Youth worker education in Europe E-Book

Marti Taru

• Herausgeber: Council of Europe
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2020

Seitenzahl: 455

Beschreibung

Youth work, coupled with effective government policies, is invaluable in ensuring that young people are given the opportunity to acquire the knowledge, skills and attitudes they need for civic engagement and social action.Youth work is experiencing a policy momentum at European level. Since the adoption of a resolution on the subject by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in 2017, youth work is back on the core agenda of the Council of Europe and the European Union youth strategies.

This book looks at how youth work practitioners learn their trade, what formal and non-formal education offers exist and how education iscontextualised in the broader picture of youth work recognition. Starting with the premise that formal education entails a series of steps from which youth work practitioners would benefit, this books explores that picture through a mapping study and delves further into its findings through thematic contributions.

The results of the research and debates with policy makers, researchers, practitioners, educators and other stakeholders identifies a field of growing opportunities across Europe. The situation of youth workers in different countries varies from advanced practice architectures for youth worker education to those in need of development. Youth worker education, however, is not only about the education and training offers, it is also about financial and organisational resources, legislation, support systems, competence frameworks, quality standards, ethical frameworks and guidance. This book aims to support youth work so that it becomes more visible and evolves into a recognised field of practice among other occupations and professions engaging with young people.

Leseprobe

Youth workereducation in Europe:

Policies, structures, practices

Marti TaruEwa Krzaklewska Tanya Basarab (eds)

Youth Knowledge #26 Council of Europe and European Commission

The opinions expressed in this work, commissioned by the partnership between the European Commission and the Council of Europe in the field of youth, are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of either of the partner institutions, their member states or the organisations co-operating with them.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated, reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic (CD-ROM, internet, etc.) or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the Directorate of Communication (F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex or [email protected]).

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank:

− the members and participants in the expert group meetings that have guided the process (May 2017, November 2017, May 2018, May 2019),

− all the researchers involved in the three-year research project,

− network of correspondents to the European Knowledge Centre for Youth Policy,

− members of the statutory bodies of the Council of Europe (CDEJ),

− all the youth workers and youth work educators, organisers and managers who volunteered and agreed to share their opinions and experiences through the eight focus groups, the online surveys and interviews, as well as

− experts who offered feedback to previous drafts and versions of the research papers.

Cover design: Graphic Design Workshop, Council of Europe

Layout: Jouve, Paris

Cover photo: Youth Agency of Georgia

Council of Europe Publishing

F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex

http://book.coe.int

Paper ISBN 978-92-871-8868-7

© Council of Europe and European Commission, April 2020

Printed at the Council of Europe

Contents

Chapter 1 – Introduction: education, learning and practice of youth work under the lens

Marti Taru, Ewa Krzaklewska and Tanya Basarab

Chapter 2 – Mapping the educational and career paths of youth workers

James O’Donovan (ed.), David Cairns, Madalena Sousa and Vesselina Valcheva Dimitrova

Chapter 3 – Diversity of practice architectures: education and career paths for youth workers

Tomi Kiilakoski

Chapter 4 – What do you see? A look at youth work through the prism of sociology of occupations

Marti Taru

Chapter 5 – Ethical standards in youth work and how they support the development of education and career pathways of youth workers

Sladjana Petkovic and Ondřej Bárta

Chapter 6 – Mapping youth studies curricula: what is formal education in the field of youth studies saying about young people?

Marko Kovacic, Nikola Baketa and Marita Grubisic-Cabo

Chapter 7 – Early career perspectives on the educational pathways of youth workers

Tomi Kiilakoski

Chapter 8 – Youth workers’ competences and learning in non-formal training

Dunja Potočnik and Marti Taru

Chapter 9 – Associations, networks and support for youth workers in Europe

James O’Donovan

Chapter 10 – Toward professionalisation? Youth worker as an occupation in Europe

Marti Taru, Ewa Krzaklewska and Tanya Basarab

Contributors

Figures

Figure 1. Other forms of national recognition of youth work

Figure 2. Availability of formal and non-formal education to youth workers

Figure 3. Existence of quality assurance and competence-based tools

Figure 4. Most common competences based on a 10-country analysis

Figure 5. Existence of associations of youth workers and/or networks of youth organisations or centres

Figure 6. Existence of Standard Occupational Profiles for youth workers

Figure 7. Strong practice architectures, group 1: well developed

Figure 8. Strong practice architectures, group 2: with room for development

Figure 9. Practice architectures, group 3: partly developed

Figure 10. Practice architectures, group 4: in need of development

Figure 11. Years of experience and years of training in youth work (n=34)

Figure 12. Assessment of youth workers’ competences using the Council of Europe Youth Work Portfolio framework

Figure 13. Areas of training provided by the organisations that youth worker trainers and managers currently work with (n=25 or 26, depending on function)

Tables

Table 1. Overview of focus group interviews

Table 2. Overview of surveys

Table 3. Regulation of youth work as a profession

Table 4. The discourse-cultural arrangements of youth work (second half of 2017)

Table 5. Economic-material arrangements for youth work

Table 6. Associations for youth work

Table 7. Summary of the findings

Table 8. Highest level of education of youth workers (n=215; weighted data)

Table 9. Educational backgrounds of youth workers (n=215; weighted data)

Table 10. Formal education and non-formal learning backgrounds of youth workers

Table 11. The list of reviewed documents

Table 12. The relationship between the number of years of non-formal learning and the number of years of experience in the field (column %, n=34)

Table 13. Areas of potential impact of competence frameworks in the youth field (n=29)

Table 14. Tools and instruments used or recommended by youth worker trainers and managers for competence self-assessment (n=17)

