COMPARATIVE REVIEW OF NATIONAL REPORTS

SUBMITTED BY MEMBER STATES IN THE FIELD OF ACTION

‘VOLUNTARY  ACTIVITIES’

Maria-Carmen Pantea

2

About author: Maria-Carmen Pantea, PhD, completed a Master Degree in Evidence-Based Social Interventions at Oxford and holds an MA with Merit in Gender Studies from the Central European University. She is a member of the Pool of European Youth Researchers and has experience in carrying out research and consultancy projects in the field of youth volunteering, migration and Roma. She worked for EU-CoE Youth Partnership, UNIFEM, CoE, CSES Kent and American Institutes for Research. She is a member of the editorial board of Research on Social Work Practice and  a  Lecturer  at  ‚Babeș-Bolyai’  University, Romania. URL: www.policy.hu/pantea

Executive summary The National Youth Reports cover cross-border voluntary activities. They indicate that numerous governmental measures related to the creation of opportunities for mobility of young volunteers were taken in the context of the EYV 2011.The legal preconditions for the mobility of volunteering were created by the adoption of laws in Lithuania, Montenegro, Slovenia and in the Slovak Republic. Several governments built on pre-existing inter-country exchange programmes, some with a long legacy (Spain, Belgium, Germany). New exchange programmes have been developed (eg. between Montenegro and Italy or between Poland and the EU neighbouring countries). The countries with more established volunteering infrastructure have undertaken steps to tailor their volunteering strategies to various youth groups (including young people with fewer opportunities). Also, several civic services (France, Luxembourg and Italy) have been renewed in order to respond to the demand for mobility. In few countries, apart from EVS, there are no additional government-supported volunteering schemes, despite youth representatives’  need for such programmes to be set (Lithuania, Slovenia). The absence of special measures for voluntary activities, particularly in Nordic countries needs to be read against the Scandinavian Civil Society model, which involves minimal policy regulation. Almost all National Reports mention more active awareness rising measures on mobility of volunteers during the EYV 2011. Many underline the role of Eurodesk, its local multipliers and the Youth Information Network. As expected, media and the Internet are increasingly utilised for raising awareness about opportunities for mobility of young volunteers. The review also identified several unmediated practices via youth offices or information centres, but also through campaigns in schools or universities (Belgium’s   French   Community,   Estonia,   France,   Germany,   Spain),   youth   offices   or  information centres. In Finland, the European Year of Volunteering (EYV) had other priorities than awareness rising, whilst in Lithuania and Slovenia it appears that all initiatives for raising awareness on mobility were organized only through the EVS In what concerns the initiatives to assure quality through the development of self-assessment tools, many National Reports show that Europass and Youthpass are regularly used as assessment tools for the mobility programmes across Europe. Other

3

legally-endorsed self-assessment tools for local and national volunteering have been recently developed in Slovenia, Denmark and Montenegro. Many Reports concentrated on  organisations’  initiatives  for  quality  assurance,  such  as  the  ‘Volunteering  Assessment  Toolkit’  in  UK,  a  quality  framework  for  international  youth  projects  in  Belgium,  or  a  25  years old quality label for youth exchange organizations in Switzerland. An emerging move is the creation of web-based self assessment tools available to young people themselves (now available in Estonia and UK). The initiatives seem more tentative in countries taking quality assurances measures after the EU Youth Strategy came into force (Latvia, the Czech Republic, Croatia). In Sweden and Norway, government-initiated measures or policies for developing self-assessment tools in volunteering, go against the principles which demarcate civil society from Government. Most Reports commended on Youth in Action influence on drawing attention to the particular situation of young people with fewer opportunities. National approaches to the mobility of young volunteers with fewer opportunities differ: from the endorsement of a general policy of prevention (Slovak Republic, Norway, Bulgaria), to the application of specific, targeted measures (Finland, UK, Spain, Luxembourg Slovenia, the Czech Republic Austria, Estonia). In some countries, YiA remained the major, if not the sole provider of mobility opportunities for the young people at disadvantage. The report describes  Belgium’s  proactive  approaches  for  reaching  ‘the  hard  to  reach’  youth,  through  its  ‘mobile  youth  work’.   The National Reports develop on three types of actions for promoting cross-border mobility of youth workers and young volunteers, namely: (i) the EU Youth in Action programme; (ii) the nationally driven initiatives supporting mobility, such as the renewed civil services and (iii) the numerous bilateral agreements inside EU and beyond, some with a long legacy. Youthpass and Europass have been largely used for promoting the recognition of skills acquired through voluntary activities. Many National Authorities have been massively involved in trainings delivery and in facilitating the process of issuing these certificates. It seems, however, that besides the National Authorities, there have been few other governmental actors involved. Some YiA operators explore the possibility for using Youthpass certificate beyond Youth in Action. Yet, for the moment, a largely embraced approach is for countries to develop complementary tools and recognition mechanisms. Several Reports call for further action at national and European level, in the form of impact evaluations of the role played by Europass, and increased cooperation in the field of validation among employers and providers of formal education. In terms of promoting intergenerational solidarity through volunteering, there are many local, volunteer-based intergenerational initiatives, indirectly supported by governments in Belgium, Germany, Spain, among others. Such initiatives are shaped by demographic changes and the socio-cultural particularities of volunteering in various states. The patterns of participation go from intergenerational cooperation (Austria, Germany, Spain), to youth volunteering for improving the offer of social services available to elderly (Croatia, Romania). Many National Reports indicate more active

