Youth Policy Governance
Central government Youth policies from a range of government departments aim to:
• support parents and families to support their children from birth to and through the teenage years
• ensure that all young people succeed in learning and find a job
• help young people develop their character, a sense of belonging and the behaviors which will help them succeed in learning, work and life
• encourage young people to take care of their physical and mental health
• look out for the most vulnerable young people who may suffer abuse, neglect, exploitation, or homelessness, focusing intensively on those for whom the state acts as a corporate parent
• prevent youth crime and support young people in the criminal justice system.
At a basic level, the concept of governance can be described as the structures and processes that are designed to ensure accountability, transparency, responsiveness, the rule of law, stability, equity and inclusiveness, empowerment and broad-based participation(UNESCO 2016).
Both the European Union and the Council of Europe promote the notion of effective governance in designing, implementing and evaluating youth policy.
Historically, the drive towards good governance resulted from the need to be much more accountable and efficient in responding to dynamic social, political and economic needs. Increasingly, in a world of competing demands on scarce resources, the public sector, at all levels and in organisations and projects, is required to develop good-governance processes as evidence of its competence.
Based on the data examined, there are two broad approaches to youth policy which require systems of governance:
► an overarching national youth policy or framework (the approach in countries such as Austria, Azerbaijan and Sweden);
► sectoral policies embedding youth policy or structures serving the needs of young people (such as in Norway or Turkey). In this publication, we look at the following aspects of youth policy governance:
► the legal basis;
► the relevant government structures and how their responsibilities are divided;
► how young people are involved.
The legal framework for youth policy development
In this section, we present the key actors involved in decision-making processes in the youth field at national, regional and local levels. This includes stakeholders responsible for the participation of young people, both public authorities and nongovernmental partners.
For this purpose, the analysis has been structured as follows:
► identifying the governance systems depending on the constitutional status of a country;
► analysing the transfer mechanisms of the national youth policy at regional and local levels;
► identifying the role that the end beneficiaries of youth policies – young people – have in the development and implementation processes.
Youth policy governance usually reflects the primary aspect of the governance system of a country, which in most cases is described in its constitution: federated, unitary and/or devolved. Decentralisation is perceived as the key to good governance, thus it is essential to have a clear perspective on the impact of such systems on the quality of governance. A national youth policy is a government’s commitment to and practice of ensuring good living conditions for young people and opportunities for them to participate. A governmental authority must be assigned the responsibility for coordinating youth-related issues and the development, implementation and evaluation of national youth policy. In most cases, this authority is a ministry. If not, it is a governmental agency with strong, direct links to a ministry. The following is an overview of how responsibilities in matters of youth policy or youth work are allocated in different countries.
For the purpose of this publication, the experts used the information collected specifically in relation to youth policy and did not look at other fields. In most of the countries studied, the following situation emerges: a Ministry of Youth and Sport (MoYS) is usually the central authority when it comes to the development and implementation of youth policies. Furthermore, such ministries usually have a specific department managing youth policy development and implementation. For example, in Ukraine the Department of Youth Policy within the MoYS is the authority responsible for national youth policy. It is difficult to make a value judgment on how important it is to have a specific unit within the line ministry responsible for youth policy since the EKCYP correspondents provided general information and were not asked to explain the implications of such structures. EKCYP and EU Youth Wiki data from 2015 and 2017 on responsibility for national youth policies are completed in the following table.
Models of youth policy governance in federal countries
Federal countries such as Austria, Germany, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Belgium have a general division of responsibilities or in some cases have allocated all the responsibility for youth policy to the federal regions.
In Austria, the Federal Chancellery is primarily responsible for youth policy at the national level. In accordance with the federal structure of the state, competences are divided between the central government and the federal states that have one ministry in charge of youth. But other ministries and organisations also implement parts of the youth policies.
In Germany, the Social Code, Book VII – Child and Youth Services, defines three levels of responsible authorities in the field of child and youth services:
► national level (Bund) – the ultimate responsibility lies with the Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth (the ministry is responsible for encouraging and supporting national youth policy activities);
► regional level (Länder) – the ministries for youth in the federal states function as state-level youth authorities and in this capacity are responsible for encouraging and supporting the activities of public-sector and independent child and youth welfare organisations and assisting in the continued development of youth (and child and youth welfare) policy. The ministries responsible for youth issues cooperate and coordinate their work through the Conference of Ministers for Youth and Family Affairs;
► local level – at local level the youth office (Jugendamt), consisting of a committee and administration, is responsible for the planning and funding of local youth services. It has the authority to carry out the tasks and guarantee services as laid down in the Social Code, Book VIII. The youth office is in charge of setting up local youth plans. It provides financial support for activities directed at children, young people and families in urban and Local districts and villages.
