2006 positive futures case study research report from Tim Crabbe and the Substance team, in it they tell us.....
‘PF is not a conventional “diversionary” or sports development project. It is a relationship strategy’ (Home Office, 2003:6)
This bold statement from the PF strategy document Cul-de-sacs and gateways is built upon a binary distinction between the PF approach as something which is concerned with fostering greater social interaction and human development and more conventional ‘diversionary’ approaches which are concerned with social control. Within this schematic, the community development principles of PF are implicitly represented as having more value and ‘depth’ than the ‘shallow’ entertainment based control imperatives of diversionary work. However, such distinctions are themselves inherently problematic, both because PF projects are widely involved in wider diversionary schemes of work and because where good youth work is practiced there will necessarily be elements of both diversionary and developmental work.
Editor's comments - [ Third interim (2006) positive futures case study research report from Tim Crabbe and the Substance team.] Reference this?Cryer, J. (Year). This page title in italics. Retrieved date, from <this page's full URL>
In the text: Cryer (year)
Reference : Crabbe, T. (2006). Going the distance: Impact, journeys and distance travelled: Third interim positive futures case study research report. Manchester: Substance.
The above reference is in the APA style: See why this is important in our [how to reference] us guide.
Download this document [Use of this document may be limited by © copyright ; by downloading you consent to our terms and conditions ]
| File | Description |
|---|---|
 going_the_distance_1_.pdf | Crabbe, T. (2006). Going the distance: Impact, journeys and distance travelled: Third interim positive futures case study research report. Manchester: Substance. |
