and the more safeguarding and wellbeing referrals with students feeling more confident and safer to discuss wider issues. The data here supports Coburn and Gormally (2015) that ‘soft skills’ are of importance in the wider development of young people, and that these skills provide bridging with formal education outcomes. Youth work provided students space to connect to lived experiences leading to being able to deal with more complex and diverse situations.

3.2.3. Safe Adult Relationships

The development of positive relationships, which enabled young people to develop in their learning about themselves and their communities, was formed through the youth work practice of safe, reliable relationships with professional adults. Several of the participants reflected on negative educational journeys often related to unhelpful, untrusting, and unreliable relationships with adult professionals. These previous experiences often led to young people being frightened and unsafe when considering attending college, and many would simply disengage. This was evidenced in the comment from a youth worker:

“Young people talk about concerns over constant ending with professional relationships, for example, some young people have 3–4 Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) workers over 18 months. Youth Workers provide a longer-term professional relationship to support young people dealing with endings from other professional relationships”.

(Student)

The approach of professional youth work practice, in the college, enabled young people to regain a sense of psychological safety (Fritz et al., 2016; Ross et al., 2015). The youth workers commented that the approach taken by professional youth work provided young people with not just a physical space, but the development of trust (leading to quicker safeguarding referrals). Youth workers have the skills to engage with young people regularly, including during holiday periods to build effective relationships. The youth workers’ ability to work together with young people around their focus, desires, and approaches, enabled youth workers to respond in more targeted approaches to young people’s needs.

“A lot of young people we work with, they are quite vulnerable. They have had poor experiences in education, so they don’t trust professionals. It’s our responsibility to rebuild that”.

(Youth Worker)

The teaching team equally supported these aspects of youth work, commenting that youth work provided “clearer communication” and allowed young people to “develop a greater sense of belonging” because they showed they “cared for the young people”. The safeguarding aspects of these spaces that youth workers were able to create were reflected in the following comments by the teaching team:

“A lot of them [students] don’t realise that sometimes what they are talking about can be safeguarding…guarantee that [the youth workers] they do more safeguarding than the rest of us”.

(Teaching Team)

“Youth Workers create opportunities for discussion… the disclosing of things or sharing opinions or raising awareness… creates a safe space”.

(Teaching Team)

The teaching team recognized the value of having professional youth workers who were not directly involved in the young people’s education results, allowing them to be “a bit of a buffer between them [students] and our [teachers] expectations”.

Students equally supported the feeling of safety that was created through the professional youth work approach, which could not be achieved by the formal educational space. This was evidenced by young people who said

“{The Programme] had a positive impact on my attendance. I felt comfortable coming in, even if I was having a bad day knowing I would be 100% supported. Also, the youth workers made coming to college fun. I didn’t have the best time at school… Youth Workers meant I could come in have a laugh and learn something”.

(Student)

Parents evidenced the safe relationship, in often startling descriptions. Two parents expressly said that their young person would be dead if it had not been for the youth workers and their approach to the young people that enabled them to move beyond risky behaviours, and recognize their (young person’s) own value, often pulling them away from suicidal indentation.

“For someone who hated school, didn’t want to be there and would just not show up… even though he had all this stuff going on, he turned up [to the programme] It was a choice, and he chose to turn up”.

(Parent)

“If he hadn’t had somebody there at that time in his life, like [youth worker], and if the college wasn’t keeping me informed, he might be dead by now. It is that bad”.

(Parent)

This data would support the increase in safeguarding referrals. The data here provides something additional to the work of Coburn and Gormally (2015) and Seal and Chivers (2025) in highlighting this aspect of trusting relationships, which can be provided even with in a formal educational setting. Although this might be very different in a school context, youth work within the college context can provide physical and mental safe spaces.

3.2.4. Cohesive Unit

The data presented positive outcomes for students who engaged with the professional youth workers, but this approach worked because the whole team worked effectively as a cohesive unit. This required that each professional knew the limits and challenges of their roles.

“It is vital we have a good understanding of each other’s roles”.

(Teaching Team)

This also required a deep awareness of how students viewed the different members of the team.

“Everyone has a different relationship with the young person … because everyone is a different individual”.

(Youth Worker)

The cohesive approach of the team meant that staff were able to fill in and fall back as needed in the lives of the young people. Yet,

“There is clear understanding among the staff team about the different roles and approaches of [The Programme] team, however, this was not often recognized across the wider college”.

(Youth Worker)

The youth workers commented that this might be linked to them finding it difficult to showcase their role and significance in other spaces. Frequent group meetings and debriefs meant that all staff had a fuller picture of young people. The teaching team recognized that youth workers are “really good to provide a different method instead of just stuffing them [young people] into inclusion and youth workers get more positive results”. Parents of students identified that the relationships developed with youth workers allowed their young people to engage with their formal education and better engage with other services.