4

measures to be planned for the 2012. Yet, Reports are not always precise, as many specific measures are under development.

5

Introduction The EU Youth Strategy considers volunteering an essential part of promoting active citizenship and youth social involvement. This view was reflected in the first Council Recommendation in the field of youth, in particular the 2008 Council Recommendation on the Mobility of Young Volunteers across the EU1. The Recommendation is still influential in shaping the first cycle of the EU Youth Strategy in the field of voluntary activities. 1. The objectives  of  EU  Youth  Strategy  in  the  field  of  action  ‘Voluntary  Activities’ As proposed in the Council Resolution on EU Youth strategy2, ‘young people’s  voluntary  activities should be supported and better recognised for their value as an important form of non-formal learning. Obstacles to voluntary activities should be removed and the cross-border  mobility  of  young  people  promoted’. The Council Resolution proposes a set of initiatives which can be taken by Member States and/or the Commission for this field, namely:

- Promote the recognition of skills acquired through voluntary activities through instruments such as Europass, Youthpass and Member State funded instruments;

- Implement the Council Recommendation on the mobility of young volunteers in Europe;

- Raise awareness about the value of voluntary activities, including through peer-to-peer processes;

- Promote protection of young volunteers and quality in voluntary activities; - Engage young people and youth organisations in the planning, delivery and

evaluation of the future European Year of Voluntary Activities Promoting Active Citizenship (2011);

- Promote intergenerational solidarity through voluntary activities.

2. Challenges and limitations The main limitation was inherent in the way voluntary activities are being defined. There is no agreed definition on what volunteering means, across Europe, and sometimes even across regions or organisations. Although the EC recently proposed a set of four indicators for data collection on voluntary activities3, there is still, large variation in the actual definitions and age range used across Europe. Despite the efforts made to design the questionnaire in ways able to minimize this bias, cross country comparison is prone to reproducing these methodological challenges.

1 OJ C319, 13.12.2008, pp. 8-10. 2 Council Resolution on a renewed framework for European cooperation in the youth field (2010-2018) OJ C311, 19.12.2009, pp.1-11. 3 (1) Young people's engagement in voluntary activities; (2) Share of young people making a voluntary contribution to their local community; (3) Share of young people who have stayed abroad for the purpose of voluntering; (4) Formal recognition for taking part in voluntary activities (SEC (2011) 401 final).

6

This exercise is based on the secondary data presented in the National Reports, and thus, highly dependent on their level of detail. As the questionnaire aimed to retrieve answers on   governments’   measures,   the   review   had   to   pay   attention   to   the   ‘ownership’   of   the  initiatives being described and thus, to separate between those initiated by non-governmental  organisations’   and   those  of   the   state.  Also,   the   review  had   to  distinguish  the initiatives that applied to the issue of cross-border mobility of young volunteers, from those referring national volunteering alone. Nevertheless, the questionnaires that form the basis of National Reports were able to cover only a part of the field of volunteering which is much diverse (e.g. see the national volunteering and internal mobility, besides the cross-border nature of volunteering assessed here). Partially,  the  area  of  action  ‘Voluntary  activities’  connects  with  the  areas  ‘Participation’  and  ‘Youth  &  the  World’.  Interested readers may find useful information on volunteering also in these reviews.

Comparative analysis This section will provide a comparative analysis of answers to each question in the questionnaire under the Section 3: ON VOLUNTEERING and the implementation of the Recommendation on the mobility of young volunteers.

1. Opportunities for mobility of young volunteers Has the Government of your country - existing or previous - taken concrete measures or carried out any specific policy initiatives to create more opportunities for mobility of young volunteers?

