Documentation Documentation Documentation Documentation Documentation

Volunteering in Europe – International exchange about concepts and benefits to society January 13-14, 2014, Hotel Aquino, Berlin Sören Hoyer

. Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe Content

Content

Preface ...... 3

1 Conference Report ...... 5

1.1 Workshop 1 – Public frameworks and strategies of promoting volunteering ...... 5

1.2 Workshop 2 – Measuring volunteering ...... 8

1.3 Workshop 3 – Varieties of volunteer programmes on the national and European level ...... 12

1.4 Workshop 4 – Empowerment of individuals / Validating skills and qualifications ...... 14

1.5 Workshop 5 – Promotion of volunteering as promotion of democracy ...... 16

1.6 Workshop 6 – Volunteering as an impulse for social innovation and social entrepreneurship ...... 18

1.7 Resume of the panel discussion ...... 21

1.8 Conclusion ...... 23

2 Annex ...... 26

2.1 Programme of the conference ...... 26

2.2 List of experts ...... 35

2.3 List of participants ...... 38

2.4 Volunteering in Europe – International exchange about concepts and benefits to society ...... 46

2.4.1 Welcome speech German Association for Public and Private Welfare – Michael Löher...... 46 2.4.2 W elcome speech Federal Ministry of Family Affairs, Senior Citizens,

Women and Youth – State Secretary Dr. Ralf Kleindiek ...... 49 2.4.3 V olunteering in the EU – Its value, status quo and latest developments –

John MacDonald ...... 55

2.5 Workshop 1 – Public frameworks and strategies of promoting volunteering ...... 61

2.6 Workshop 2 – Measuring volunteering ...... 93

2.7 Workshop 3 – Varieties of volunteer programmes on the national and European level ...... 131

2.8 Workshop 4 – Empowerment of individuals / Validating skills and qualifications ...... 159

2.9 Workshop 5 – Promotion of volunteering as promotion of democracy ...... 182

2.10 Workshop 6 – Volunteering as an impulse for social innovation and social entrepreneurship ...... 196

Editorial information ...... 203

Page 2 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe Preface

Preface

Observatory for Sociopolitical Developments in Europe

Preface

Dear Readers,

How and why should volunteering be promoted and what role do governmental and supranational institutions play here? This and the European countries’ various approaches and perspectives were the topic of discussion at the international conference “Volunteering in Europe - International exchange about concepts and benefits to society” held in Berlin on January 13 and 14, 2014. The Observatory for Sociopolitical Developments in Europe had invited experts and decision-makers from the political and administrative arenas, civil society and science. More than 100 participants and 23 speakers from 15 European countries converged on this conference in order to exchange experiences and ideas, learn from each other and network.

Following up on previous events organised by the Observatory1, the conference first focused upon a Europe-wide discussion of volunteering’s basic conditions, their European dimension in particular. The discussion then shifted to specific aspects of the social benefits of volunteering in order to find out how and at which level volunteering is to be promoted. The present report provides an overview of the conference’s most important results and will advance the Europe-wide discussion of the issues that is to follow.

After some introductory remarks by Michael Löher, executive director of the German Association for Public and Private Welfare, the State Secretary of the Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth, Dr. Ralf Kleindiek, outlined the new Federal Government’s plans to promote volunteering: Volunteering was lived social solidarity, so the Federal Government wanted to promote local self-organisational processes and also take up more ideas developed through volunteering. John MacDonald of the European Commission also talked about volunteering as something that holds our society together. As State Secretary Kleindiek before him, he called volunteering an expression of solidarity that has to be promoted as a central value of the EU. He referred to the consulting, encouraging and sponsoring role of the EU in and for volunteering as a policy area and emphasised that all European Years from 2010 to 2013 had been linked by a participation of citizens. This made for a number of opportunities to continue to utilise this momentum. The

1 European Conference „Volunteering in the European Union “Creating a supportive environment and attracting volunteers”, November 11-12, 2010; Expert Meeting “Active Ageing in Europe – Senior Citizens and Volunteering”, November 28, 2011: European Expert Workshop “National policies for the promotion of volunteering in the European Union. Two years after the European Year: Ways forward in the promotion of volunteering, May 27, 2013.

Page 3 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe Preface

Observatory for Sociopolitical Developments in Europe

Commission was willing to promote this issue in conjunction with the European Parliament2, partners from civil society and the national governments.

After the speeches outlined above - and published verbatim herein- six workshops saw heated debates on various aspects of volunteering and its promotion. On the first day, three simultaneous workshops discussed the following issues: “Public framework and strategies of promoting volunteering” (WS 1), “Measuring volunteering” (WS 2) and “Varieties of volunteer programmes on the national and European level” (WS 3). The second day explicitly focused upon aspects of the social benefits of volunteering. The workshops therefore dealt with: “Empowerment of individuals/Validating skills and qualifications” (WS 4), “Promotion of volunteering as promotion of democracy” (WS 5) and “Volunteering as an impulse for social innovation and social entrepreneurship” (WS 6). The panel then discussed opportunities of and possible limits to a European and national promotion of volunteering and summarised the social benefits.3

The Observatory for Sociopolitical Developments in Europe would like to thank all the speakers, facilitators and participants for their active contribution. The lively debates have done much to make this event a real success. Let me also extend our gratitude to the interpreters, without whom such an international, trilingual conference and its documentation would not have been possible. Thanks are also due to the Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth for its support during our preparation of this event and for its funding. And I would also like to thank the staff of the German Association for Public and Private Welfare and the colleagues of the Observatory’s Frankfurt project team for the active support during this conference and its preparation.

On behalf of the Observatory for Sociopolitical Developments in Europe (Berlin project team),

Sören Hoyer

2 On December 10, 2013, the European Parliament passed a resolution on volunteering in Europe and its promotion in which it asked for a joint European approach therein (2013/2064(INI)). 3 You will find this conference’s programme and detailed workshop results below, followed by the speakers’ presentations in the workshops.

Page 4 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 1 Conference Report – WS 1

1 Conference Report – 1.1 Workshop 1

Observatory for Sociopolitical Developments in Europe

1 Conference Report

1.1 Workshop 1: Public frameworks and strategies of promoting volunteering

This workshop featured a presentation of volunteering policy approaches from Austria, Denmark and Germany and, on that basis, a discussion of what a volunteering policy is predicated upon and if and how it could be coordinated at the European level.

