6 Country Reports on Youth Work - Jugendpolitik in Europa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Comments: Differences between national and local level In Spain, much like in Greece or the Netherlands, the local survey provided extensive information about youth work that was not available at national level. First of all it can be stated that although youth work structures are not well established, there is nevertheless a wide range of youth work activities. While at national level it was only possible to trace training activities for labour market insertion and youth information activities, at local level it becomes clear that the main activities provided at this level are extracurricular youth education, leisure time and recreational activities, and that labour market-oriented activities are not dominating. Differences at local level The activities provided in rural areas are scarcer that in urban areas, but nevertheless cultural and recreational activities, youth associations, consultancies for employment issues and sports are on offer. People working in the youth work areas are generally professionals with higher education degrees. In associations there are higher numbers of volunteers than employed youth workers. The majority of employees and volunteers are women, so that we can say that youth work in Spain is a feminised profession. The main target group of youth work in rural areas is the 13- to 19-year-olds, whereas in urban areas youth work targets young people between 15 and 19 years of age. 10.11Comparative Overview of local findings 10.11.1 Availability of data The central result of the present study has been to show that it is indeed possible to describe the structures of youth work at local level. The indicators we had set proved to be suitable in all countries except Ireland and Italy, and they indeed produced relevant results. We were unable to obtain quantitative data in either Ireland or Italy, primarily because of the restricted timeframe. In these two countries it was particularly difficult to identify the parties and institutions involved in youth work at local level. The people we manage to contact had no existing information at their disposal – they would therefore have had to be asked and encouraged to collect data internally. In Spain we had to describe in detail the fields of activity of youth work to the institutions we surveyed. These institutions were not familiar with the terms used, even though the activities as such may indeed have been offered. Most of the problems we encountered with regard to data collection came up when data had to be obtained from non-public associations. As a result of these groups’ volunteer-based structures, they had to be approached several times before the necessary data was provided. For Austria this is the reason for the low rate of return – 36% – while for Romania 112
we have no data on youth workers employed by non-public providers and in youth associations. An added difficulty here was that youth work is not recognised as a profession. In the German municipalities covered by the survey, we encountered the additional problem that there were two sets of data at local level: data from the Bureau of Children and Youth Welfare Services Statistics and data from the local youth welfare planning structures. Data obtained at local level did not allow for a uniform classification of age groups. It was particularly interesting to note that municipalities did not always have computerised versions of the data they sent in to the national children and youth statistics bureau: in many cases the institutions had simply returned questionnaires to the state authorities for statistics, and the latter, in spite of our requests, were not willing or able to provide us with data about the municipalities. The categorisation of participant age groups used in the study proved to be inadequate. The age range – set at 13 to 30 because of the orientation of the ‘Youth in Action’ programme – was either too narrow or too broad in Austria, the Netherlands and Romania. Austrian and Dutch respondents recommended the inclusion of 11- and 12-year-olds in the results, while in Romania no youth work is targeted to young people older than 25. 113
Page 1:
INSTITUT FÜR SOZIALARBEIT UND SOZI
Page 4 and 5:
10.11 Comparative Overview of local
Page 6 and 7:
6 � The study identified the foll
Page 8 and 9:
The money and time invested in yout
Page 10 and 11:
The main reasons for the situation
Page 12 and 13:
Because of the different national h
Page 14 and 15:
2 Introduction “Youth activities
Page 16 and 17:
This report focuses on the structur
Page 18 and 19:
Table 1: Data about of youth work Y
Page 20 and 21:
The partners developed questionnair
Page 22 and 23:
Despite this situation, the experts
Page 24 and 25:
countries like Austria, Germany, Es
Page 26 and 27:
pleasure, and desire, by strengthen
Page 28 and 29:
young people, such as the Internet,
Page 30 and 31:
6 Country
Page 32 and 33:
6.2 Estonia Youth work in Estonia i
Page 34 and 35:
Volunteering has always been crucia
Page 36 and 37:
and straddles the fields of educati
Page 38 and 39:
young people through local planning
Page 40 and 41:
6.9 Romania In Romania, the general
Page 42 and 43:
concerned with strengthening and le
Page 44 and 45:
Table 8: Qualification of Youth Wor
Page 46 and 47:
8 Survey Results 8.1 Availability o
Page 48 and 49:
Table 9: Availability of data and s
Page 50 and 51:
Spain No national system of reporti
Page 52 and 53:
9 Results from the National Statist
Page 54 and 55:
An analysis of the overview allows
Page 56 and 57:
existence of a compulsory annual da
Page 58 and 59:
Table 12: Youth work in Estonia 58
Page 60 and 61:
were funded with € 1,066,100 and
Page 62 and 63: Table 16: Youth work in Ireland 62
Page 64 and 65: Table 18: Youth work in Norway 64 D
Page 66 and 67: Table 20: Youth work in Spain 66 Da
Page 68 and 69: 68 � in some countries data on pa
Page 70 and 71: 10 Results from the Local Statistic
Page 72 and 73: this age group. The modus is 15 par
Page 74 and 75: which of these activities should be
Page 76 and 77: offices of the state governments an
Page 78 and 79: Table 29: Funding of youth work in
Page 80 and 81: Table 31: Participants in youth wor
Page 82 and 83: Table 32: Youth work activities in
Page 86 and 87: pattern was consistent across the f
Page 88 and 89: (iv) Midleton Youth Project The Mid
Page 90 and 91: Comments: Differences between natio
Page 92 and 93: Comments: In Italy it was again not
Page 94 and 95: activities, open youth work / youth
Page 98 and 99: voluntary organisations and to send
Page 100 and 101: Table 51: Public spending on volunt
Page 102 and 103: Table 55: Members of organisations
Page 104 and 105: 10.9 Romania Data base: The data pr
Page 106 and 107: Three years ago, an annual project
Page 108 and 109: Comments: Differences between natio
Page 110 and 111: almost all of the activities. Relat
Page 114 and 115: 10.11.2 Comparative overview of you
Page 116 and 117: 10.11.3 Comparative overview of you
Page 118 and 119: In Greece and Spain recreation acti
Page 120 and 121: limited financial funds, the youth
Page 122 and 123: the accomplishment of youth-specifi
Page 124 and 125: from the street culture that define
Page 126 and 127: structures. Cooperation with the po
Page 128 and 129: focusing only on young people in vo
Page 130 and 131: members in organisations, or access
Page 132 and 133: intensive work to define common cat
Page 134 and 135: 134 � further strengthening the e
Page 136 and 137: 13 References Bundesministerium fü
Page 138 and 139: 14 List of project partners Austria
Page 140 and 141: Partnership Programme between the E
Page 142: Table 43: Budgets of youth work in
show all

6 Country Reports on Youth Work - Jugendpolitik in Europa

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?