Table 15. Proposed improvements at organisational, local, national and European levels in providing youth workers with opportunities to obtain competences for quality youth work (n=28)

Table 16. Support offered to youth workers to acquire competences (n=29)

Chapter 1

Introduction: education, learning and practice of youth work under the lens

Marti Taru, Tanya Basarab and Ewa Krzaklewska

Developing youth work has been for many years an area of common interest of the Council of Europe and the European Union (EU). In this sense, their partnership in the field of youth (hereinafter the EU–Council of Europe Youth Partnership) has been building a joint knowledge base on the topic and has supported the activities based around the European Youth Work Conventions – a forum of policy, practice and research dedicated to strengthening youth work in Europe. In 2017, the EU–Council of Europe Youth Partnership began a research project on mapping the educational and career pathways of youth workers. The aim of the project was to develop a better understanding of three aspects: the opportunities that youth workers have for learning by formal or non-formal routes; the recognition and validation systems in place; and the career pathways of youth workers.

This research was launched in a context of increasing interest in and focus on youth work development at European level. In May 2017 the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers adopted CM/Rec(2017)4, a Recommendation to member states on supporting youth work (Committee of Ministers 2017). The EU had been supporting several strategic partnerships and expert groups on quality development of youth work. The new EU youth strategy and the Council of Europe plans for the next biennial work programme in the field of youth envisage an even stronger focus on youth work. Therefore, expectations were high that this research project would produce a fairly complete picture of youth worker learning, education and career paths in Council of Europe member states.

1.1. Project process and outcomes

The project started with a meeting of a group of experts in Brussels in May 2017, reflecting together on what aspects of formal and non-formal education would be important to explore. Based on this input, the research team – James O’Donovan, David Cairns, Madalena Sousa and Vesselina Valcheva Dimitrova – developed a questionnaire in eight sections defining the important areas for this mapping exercise: legal and policy frameworks of youth work and definitions; formal education offers; non-formal learning offers; validation of learning; youth work quality assurance; youth worker competencies and occupational standards; associations of youth workers; and career pathways. The questionnaire was sent to the network of national correspondents of the European Knowledge Centre for Youth Policy (EKCYP), a network that supports data and knowledge gathering from the member states party to the European Cultural Convention. In countries which had no correspondent, the questionnaire was sent to other relevant contacts.

The first phase of data collection was conducted from June to September 2017. During the process of research, EKCYP correspondents identified at their annual meeting in September 2017 various challenges linked to the data collection for the mapping; these were mostly linked to lack of information or data gaps, questions of terminology and difficulties in identifying stakeholders who could contribute. An initial benchmarking analysis based on information from 10 countries was presented to the Council of Europe Joint Council on Youth – the statutory body on youth – in October. This motivated government representatives from even more countries to complete the questionnaire. One of the findings emerging from these first steps highlighted the lack of information or structured monitoring systems on the topic. As one of the correspondents put it:

by doing this work, we realised that we lack a system of monitoring and data gathering on youth work in our country. We definitely need to build that system.

By January 2018, questionnaires from 41 countries had been collected. Facing the challenge of dealing with such a rich dataset, the team of researchers produced a mapping report with 15 thematic annexes (edited by O’Donovan).

The expert group reconvened in Brussels in November 2017 to review their findings and to advise how best to present the results of the research in terms of structure and, most importantly, in terms of content that could support implementation of the Youth Work Recommendation (Council of Europe 2017). For example, an initial literature review on the education of youth workers did not bring out any useful results so that research was not included in the final version. The expert group also advised removing this section and instead finding ways of presenting the results of the research that policy makers and practitioners could use. The mapping report and the thematic annexes were finalised in April 2018 after additional contributions from government representatives in the European Steering Committee for Youth (CDEJ), which forms part of the statutory bodies on youth in the Council of Europe. Additionally, a policy-oriented analysis was conducted by Tomi Kiilakoski using the same dataset and focusing on youth work practice architectures. Both of these outputs are presented in this book.

Was the work now complete? Far from it! The analytical report revealed very diverse realities in the 41 countries in all areas that the survey covered, from policy to education, quality standards, associations and career paths for youth workers. Importantly, the research highlighted that youth work was a very dynamic policy area, with almost half of the countries initiating or updating their policy framework. However, there was a very patchy presence of formal education offers and a big gap between countries that had well-developed practice architectures (i.e. policy frameworks, systems and support to youth workers) and countries that had only a few elements. The expert group advised that the second stage needed to explore the findings in more depth. In particular, the perspectives of youth workers, and also of youth work organisers, managers and educators, did not come through clearly enough in the first phase of the research. It was also clear that, while the mapping study reflected each country’s situation mostly as reported by the public authorities, it was necessary to see how their perspective would compare with the views of youth workers, youth worker managers and organisers.

In 2018, a renewed team of researchers began work on understanding the gaps and gaining more nuanced perspectives of the two groups. The spectrum of research questions was broadened and included the role of associations of youth workers, professionalisation and the question of ethics. Data collection was carried out combining a mix of methods, including surveys and focus groups with youth workers and also with organisers, managers and educators of youth workers. An enlarged expert group meeting in Brussels in May 2018 focused on the systems for education and validation of youth workers in eight countries: Germany, Ireland, Estonia, the UK (Scotland), Serbia, Croatia, Armenia and Ukraine. It made a valuable contribution to the second phase: three international youth organisations (WOSM, EEE-YFU and IFM-SEI) presented their approaches to youth worker training and recognition; and the experts advised on the further aspects of educational and career paths where youth sector stakeholders needed to advance their understanding. It became clear that there is no single approach that could be used at European level to support all countries in developing youth worker training and education. The research identified a range of systems, tools and methods of initiating formal education or non-formal training programmes, and suggested various types of recognition, from certification of non-formal learning to fully-developed validation systems. Importantly the meeting also concluded that educational offers and validation of learning are closely linked to other aspects in the field of youth work practice, including youth work recognition across several policy fields and youth workers’ labour-market situation and job security.