At the beginning of the workshop, it was found that volunteering has not yet been established as a policy area in all EU Member States. First, John MacDonald of the European Commission was asked what role the EU could play in an improvement of volunteering policy measures. He said that at the EU level one could not yet speak of a stand-alone policy area when it comes to volunteering. He also stressed that the EU could do no more than lend support, since the Member States were responsible for this field. Establishing a national volunteering policy must therefore be left to the Member States. In his view, using the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) at the EU level would serve a coordinating purpose. The OMC had been successful in education policy and could lead to an institutionalisation of a volunteering policy area at the EU level and give an impetus to the Member States’ volunteering policies, among other things. The European Year of Volunteering 2011 had in fact given such a first impetus. This had made some Member States deal with volunteering for the very first time and created a basis at the EU level to lend support. As he had also mentioned in his opening speech, this positive developments now had to be stabilised. Here, one should also refer to the European Parliament’s resolution on volunteering dated December 2013, which asks for the establishment of a volunteering policy area by applying the OMC.4

Following the discussion of what role the EU could play in an establishment of a volunteering policy area at both the national and the European level, the workshop attendees presented and discussed volunteering policy examples from Austria, Denmark and Germany. Anton Hörting, from the Austrian Federal Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Consumer Protection (BMASK), reported on Austria’s national volunteering policy: He found that Austria had a long volunteering tradition. Austria did not only know the term “volunteering” but also, synonymously, “civic engagement” or “unpaid engagement”. In his opinion, this established volunteering culture and the huge readiness to volunteer contributed to social cohesion in Austria to a very considerable extent. Voluntary engagement in Austria was defined as an unpaid voluntary service rendered to people outside one’s own household and comprised

4 cf. Fn 2.

Page 5 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 1 Conference Report – WS 1

Observatory for Sociopolitical Developments in Europe

both formal voluntary work in organisations and associations and informal voluntary work like neighbourly help.

Ole Christian Madsen (CFSA), Anton Hörting (BMASK), Dr. Rupert Graf Strachwitz (Maecenata Institute), John MacDonald (European Commission)

After presenting the social conditions for political action5, Hörting specified some political Austrian volunteering measures. He described the objective of this policy as securing a high degree of participation through a mix of measures and a structured involvement of different actors. The 2012 Volunteers Act6 had established volunteering as an independent Austrian policy area. The Volunteers Council, which had been around since 2003, for example, had been institutionalised as the communication platform between the government and civil society. The Volunteers Council was made up of, for example, members of the federal and state authorities, municipal representatives, representatives of labour and management, political parties and civil-society organisations involved in volunteering. The Volunteers Council was a consulting body for the BMASK, a networking place and supposed to co- shape the further development of measures to promote volunteering. The Volunteers Act also set forth the volunteering policy’s regular analysis and evaluation in a Volunteers Report7, in whose preparation the Volunteers Council participated. This regular report was to ensure that volunteering is politically worked upon on a permanent basis. The Volunteers Act had also established a volunteering recognition fund. This provides funds for “innovative […] measures, special […] activities or initiatives [that] contribute to a sustained volunteering in Austria.“8 With the Volunteers Passport and Certificate, tools had been established to document the acquisition of skills during volunteering. This was to take account of volunteers’

5 cf. The appended presentation by Anton Hörting, which includes a number of tables on the available on volunteering in Austria 6 http://www.bmask.gv.at/site/Soziales/Freiwilliges_Engagement/Freiwilligengesetz/ 7 The First Volunteers' Report was published at the beginning of 2013 and can be retrieved at: http://www.bmask.gv.at/cms/site/attachments/0/1/0/CH2174/CMS1218022135039/fweinoeerhebung2012ko mpl.pdf 8 §36 (1) FreiwG.

Page 6 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 1 Conference Report – WS 1

Observatory for Sociopolitical Developments in Europe

ever greater desire to be able to make use of their acquired skills in job applications, for example. In Anton Hörting’s view one of the challenges is to motivate people to engage in volunteering on a long-term basis. The afore-mentioned measures aside, recognition of volunteering by awarding honours and presenting awards was thus an important aspect, too.

Ole Christian Madsen, Center for frivilligt socialt arbejde (CFSA, National Knowledge and Development Centre of Volunteering), an intermediary consulting body positioned between the public sector and civil society, presented the situation in Denmark and the Danish volunteering policy approach: There was a long tradition of founding associations in Denmark, but only since the end of the 1980s had there been a volunteering framework beyond the freedom of association. It was then when the concept of a “welfare state” was turned into the idea of a “welfare society”. Responsibility for social problems was no longer to lie solely with the government but with the entire society. Everyone should take social responsibility. In terms of a funding of volunteering as an expression of this social responsibility, two Acts were of importance: The “Social Service Act” obligated the municipalities to cooperate with voluntary organisations in the field of health and social affairs. The “Danish Act on Popular Education” obligated the municipalities to support voluntary organisations in their educational work. The CFSA gave advice to this cooperation. National funding was primarily a local matter. The Danish government could only make recommendations. Madsen said that since 2010 there had been many a governmental initiative and strategy that, for the most part, had three objectives in common: 1. a pooling of all the three sectors’ resources through cooperation, 2. the elimination of structural obstacles to volunteering and 3. a stronger civil society in order to be able to cope with these cooperations’ requirements. The involvement of business and civil society thus was a hallmark of the Danish volunteering policy, as shown by the CFSA’s existence. In his concluding remarks, Madsen found that the voluntary sector had to be considered an independent and equal partner if one wants to make these types of cooperation successful.

Finally and on a critical note, Dr. Rupert Graf Strachwitz, Maecenata Institute for Philanthropy and Civil Society, shed a light on the efforts to develop a volunteering strategy in Germany: Neither through the Bundestag’s “The future of volunteering” commission of enquiry in 2002, nor by the volunteering report and mentioning volunteering and unpaid voluntary work in the coalition agreement of 2013 had there come about a political strategy that would involve civil society to such a sufficient extent as it was the case in, say, Denmark. Strachwitz said that in Germany the question if volunteering has to benefit the state or society at large has yet to be answered. He stressed the importance of governmental funding but also requested not to subject volunteering to the public framework but take sufficient account of its right to exist independently.

Page 7 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 1 Conference Report – WS 2

1.2 Workshop 2

Observatory for Sociopolitical Developments in Europe

The discussion then showed that as yet we do not have any data on volunteering that could be used in a comparative analysis. John MacDonald asked if the Member States were prepared to make a standar- dised survey.9 The matter of governmental funding and a possible dependence of the voluntary sector was also discussed. The participants stressed that volunteering’s

Dr. Rupert Graf Strachwitz (Maecenata Institute) right to exist independently does also have to be preserved within the public framework. The comparison of different approaches of policies on volunteering turned out to be exciting and instructive. It offered a good occasion for the participants to exchange experiences concerning their own practical work.