Yes, before the EU Youth Strategy came into force in 2010

Yes, after the EU Youth Strategy came into force in 2010

No, but plans 2012

No, without plans

(Responses in the National Youth Reports)

7

The large majority of the National Reports underline the role of the Youth in Action as the major European programme promoting volunteer exchange. Sweden, for instance, has been an active programme country in the EU youth programme since 1994. Several countries created the legal conditions for youth mobility. EYV 2011 marked the adoption of the Act on Volunteering in Slovak Republic. In Austria, a Law of Volunteering is underway, with the Austrian Youth Council involved in formulating a position on the draft. The law tackles a common limitation of the regulations on volunteering across Europe, namely the continuation of basic family subsidies for cross-border volunteers. This is particularly relevant for the participation of young people with fewer opportunities. Belgium, France, Germany and Luxembourg also apply this measure of social protection of crossborder volunteers4. In 2011, Bulgaria established a National Youth Programme with a subdivision connected with financing of youth volunteering at national and international level. The Programme also supports international volunteers in Bulgaria. Many governments built on pre-existing inter-country exchange programmes. Spain has a long legacy of undertaking an international volunteer program (working camps), which provides yearly about 800 volunteer placements abroad for Spanish youth and 600 places for international volunteers in Spain. The German-speaking Community of Belgium cooperates with German ASA programme. Also, Belgium is participating in a 28 years old youth exchange scheme with Québec. The Québec-Wallonie programme is open to the young people from the Belgian French Community and, more recently, from the German-speaking community, as well. Also, the Government of Flanders grants financial support for organizations and young people undertaking international projects involving some on volunteering. In addition, Belgium has several bilateral agreements for supporting cooperation with developing countries outside Europe. New exchange programmes have been developed between Montenegro and Italy, with the support of IOM with. In 2011, the actions of the Polish government focused on Youth and the World priority, as defined in the Council Resolution on a renewed framework for European cooperation in the youth field (2010-2018). In particular, Poland promoted the mobility of young volunteers in the EU neighbouring countries (Eastern Europe and Caucasus). Also, a pilot Call for innovative projects promoting cross-border volunteering was launched in the Czech Republic. It aims to create opportunities for volunteers exchange in the disadvantaged border areas. Several countries with more established volunteering infrastructure are undertaking steps to tailor their volunteering strategies to the specific needs of more varied groups. In Luxembourg there are now four types of voluntary services, including one based on mobility in developing countries. Since being established in 2009, this voluntary service became increasingly popular among young people and organizations. The Scottish MV Award Scheme developed volunteering options that fit the choices of a diverse young population. The International Youth Volunteering Programme in Germany and the civic 4 Shalayeva, K. (2012). Volunteering of young people in Europe. Findings of a summary analysis of the information templates on youth volunteering in the EKCYP. EU-CoE Youth Partnership.

8

voluntary services in France, Luxembourg and Italy have been restructured in order to include cross-border volunteering. Several National Reports mention that in several countries, besides EVS, there are no major government-supported volunteering programmes, despite youth representatives expressing the need for such measure to be set (Lithuania, Slovenia). For the moment, according to youth representatives, all activities of this kind are being carried out through existing EU programmes. The Slovenian government aims to take concrete measures in this field in 2012. The countries not having current plans to carry out measures for creating more opportunities for cross-border mobility (apart from the EU programme Youth in Action) have different profiles. Thus, Finland has 22% of its young population (15-30) doing some voluntary activities and has one of the highest shares of its young volunteers serving other communities than their own (over 60%). Yet, the rate of those volunteering abroad is slightly less than the European average of 2%. Latvia has 29% of its young population involved in voluntary activities, representing a 20% increase5 from 2007. Unlike Finland, in Latvia, over  70%  of  young  volunteers’  actions  are  aimed  at  changing  something in the local communities. The high percentage of those involved in local volunteering could be attributed to a massive civic cleanup action, which developed impressively since 2008. On the other hand, the reported increase may not be free from systematic bias in measurement6. By and large, the absence of special measures for voluntary activities, particularly in Nordic countries needs to be read against the Scandinavian Civil Society model, which regards volunteering as an expression of free will, that does not require substantial policy regulation7.

2. Awareness about cross-border mobility of young volunteers Almost all National Reports mention more active awareness rising campaigns in the frame of the EYV 2011. Many National Reports underline the role played by Eurodesk, its local multipliers and the Youth Information Network in raising awareness about opportunities for cross-border mobility of young volunteers. Media and the Internet are increasingly used for raising awareness about opportunities for cross-border mobility of young volunteers. National Youth Councils and government-sponsored volunteering opportunities are increasingly present online. In France, the Civic Service Agency has an interministerial portal with a section on international mobility. The Volunteer Scotland website offers thousands of volunteering opportunities across Europe and beyond. A   publication   presenting   young   volunteers’   perspectives   on   their  actions was released in Luxembourg and it is also available online. In  Belgium’s  French  

5 Similar increases have also been reported in Ireland and Romania. 6 The EU Youth Report (2011) compares responses to different questions, The 2007 Eurobarometer question  was  ‘Are  you  engaged   in  any  voluntary  activities?’,  whilst   the  2011  Flash  Eurobarometer  asked  ‘Have  you  been  involved  in  any  organized  voluntary  activities  in  the  past  year?’. 7 Shalayeva, 2012.