The research produced many questions and answers for practitioners and policy makers. While the Council of Europe is in the process of implementing the Recommendation on youth work CM/Rec(2017)4 and the European Union is launching the development of a Youth Work Agenda as part of the EU Youth Strategy 2019-27, the results of this research project lay the foundation for adapted and informed approaches to developing formal and non-formal education and validation systems for youth workers. In April 2019, the most recent meeting of the expert group explored the importance of making direct links between the research findings and these European policy initiatives.

Debate on the findings of the research project has been going on since the moment when the first draft was presented to the statutory bodies on youth, partly because stakeholders in many countries and in European policy making were asking the EU–Council of Europe Youth Partnership to present the findings and, even more, because of the renewed policy focus on youth work from all stakeholders. The mapping study and practice architectures report were shared in many European and national youth work fora, large and small. Ahead of the third European Youth Work Convention, where many initiatives – including the Council of Europe Youth Work Recommendation – will converge, the adoption of the EU Youth Strategy 2019-27 and the related Erasmus+ initiatives have brought the topic of education and career pathways for youth workers in front of actors not usually involved in the youth sector, including local public administrations, universities and the vocational education and training sector. These conversations, which are also supporting new and related activity that is emerging at national level, must go on, for every new stakeholder joining the debate may hold answers and resources that are required for developing recognised high-quality, flexible pathways for youth workers’ education and career anywhere in Europe.

1.2. Research methods and data

The project has produced a range of data sources: it started with the mapping questionnaire filled in by national correspondents and other country representatives, which was later complemented with eight focus groups and three surveys. On top of these, there came a unique dataset describing youth studies programmes in EU countries. Nearly all of the data sources are used in more than one chapter, and different chapters use different sets of data. Whereas the online surveys and mapping questionnaire were designated specifically for the purposes of the project, the focus group interviews were carried out in connection with other events. The surveys are best treated as exploratory data because of methodological and systematic difficulties in sampling and questionnaire design.

To avoid repeating the information on data sources at the beginning of every chapter, we present it all in tables 1 and 2, which give a comprehensive overview of the data sources that are used to describe European youth work in this book.

Table 1. Overview of focus group interviews

Reference

Date

Context of FGI

Number and profile of participants

FGI_1

27 March 2018

European Training Strategy Conference, Mainz

Number: 8

Activity: mostly youth workers

Experience: from 2 to 10+ years

Countries: Germany, Hungary, Latvia, North Macedonia.

FGI_2

27 April 2018

European Youth Forum Council of Members, Brussels

Number: 10

Activity: representatives of youth organisations, including EYF

Experience: on average, about 10 years’ experience in the youth field, primarily as participants and volunteers

Countries: Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, Romania

FGI_3

25 June 2018

Focus group organised with support of Estonian Youth Work Centre, Tallinn

Number: 7

Activity: Youth workers and youth work organisers, at municipal and national level

Experience: on average, 10 years’ experience in the youth field, primarily as participants and volunteers (minimum 2 years, maximum 20 years)

Countries: Estonia

FGI_4

5 June 2018

Europe Goes Local conference, Cascais

Number: 9

Activity: youth workers

Experience: on average, 10 years’ experience in the youth field, primarily as participants and volunteers (minimum 2 years, maximum 20 years)

Countries: Austria, Croatia, Estonia, Germany, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Switzerland

FGI_5

5 June 2018

Europe Goes Local conference, Cascais

Number: 9

Activity: employers of youth workers, organisers of youth work at the municipal level

Countries: Austria, Croatia, Estonia, Finland, Italy, Latvia, Portugal, Switzerland

FGI_6

12-15 June

Enter! Training course for youth workers. Evaluation seminar, Strasbourg

Number: 9

Activity: specialists working with young people (did not identify themselves as youth workers)

Experience: modest experience in the youth field (1-5 years), though one has been involved in ‘youth work’ for 12 years

Countries: Albania, Armenia, France, Hungary, Kosovo, North Macedonia, Norway, Romania

FGI_7

13-15 November 2018

Peer-learning seminar on youth work and its relevance for youth policy in South East Europe, organised by the Youth Partnership, Ljubljana

Number: 18 (interviewed in two groups of nine)

Activity: youth workers and youth work co-ordinators/managers

Experience: majority had 5+ years’ experience in youth work, two had less than one year of experience.

Countries: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Greece, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia

FGI_8

September 2018

Europe Goes Local project meeting, Zagreb

Number: 6Activity: youth work trainers and youth work managers

Experience: on average, about 10 years in youth work (three participants had less than five and three had more than 15 years)

Countries: Croatia

Table 2. Overview of surveys

Reference

Data collection method

Data collection period

Target population

Number of responses

Mapping

Questionnaire

June 2017 to January 2018

EKCYP correspondents and country representatives in Council of Europe statutory bodies on youth

49

Survey_1

Online survey

July to September 2018

youth workers in Council of Europe countries

221

Survey_2

Online survey

November 2018

employers and managers of youth workers in Council of Europe countries

30

Survey_3

Face-to-face interviews

June 2018

youth worker educators, organisers and managers involved in the Erasmus+ project Europe Goes Local

10

1.3. Structure and content of the book

This research project comes as an important step in the youth work field, which has a rich policy context. The chapters in this publication give the reader detailed insights into different aspects of youth workers’ educational and learning pathways. It starts with the mapping report completed by James O’Donovan, as editor, and James O’Donovan, David Cairns, Madalena Sousa and Vesselina Valcheva Dimitrova as the researchers (Chapter 2). It covers 44 regions from 41 countries of the Council of Europe so that it is not an exaggeration to say that it gives a bird’s-eye view of the youth work situation on the entire continent.