1.2 Workshop 2 – Measuring volunteering

This workshop presented various examples of the measurement of volunteering from Italy, Portugal and Germany and discussed these in the light of the ILO Manual on the Measurement of Volunteer Work.

Ksenija Fonovic, Centro di Servizio per il Volontariato del Lazio (SPES), first presented the ILO Manual on the Measurement of Volunteer Work, before she outlined the European Volunteer Measurement Project (EVMP) and its work for a Europe-wide implementation of the ILO Manual. Finally, she briefly sketched the implementation of the ILO Manual in Italy. Fonovic first found that in Europe a kind of “methodological chaos” obtained and that different definitions of volunteering led to different data. As a result, there was no comparability regarding the results of e-measuring. As criteria for a joint system of survey, she mentioned a broadest possible definition of volunteering, conceptual clarity of the surveys, the objectivity of the empirical methods, a comparability of the data and, last but not least, feasibility, that is, an embedment in existing methods and systems of survey. These criteria could be met by means of the ILO Manual and its implementation when measuring volunteering. The ILO Manual contained questions on the following aspects, among others: the hours the interviewees have spent on voluntary work over the past four weeks and the type, place10 and sector of the activity. It also contained a formula to come up with the

9 cf. the results of Workshop 2 - Measuring volunteering 10 In an organisation (formal) or directly (informal).

Page 8 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 1 Conference Report – WS 2

Observatory for Sociopolitical Developments in Europe

economic value of volunteering11. Implementing the ILO Manual would allow a comparative measurement of volunteering.

The EVMP championed a Europe-wide application of the ILO Manual. To achieve this, it informed people on the measurement of volunteering, gave advice on its implementation and exerted its influence on political actors at the national and the EU level.12 Drawing upon her experiences, Fonovic reported that many statistical offices that had participated in the EVMP complained that they did not have enough money and time to plan and conduct the surveys. She was also able to report that the EVMP’s results were fed into an new project called “Third Sector Impact“, which examines the impact of civil-society organisation and volunteering upon the socio-economic development in the EU. As a last point, Fonovic mentioned that in Italy in 2013 the survey on aspects of everyday life had been expanded by a survey component regarding volunteering as specified by the ILO Manual. The work with such data was to be continued.

Ana Cristina Ramos, Instituto Nacional de Estatística (National Statistical Office of Portugal), reported on the implementation of the ILO Manual in Portugal by the “Survey on Volunteer Work” in 2012: This survey had been piggybacked on the “Labour Force Survey”. The survey had drawn upon simplified ILO Manual parameters and thus had gathered data on both formal volunteering in organisations and direct informal volunteering. The reporting period had been one year, the volunteering had had to have been unpaid and voluntary and lasted at least one hour. Problems had arisen, Ramos added, because within the employment-orientated survey volunteering had been perceived as a specific and sensitive issue and approximate answers had been possible. This had impaired both the questions’ Ana Cristina Ramos (Instituto Nacional de Estatística) acceptance and the interviewee’s care when responding. On a positive note, she stressed that by piggybacking this survey on the existing survey the latter’s institutionalised methods could be used. In Ramos’ view, coordinating the statistical office’s departments concerned had posed quite a challenge. She

11 The work’s hours x its type (by ISCO Code classification of occupations). 12 The ILO Manual on the Measurement of Volunteer Work has already been implemented in Portugal, Hungary, Poland and Italy. In Ireland and Belgium, first steps have been taken.

Page 9 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 1 Conference Report – WS 2

Observatory for Sociopolitical Developments in Europe

regretted that given the time pressure they had been under there had been no sufficient communication with civil-society actors.

Based upon the results, Ramos showed that at 11.5 per cent Portugal had a lower volunteering rate than other European countries. However, such a Europe-wide comparison13 also revealed that the social-services sector and church activities had a higher share in the Portuguese volunteering total than elsewhere and that there were huge regional differences in the share of volunteers among the total population. And regional differences were also present when looking at the importance of the sectors for volunteering. The survey had also shown that the economic value of volunteering amounted to 4.1 per cent of the total number of working hours during the reference period in Portugal. This figure was of huge importance for government policies in particular since volunteering’s “economic proportion” could now be quantified. The subsequent discussion also focused upon the survey’s reporting period, since the Portuguese survey gathered data on the past twelve months, while the ILO Manual settles for the past four weeks14.

Professor Clemens Tesch-Römer, German Centre of Gerontology (DZA), which has headed up the “German Survey on Volunteering’s” (FWS) research since 2012, presented the German measurement of volunteering approach, which differs from the ILO Manual: The most significant difference was that the FWS only collects data on formal volunteering, that is, volunteering that takes place in organisations. Direct volunteering like neighbourly help (informal volunteering) was not included. It was the FWS’ objective to monitor group- specific15 changes over time and to break them down by sectors. Therefore, the FWS gathered detailed data on the type of voluntary work and volunteers’ motivation, which, in turn, was broken down by socio-economic groups. Trends could be seen in the share of volunteers, both in total and in the surveyed sectors, in the share of people prepared to volunteer and in new types of volunteering like, for example, online volunteering. Tesch- Römer outlined that on top of the nationwide volunteering report there were also to be Land- specific reports that would shed a light on differences and provide the various Länder (regions), so very important for a volunteering policy, with the right data. Tesch-Römer then dealt with the changes in the fourth wave of the FWS, to be conducted in 2014.16 New questions would deal with volunteers and non-volunteers’ life situations and new or changing types of volunteering. In addition, the telephone survey would now also cover mobile phone

13 The comparison is based on the Survey of Volunteer Work 2012 for Portugal and data from the Eurobarometer 2011 for other Member States. 14 Here distortions eventually could result in case data on volunteers' activities are collected from one hour for the different reference periods. 15 e.g. sex, age, education, migration background etc. 16 The previous surveys were conducted in five-year intervals in 1999, 2004 and 2009.

Page 10 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 1 Conference Report – WS 2

Observatory for Sociopolitical Developments in Europe

users, who would then make up 30 per cent of the interviewees. And the questionnaire would also be translated into Turkish, Russian, Polish, Arabic and English in order to be able to survey more people with a migration background. In the subsequent discussion, this found applause. One participant from the UK remarked that there people with a migration background would not be sufficiently reached out to. Another topic of discussion was the monetary aspect. Here, a few participants found the FWS fault with, since given its concept and for its introductory questions in particular, it did not take sufficient account of the distinction between “gainful employment” and “voluntary engagement”.17 A proposal was made no longer to include paid services, but rather to ask for the work in more detail in order to find a clear demarcation line between gainful employment and volunteering.