9

community, a Francophone Platform of Volunteering had extensive media coverage. In Italy and Germany, media covers periodical information and awareness campaigns on cross-border mobility opportunities for young volunteers. Unmediated contact with young people has been the choice of many National Youth Councils which raised awareness about cross-border mobility opportunities among young people   in   schools   or   universities   (Belgium’s   French   Community,   Estonia,   France,  Germany, Spain). Youth offices or information centres acted to raise awareness on volunteers’   mobility   in   Belgium   (German-speaking community). In Austria, a cross-country truck tour promoted volunteering. Youth information days and youth fairs were organised in Austria and Estonia. Other awareness rising initiatives included an international conference in the Czech Republic and a postal cards campaign in Belgium. However, for some countries, it appears that all initiatives for raising the awareness for cross-border mobility were organized only through the EVS (Lithuania, Slovenia – according to   the  youth  representatives’  answer).  Mobility  was  not included among the aims of the EYV 2011 in Finland, where the objectives prioritized strengthening the prerequisites, removing the obstacles and increasing the appreciation of voluntary activities. 3. Quality assurance Has the Government of your country - existing or previous - taken concrete measures or carried out any specific policy initiatives to assure quality through the development of self-assessment tools?

Yes, before the EU Youth Strategy came into force in 2010

Yes, after the EU Youth Strategy came into force in 2010

No, but plans 2012

No, without plans

(Responses in the National Youth Reports)

10

The reporting of quality assurance matters intersects the issue of validation and recognition of skills. Many National Reports developed on the self-evaluation methodology provided in Europass and Youthpass, which are regularly used as an assessment tool for the cross-border mobility programmes across Europe. Some national, legally-endorsed self-assessment tools have been developed, also. In Slovenia, the Volunteering Act requires organizations to register the voluntary work carried out on their behalf, together with the skills acquired by each volunteer. In Denmark, there is an already established catalogue of self assessment tools, regulated through the national legislation. In Montenegro, the government issued two Regulations, including  one  on  the  procedures  for  the  volunteers’  management.   Yet, many of the measures presented in the National Reports present organisations’  initiatives, rather than governmental measures or policies. Thus, in UK, the Scotland VDS has developed the Volunteering Assessment Toolkit for the purpose of measuring the effects of volunteering. In Belgium, the Flemish coordinating agency for international youth work developed in 2009 a quality framework for international youth projects, mainly in a North-South context. In Switzerland, INTERMUNDO, a 25 years old association of youth exchange organizations, has a quality label which ensures quality of volunteer stages abroad. Several countries created web-based self assessment tools available to young people themselves. They permit the individual recording of the volunteering experience and the skills acquired. Such initiatives give recognition to young people as assessors of their own voluntary activities. This is the case of the Estonian online portal Stardiplats or of the Slovenian learning skills index – Nefix, recognized by universities. In Scotland, such online systems allowing young people to record their experience and skills are more established (the MV Award Scheme and the more recent Saltire Awards). The Educational Inspectorate for Wales involves young people and organizations in a process of self assessment of youth work delivery. As a result, they commit to short, medium and long term improvements. In countries taking quality assurances measures after the EU Youth Strategy came into force, the measures seem more tentative in nature. Thus, in Latvia, a standardized form documenting a volunteering experience of not less than 120 hours has been put in practice in Riga, at the initiative of the city council. In the Czech Republic, a Personal Competence Portfolio is being developed in partnership between a research institute and the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport. In Croatia, a meeting between the government representatives and the academic community analyzed the different models of recognition of volunteer work in universities. As a result, a national initiative at the university level was established with the purpose of sharing examples of good practice and for elaborating models of action applicable to various Universities. In Sweden and Norway, government-initiated measures or policies for developing self-assessment tools in volunteering, go against the principles which demarcate civil society from Government. When such measures do exist, they apply selectively, to the

11

organizations receiving governmental grants (such example is the ELD tool, which was considered an example of good practice within the EU working group on cross-border mobility of volunteers).

