YOUTH POLICY in FINLAND a Report by an International Review Group Appointed by the Council of Europe Ulrike Fremerey
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
YOUTH POLICY IN FINLAND A report by an international review group appointed by the Council of Europe Ulrike Fremerey (Chairperson) Howard Williamson (Rapporteur) Sergey Aleshenok Alain Vulbeau Maria Koutatzi Catalin Ghenea September 1997 i CONTENTS Acknowledgement iii Glossary iv Preface 1 Introduction 2 Part One: contexts and structures 10 The broader context 10 Youth policy 13 Organisation, structures, administration and finance 16 Part Two: policy arenas 31 Education, Training and Employment (& Challenges for the Future) 31 Health and Social Welfare 43 (& Challenges for the Future) Youth Work 50 (& Challenges for the Future) Part Three: Themes and Issues in youth policy 59 Practical Questions 59 Values and Principles 70 Conclusion 76 Bibliography 77 Appendix 1: Visits to Finland by the International Country Review Group 80 Appendix 2: Documentation received during visits to Finland by the International Country Review Group Sources and materials 85 Appendix 3: Other material acquired for background and context 88 ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The members of the international review group (Ulrike Fremerey, Howard Williamson, Sergey Aleshenok, Alain Vulbeau, Maria Koutatzi and Catalin Ghenea) would like to thank the many people who extended their hospitality, gave their time and provided information on youth policy during the course of the review. It would be unfair to even start to list the names of those to whom we owe this gratitude, simply because we were almost overwhelmed by courtesy and cooperation - across a broad spectrum from young people who are the recipients of youth policy, professional staff who implement it on a daily basis, civil servants who establish its strategic framework, and politicians at national and local levels who determine its shape and the resources available to it. We would, however, wish to make mention of and express particular thanks to a small number of individuals who were pivotal in making the review process possible: to Minister of Culture Claes Andersson for his support for the review and commitment to youth policy; to Mr Kimmo Altonen (Cultural Secretary) and Dr Helena Helve (President of the Finnish Youth Research Society), for guiding and ensuring the production of the National Report; to Ms Ulla Helsingius (Counsellor for Cultural Affairs) and Mr Harri Syvasalmi (Director General for Sport and Youth Affairs) for organising the programme; and to Ms Ulla-Kaisa (Project Secretary) for keeping the wheels moving of what were two intensive and challenging visits to Finland. To these people, and to everyone else we met, we are very grateful. iii GLOSSARY AFLA Association of Finnish Local Authorities ALLIANSI Finnish National Youth Council CDEJ European Steering Committee for Intergovernmental Co-operation in the Youth Field CIS Confederation of Independent States CLRAE Standing Conference of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe CSCE Conference for Security and Co-operation in Europe EU European Union NUOSTRA New youth work strategy in Finland OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development RAY Finnish Slot Machine Association SAEs Standard Average Europeans VEIKKAUS Finnish National Lottery iv PREFACE In anticipation of the work of the international review group appointed by the Council of Europe, the Ministry of Education in Finland compiled its own review of national youth policy (Ministry of Education 1997). This is an immensely comprehensive document, which considers the many dimensions of youth policy from a range of perspectives, and it is not the intention of the international review group to repeat the wealth of detail contained within it. This report will, however, extract selected material from the National Report, alongside other material acquired through visits, discussions and other reading, in order to ensure that the reader can make sense of the comments and observations of the International Report independently of this wider material. We would, however, recommend exploration of that wider material, especially the National Report which is itself the product of great endeavour and application, to make full sense of the context of our deliberations. This review is part of a process of national reviews of youth policy, carried out by the Council of Europe in collaboration and consultation with national governments and those ministries with lead responsibilities for the development and implementation of youth policy. The international review group has been charged with the responsibility of preparing a commentary on youth policy in Finland. It is important to emphasise that this is not an evaluation, nor a critique of the National Report, which was prepared partly in anticipation of our work. Inevitably the National Report has guided our reflections and deliberations, and it has generated a multitude of questions - to which we have not always discovered answers. Our commentary will, however, address what we consider to be central elements within youth