The discussion of the measurement of volunteering continued: The Member States’ different frames of references to describe the work were presented and discussed. Another mentioned aspect was the insufficient measurement of international volunteering. Here, information could be increasingly come by via the respective organisations. It was also stressed that a possible distinction between “civic engagement“ and “volunteering“ required further scrutiny in order to improve upon the measurement of volunteering. Participants agreed on the desirability of data that can be subjected to a Europe-wide comparison, although there is no consensus yet on what method to apply to gather such data. This will require an on-going dialogue and exchange of experiences and open-mindedness on the part of all actors, It should also be noted, however, that a certain flexibility is required in order to be able to take account of country-specific conditions and parameters.

17 The FWS‘ introductory questions read: 1. “There are many possibilities to participate in activities outside paid work or family, for example in a club, an initiative, a project or a self-help group. I will name several possible areas, please tell me if you actively participate in one or more of these areas. Do you actively participate in ...” (14 areas mentioned) and 2. “We are now interested if you work voluntarily in one of the areas mentioned above, which means if you volunteer in clubs, initiatives, projects or self-help groups. We are referring to voluntary activities where no payment or only small allowances are received.”

Page 11 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 1 Conference Report – WS 3

1.3 Workshop 3

Observatory for Sociopolitical Developments in Europe

1.3 Workshop 3 – Varieties of volunteer programmes on the national and European level

This workshop featured a presentation of various volunteer programmes and here focused upon volunteering's specific form, by, for example, comparing the French “service civique”, the German “Bundesfreiwilligendienst” and the other German volunteer services and the European Voluntary Service.

Amandine Hubert, of the Ministère des Sports, de la Jeunesse, de l'Éducation populaire et de la Vie associative, in France responsible for volunteering policy, presented the French “service civique” volunteer service: The “service civique” had been statutorily institutionalised at the beginning of 2010 and was a special form of volunteering. The programme had two objectives. It was to Amandine Hubert (Ministère des Sports, de la reinforce civism and national cohesion and Jeunesse, de l'Éducation populaire et de la Vie associative) also allow young people to participate in a collective project. The service could be done in many a sector, lasted between six and twelve months with at least 24 hours of work a week. The programme was open to all citizens but focused upon people of between 16 and 25 years of age. The government supported this group by paying them a small gratification and their insurance contributions and providing advanced trainings. In 2013, 33,000 young people had done their “service civique”. According to Hubert, this number was to be increased, with a special focus upon people from socially disadvantaged strata.

Dr. Jens Kreuter, Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth (BMFSFJ), then outlined the German volunteer programmes.18 He defined the “Freiwillligendienst” (volunteer service) as a special form of voluntary service usually done full-time and as contracted. Such volunteers were subject to social insurance and received a small gratification. Accommodation, board and working clothes could be paid for or refunded.19 The current total was 100,000 volunteers who took part in the available programmes. The voluntary services enjoyed an ever greater popularity and had fully

18 The domestic services are: Die Inlandsdienste Freiwilliges Soziales Jahr (FSJ), Freiwilliges Ökologisches Jahr (FÖJ), Bundefreiwilligendienst (BFD). The International services are: Internationaler Jugendfreiwilligendienst (IJFD), weltwärts, kulturweit, Anderer Dienst im Ausland (ADiA) and Europäischer Freiwilligendienst (EFD; European Voluntary Service (EVS)). 19 Mr. Kreuter also mentioned the possibility to combine the service civique and the BFD regarding serveral aspects which could be funded.

Page 12 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 1 Conference Report – WS 3

Observatory for Sociopolitical Developments in Europe

compensated for the abolished community service (done in lieu of military service). One special thing about the Bundesfreiwilligendienst (BFD) was that it was open to all age groups. A total of all the volunteers enrolled in this programme was older than 27 years of age.

One problem was that, given budgetary restrictions, the huge demand for places in the BFD among older people could not be met right now. And the labour-market neutrality mentioned above would, in fact, make it difficult to involve business. Of great importance in Germany was the labour-market neutrality of such a service. Kreuter stressed that voluntary Dr. Jens Kreuter (BMFSFJ) services were periods of education and orientation and were therefore accompanied by seminars on, say, political education.

Heading up the “Voluntary services task force” at the BMFSFJ, Kreuter welcomed the pooling of the voluntary services in the BMFSFJ as it had been agreed in the coalition agreement. He mentioned that the “Incoming” segment, that is, the participation of foreign youth in the voluntary social or ecological year (FSJ/FÖJ) and the BFD should receive more attention this parliamentary term. In his concluding remarks, Kreuter emphasised that the government as an “enabler” should only create the framework but not restrict civil society by setting targets.

Heike Zimmermann, Youth in Action, presented what was new in “Erasmus+” and the European funding period 2014-2020. She specifically dealt with the European Voluntary Service (EVS). Erasmus+ now pooled the Erasmus, Comenius, Leonardo, Grundtvig and Youth in Action programmes and received 40 per cent more funds on aggregate. The new, integrated Erasmus+ was broken down into three Key Actions: 1. learning mobility of individuals, 2. strategic partnerships and 3. support for youth policy reform. The EVS was part of Key Action 1. The minimum age was lowered, also to respond to shorter overall school attendance periods like in Germany. Other new important Erasmus+ developments for the EVS were the creation of a project data base for job vacancies, a refunding of travel expenses in form of a distance allowance and an accreditation of projects for the entire life of the programme. Zimmermann also briefly mentioned Key Actions 2 and 3, which were supposed to strengthen networking facilities and lead to inter-sectoral collaborations, which, in turn, were to trigger innovative partnerships and policy reforms.

Page 13 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 1 Conference Report – WS 4

1.4 Workshop 4

Observatory for Sociopolitical Developments in Europe

The discussion that followed centred on five topics that in the view of the participants were of importance for the further development of volunteer services. Regarding target groups, a stronger mobilisation of disadvantaged and elderly people was proposed, the latter by Amandine Hubert in particular, who was very interested in the German experiences. Secondly, it was said that participants required mentoring, training and permanent support. Thirdly, there was the necessity of a quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the programmes. And, fourthly, the relationship between volunteering and the labour market needed close scrutiny. Finally, the transnational segment required further development. Heike Zimmermann pointed out that across all sectors the right format should be offered to all youths. The huge interest of the participants revealed the huge demand for a mutual and transnational exchange of experiences with volunteer services and the shape they take.