4. Promoting cross-border mobility of youth workers and young volunteers The opportunities for cross-border mobility created through EU Youth in Action programme seem particularly relevant both in the countries with established volunteering practices (Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Italy, Luxembourg) and in those with more recent mobility initiatives (Estonia, Romania, Slovenia, Bulgaria). In several countries (including Romania, Bulgaria, Montenegro), youth work is still an emerging profession, not enough regulated and without the level of recognition and visibility that would place the cross-border mobility of youth workers, high on the policy agenda. Several reports also mention the contributions of Interreg and Euro-Med Youth Platforms in promoting cross-border mobility. Besides Youth in Action, there are several nationally driven initiatives. In UK, the National Youth Service Strategy has key objectives for partnership between the statutory and voluntary youth service and has as budget attached to programmes involving cross-border mobility. In Ireland, the government supports several initiatives to promote cross-border mobility. In France, the civil service offers the possibility to all young people between 16 and 25 years old to undertake a voluntary mission abroad between 6 and 12 months. In Malta, the European Union Programmes Agency (EUPA) tailored its Training and Cooperation Plan in order to support mobility. It also plays a key role in providing information through its activities and in rising awareness about mobility. The Reports mention numerous bilateral agreements in the youth field, with a role in promoting cross-border mobility. Thus, the Polish government supports financially the bilateral cooperation with Germany and Lithuania. Youth-led volunteer projects in this frame, are also given financial and informational support. Portuguese government promotes the mobility of volunteers and youth workers especially in the border region with Spain and with the support of Interreg, among others. The Border Office provides information about training and validation between Spain and Portugal. The Slovak government established a bilateral agreement with Czech Republic and another with Serbia is underway. Slovenia piloted a youth workers exchange programme with Finland, with the purpose of enhancing partnership and strengthening the professionalisation of youth work and mobility. In Germany, the promotion of measures to support the cross-border mobility of young people and youth workers is being supported by the Federal Child and Youth Plan on the basis of the Development Guideline on International Youth Work. Besides, there are several state-supported bilateral agreements that involve youth exchange between Germany and France, Israel, Russia, Czech Republic. In addition, the German state provides financial support for multilateral youth exchanges. With the support of IOM, Montenegro organised exchange workshops with Italy and Serbia, involving youth workers and youth policy officers. Croatia started a Memorandum of Understanding on

12

Youth Mobility with the government of Canada. It will enable young people from the two countries to work and travel in the partner country. Belgium has a long practice of developing bilateral agreements (eg. between its French, German and Flemish communities, within the Benelux countries, Switzerland, but also outside Europe). The bilateral agreements support internships in youth organizations, study visits, seminars, training and networking projects. The Nordic Council of Ministers, the forum for Nordic governmental co-operation is supporting the NORDBUK, an exchange project for groups of young people from within the Nordic countries. In addition to the government-initiated measures, many youth organisations participate in cross-border mobility programmes through their international structures and partnerships.

5. Particular attention to young people with fewer opportunities Has the Government of your country - existing or previous - taken concrete measures or carried out any specific policy initiatives to give particular attention in this context to young people with fewer opportunities?

Yes, before the EU Youth Strategy came into force in 2010

Yes, after the EU Youth Strategy came into force in 2010

No, but plans 2012

No, without plans

(Responses in the National Youth Reports)

The overwhelming majority of Reports state that the promotion campaigns and the selection process of Youth in Action projects gave priority to young people with fewer opportunities (Austria, Ireland, Croatia, Montenegro, Germany, Switzerland and Sweden). Its inclusion strategy was highly commended. In some countries, however, Youth in Action is the major, if not the sole provider of cross-border mobility opportunities for the young people at disadvantage (Lithuania). EYV 2011 provided an increased level of mobility and participation for this group. The approaches to the mobility of young volunteers with different opportunities differ. There are, thus, countries endorsing a general policy of prevention, aiming at combating social exclusion in various areas, including volunteering. Youth inclusion is being

13

incorporated in all areas of youth policy as a long-term horizontal priority (Slovak Republic, Norway). In Bulgaria, the National Youth Strategy (2010-2020) has as a major objective the prevention of social exclusion of young people with fewer opportunities. In other countries, more specific, targeted approaches are in place. Thus, Finland promotes local working models and basic structures for lowering the threshold of youth exchanges. In Wales, the youth service predominantly works with disadvantaged groups. In Spain, there are subsidies for the implementation of voluntary programs addressing (among others) the participation of young people at risk. Luxembourg has a voluntary service for orientation (SVO), addressed to the young people who dropped out school without qualifications. In Slovenia, the Volunteering Act (2011) provides guidelines for voluntary organisations on training delivery and mentoring of volunteers in need of additional support. The Czech Republic adopted a regional perspective on disadvantage and emphasised the provision of non-formal education in its underdeveloped border regions. In Austria, besides EVS-funding, state complementary support has been allocated to young people with fewer opportunities, for intensive preparation before, during and after volunteering stages abroad. In Estonia, the Police and Border Guard support financially the participation of youth ex-offenders in study –camps and work camps. Yet, such actions need to be further analysed, in order to prevent the risks of doing more harm than good, as documented in the evidence-based research on this type of interventions8. Belgium’s  proactive  approaches  for  reaching  ‘the  hard  to  reach’  youth The three community governments in Belgium endorse more proactive strategies for recruiting and involving young people with fewer opportunities in mobility projects in ways  that  are  sensitive  to  their  needs,  choices  and  capabilities.  ‘Mobile  youth  work’  (also  known   as   ‘street   work’   or   ‘open   youth   work’)   is   an   outreach   social   work   concept addressing young people at risk. Involving them in mobility projects is a more recent endeavour which involves individualised assistance and high professional and administrative commitment. The tailored support consists of delivering the information in an accessible language, provision of individualised assistance during the application process and progressive involvement in mobility projects. Almost a third of the YiA projects supported by the Flemish coordinating agency for international youth work (JINT) are run by organizations working with or for young people at risk. Also, the Government of Flanders supports financially the organization of summer camps for young people from disaster areas outside Belgium or for humanitarian action in the developing countries.