In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Commission for Coordination of Youth Affairs has representatives from all the entities and the Ministry of Civil Affairs coordinates its activity, working closely with the Ministry of Family, Youth and Sport of Republika Srpska, the Federal Ministry of Culture and Sport and the Department for Professional and Administrative Affairs – Brčko District.
In Belgium, a federal state consisting of three communities and three regions, there is no hierarchy between the federal, the community and regional levels – a unique Conceptualising youth policy governance characteristic of Belgian federalism. In the field of youth, each type of entity – regions and communities – has its own exclusive competences: the federal level has competence on important policy fields such as justice, social security, employment and tax legislation; the responsibilities of the region are linked to the territory and include the environment, agriculture, urban planning and housing; and the communities are in charge of matters relating to education, health care, culture and youth. The communities are competent on youth and youth policy, and have a minister responsible for youth, a parliamentary commission, a number of administrative departments with “youth” in their title and a large number of specific youth-related budget items.
As these models show, the division of responsibilities varies from setting a direction and oversight to running policies and programmes, and in such situations one must consider where most of the weight lies, where the tensions are and how they contribute to a stronger or weaker youth policy governance.
Role of elected bodies/legislative structures
In most countries, the elected bodies or legislative structures have an essential role in setting the youth-policy agenda, allocating resources and overseeing the development and implementation of the national youth policy. Almost all parliaments have a committee or subcommittee on youth and this committee can have a wide range of activities from research to organising specific hearings, meeting young people, writing reports, undertaking legislative initiatives and keeping the focus on youth in the legislative arena.
For example, in Lithuania, the National Parliament and the Commission for Youth and Sport Affairs control the implementation of youth policy. The Ministry of Social Security and Labour, through the Department of Youth Affairs, works closely with the Council of Youth Affairs in a collegial advisory body constituted on the basis of equal partnership from representatives delegated by the state institutions and the Lithuanian Youth Council, which is the representative body of youth civil society organisations.
In Ukraine, the Department of Youth Policies within the Ministry of Youth and Sports works closely, at the legislative level, with the Committee on Family, Youth Policy and Tourism of Ukraine’s parliament on all matters and policy initiatives related to youth.
The role of legislative bodies should not be underestimated in ensuring the government is accountable to elected representatives of the people for its actions. In this sense, it is important to follow issues such as lowering the voting age to 16 or how political parties and individuals running for elected office view young people and what policies they propose in their electoral programmes. Such commitments can then be monitored and checked by young people themselves. Engagement with representative democracy should be ensured consistently as it is a crucial dimension of youth policy governance.
Summary
The pace of social, political and structural change across Europe provides unprecedented opportunities and challenges for young people, practitioners and the policy makers concerned with innovative strategy development. Across Europe, countries with similar socio-political regimes tend to have similar approaches to youth policy development and implementation, at least in terms of the range of areas they cover and the priorities they adopt. This publication includes a selection of practices identified in different countries. The authors aimed to provide a wide geographic scope for the examples listed.
Youth policy governance systems interact through commonly agreed frameworks both at intergovernmental level through the Council of Europe and at supranational level through the European Union. The Council of Europe promotes youth policies that are based on human rights and democratic standards; are opportunity focused; involve young people in their formulation and implementation; create conditions for learning, opportunity and experience; and are based on robust data collection (Council of Europe Youth Department 2016). The European Union supports policies that create more opportunities for young people, improving their access and full participation in society. Such policy frameworks also value the role of youth work and non-formal learning, stress the importance of a cross-sectoral approach, and emphasise the need for evidence and dialogue with young people (European Commission 2009).
The presentation of many country models and the analysis which follows are intended to enable policy makers, practitioners and young people to understand and engage with youth policy governance.
Insights will offer suggestions for further reading and resources to enable the reader to develop effective governance, policies and strategies which make a difference. In addition, this hands-on approach will invite the readers to examine important questions relating to youth policy planning and implementation within their own context.