1.4 Workshop 4 – Empowerment of individuals / Validating skills and qualifications

This workshop dealt with the validation and certification of skills and qualifications acquired during volunteering. Various tools were presented. The discussion centred on how the acquired skills and qualifications could be utilised in and for the volunteers’ career.

Hervé Sérieyx, France Bénévolat, presented the Passeport Bénévole20 (volunteer pass), which documents the skills and qualifications acquired and experiences gained through voluntary work: Said pass was issued by France Bénévolat and was supported by many public institutions.21 Since its introduction in 2007, 100,000 such passes had been distributed. Issuing the pass was to improve the description of volunteers’ skills and formalise the volunteering and thus make it better verifiable. It was also to make the skills and qualifications usable for the respective volunteer’s career. This could increase volunteering’s attractiveness. The pass was to certify the volunteers’ skills and qualifications and show their progress throughout their entire voluntary working period.

Sérieyx stressed that the pass would not only benefit the volunteers but also the organisations and municipal institutions. Organisations could thus recognise the volunteers’ value and mobilise more. And requirements placed upon the volunteers could be specified in order to make the voluntary work fit in even better. And municipal institutions could use the pass to promote volunteering within their municipality or region. Concluding, Sérieyx demanded that the pass should see more acceptance as part of the education someone received. This would further improve its usefulness.

20 cf. http://www.passeport-benevole.org 21 e.g. Ministère des Affairs sociales et de la Santé, Ministère des Sports et de la Jeunesse, Ministère de l’Éducation nationale, Pôle Emploi, L'Association nationale pour la formation professionnelle des adultes (AFPA) oder Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations (CDC)

Page 14 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 1 Conference Report – WS 4

Observatory for Sociopolitical Developments in Europe

Jo Peeters, Scouting Gelderland, who trains youths for voluntary work, reported on a process of validation that in the Netherlands started about 10 years ago, when volunteers increasingly asked for a certification of their skills and qualifications, e.g. to present to their employers. This had been when Scouting Gelderland developed a skill certificate for youth leaders in order to be able to asses and document the acquired skills and qualifications. They also had developed a volunteer portfolio. The process had then been continually evaluated. The skill certificate for youth leaders had gone down particularly well, while the volunteer portfolio had not. Jo Peeters remarked that it was of huge importance actually to show the youths what they learn during their voluntary work. An appraisal of their voluntary work was a good way to increase youths’ awareness of their own skills and qualifications. Volunteering and its certification could thus also help them when looking for a job. Many a study had proved this effect.22 It should also be noted, however, that volunteering does not automatically mean better prospects on the job market.

Pavel Trantina, of the European Alliance for Volunteering (EAV), mentioned various examples of how a validation and certification of skills and qualifications acquired during volunteering could be achieved. The “Scout Leader Skills” programme in Belgium23, for example, developed by the heads of many boy scout and girl scout organisations, registered social and functional skills and qualifications. The “Valorise-toi / Empower yourself!”24 tool translated acquired skills and qualifications into business phraseology and could thus improve volunteers’ prospects on the job market. In the Czech Republic, a personal skills and qualifications portfolio had been developed that certifies the competences and qualifications acquired during volunteering. Pavel Trantina then examined the “Policy Agenda on Volunteering in Europe (P.A.V.E)”25, which asks for a promotion of such validation and a standardisation of the certification tools we already have. Concluding, he welcomed the European institutions’ willingness to pool the initiatives for a promotion of the validation and certification of skills and qualifications acquired during volunteering. The facilitator Gabriella Civico, European Volunteer Centre (CEV), said that at the EU level one was currently working on a standard certificate of competences.

The participants in the following discussion stressed that the volunteers should be involved in the development of the certification tools. The speakers showed the added value yielded by an involvement of youths, volunteer agencies and educational institutions. This promoted a better acceptance of the tools and thus an increased use. Business institutions should also

22 see also the sources in Jo Peeters’ appended presentation 23 cf. www.lesscouts.be/scoutleaderskills and qualifications 24 cf. http://euroscoutinfo.com/2012/02/27/how-to-translate-your-scouting-skills and qualifications-to-the- language-of-employers 25 cf. http://www.eyv2011.eu/images/stories/pdf/EYV2011Alliance_PAVE_copyfriendly.pdf

Page 15 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 1 Conference Report – WS 5

1.5 Workshop 5

Observatory for Sociopolitical Developments in Europe

be involved in the process in order to increase the acceptance of the certificates. At the EU level, hitherto it had been mainly officials that had developed the certification tools. The participants thus asked for a better involvement of volunteers.

Another aspect of the discussion was volunteering by the elderly. The participants noted that for this target group a skill certificate was also important, but that not all the available tools were of the same use here as they were for youths. The panellists also discussed in how far such a skill certificate would facilitate volunteers of all age groups’ job-seeking efforts. It was noted that all this was not about a certification of vocation-specific skills but rather of team and communication and leadership skills volunteers would acquire during volunteering. It should also be made clear that not all volunteers wanted a skill certificate. It would therefore always be necessary to put oneself in the volunteers’ shoes and consider their needs as well. A certification of skills and qualifications should not be considered an employment programme. The discussion showed that there are already some tools to validate and certify skills and qualifications acquired during volunteering. It was thus of huge importance to make these public and disseminate them.

1.5 Workshop 5 – Promotion of volunteering as promotion of democracy

This workshop centred on the connection between volunteering and political participation. The examples presented here were general agreements entered into between civil-society organisations and the public sector from England and Sweden. It was then discussed in how far such general agreements could, perhaps, institutionalise and stabilise an involvement of civil-society organisations in political processes in Germany as well.

Rachel Wharton, Compact Voice26, kicked off the workshop by presenting the English general agreements, the so-called compacts, existing at both the national and the local level: The national compact existed since 1998 and was a general agreement between the Third sector and the government. The partnership was based upon five principles, including independence, mutual consultation and support. There were parallel local compacts in 97 per cent of the English municipalities, which were based upon the national compact’s principles but had also often been geared to local needs. It should be noted that these national and local compacts are not legally binding. The compacts also stressed volunteering’s contribution to social co-existence. As Rachel put it, the local compacts were important as a basis for inter-sectoral partnerships and made for an open dialogue at eye-level. Using the organisations’ expertise and know-how could thus help to develop a policy, and the

26 Compact Voice is a network to strengthen partnerships between civil-society organisations and governmental institutions or authorities. For that purpose, Compact Voice provides information, disseminates good practices and mediates between the partners (cf. www.compactvoice.org.uk).