As the report shows, fewer than half of the countries surveyed have put in place a system of youth work quality assurance and/or defined the competences deemed necessary for youth workers. While there is a wide range of approaches to quality assurance, not all approaches meet accepted or standard concepts of quality assurance. Nonetheless, this variety is treated as evidence of interest in providing quality youth work, and the related need for youth workers to have the necessary competences. Competence frameworks, occupational standards, recognition and validation tools for youth workers are largely evident at national level, but together they have the potential to provide a platform for European co-operation in the field, particularly through exchanges of good practice and mutual support among all relevant stakeholders. The mapping report singles out the roles of the state, whether centrally, regionally or locally – through public-funded bodies or institutions, European support programmes and the voluntary youth sector – in youth work. One of the conclusions is that the state has the greater role, responsibility and capacity in this respect, as having the legal authority, legislative fiat and financial muscle to determine the role of youth work and youth workers.

Chapter 3 by Tomi Kiilakoski applies the concept of practice architectures in an analysis of the mapping data to advance our understanding of the state of play in the youth work field in Europe. The concept is based on the idea of social learning and it also broadens our ways of thinking about youth workers’ education. The approach is based on the belief that what an individual youth worker does, and is able to accomplish, is shaped by three dimensions:

1.“Sayings” – how youth work is recognised, formulated, talked about and debated;

2.“Doings” – how youth work education is supported and how youth work can be a sustainable career; and

3.“Relatings” – how youth work is recognised, supported and organised so that it can relate to young people, the general public and other professions.

By combining these aspects, Kiilakoski distinguishes four different types of practice architecture, which range from well-developed practice architecture to the less advanced and relatively poorly developed. This typology illustrates the diverse realities among the surveyed countries.

Chapter 4 by Marti Taru introduces three concepts from the sociology of occupations – professionalism as a normative value, professionalism as a discourse and professionalism as a professional project – and employs them to describe youth work. Each of the three perspectives highlights certain aspects and points out different opportunities for youth work. The occupation as a value perspective highlights the significance of specialist knowledge, indispensable when it comes to providing high-quality services. When looking through this lens, Taru suggests that youth work would benefit from institutions responsible for creating and transmitting high-quality knowledge, like university-level research and teaching centres. Looking through the occupation-as-a-discourse lens shows that youth work has been shaped by public-sector understandings and expectations of youth work as a public service. Thus, youth work could benefit from increased investment of public funds in addressing youth-related social challenges and issues, especially education and labour-market participation. By its very nature, youth work commands expert knowledge of how young people think and behave, and youth workers possess the competences needed to support young people. Increased investment in policy interventions targeting young people can create a window of opportunity for youth work, which can offer its expertise to support achieving various policy goals. Finally, the concept of occupation as a professional project emphasises the agency of practitioners themselves in achieving social and political recognition as an occupation that is characterised by attributes like professional autonomy and self-management.

In Chapter 5, Sladjana Petkovic and Ondras Bárta take a look at youth work ethics. They start with a statement that youth work can never be approached as a value-free area because almost every definition of youth work is influenced by moral, ethical, social, cultural and/or political values. This is because youth work is embedded in wider policy and practice contexts and also because it is deemed to require ethical behaviour from youth workers. An analysis of youth work ethics codes leads to the conclusion that each of the different approaches to professional ethics offers something, but none offers a complete account. Although the list of requirements for ethical youth work practice is extensive, the mechanisms supporting their development and implementation are far from satisfactory. Petkovic and Bárta raise a number of questions that are tightly integrated with the topics of earlier chapters. What is the interplay between the ethical framework, youth work quality and youth work recognition? How does a youth work ethical framework influence co-operation with other sectors? Does an ethical code create a common language and help to build bridges with professionals from other areas? At present, we hardly have any solid answers to these questions, but all of them deserve future research to find answers.

In Chapter 6 Marko Kovacic, Nikola Baketa and Marita Grubisic-Cabo draws on an original dataset of 100 youth studies curricula (65 BA and 35 MA programmes) taught in universities in 16 EU countries. It shows that youth work is mentioned in most of the learning outcomes. The chapter casts light on several dimensions of youth studies. Policy-wise, youth studies programmes concentrate on the fields of social inclusion, education and training, health and well-being. Most of the programmes have a caritative (benevolent) and/or preventive nature, rather than an emancipatory one. In terms of their theoretical ground, most programmes put great emphasis on social justice and community. However, some of the prevailing theoretical concepts from 20th-century literature on youth (such as transition theory, youth as a problem/resource) are not so well represented in curricula. The analysis also demonstrates that performance plans and curricula mostly cover topics on methodology, project management and fieldwork, which is often incorporated in coursework.