8 See the classic example of the 30 years Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study, a well designed experiment which followed into adulthood over 500 young people who participated in multiple interventions for preventing delinquency, including summer camps. It showed that youth in the treatment group were more likely to be convicted for serious street crimes, died an average of five years younger, and were more likely to have mental health problems (McCord, 2003). These outcomes were correlated with participation in summer  camps  for  youth  at  risk  (the  ‘social  contagion’  effect).

14

Several countries are now preparing the specific policies for the integration of young people with fewer opportunities in volunteering projects involving cross-border mobility. In Croatia, the discussions on the National Programme, currently in draft, will include specific governmental measures on the participation of young people with fewer opportunities. In Hungary, the forthcoming National Strategy for Voluntary Activities is expected to highlight the participation of young people with fewer opportunities.

6. Promoting the recognition of skills acquired through voluntary activities Has the Government of your country - existing or previous - taken concrete measures or carried out any specific policy initiatives to promote the recognition of skills acquired through voluntary activities through instruments such as Europass, Youthpass and Member State instruments?

Yes, before the EU Youth Strategy came into force in 2010

Yes, after the EU Youth Strategy came into force in 2010

No, but plans 2012

No, without plans

(Responses in the National Youth Reports)

National Agencies for Youth in Action have been generally responsible for promoting the recognition of skills acquired through voluntary activities. Many YiA National Agencies have been massively involved in trainings delivery and in facilitating the process of issuing Youthpass certificates and for operating with its self assessment elements (Sweden, Estonia, Latvia, Malta, Spain). By and large, there seem few other governmental actors involved. Europass and Youthpass are widely used within European mobility activities involving young people from (in the frame of Lifelong Learning Programme or Youth in Action). In many countries, they are the main, if not the only formal instruments for promoting the

15

recognition of skills acquired through volunteering. The wider use of Youthpass certificate beyond Youth in Action is under preliminary discussion, and only among Youth in Action operators or National Agencies (Finland, Germany, France). Besides Youthpass and Europass, many countries developed complementary tools and recognition mechanisms.   In   Czech   Republic,   a   ‘Personal   Competence   Portfolio’   has  been produced, in order to complement the Europass.  In  Estonia,  ‘Stardiplats’  is  a  web-based non-formal learning recognition instrument, developed in an ESF project. In Italy, following a year spent in the Civic Service, young people receive a Certificate of service which is recognized in employment, as University credits and in the third sector. Luxembourg also recognizes a certificate of participation in its National Voluntary Service   and   a   ‘Portfolio   for  Youth’.  Both   are  based  on   self-assessment followed by an external validation at the organization of volunteering. Since 2009, Spain has an official, standardized procedure for the assessment and accreditation of professional competencies, acquired through volunteering (among others). In Germany, there is a skills-oriented certification system attesting the involvement in international youth work on a qualified basis. Issuing organizations certify the skills acquired, by using three formats: International Certificates of Participation, Involvement and Skills. In Slovak Republic, a web based national project of recognition of youth work is under preparation. Scotland:  ‘Saltire  Awards’ As   part   of   the   EYV   2011,   seven   local   authorities   in   Scotland   are   piloting   the   ‘Saltire  Awards’,  open  to  young  people  from  the  age  of  12  to  25.  It  is  a  national  scheme  endorsed  by the Scottish Executive. The scheme includes local volunteering placements which are split  into  four  sections,  sensitive  to  young  people’s  choices  for  involvement.  They  are:  (1)  The Challenge (a one day activity, likely to introduce young people into the world of volunteering); (2) The Approach (involves more regular volunteering in manageable chunks); (3) The Ascent and (4) The Summit (both imply longer and outstanding commitment to volunteering and acquisition of skills transferable into formal education or employment). The achievement is recognized in the form of Saltire Award certificates and Young Scot reward points for 10, 25, 50, 100, 200, 500 hours of volunteering. The Saltire Awards add to the more established MV Award Scheme, open to a higher age group. The two Schemes benefit from financial support from the Scottish Government. As a matter of principle, several countries endorse alternative approaches to recognition. Denmark, for instance, does not support the recognition of skills acquired through volunteering   with   a   ‘diploma   approach’.   Instead,   authorities   trust   the   labor  market to recognize such competencies. Youth organizations from the French Community of Belgium seem to be reluctant in developing a common recognition tool, valid nationally. A project is, however, under way, with the Government of Flanders initiating a web-based portfolio for recognizing the competencies acquired in volunteering.