Page 16 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 1 Conference Report – WS 5

Observatory for Sociopolitical Developments in Europe

compacts included special recognition of the significance of volunteering as a foundation of democracy and an expression of a public spirit. Wharton then described some success stories that had been made possible by local compacts.27 In the debate afterwards critical voices from among the audience asked if and to what extent local compacts replaced public services in the social sector. Wharton conceded that over the past few years some local compacts had indeed been revived because of cutbacks. And the Third sector did indeed now render many of the services previously provided by the public sector.

Jenny Ögren, Överenskommelsen (The Agreement), presented the Swedish agreement for the social sector entered into between the non-profit or civil-society organisations, representatives of the regions and municipalities and the competent government departments’ representatives: The agreement had the objectives of supporting non-profit organisations in their role as an independent voice and opinion leader, widening the range of providers in the healthcare and social sector and strengthening the partner’s cooperation. The agreement set forth six principles: independence, dialogue, quality, continuity, transparency and variety. Ögren underlined that the agreement had not only had a positive impact upon the partners’ cooperation but also strengthened the non-profit organisations’ visibility and voice. In the following discussion, some critical voices asked who it was that represented the non-profit sector and if such a representation of interests were indeed be possible in a representative fashion.

Mirko Schwärzel, of the European Volunteer Centre (CEV), started by presenting the traditional structures in Germany of involving representative umbrella organisations, e.g. in the welfare, charity and youth work sector: The sector-specific forms of participation were legally stronger than, for example, allowed for by the general agreements outlined before. Since the beginning of the 1990s, however, the German model and civil society in particular had been facing new challenges. For instance, there had been more opportunities for private providers, which led to an economisation of social work. And in times of tight budgets, volunteering was increasingly considered to be an utilisable resource. And finally, volunteers’ motivation had also changed. These developments meant that the German participation structures had to be reviewed. Innovative forms of participation should be made possible. Schwärzel mentioned the guiding principle of a civic society. The connection between a volunteering policy and the promotion of political participation had already been expressed both in Germany and at the EU level. He had got the impression, however, that of late volunteering policies were rather drifting away from the idea of citizens’ participation and were increasingly focusing upon a framework for unpaid voluntary work. This therefore posed

27 cf. Rachel Wharton’s appended presentation

Page 17 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 1 Conference Report – WS 6

1.6 Workshop 6

Observatory for Sociopolitical Developments in Europe

the question if general agreements like the English compacts or the Swedish Överens- kommelsen could also be applied to Germany if one wanted to regulate the involvement of the associations and organisations in political decision-making processes on the basis of specific principles.

The ensuing discussion shed a light on in how far political participation could be strengthened by volunteering and if general agreements could contribute to a promotion of democracy. Some participants noted that an institutionalisation in Germany of the dialogue between civil society and the public sector should indeed be contemplated. The discussion revealed that the connections between volunteering and political participation, and thus a promotion of democracy, requires more discussion.

1.6 Workshop 6 – Volunteering as an impulse for social innovations and social entrepreneurship

This workshop discussed the specific connection of volunteering and social innovations. Based upon specific examples, various ways were shown of how volunteering can promote innovative solutions to social problems. In their outlook, the participants discussed how, in a second step, this might evolve into social entrepreneurship.

The workshop started with a short brainstorming session on what the participants associate with the linkage of volunteering and social innovations. This yielded catchphrases like progress for the common good, trying the impossible, impulses and new ways of thinking, augmenting the public sector, co-operations, bottom-up, snowball, "seeing – evaluating – acting”. This was followed by the speakers being asked to provide specific examples from their background that would exemplify the linkage of volunteering and social innovations. They were also asked to discuss what aspects they think are of major importance when it comes to a promotion of social innovations through volunteering.

Eamonn Fitzgerald, Social Entrepreneurs Ireland, found that many ideas that turn into social innovations originate from people being personally affected. If people are affected by a certain problem, they see its many facets, are able to develop customised solutions and are motivated to implement them. Solving problems often requires a huge commitment that organisations and promotion structures can support and maintain. His specific example was Lucy Masterson, whose idea was supported by Social Entrepreneurs Ireland. Being unemployed, Lucy Masterton founded the Hireland initiative, which, aided by other committed

Page 18 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 1 Conference Report – WS 6

Observatory for Sociopolitical Developments in Europe

people, makes companies hire staff instead of cutting down on them. By the beginning of 2014, 7,000 jobs had thus been created.28

Fitzgerald stressed that financial support aside - which, incidentally, does not necessarily require huge amounts - organisational support was most important. In his view, a promotion of socially innovative volunteering is an important and good extra service that complements public services, especially if one considers the government’s tight budgets during the crisis.

Dr. Joachim Rock, Paritätischer Gesamtverband, first observed that social innovations are predicated upon volunteering, because they are both entrepreneurially active and an initiator of volunteering. In his view, they make a major contribution to a collective finding of solutions and thus to social innovations. His example was the “In-Gang-Setzer” project.29 Local self- help contact points’ voluntary staff do here support new self-help groups during their establishment and when having to cope with whatever challenges. This is a successful application of the snowball system, since experiences are passed on.

As preconditions for social innovations Rock particularly mentioned enough leeway to implement “silly ideas” and a basic trust in what volunteering can achieve. Welfare organisations are particularly able to support a promotion of projects and to relay their social innovations. On a critical note, Rock said that efficiency orientation and efficacy gauging could impair the development of social innovations. Promotion strategies and structures should therefore focus upon efficacy orientation, not efficacy gauging.

Sara Allen, Cabinet Office Centre for Social Action. Her department deals with the support of volunteers who help to improve public services – first mentioned how important it is to listen to the people concerned and to what they need. Only such a bottom-up approach could make public support actually have an effect. Her example was the King’s College Hospital in London, which, helped by volunteers, was able to increase patients’ satisfaction and give its staff more time for its core responsibilities. The volunteers’ remits are closely coordinated with the staff and geared to the patents’ needs. It should be mentioned here that the volunteers do not discharge any medical responsibilities but render extra support.30 Another example is Care Banks, who are introducing a point system for voluntarily worked hours. The collected points can often be redeemed for services rendered by other volunteers. Allen

28 cf. http://www.hireland.ie 29 cf. http://www.in-gang-setzer.de 30 cf. http://www.nesta.org.uk/news/%C2%A315m-helping-hospitals-initiative-launched as well as http://www.kch.nhs.uk/about/get-involved/volunteering

Page 19 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 1 Conference Report – WS 6

Observatory for Sociopolitical Developments in Europe

emphasised that such pilot projects have to entail an evaluation and scaling31 of innovative solutions. The public system also has to take account of the fact that such projects may fail.