The connection between learning (theoretical) facts about youth work and implementing all this knowledge as an expert youth worker providing high-quality youth work in real-life situations is the topic of Chapter 3 by Tomi Kiilakoski. In Chapter 7, he depicts the transition from being a freshly graduated or beginner youth worker, packed with theoretical knowledge, to being an autonomous and critically minded youth work practitioner who enjoys considerable professional autonomy in their work. He does this using a three-phase model of transition. First, there is the pre-degree phase when a young person sets out to become a youth worker. This phase consists of experiences of participation in youth work as a young person and the motivations leading to the decision to become active in youth work. Secondly, during the schooling phase, youth work “disciples” gain conceptual and theoretical knowledge of youth work. This knowledge provides the basis for independent and critical analysis of their practice later in their professional life. Finally, in the induction phase, freshly graduated youth workers go through integration into the community of youth workers. This phase may last several years and includes help and support from experienced youth workers, using various supervision and guidance methods, such as mentoring. One of the main findings is that the phase of learning theoretical knowledge through formal education (not only or not necessarily in youth work) was seen as beneficial in several ways, at individual as well as at societal level.

Even though degree-level education was perceived as beneficial, the youth work reality in many countries is that most youth workers acquire new knowledge and skills in non-formal training outside degree programmes. Learning – and recognition of that learning – outside the formal education system is the topic of Chapter 8 by Dunja Potočnik and Marti Taru. As the analysis of focus groups and survey data shows, youth workers and youth work organisers believe that the provision of non-formal learning opportunities to youth workers is far from perfect. Many interviewees and survey respondents pointed out a range of factors which hamper the provision of learning opportunities to youth workers, who in general are very eager to learn. Among the challenges mentioned were lack of financial and organisational resources, lack of long-term educational and development strategies for youth workers within organisations and generally in the youth work sector, lack of recognition of youth work and of youth worker learning, poor social guarantees and low job security. Importantly, European initiatives and institutions play a significant role in supporting the development of youth work training and education by helping to build competence frameworks and providing organisational and financial support to youth workers, youth work organisers and educators. A lot could be done on many levels to improve the provision of non-formal training for youth workers.

Chapter 9, written by James O’Donovan, focuses on youth worker associations and networks in Europe. We learn that organisations, associations and networks vary greatly in terms of size as well as in their provision of training for their members. While they all appear to have a role in advocating and promoting youth work as an occupation, they also display and reflect on issues related to youth work in general. Associations of youth workers tend to reflect on the overlap and blurring of the lines between youth work and related fields such as social work, child welfare and leisure-time activities. In some instances, associations of youth workers are effectively subsumed into associations of social workers and teachers. Finally, associations of youth workers can effectively be trade unions with the corresponding bargaining power with employers in the state and private sectors. Interestingly, associations or networks of youth workers tend to be a feature of those countries where youth work is either well embedded, with both status and support, or at least in countries where youth work is being developed.

The closing chapter, by Marti Taru, Ewa Krzaklewska and Tanya Basarab, brings together the most important points and debates from the previous contributions. It stresses the importance of the policy momentum for concentrated action plans that support youth workers’ education, learning and professional development. As the chapter argues, public institutions have an highly significant role in the development of youth work as a field of practice. It is not only a matter of financial and organisational resources; it is also legislation, support systems (such as competence frameworks with recognition, certification or validation paths) and the provision of education, training and qualifications systems that are all necessary for the development of youth work as a recognised field of practice, a family of occupations and perhaps, in the future, a profession or several professions. Further clarification of the responsibilities expected of volunteer and paid youth workers seems to be one of the themes that needs to be addressed as youth work is increasingly integrated into the realm of public services that are offered by states and strongly supported by European institutions and resources. Finally, the research findings have highlighted that there are many approaches to building national education and validation systems for youth workers, but in most countries there is little systematic monitoring and analysis of the field of youth work.

Though youth work as a practice has a long history, the education and career pathways of youth workers have captured policy makers’ attention only relatively recently. Yet this attention is crucial because there is no other group of actors capable of offering similar support to youth work and youth workers. Obviously both national and European institutions play a significant role in youth work development and institutionalisation. Young people’s life world is constantly evolving, while social and educational policies are also changing and adapting to these realities, and research clearly situates youth work as a field of practice at the crossroads of these sectors. Permanent changes are also taking place in the world of work and so the ongoing development and professionalisation of youth work should be viewed as a natural process with many challenges but also many opportunities. The process has started, and youth work is evolving.

Chapter 2

Mapping the educational and career paths of youth workers

James O’Donovan (ed.), David Cairns, Madalena Sousa and Vesselina Valcheva Dimitrova

2.1. Introduction

This chapter presents a core of the research initiative “Mapping educational and career paths of youth workers”. Its main objective is to contribute to a better understanding and sharing of information about the education and training of youth workers across Europe and what employment and career paths this prepares them for, as well as the implications for the quality of youth work. Under its 2017 work programme, the European Union-Council of Europe Youth Partnership proposed to develop better knowledge on youth work, enlarge the youth work section in the European Knowledge Centre for Youth Policy (EKCYP) and continue to upload relevant research to its virtual library.

This mapping is an attempt to answer some key questions regarding the educational paths of youth workers, the professional reality in each European country, the different forms of recognition, and the main challenges faced by practitioners of youth work. For this purpose, the following research questions guided the methodology and the work done by the research team and the expert group:

►what policy and legislation exists at national level to regulate youth work as a profession?

►what educational and training opportunities are available to support the professional development of youth workers?

►what are the quality frameworks and what are the core competences of youth workers?

►what kinds of representative and support structures exist for youth workers?

►what is the employment status of youth workers and what career opportunities are available to them?