policy in Finland, outlining their strengths and weaknesses where possible and reflecting on the issues they present, drawing where appropriate upon broader international evidence and debate. This may be viewed as an evaluation, but evaluation is a specific term relating to a judgement of value through an assessment of a public policy process and impact against specific and explicit objectives. This, for a variety of reasons, we cannot do. There will clearly be some evaluative dimension to our commentary, but we prefer to consider what follows as one contribution to the different 'regimes of truth' which inform the understanding, implementation and development of youth policy in Finland. We may have the disadvantage of a lack of close connection with that policy, but we also have the distinct advantage of having a dispassionate distance. Thus, the 'truth' at which we have arrived may be no more than another version of the many truths about youth policy, but it has the benefit of being a version against which all the 'truths' relating to youth policy which exist within Finland may be pitched, weighed and, if it is seen fit to do so, re-considered. The international review group had less than two weeks in Finland to secure a grasp of its wide-ranging youth policies (see Appendix 1). Despite a full programme of visits and discussions, the picture obtained is, inevitably, a partial one and any perspective developed by international visitors make not fully grasp the essential culture and traditions which have shaped those policies. In retrospect, we recognise that there is also some imbalance in the weight we attached to different aspects of youth policy. The youth workshops, for example, consumed a great deal - and probably disproportionate amount - of our attention. Although, for these two reasons, we will have made some errors in our understanding and judgement, we nevertheless believe we have accumulated sufficient knowledge to provide a reasonably solid foundation for making informed comments on youth policy in Finland. We have endeavoured to make these constructive, even when criticisms are raised or implied, and hope that they will be viewed as instructive, in that they will assist in reflection and deliberation on youth policy in Finland in the future. It is important at the very start to commend the resources and commitment applied to youth policy in Finland and to register the consistency between national, regional and local levels in the perspectives they have adopted on youth policy. Whatever critical observations we may make, it is important to remember that it is within this context that they are made. 1 INTRODUCTION Background to the review and terms of reference of review team There is a road no one has taken before you. Maybe it's yours. If you find it, it will be. It doesn't exist but comes into being when you walk it. When you turn around, it's gone. No one knows how you got here, least of all yourself (p.141, What Became Words, by Finnish Minister of Culture Claes Andersson) The international review of youth policy by the Council of Europe is indeed a road which has not been taken before. The international review team have therefore been pioneers in the work of the Council of Europe - creating a path which others will, hopefully, walk down. The difference from Minister Andersson's poem is that the review team is clear about how it 'got here' and seeks to leave a path behind it which others will follow. This report therefore, while naturally paying diligent attention to its primary task of considering youth policy in Finland, aims to provide some signposts for the conduct of future international reviews of youth policy, in terms of working methods, substantive frameworks and processes of reflection and analysis. These will often be implicit and are certainly not intended to be prescriptive. By and large, they describe the approach adopted by the international review team, in order to offer a foundation for the evolution and development of future work. The international review of youth policy in Finland is part of a wider initiative established by the Council of Europe following the Council of Ministers' conference in Luxembourg in May 1995. At an informal meeting of the Ministers responsible for youth in the countries which have ratified the European Cultural Convention, Claes Andersson, the Finnish Minister responsible for culture, sports and youth, took the initiative for a programme of reviews of national youth policies. The initiative was inspired by Finland’s positive experiences of the OECD review of higher education policy and the Council of Europe review of cultural policy. Minister Andersson suggested that a similar programme be initiated to review national youth policies in the Member States, and announced that Finland would be prepared to launch the programme. The initiative was subsequently discussed at the enlarged CDEJ (Steering Committee for Intergovernmental Co-operation in the Youth Field) meeting in June 1995. Finland was requested to expound the idea and provide more detail about the process and content of such a review of youth policy for discussion at the CDEJ meeting in October 1995.