Norbert Kunz, Social Impact gGmbH, first pointed out that social volunteering does not necessarily have to mean unpaid jobs. On the contrary, volunteering often occurs within or connected with a paid job. It is therefore increasingly important to consider the needs of voluntarily committed people. Kunz said that many also wanted to use their volunteering for professional purposes additionally or voluntarily apply their professional skills elsewhere.32 People are prepared to contribute. If one considers the changes in the social sector and the challenges posed by the, say, demographic change and the many integration requirements, this potential for social innovations simply has to be better utilised. This poses the question of how people with socially innovative ideas can be systematically supported, how social innovations can be scaled and accelerated and ultimately also how these ideas can be translated into economically viable action. It would be helpful if different sectors from business, civil society and the public sector applying their own logic within their system would get in touch. Kunz emphasised that friction and arguments are important and positive and would improve social innovations and sharpen their profiles. He mentioned the benefit of so- called social incubators like the Social Impact Lab.33

All those participating in the final discussion agreed that volunteering would primarily lead to social innovations when the participants are personally affected or view a project as their own (ownership) without being pushed into certain structures. The participants then stressed that social innovations require leeway. Financial instruments have to allow for trying out “silly ideas” with not too many strings attached with regard to, say, effectiveness requirements. However, when providing the appropriate leeway, promotion strategies and structures also have to factor in that initiatives may fail.

A major topic in the discussion was the scaling of social innovations. The facilities mentioned here were good-practice data bases like, for example, “Weltbeweger”34, social franchising, a local exchange on projects or welfare organisations as dissemination agents. Another aspect that was controversially discussed was the linkage of working and volunteering. The matter of a proper demarcation was one issue. Another were the opportunities provided by using professional skills for volunteering and to turn social innovations into a career path within the framework of social entrepreneurship. Finally, one should maintain that volunteering shows a huge innovative potential. Therefore, an interlocking of a promotion of volunteering and

31 Scaling here meaning a dissemination of social innovations. 32 In the latter case, often referred to as skilled volunteering or skills-based volunteering. 33 cf. http://socialimpactlab.eu 34 cf. www.weltbeweger.de

Page 20 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 1 Conference Report – Resume of the panel discussion

1.7 Resume of the panel discussion

Observatory for Sociopolitical Developments in Europe

social innovations seems to be promising. State funding that gives enough leeway can in a combination with high motivation of the people concerned help to solve social problems.

1.7 Panel discussion – taking stock and looking ahead

The panel discussion, which concluded the conference, took stock of the events and on that basis also tried to look ahead, focusing upon the European dimension of volunteering policies. The discussion was hosted by Dieter Schöffmann, VIS a VIS.

Schöffmann first asked the participants on the panel what national and European concepts and strategies for an effective promotion of volunteering were able to achieve

and what limits they had. Dieter Schöffmann (VIS a VIS)

John MacDonald, EU Commission, said that European initiatives like the European Voluntary Service (EVS) were basically suited to promote cross-border unpaid voluntary work. With regard to a European volunteering policy, he found that given the very disparate national concepts and strategies in the EU Member States there was a lot of utilisable mutual-learning potential. Here, the EU Commission saw a lot of opportunities to promote such an exchange. More European coordination of the Member States’ volunteering policies, however, was difficult, since this policy area was comparatively unstructured. Given the fact that the Treaties had not given the EU any competences in this field, the Commission was simply not authorised to regulate or have an influence upon how the Member States shape their volunteering promotion.

In the opinion of Gabriella Civico, European Volunteer Centre (CEV), the work of this centre’s approx. 80 members from all over Europe showed that a political coordination at the European level was indeed required. Not all EU Member States had a national volunteering strategy or centres or offices to promote volunteering. To exemplify how necessary such coordination was, she referred to the fact that in many a Member State foreigners’ voluntary work did not make them Gabriella Civico (CEV) legal residents. From the CEV’s perspective, we should have a standard European definition of the volunteer status or work and also guidelines on how to gather and collate the necessary information in the Member States, since otherwise statistical data were not internationally comparable and EU

Page 21 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 1 Conference Report – Resume of the panel discussion

Observatory for Sociopolitical Developments in Europe

law’s, e.g. competition law’s, impact upon the voluntary sector was barely educible or assessable.

Professor Sebastian Braun, Volunteering Research Centre at the Humboldt University of Berlin, stressed that the primary national responsibility when it comes to a promotion of volunteering was to inform people and gather data. And the government could also contribute to QA measures. But in Braun’s view, an individual’s voluntary work will always be an autonomous activity, characterised by donating time, expertise or money. This autonomy was sufficiently preserved if the public sector provides funds in order to promote measures for the common good based upon the free democratic basic order to benefit its citizens. But if the government provides money to promote volunteering, it gets the sovereignty in matters of interpretation on how to shape the processes and structures of unpaid and voluntary work, e.g. when running pilot schemes or "lighthouse projects". In Braun’s view, it was not really productive to shift this discretionary power to the European level Volunteering had a local impact and international concepts or strategies or universal criteria carried the risk of not taking account of the respective local (cultural) Prof. Dr. Sebastian Braun (Humboldt University of diversity. Berlin) In the plenary debate on the potential conflict of interests when the government funds volunteering the audience asked for being aware of on what concept of society or fundamental socio-political idea the promotion of volunteering in, say, Germany was actually based. To be sure, the government was free to combine its promotion of volunteering with other objectives, e.g. a sensitisation of youths for overseas development or to expand voluntary services. The shift away from funding to Compacts between the government and civil society that correlates funding with agreed performance targets that we seem to be seeing in Great Britain right now did not go down very well.

In another round, the panel discussed what use volunteering has. This was about what effects promoters expect from volunteering and what form of promotion can take account of all the various interests.

Braun once again referred to what volunteering citizens actually want, namely, to achieve something in conjunction with others. That was also the only way of measuring volunteering’s use. If a governmental promotion of volunteering in the public domain aims at a different or additional result – to legitimise the use of public funds – e.g. an integration of certain groups

Page 22 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 1 Conference Report – Conclusion

1.8 Conclusion

Observatory for Sociopolitical Developments in Europe

of people into the job market, skill-building or education, this infringed upon the afore- mentioned autonomy as an essential feature of volunteering. This was what made a development of promotion strategies and a measurability of the use of volunteering by means of economic benchmarks so difficult.