While the understanding and practice of “youth work” varies widely across Europe, as demonstrated in the chapter, to ensure a common understanding of the main terms of reference used in the study, the following definition was provided in the Mapping questionnaire, taken from the EU–Council of Europe Youth Partnership glossary on youth (Youth Partnership n.d. a) and Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe Recommendation on youth work, adopted at the end of May 2017:

Youth work is a broad term covering a wide variety of activities of a social, cultural, educational, environmental and/or political nature by, with and for young people, in groups or individually. Youth work is delivered by paid and volunteer youth workers and is based on non-formal and informal learning processes focused on young people and on voluntary participation. Youth work is quintessentially a social practice, working with young people and the societies in which they live, facilitating young people’s active participation and inclusion in their communities and in decision making. (Committee of Ministers 2017)

2.2. Mapping methodology

The mapping most of all used the knowledge gathered through a questionnaire sent to the European Knowledge Centre for Youth Policy (EKCYP) correspondents, relevant ministries, the Advisory Council on Youth, the European Youth Forum, and other organisations delivering youth work. The questionnaire was also circulated at the same time to government representatives with responsibility for youth policy, education and training institutions, members of the Advisory Council on Youth and members of the European Youth Forum, as well as to representatives of other organisations delivering youth work. The questionnaire was issued to EKCYP correspondents in early June 2017 and the data had been gathered by December 2017.

Completed responses to the questionnaire were received from 41 countries. In all, 49 completed questionnaires were received as some countries returned more than one and miscellaneous material was also provided by individual countries. United Kingdom (England) and United Kingdom (Wales) provided separate answers, as did Belgium (Flemish), Belgium (French) and Belgium (German-speaking). From France and Finland, two questionnaires were received.

Almost half of the responses to the questionnaire were submitted by EKCYP correspondents, and ministries, universities, government agencies and civil society organisations across Europe also submitted responses. Additionally, a literature review and desk research regarding key terms, definitions of youth work and related contexts such as EU and Council of Europe youth policy and country perspectives in the field of youth work was conducted – this is presented in the following chapter.

Importantly, the work of the researchers was guided and supported by the expert group, which included representatives of the partner institutions, the Europe Goes Local project, the SALTO Training and Cooperation Resource Centre, Council of Europe youth sector statutory bodies and experts involved in the drafting of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe Recommendation CM/Rec(2017)4 on youth work. The Youth Partnership also communicated with representatives of other initiatives (mapping on regional and local youth work by the Europe Goes Local project and the European Training Strategy co-ordinated by SALTO Training and Cooperation Resource Centre) to ensure complementarity and benefit the youth sector across Europe. Three meetings were held during the mapping exercise to discuss findings, rethink the structure of the initial report and consider approaches to strengthen the analysis and links to the data provided.

Definitions set out in the questionnaire, including the above-quoted definition of youth work also included “youth worker”, “formal learning”, “non-formal learning” and “accreditation of an education programme”, and are all taken from the EU–Council of Europe Youth Partnership glossary on youth and related sources. These definitions and others from the glossary also underpin the data analysis in the chapter. Other terms and terminology employed in the chapter, particularly those relating to competences and qualifications, derive from the responses to the questionnaire. For the most part they are in English and, on occasion, French. However, in some instances a translation has been provided where the meaning may be less clear, as for instance Fritidsledarutbildning (recreation leader) in Sweden and Barne- og ungdomsarbeiderfag (child and youth work subjects) in Norway. The term “country” (European Cultural Convention) rather than “member state” is used in the chapter.

All information and data included in the data analysis and tables1 derive solely from the responses to the questionnaire, except where other information or data are employed for illustrative or comparative purposes. Where responses to the questionnaire categorise information and data under specific headings, such as formal or non-formal education and training, quality-assurance or competence-based frameworks, or occupational standards or job descriptions, these have been reported and treated as such for data analysis purposes, unless otherwise indicated. Accordingly, the initial report was based and reliant on the extent and quality of the responses to the questionnaire. From the data analysis it was clear that there is a significant lack of data on youth work in many of the countries surveyed. This consequently affected the completion of the questionnaire and the expected outcomes. Differences in interpretation and understanding of the questions asked also affected the nature and extent of the responses received.

2.3. Current European policy on promotion and development of youth work

In looking at current European policy on the promotion and development of youth work, we are able to identify some common themes underpinning the approach of the European institutions to this field. Such work helps clarify what these institutions define as youth work, providing us with a starting point for the subsequent mapping exercise as well as an important point of orientation for this chapter.

The policy background at European level in relation to youth work includes a number of significant developments. This includes attempting to explain what constitutes youth work. In 2009, the Council of the European Union’s Resolution on a renewed framework for European co-operation in the youth field defined youth work as:

a broad term covering a large scope of activities of a social, cultural, educational or political nature both by, with and for young people. … based on non-formal learning processes and on voluntary participation (Youth Partnership n.d. b).

This is very much a starting point of a definition rather than a comprehensive statement of everything that takes place within the youth sector, or indeed, encompassing all the areas in which youth workers are employed, extending beyond areas such as education and training and into other fields, including leisure. Key to this definition is, however, the fact that participation in youth work should be voluntary among young people, involve some aspect of non-formal or informal learning, and support personal social development.

We can also look at the declarations of the European youth work conventions. The Declaration of the 2nd European Youth Work Convention, one of the flagship initiatives of the Belgian Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (November 2014 to May 2015), attempts to balance, on the one hand, the idea of youth work as an “instrument” for labour-market preparation, and on the other, a tool for supporting personal development, empowerment, citizenship, participation, social inclusion, cultural awareness, expression, friendship and having fun.

What the convention provides is a statement of renewed commitment to supporting youth work in Europe and the triggering of an institutional process towards agreement on the value and significance of youth work among the European institutions, as well as an endorsement of the work of policy makers and practitioners in the youth sector. This document essentially sets parameters in regard to what youth workers should be doing and, as it notes in its concluding summary, youth work is a central component of a social Europe (2nd European Youth Work Convention 2015; Belgian Presidency’s Council Resolution on youth work 2010).

