The Diversity of Young Citizenships Calls for Responsive Youth Policies

Linking competences in the youth field

Lasse Siuralan valmistelema pohjapaperi EU-seminaarin suunnittelutyöryhmälle 2.5.2006. Paperin valmisteluun osallistuneet myös Tapio Kuure, Tommi Hoikkala ja Sofia Laine.

The Finnish EU Presidency Youth Meeting in Hyvinkää 2–4 July 2006 gathers a broad combination of youth field actors; young people, youth organisations, youth workers, youth policy makers and youth researchers to discuss the spectrum of “young citizenships”. This gives us the opportunity to address two important issues: First, the support and involvement of the diversity of young citizenships, particularly in the context of increasing openness and transparency of EU youth policies and, second, the development of responsive youth policies based on a balanced co-operation between youth work, youth policy and youth research.

I THE DIVERSITY OF YOUTH EXPRESSION AS AN OPPORTUNITY

(1) The diversity of youth expression as a richness. Young people today develop and express their identities in an increasingly varied way. An active young citizen may belong to a youth organisation, social movement, net-based community, culture or subculture or participate in a demonstration, campaign or lifestyle protest. At the same time as this diversification of youth expression could be related to young peoples’ weakened interest in representative politics, it, however, shows that young people do care. They are increasingly interested in a large variety of issues – even if the expression takes unconventional forms. The emergent forms of youth involvement are to be seen as an opportunity to enhance democracy: They bring new topics to established political agendas, raise young peoples’ awareness of social and political issues and motivate them to become active citizens. Thus it is the key challenge for EU and its youth policies to be able to support and listen to this variety of expressions. To make use of this opportunity we call for following measures:

• studies on the different forms of young active citizenships
• establishment of support systems for youth action and youth organisations
• support to young peoples’ own cultural and ‘digital’ activities
• creation of participation opportunities for all young people, particularly in schools, to ensure the visibility of the variance of the youth scene
• develop measures of hearing and participation in EU youth policy to involve the current variety of youth groups

(2) New impetus for democracy education. In many countries democracy education either does not exist in schools or has a marginal position in the curriculum. Research findings also indicate that national youth policies appear “paternalistic” and “adult-designed and guided” with reluctance to “to allow ‘too much’ power to young people”. Youth participation structures are criticised of being “tokenistic, a rubber stamping exercise for decisions which have already been made” and often involve only a small number of young people. In sum, there is a need for improved democracy education in the schools, participation structures which reach all young people – also the disadvantaged ones, including real participation (power) and consisting of long term educational processes to learn and practice citizenship skills. Recognising, at the same time, that in the EU countries there are increasing numbers of good practices of democracy education, we call for following action to be taken:

• develop, assess and disseminate good practices on democracy education and youth participation
• - establish on national level a youth work development unit - linked to the European Knowledge Centre of Youth Policy (EKCYP) as the European focal point - to study, evaluate, gather and disseminate the good practices
• ensure improvement of democracy education at the school linking it to increased participation of pupils to school life and the curriculum.
• strengthen the links between the school and the civil society, youth organisations in particular and municipal youth work
• develop the use of ICT to promote democracy education (how?)

(3) Better tools for dialogue and debate. The White Paper on youth emphasises the importance of open, transparent and democratic debate about future Europe. The challenge is to overcome the emergent divisions between generations, regions, levels of government and, recently in particular, between religious and ethnic groups. Young people, youth workers and youth researchers can be important vectors in creating understanding and dialogue between the different groupings and stakeholders. Finnish EU Presidency strongly supports the “Plan D” of European youth organisations: Democracy, Dialogue and Debate should indeed be better pursued. Bearing this in mind we propose to:

• development of accessible and simple tools for monitoring and evaluation of EU youth policies

II TOWARDS RESPONSIVE YOUTH POLICIES

Any policy development should be based on its strengths and on open analyses of its weaknesses. The strength of European youth policy is its commitment to joint objectives and its variety of youth field actors and their networks. Promotion of participation, non-formal learning and integrated youth policies are the foremost common aims emphasized in the Commission White Paper “A New Impetus for Youth” and The European Youth Pact. To transform these general objectives into action in international, national and local levels, a rich variety of actors are active; youth organisations, national Youth Councils, European Youth Forum, young people in their different types of networks and movements, national governments and their agencies responsible for youth, local youth work services as well as youth researchers and their networks. As a result, public perception of youth participation has improved, youth parliaments, school councils and youth hearings are increasing in numbers, statistics and research on youth have developed and the voice of young people is better heard than before. Furthermore, numerous new instruments and good practices to better recognize the competences and skills acquired through non-formal learning have been developed. Also, more policy emphasis is put on integrating measures targeted at youth on international, national and local level. Undoubtedly, youth policy and youth work actors in Europe have made significant progress in implementing the joint policy objectives.