16

National Youth Councils and youth organisations have been particularly active in advocating for legislative change (Montenegro), for promoting the legal framework among employers (Croatia) or for calling for the improvement of existing tools (Austria). Several Reports call for further action at national and European level. The National Youth Report for Lithuania brings into attention the absence of an impact study on the recognition and assessment role played by Europass. The National Youth Report submitted by Latvia called for European cooperation in the field of validation of skills acquired through volunteering among employers and institutions of formal education. This is presented as a dysfunction of the recognition mechanisms themselves (in Austria) and one of the labour market (in Bulgaria).

7. Promoting intergenerational solidarity through voluntary activities Has the Government of your country - existing or previous - taken concrete measures or carried out any specific policy initiatives to promote intergenerational solidarity through voluntary activities?

Yes, before the EU Youth Strategy came into force in 2010

Yes, after the EU Youth Strategy came into force in 2010

No, but plans 2012

No, without plans

(Responses in the National Youth Reports)

Several countries already acted upon the promotion of intergenerational solidarity through volunteering. In Italy, 54% of the EVS projects from 2007 to 2011, focused on intergenerational dialogue or in activities involving healthcare especially for the elderly. There are many local, volunteer-based intergenerational initiatives, indirectly supported by governments in Belgium, Germany, among others. Such initiatives benefit from the consultative role of civic organisations. In Ireland, the National Youth Council

17

initiatives are building upon the previous work in the area, done by elderly organisations, such as Age Action. Germany’s  Multigenerational Houses Action Programme Since   2006,   Germany’s   Federal   Government   supports   the   Multigenerational Houses Action Programme. Multigenerational Houses are community-based encounter centres providing opportunities for people of different generations, not related by family bonds, to connect. They create a vibrant social infrastructure on the basis of voluntary contributions involving children, youth, adults and the elderly. Activities include childcare, assistance with school work, meals, household assistance, driving services. As the programme was received with high interest, a follow-up (2012-2014) is underway. The programme is being continuously monitored and also involves the professional contribution of paid staff. URL: http://www.mehrgenerationenhaeuser.de/ ‘Vive   Y   Convive’ is a Spanish intergenerational programme through which elderly persons share accommodation with university students. The programme has the two-fold objective: one tackling the social isolation of some elderly persons and another that responds to the accommodation pressure in University cities. Vive Y Convive is an initiative of CatalunyaCaixa's Social Work and operates in 31 cities of Spain. The initiatives to promote intergenerational solidarity are shaped by demographic changes and the socio-cultural particularities of volunteering in various states. In some countries, elderly bring considerable volunteering contributions and intergenerational cooperation is largely incorporated into various volunteering fields (Austria). There, organizations may occasionally find it difficult to recruit young volunteers. In other countries, young people make the majority of volunteers and, although some change emerges, elderly are still, for the most part, the recipients of youth volunteering. There, projects usually consist in volunteer activities aimed to enrich the offer of social services in communities or in the day-care centres (Croatia, Romania). Many National Reports indicate more active measures to be planned for the 2012, European Year for Active Ageing and Solidarity between Generations (Poland, Romania, Malta, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Switzerland). Yet, Reports are not always precise, as many specific measures are under development. The theme of intergenerational solidarity through volunteering is outlined as a national annual priority in various National Youth Programs. In Austria, several local authorities, communities and organisations plan to offer awards for  intergenerational  initiatives  in  2012.  Belgium’s  Flemish  Community  aims  to  stimulate  intergenerational solidarity by developing a vision statement with representatives of different generations, as a basis   for   an   ‘intergenerational   dialogue’   and   ‘informal   care  between  generations’.  The  National  Volunteer  Centre  and  the  Network  of  Health  Cities  in  the Czech Republic prepared two proposals for Flagship initiatives, aiming to promote intergenerational solidarity and community-based volunteering. In Croatia, a

18

governmental initiative to encourage intergenerational solidarity through volunteering is being piloted in 38 local and regional governments. In Slovenia, youth representatives argue there are no governmental measures or policy initiatives to promote intergenerational solidarity through volunteering, while in other countries references to future initiatives are left implicit or vague (Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary).