As the convention notes, the responsibility for youth work lies with member states, meaning that we need to establish what is happening in the youth sector in countries throughout Europe. In this chapter, we will therefore try to look at the extent to which the aspirations of the European institutions are being realised. One document that is key to guiding this process is the Council of Europe Recommendation CM/Rec(2017)4 on youth work. This includes the provision of a basic definition (quoted in the Introduction and abridged from the resolution cited above). The aim of this recommendation is to encourage countries to develop their youth work policy and forms of practice, in order to support youth work at local, regional, national and European levels. Significantly, this definition also acknowledges the importance of paid and volunteer youth workers, and the emphasis on non-formal and informal learning processes. Hence, this document provides an important indication of the means through which youth work should be practised. Definitions of these terms, and many others, can be found in the EU–Council of Europe Youth Partnership glossary on youth.

In explaining what it is youth workers actually do, dedicated research on youth work in practice is limited, although a significant number of studies have emerged, bringing together insights on the work of those within the youth sector across Europe. One example is the recent Council of Europe youth knowledge publication: Thinking seriously about youth work (Schild et al. 2017). This book takes a transversal perspective, examining country case studies from various EU member states and Council of Europe countries. From this work, we can in some ways fill out a contemporary definition of youth work in terms of occupational categories, looking at people termed socio-cultural instructors, intercultural mediators, educators or animateurs, social workers, community workers, youth leaders, educators and trainers, cultural workers, volunteers and activists in youth organisations or youth movements. From this point of view, what we present in this chapter is a mapping of some of the regulatory frameworks, educational frameworks and career pathways open to these individuals.

2.4. Data analysis results

2.4.1. Policy and legislation

In this section of the chapter, we will provide an overview of policy and legislation pertaining to youth work across Europe. We begin by summarising the current position in regard to national structures and legislative frameworks across different European countries. This is followed by an assessment of definitions of youth work, other forms of national recognition and current national policy initiatives. The latter is also illustrated with the use of a map providing detail in countries in which we are aware of such arrangements. A concluding note indicates that while there is some common ground across countries in relation to policy and legislation, in regard to the foundational role played by national governments in regulating youth work, for example, the current state of policy and legislation differs markedly according to national context due to factors such as different regional histories of youth work development.

2.4.2. National structures and legislative frameworks

The opening question set of the questionnaire examined policy and legislation in regard to youth work at national level. The first part asked: “Which national structures are responsible for creating the framework for youth policy and its implementation in your country?”, providing us with an indication of where ultimate responsibility for youth work lies. All national correspondents (for the 41 countries and regions for which we have information) noted that some form of governmental structure is in place in their countries. The norm in regard to youth work governance is to situate responsibility at ministerial level, with input from other parties such as youth advisory boards in a small number of countries (e.g. Bulgaria).

It is also notable that “youth” is not generally regarded as a distinct policy arena at ministerial level but is typically conjoined with other policy fields, most prominently “children” (in Ireland, Luxembourg and Croatia) and/or interpolated within the frameworks of “sport” (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Czech Republic, the Flemish Community of Belgium, Georgia, Malta, the Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, the Netherlands, North Macedonia, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, Turkey and the United Kingdom (England)) or “education” (Belarus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Iceland, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden and the United Kingdom (England)). In some countries, such as Croatia and Finland, “youth” traverses different policy fields. The outstanding finding from the responses made to this question is a confirmation that there is a lack of dedicated structures for the governance of youth work in these countries at ministerial level.

Moving on to consider legislation pertaining to youth work, we asked respondents if their country had a youth act/law/policy/strategy or youth work act/law/policy/strategy at national and/or regional level. It is notable that in several national contexts, there appeared to be no such legislation: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Greece, Italy, Norway, Poland and Sweden. This does not mean that there is no legal framework in these nations, only that youth work may fall within the jurisdiction of generic legislation relating to areas such as education; for example the Education and Inspections Act (2006) in the United Kingdom (England). It is also notable that much of this legislation is relatively recent, having been formulated in the last decade, and in some cases, the process of establishing legislation is ongoing or yet to be finalised.

2.4.3. Definitions of youth work

The responses to the question “Is ‘youth work’ or ‘youth worker’ defined or included in any other legislation or national policy document?” provide information about how youth work is legally defined in different countries, although in the majority of cases, no definition of “youth work” or “youth worker” was provided or noted as being codified in legislation. Examples of definitions included in the questionnaires were as follows:

►Estonia: youth work is defined in the 2010 Youth Work Act as the creation of conditions to promote the diverse development of young persons, which enables them to be active outside their families, formal education and work on the basis of their free will;

►Finland: youth work as defined in the 2006 Youth Act means efforts to support the growth, independence and social inclusion of young people in society;

►Ireland: youth work is defined in the 2001 Youth Work Act as: ”a planned programme of education designed for the purpose of aiding and enhancing the personal and social development of young people through their voluntary participation, and which is complementary to their formal, academic or vocational education and training; and provided primarily by voluntary youth work organisations.”;

►North Macedonia: the National Youth Strategy defines youth work as: “an organised and systematic process of education and support of authentic development of young people with the aim of fulfilling their overall personal, social and civic potential. It is directly associated with the development of the local community, whereby young people not only become active participants in the process of their own development but also active participants in the life of the community.”;

►Malta: a non-formal learning activity aimed at the personal, social and political development of young people (Youth Work Profession Act 2016);

►Montenegro: youth work is defined in the Law on Youth 2016 as activities which are conducted with young people and for young people, based on non-formal education, in line with their needs and abilities;

►United Kingdom (Wales): in the National Strategy for Youth Work in Wales 2014-2018, youth work is defined using the National Occupational Standards for Youth Work (Learning and Skills Improvement Service 2012) as work that: “enables young people to develop holistically, working with them to facilitate their personal, social and educational development, to enable them to develop their voice, influence and place in society and to reach their full potential”.