To safeguard further progress, policies also need critical self-reflection. The Finnish EU Presidency proposes following challenges to be openly discussed and studied in order to develop a responsive youth policy capable of meeting the needs and aspirations of European young people:

• improving the trickle-down of EU and national youth policy objectives to the local level
• identifying and evaluating the gaps between the vision and the reality of youth policy
• improving the knowledge-base of the diversity and dynamics of the youth scene
• analysing the complex social processes affecting young people
• developing youth policy as a learning process
• integrating key youth policy actors into a joint-up process

(1) Reducing the ‘implementation gap’. The process of drafting the White Paper has been successful in formulating joint objectives for European youth policies. Since its adoption the White Paper guidelines have become increasingly shared by national and local policies. Still, national legislation, guidance and support are far from systematic in following up these guidelines and implementing them to the regional and local level. Regional and local policies and youth work practices are sometimes simply ignorant of some of the key European youth policy aims. On the grass-root terms like “non-formal learning” or “integrated youth policy” are not widely known. Many municipalities fund and run their own youth policies and activities irrespective of national guidelines. Often municipalities feel that due to their constitutional autonomy, they do not find it correct to be managed by the state. Recognising the ‘implementation gap’ of the youth policies, we propose following measures to be taken:

• establishment of coherent national youth policy programmes with measurable sub-objectives and involvement of the regional and local level actors in their design
• integrating research to the measurement and evaluation of the programmes
• making youth policy programmes and activities transparent and easier to assess for young people.

(2) Bridging vision and practice. General objectives do not easily translate into action in the realities and practices of local youth work. One example is “integrated youth policy”. The White Paper and European Youth Pact call for an integrated approach where the youth sector co-operates over other sectors to see to it that the interests and needs of young people are met. However, in practice there are very few national level examples of successful youth policy structures and on local, municipal level, integrated approaches are often limited to project-based co-operation of the youth field with the school, the social and health sector and the cultural sector. The Austrian Presidency Youth Declaration 2006 criticise the European Youth Pact because “it does not seem to materialise into concrete measures”. To ensure the credibility of EU youth policy objectives, following measures should be taken:

• identifying, through research, the incongruence between principles and practice in youth policies
• finding ways to adjust objectives to the realities of youth work practice on the local level and to develop well-documented good practices of integrated youth policies, youth participation, etc

(3) Strengthening evidence-based policy. Transition to adulthood has become increasingly complex, contingent and individualised at the same time as young peoples’ lifestyles are characterised by diversity, ambiguity and change. Intergenerational relations, globalisation, religious tensions and information and communication technologies, the net in particular, constantly re-shape young peoples’ opportunities and risks. To react to this complexity European youth policy is more than ever dependent on a good knowledge-base. To this end we suggest to:

• intensify open dialogue with the civil society; young people, their groups, youth organisations and organisations working with young people
• strengthen co-operation with the research community along the lines of the 2006 Vienna Youth Event “Researchers’ position paper”

(4) Understanding complexities. The main concern of European Youth Pact and other youth policy documents is the social inclusion of young people through education to employment. Implementation of any measures in these fields is facing the complexity of factors affecting educational and labour market careers of young people, the unexpected ways that these policy measures hit vulnerable youth and the difficulties to handle the interrelations and interdependencies between leisure, education, employment, housing etc. To successfully implement broad youth policy programmes we need ongoing analysis on the complex social processes involved. To improve measures of social inclusion of young people, we call for:

• intense co-operation with research to better understand the complexity of social processes related to youth policies
• establishment of a policy advisory body recruited form relevant researchers

(5) Youth policy programmes as learning processes. Youth policies on all levels of government should both give guidance and learn from the implementation. The Open Method of Coordination has been a promising effort to gather information on the implementation of the White Paper and to evaluate its success. Due to tight time schedules and the lacking capacity of the governments to gather information and process it, the feedback evaluation remains incomplete. On a national level there are only a few examples of governments which systematically elaborate their general objectives into measurable sub-objectives, evaluate the implementation through statistical data and research and feed this information back to redrafting the original objectives. To stimulate youth policy programmes as innovative learning processes we propose to:

• encourage governments to involve themselves in ongoing analysis of their youth policy programmes based on sufficient statistical data and independent research
• constantly consult young people to generate new insights. The Vienna Youth Declaration is an excellent example of such a contribution
• systematically use the youth research community to reflect policy ideas

(6) Linking competences. Modern governance underline transparency, user participation, evidence- based policies and partnerships. In many respects the youth field is in the avantgarde of these aspirations. Due to its dedication to youth participation, youth policies are typically designed, implemented and evaluated in close involvement with young people themselves. The concept of “the triangle” of youth work, youth policy and youth research is an example of promising partnership. Based on this potentiality, and in the context of developing a coherent youth policy more responsive to the increasingly diverse expectations, lifestyles and living conditions of today’s young people, there is a need to link more systematically and in a more balanced way the competences of the key actors of the youth field, that is the youth policy makers, the youth workers – both municipal and those working in organisations – and youth researchers. We call for:

• promotion of youth policy processes involving policy makers, youth workers and youth research, all with their own complementary competences
• support for networks, communication systems and knowledge bases (like the EKCYP), and initiatives of research on youth
• promotion of youth work development programmes which combine the interests and competences of youth work and research

Finnish philosopher Pekka Himanen speaks for the combination of ‘an innovative welfare society and information society’ and says that “What is important to the information society is not new technology, but a new way of doing things … a creative society that is based on interaction [and] a network form of organisation”. In a similar manner the European youth field, one important ingredient of a creative society, should make optimum use of its own networks; the youth workers, the policy makers and the youth researchers. Linking these competences is the way to work with young people, the diversity of youth expression and the opportunities and risks of their complex transition to adulthood.

keskustele >>

www.nuorisotutkimusseura.fi | webmaster@kommentti.fi