QUALITY SEMINAR 7.12.05. Piret Talur Trainer-consultant, Persona ngo email@example.com. „MODELS OF YOUTH WORK COORDINATION AND QUALITY MANAGEMENT". The target group of the seminar were the local level youth workers and the representatives of the local authorities.
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
QUALITY SEMINAR 7.12.05 Piret Talur Trainer-consultant, Persona ngo firstname.lastname@example.org
„MODELS OF YOUTH WORK COORDINATION AND QUALITY MANAGEMENT" • The target group of the seminar were the local level youth workers and the representatives of the local authorities. • The seminar aimed to exchange experience about the youth work management and youth work quality measurement at the grass root level. • The indicators for quality measurement were discussed as well.
BASIC KNOWLEDGE • Youth work management and quality measurement models and practices are extremely different state by state. • Mostly, these are developed occasionally without long-term planning and have been inspired by the view of individuals rather than careful analysis.
YOUTH POLICY MODELS • IARD „Study on the State of Young People and Youth Policy in Europe” 2001 • Youth policy characteristics: dominant image of youth, major aims, major problems, target groups • Youth policy models: universalistic (Finland, Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania), community-based, protective (Latvia), centralized
YOUTH WORK REGIMES • IARD „Study on the State of Young People and Youth Policy in Europe” 2001 • Youth work characteristics: dominant concepts, main issues, main settings, education and training • Youth work regimes: universalistic/paternalistic (Sweden, Finland), liberal/community-based, conservative/corporatist (Estonia, Lithuania), mediterrean/subinstitutionalised
WHAT DID WE DO? • Comparision of the countries (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Sweden, Finland) by the definition of the young person and legal framework of the youth sector. • Comparision of the countries in the horisontal and vertical perspective of youth policy. • Discussion about the youth policy and youth work models and quality management in every country. • Mapping the possible youth work quality criteria. • Disputation about the pro-s and against-s of different possibilities to set the quality criteria.
Satisfaction of young people Variety of methods Positive change in behaviour Clear concepts/plans Regular training Analysis how the concepts/plans really work Participation level Participation dept Reflecting positive/negative progress Ethics Written standards, principles etc SOME QUALITY CRITERIA
EXAMPLES Presented by... • INGER OLSSON (Uppsala) • JARI JUHOLA (Tampere) • RYTIS BUDRIUS (Kaunas) • PIRET TALUR (Tartu)
CONCLUSIONS • Quality assessment (as well as the youth work as the whole) depends a lot about the local government. • There is no well-developed quality assessment sytem in participating countries. • The co-operation between national and local level is essential for the fruitful quality assessement models and quality standards.