“The programme worked with me to do everything they could. Without [the programme] there would have been things I didn’t know about… I couldn’t intervene in, for example, taking [young person] to CAHMS”.

(Parent)

The data here is not as clearly linked to the quantitative outcomes, but suggests the approach of the team offered made individuals more effective in their relative spaces of work. While Seal and Chivers (2025) mention the need for multi-disciplinary approaches, the data here suggests a deeper connection between staff which balances an advanced level of understanding of each other’s professions and professional outcomes, and how the different approaches are interlinked to support better outcomes for young people. This approach moves beyond professional boundary setting or responsibility and roles and instead suggests a deeper, reflexive approach to interconnected professional working.

3.2.5. Uniqueness of Youth Work

The team demonstrated effective working relationships and a skilled knowledge and understanding of each other’s roles. The main aim of the research was to explore whether youth work in the formal educational environment had any impact, negative or positive. The data continued to show that professional youth work was a distinct and unique practice that was not and could not be, replicated by the other professionals in the team, and this unique approach by professional youth workers had clear impacts on the young people and the college outcomes. The data collected from the youth workers showed professional youth work as unique as it provided “more time to follow up and make sure things are going OK”, was built “entirely around the needs of the young people”, and provided a “direct line of contact” (Youth Worker). The Professional Youth Workers additionally added that youth work was unique as a “good ending and dealing with endings is a key part of effective youth work practice”, commenting that much of their time was spent working with young people who had experienced ‘bad endings’ with other professionals.

The Teaching Team described professional youth work as unique, in

Table 7. Direct Quotes of Unique Aspects of Youth Work Practice.

“Youth Work is about trusting relationships”

“Having an adult listen to them [young person] and have somebody that is just present with them and doing something they really enjoy is priceless”

“Once you start performance managing a youth worker they aren’t a youth worker anymore”

“Youth Workers are about the holistic development of young people”

“Students never miss [youth work] sessions, they are excited to be there. They are excited about it”.

“Youth Work is less formal”.

“Good for students to talk to someone not directly involved in their results”

below.

Students identified that youth work was a unique form of practice, describing youth work as an alternative form of education and that having youth workers involved allowed young people to succeed. One student commented that youth work was unique as it

“didn’t treat me like a mentally ill kid. The youth workers treated me like a person. One of the first times in my life I was just me… not mentally ill”.

(Student)

Another parent recognized the impact of expectations of other professions that were involved in the lives of young people that were different from youth work approaches. They commented that because the youth work approach was a holistic approach towards young people, young people did not feel they had to meet certain expectations or obligations, allowing young people to be ‘unfiltered’ which developed trusting relationships. One parent described this difference stating

“A kid like [my child]—take him to counselling and he’ll just sit there and not speak. Youth Workers got him to open up—it’s an Art form”.

(Parent)

It was interesting exploring the relationships between the college, parents, students, and youth workers, and in discussion with a parent who was expressing particularly how the youth workers had been significantly positive in the life of her son, described how her son would talk to youth workers but would not talk to her as his parent. I asked

Interviewer: “How does it make you feel knowing that your son has this bond with a youth worker, but he is ‘unable’ to talk to you?”

Parent 2: “Incredibly grateful, incredibly grateful. Obviously, as a parent you want them to come to you, but there are times in their lives when they don’t feel they can, it makes you feel bad, but it’s a process of growing up. If he didn’t have a bond with [youth worker] he wouldn’t have confided in them. So being able to bond is part of the trust needed for them [young people] to open up and understand what’s going on in their lives. I was incredibly grateful for [youth worker] taking on the burden of what I couldn’t do for my son at that time”.

It was clear from the data that youth work is a distinct professional practice that requires skill, knowledge, and training to be able to be effective in working with young people and responding to their needs. However, the teaching team did comment that they felt “sometimes the ones who would benefit the most are the hardest to engage in youth work”, suggesting that there was still significant work to be undertaken by the youth workers to make sure they were able to engage with the full range of students.

The uniqueness of practice supports the difference shown in the quantitative data from before and after involvement of professional youth work. Seal and Chivers (2025) highlight the need for leadership in schools and youth work practices to recognise the unique stance, values, and approaches of professional youth work and the need to articulate and champion the education outcomes of youth work practice. Seal and Chivers (2025) also highlight that due to the uniqueness of youth work practice it should not be dismissed or sidelined, but instead be provided with a structure that supports its outcomes and development. The data here suggests that the programme had effectively found ways to keep youth work unique, to support the development of youth work practice, but that communicating this to other professionals was difficult.