Conclusions The European Youth Strategy aimed at improving support and recognition of youth volunteering, at removing the obstacles and promotion of the cross-border mobility. Accordingly, Member States needed to act in order to: (i) promote the recognition of skills acquired through voluntary activities; (ii) implement the Council Recommendation on the mobility of young volunteers in Europe; (iii) raise awareness about the value of volunteering; (iv) promote protection of young volunteers and quality in voluntary activities; (v) engage young people and youth organisations in the planning, delivery and evaluation of the EYV 2011; (vi) promote intergenerational solidarity through volunteering. This review looked into the Member States implementation measures in line with the above priorities of the  EU  Youth  Strategy  in  the  field  of  action  ‘Voluntary  Activities’,  at  the  end  of  the  first  cooperation  cycle.  It has been rare that the young people and other stakeholders consulted as part of finalising the Reports, to have a different opinion than stated by the government. In a small number of cases, divergences in opinions were, however, recurrent. In what concerns the recognition of skills acquired through voluntary activities, the Reports emphasised the role of Europass and Youthpass and provided details on the large variety of recognition mechanisms at national level, across Europe. The Reports indicate there are isolated and tentative discussions over the application of Youthpass for other cross-border mobility programs than YiA. However, a largely shared concern is that the skills acquired through volunteering – including those validated by Youthpass and occasionally, the national-specific tools, do not receive recognition outside the third sector, in particular in Universities and on the labour market. Although substantial governmental support may go to volunteering, it may not be that the cross-border mobility is a priority, even in countries with longer traditions of volunteering engagement. In many places, this is a rather new trend. For this reason, the Council Recommendation on the Mobility of Young Volunteers across the EU9 is still influential in shaping the first cycle of the EU Youth Strategy in the field of voluntary activities. Acting upon Council Recommendation, Member States facilitate the access to information on cross-border volunteering and its dissemination, develop opportunities for cross-border volunteering, support the development of self-assessment tools,   promote   the   recognition   of   volunteers’   learning   and   exchange   information   and develop bilateral exchange programs. The youth exchanges beyond EU are often with North America and Canada. 9 OJ C319, 13.12.2008, pp. 8-10.

19

More active awareness rising campaigns were held in all Member States in the frame of the EYV 2011. Many National Reports underline the role played by Eurodesk, its local multipliers and the Youth Information Network. In some Member States, it appears that all initiatives for raising the awareness for cross-border mobility were organized only through the EVS. As expected, the social media was increasingly used. Unmediated contact with young people has been the choice of many National Youth Councils which raised awareness about mobility opportunities in schools or universities. Alternative, youth-friendly actions have been also carried out. However, peer-to-peer processes have been less mentioned. The type of policy making related to the protection of young volunteers and quality assurance is correlated with a set of historical, political and social circumstances. Thus, some countries are now developing a volunteering infrastructure, including legal provisions. There,   a   considerable   part   of   the   opportunities   for   volunteers’  mobility   are  largely channelled through EVS, and benefit from its consolidated mechanisms for protection of volunteers and quality assurance. Alternatively, the countries, with consolidated volunteering infrastructures, worked at refining existing policies and practices. This has been done by tailoring the volunteering offer in order to respond to a diverse population, including proactive approaches toward young people with fewer opportunities. Also, there seems to be a tendency toward developing participatory assessment mechanisms, such as web-based self assessment tools available to young people themselves. They permit the individual recording of the volunteering experience and the skills acquired and give recognition to young people as assessors of their own voluntary activities. However, the measures included in the national Reports respond partially to the unprecedented risks likely to emerge in the current economic climate, for both the protection of volunteers and for quality assurance. The Reports indicate that young people and youth organisations were involved to a large extent in the planning and delivery of the European Year of Voluntary Activities Promoting Active Citizenship (2011). Moreover, they had an input in shaping the emerging laws and regulations, in signalling the potential dysfunctions and in offering their input. The EYV 2011 provided a window for governments’  measures   and   policy  initiatives that brought young people and youth organisations closer to the national youth policy agendas. However, it is premature to assess from the Reports the extent the youth organisations were also involved in the evaluation of the European Year of Voluntary Activities Promoting Active Citizenship (2011), as envisaged in the Council Resolution. The reasons behind the absence of any plans for action are not straightforward. The countries where the absence of plans to take any measures appeared to be systematic10 have in common a weak legal basis on volunteering, in particular no Law and no Strategy on volunteering (Finland, Lithuania11 and Norway). In some Nordic countries this absence may be attributed to the cultural construction  of  volunteering  as  an  ‘expression of   free   will’   (Shalayeva, 2012) which has to be maintained outside (excessive) 10 5-6 such responses out of 7 questions addressed. 11 Lithuania has remedied the situation in 2011 through adoption of a Volunteering Law.

20

governmental policy regulations. For other countries, the absence of plans does not seem to be systematic. Yet, causal inferences need not be assumed, as in other countries without Laws on volunteering (such as Denmark and Sweden) measures are being taken or foreseen. By and large, the governmental initiatives seem to build on the synergies between the EYV 2011 and the European Year of Active Aging and Solidarity between Generations. Yet, with few exceptions, the Reports provide a less detailed presentation on the promotion of intergenerational solidarity through voluntary activities, also because further actions are to be developed in EY 2012. Whilst the current measures build on the intergenerational solidarity between the young and the elderly, the group of ‘prime-age’  adults (30 to 50 years) seems often overlooked. The theme of intergenerational solidarity through volunteering is outlined as a national annual priority in many Member States.