As we can observe from the above list, these definitions range from fairly literal descriptions of what is entailed in youth work and the role of the youth worker (e.g. in Armenia), to being grounded in a clear set of duties or responsibilities in institutional terms (e.g. in Ireland). There is also a strong sense of development of growth conveyed (e.g. in Serbia and the United Kingdom (Wales)), to be facilitated by a planned programme of activities (e.g. North Macedonia), implying a systematic understanding of how youth work is to be practised. More precisely, common features include an emphasis on non-formal learning and voluntary participation.

While the limited number of definitions provided limits scope analysis, we can deduce that there is common concern with issues such as quality of life and linkages with a broader process of societal or communal development. Youth work is also generally situated outside structures of formal education, with associations with non-formal learning and voluntarism. In this sense, we can observe common ground with how youth work is conceptualised at European level, including the approach of institutions such as the European Commission and the Council of Europe, and the EU–Council of Europe Youth Partnership.

2.4.4. Other forms of national recognition of youth work

Other forms of national recognition for youth work exist, such as recognition from civil society organisations or specific training courses. While information was provided in just over half the responses, we can see that in many of these cases a similar answer was provided in regard to highlighting the significance of national youth agencies. Also cited is the role of European agencies, notably Erasmus+, in providing national recognition for youth work (e.g. in Greece, Poland and Romania).

Even though we have an incomplete picture, we also know that recognition of youth work takes place at national level outside government structures: through courses for youth workers and youth leaders, summer camps and other forms of training organised by voluntary organisations and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). It may be that awareness of such work is limited by a lack of information or awareness. For example, in Italy it was noted that there are “fragmented initiatives” taking place, supported by local administrations/municipalities. Therefore, it must be the case that much recognition is situated at local levels rather than at national level, but the diverse and undocumented nature of initiatives makes this work less visible than it might be.

2.4.5. Current national policy initiatives

One final question in this set looked at current national policy initiatives for the recognition of youth work, e.g. legislative bills and committees. Responses covered:

►a new law proposal on youth policy, including comprehensive definitions of “youth work” and “youth worker”, has been presented to the Parliament of Azerbaijan and is currently under consideration;

►the activities of the National Youth Forum of Bulgaria;

►an ad hoc expert group on linking youth work to social work in the Czech Republic, founded in 2015;

►a mapping exercise in Cyprus regarding the validation of non-formal and informal education;

►a national expert working group in Croatia convened in 2015;

►the selection in Finland in autumn 2017 of 10 to 15 national youth work centres of expertise, seeking to develop and promote competence and expertise in youth-related issues on a nationwide basis;

►the setting up of a working group in France between October 2016 and March 2017;

►the Ministry of Sport and Youth Affairs of Georgia’s work with partners to create National Professional Standards and Certification Criteria for youth workers;

►the Action Alliance for Recognition in Germany;

►the translation of concepts of “youth work” and “youth worker” into Greek in April 2017;

►the establishment of a working group by the Ministry of Education and Science of Latvia;

►a draft law amending the Law on Youth Policy Framework (2017) in Lithuania;

►a joint initiative for recognition of youth work in the National Qualifications Framework in North Macedonia;

►the development of youth sector infrastructure and supporting mechanisms in assurance of quality in youth work and a feasibility study on status recognition in the Republic of Moldova;

►the revision of the Law on Youth in Montenegro, 2017;

►an attempt to create a new national youth policy for 2016-2019 in Poland;

►a National Policy initiative associated with Youth Technicians in Portugal;

►research on Occupational Standards in Youth Work commissioned by the Ministry of Youth and Sport of Romania in 2016;

►a revision of the Law on Youth in Serbia;

►a declaration on recognising the contribution of non-formal education in youth work in Slovakia;

►legislative bills on youth and regulations on youth centres presented to the Ukrainian Parliament.

We can therefore see that the governance of youth work is in a state of transition in many countries, with changes in laws and forms of recognition for youth workers. This is inevitably an incomplete picture, given the fluid situation in regard to the conducting of research projects and convening of committees. It is, however, clear that there is a general movement towards better recognition of youth work and non-formal education in general across Europe.

Figure 1. Other forms of national recognition of youth work

2.5. Summary

The diversity of youth work regulation reflects the diversity of Europe, with different national traditions leading to the development of different frameworks. One outstanding factor is the level of government involvement in regulating youth work. As we observed, the norm is to locate this within an appropriate government ministry, usually alongside other policy fields, such as “children”, “family” or “education”. Regulatory frameworks from this point diverge according to factors such as the degree of recognition awarded to youth work as a profession. In looking for reasons for divergence, we can point towards the distinct histories of the development of youth work in each country, as it is more established in some regions than others. In many places, youth work as a profession is still very much a work in progress. And as we shall observe in the subsequent discussion, distinct patterns emerge with regard to education, training and employment, following on from this initial point of orientation.

2.5.1. Formal and non-formal education and training

While employment and careers can be strongly influenced by issues other than education and training, firm and robust foundations in education and training in any field are necessary for good employment prospects and successful career opportunities as well as for personal development. The questions in the survey were aimed at:

►eliciting information and data on the nature and extent of formal and non-formal education and training opportunities currently available in the youth work field;

►how these relate to the development of the competences of youth workers and prospective youth workers and how they affect their employment and career prospects.