4. Alternative Interpretations

The data represented, taken from people’s experiences, provides a snapshot of their understanding and reflections around professional youth work. The study however also looks beyond the initial snapshot and using quantitative data stretches that experience over a period. Therefore, it cannot be said with absolute certainty that the causation is clear and fully evident. There may have been a variety of additional factors that influence the outcomes. These could include the general maturing of young people, the natural development of independence and other relationships, political environment, the involvement of life changes including getting a job, etc. However, the likelihood of these external factors impacting on the data in such a consistent way is low. Young people included in the quantitative data both pre- and post-youth work involvement would have equally been affected by these external factors, although experienced differently. However, the COVID-19 pandemic was highly active during the period of quantitative data and is an anomaly that would sit outside of ‘average’ experiences (for both students and staff). The COVID-19 pandemic, and its impact on livelihoods, education, mortality rates, mental health, etc. could bear a significant impact on the quantitative data (Akacha et al., 2020). The extent to any potential impact on the data is unmeasurable, however COVID-19 was a minor aspect of discussion in the qualitative data and was only mentioned by the staff team (in the way youth workers worked around this situation to provide support to young people).

The young people involved in the data were from a variety of different situations with different backgrounds, economic status, cultures, etc. This was not measured as these factors were not linked to the main research question; however, the lack of this makes it difficult to ascertain any external factors influence the data. Additionally, the nature of professional youth work practice is so diverse, with no consistent approach with young people; there is a lack of clarity on what was conducted to create positive outcomes.

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

Previous research has identified that professional youth work has a positive lifelong impact on young people (Melvin, 2017; Silliman et al., 2020; Sonneveld et al., 2021). The unique approach that youth work takes provides non-formal and informal educational approaches with young people that promote critical life skills and build social capital to support young people to be active citizens in their communities (Melania et al., 2024; Ramarni, 2024; Sukoco et al., 2024).

Previous research has also highlighted the benefit of a cohesive and collaborative relationship between formal education in schools and professional youth work (Howard et al., 2024; National Youth Agency, 2023a; Millard & Diggle, 2024; Williams, 2018; Coburn & Gormally, 2015; Seal & Chivers, 2025), but not specifically in FE college. This research has explored if the unique educational approach of professional youth work is beneficial when bridged with formal educational practices at college level. The quantitative and qualitative data presents a picture that supports professional youth work, and makes a positive impact for young people and for colleges when it is delivered in a full and carefully orchestrated interprofessional and inter-educational context. The data has shown that professional youth work practice, which is recognized for its unique approach, has produced better outcomes for the college and young people. Professional youth work that is fully integrated with other professionals was a key aspect that allowed for highly effective cooperation and professional recognition between staff to support those greater outcomes. This suggests that for youth work practice to be truly effective, it needs to be seen as an equal part of the wider professionals that work around young people.

The data showed that professional youth work had an impact beyond the young person and had positive outcomes for families. The outcomes of professional youth work resulted in improved relationships between young people and their families, but also on the family’s relationship with formal education services. The data also shows that professional youth work had a lifelong impact and for some it was lifesaving.

The results reinforce that professional youth work practices had a significant positive impact on students at this college that were engaging in this programme. However, this was a localized study, and more research is needed to see if this approach would be equally effective in different colleges and how this would be applied outside of the UK. Since professional youth work exists more traditionally in open-access provision and detached services (‘on the street’), and this research focused on professional youth work that was embedded in the formal educational environment, additional research is needed to see if these more traditional methods of professional youth work have an equal or partial impact on young people’s engagement with formal education. This study has focused on professional youth work in the UK and more research would also be needed to see if other ‘work with young people’ and voluntary-based youth work had the same outcomes or if these outcomes were only located in the professional space. It would also be useful to explore how professional youth work is perceived in other countries and how these impact on formal educational outcomes. Additionally, the cross-sectional design of this study limits our ability to infer causality; however, the data shows better outcomes for those students engaging in professional youth work than when not, suggesting that professional youth work impacted on those outcomes. Future studies should collect data over time to assess the impact of professional youth work on educational and wellbeing outcomes.

The results from this paper support Seal and Chivers (2025) call that professional youth work needs to be recognized and valued for the positive impact it provides, in terms of safeguarding, wellbeing, informal education, and life skills. Professional youth work needs to be globally supported and defined, recognized by central and local government, formal education services, and policy development, to enable the unique practice of youth work to be effective. Additionally, youth work needs to be supported to be undertaken in formal educational environments and to retain its unique skill set and approach to be effective in educational outcomes for young people.