Gabriella Civico reported that CEV’s experiences showed that there was a Europe-wide tendency of coupling a promotion of volunteering with a successful improvement in non- employed citizens’ employability in particular. As she did also consider volunteers’ motivation to be that they want to make a difference, she viewed this new development with a critical eye. In her view, governmental promotion strengthened volunteering especially if it improves the introduction to or instructions on volunteering. Voices in the audience added that the government could also provide more volunteering leeway by changing the legal framework, e.g. if hitherto the law prevented the establishment of voluntary parents councils at schools.

Referring to the debate on the use of volunteering, John MacDonald said that it was very important how the impact was measured. The Member States had very disparate regulations on if and how to measure it. In any case, volunteering contributed to professionalisation and also to an improvement of volunteers’ skills and qualifications. Therefore, it should become a larger part of schools and training programmes’ curricula, especially in those countries whose population had not yet developed much volunteering awareness. Someone in the audience then said that the practical learning context, so characteristic of volunteering, had to be presented to politicians as one of its uses much better than previously.

The panel discussion showed that especially the question of a social use required a dialogue and a weighing of the interests of civil-society organisations, providers, volunteers and public promoters. A Europe-wide exchange about promotion strategies and its social use, mutual learning and, perhaps, a Europe-wide coordination are certainly possible approaches to take if one wants further to improve the framework of volunteering.

1.8 Conclusion

Volunteers contribute to our societies in various ways and shape them. This was what the exchange on the specific aspects of the social benefits of volunteering at this conference has shown. A European comparison also revealed that there are various ways to support volunteers in their commitment and to promote it as a social force - be it through a validation of their skills by appropriate tools in order to enable them to use them for their career, an involvement of citizens in political processes or a support of volunteers when they want to solve a social problem. If volunteers’ needs are taken into account, governmental promotion can have a huge impact.

Page 23 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 1 Conference Report – Conclusion

Observatory for Sociopolitical Developments in Europe

The conference has shown that volunteering has a huge innovative potential. Often, people see a social problem because they are personally affected and, in a first step, volunteer to help finding a solution. Their commitment is characterised by a huge motivation, a real understanding of the various aspects of the problem and much creativity. If the public sector gives these volunteers enough leeway to realise their ideas even though at first they appear rather silly, this may well lead to innovative solutions to social problems. The interface between volunteering and social innovation is something promotion policies should deal with when they consider volunteers’ needs and objectives.

Measuring volunteering is of huge importance if you want to discern trends and have something political action can be based upon. The problem, however, is that the data on the types and motivations and the socio-economic background of volunteering and also on its impact that are gathered in the Member States are not yet comparable on a Europe-wide basis. The workshops at this conference revealed that there is a huge interest in an exchange of experiences between Member States and in a discussion of how one could make such surveys comparable. The necessity of comparable data was often emphasised in the discussions at the conference. One consistent motive was the adjustment of the promotion strategies so that socially disadvantaged groups could also be better reached.

Other topics and questions arising from the discussions were, for example, a scaling of innovative solutions developed on the basis of volunteering and a monitoring of new volunteering developments like skilled volunteering, in which volunteers use the skills they have acquired on the job, or online volunteering, which provides more individual volunteering opportunities and may help motivate people to volunteer.

The lively discussions at the conference have shown that the promotion of volunteering is placed somewhere between the public framework on the one hand and enough leeway on the other, which can sometimes be poles apart. The Member States obviously follow different approaches when promoting volunteering. The conference offered a lively exchange on these approaches, volunteer programmes as a special form of volunteering and measuring volunteering as the basis of all political efforts. The participants were able to learn a lot from each other. They agreed that volunteering should be promoted on a pan-European basis. However, it also became obvious that there is no uniform understanding of volunteering in Europe. Its lack of competences notwithstanding, the EU can play an important role here, a coordinating one, thereby improving the volunteering framework all over Europe. Initiatives like the European Year of Volunteering can provide huge momentum, while the OMC and its application, like recently asked for by the European Parliament, provides an opportunity to sensitise the Member States and promote a Europe-wide exchange.

Page 24 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 1 Conference Report – Conclusion

Observatory for Sociopolitical Developments in Europe

The conference made a huge contribution in terms of a Europe-wide exchange and the actors’ networking. Now we have further to promote this exchange if we want to improve the volunteering framework all over Europe and thus shape society.

Page 25 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – Programme of the conference

2 Annex – 2.1 Programme of the conference

Volunteering in Europe – International exchange about concepts and benefits to society

January 13-14, 2014 Berlin (Hotel Aquino)

Programme

Monday, 13.01.2014

13:30 Registration and welcoming snack

14:30 Volunteering in Europe – International exchange about concepts and benefits to society Opening speeches Michael Löher, Executive Director, German Association for Public and Private Welfare

State secretary Dr. Ralf Kleindiek, German Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth

15:00 Volunteering in the EU – Its value, status quo and latest developments John MacDonald, European Commission, Directorate General for Communication

15:30 Coffee break

1

Page 26 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – Programme of the conference

16:00 Parallel workshops 1st block: Concepts and strategies of promoting volunteering

Workshop 1 Public frameworks and strategies of promoting volunteering

with examples from Austria, Denmark and Germany

Anton Hörting, Federal Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Consumer Protection, Austria Ole Christian Madsen, National Volunteer Centre, Denmark Dr. Rupert Graf Strachwitz, Maecenata Institute for Philanthropy and Civil Society, Germany

Moderated by Mirko Schwärzel, European Volunteer Centre

Workshop 2 Measuring volunteering with examples from the European level, Italy, Portugal and Germany

Ksenija Fonovic, SPES Centro di servicio per il volontariato del Lazio, Italy Cristina Ramos, Statistics Portugal Prof. Dr. Clemens Tesch-Römer, The German Centre of Gerontology

Moderated by Anna Waldhausen, Observatory for sociopolitical developments in Europe

Workshop 3 Varieties of volunteer programmes on the national and European level

with examples from France, Germany and the European level

Amandine Hubert, Ministère des Sports, de la Jeunesse, de l'Éducation populaire et de la Vie associative, France Dr. Jens Kreuter, German Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth

2

Page 27 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – Programme of the conference

Heike Zimmermann, JUGEND in Aktion, Germany

Moderated by Christine Wingert, Contact Point Germany „Europe for Citizens“

18:00 Concluding remarks

18:30 End of day 1 and conference dinner

Tuesday, 14.01.2014

09:00 Coffee

09:15 Impulse and reports of the workshops from day 1 (Workshops 1-3) PD Dr. Ansgar Klein, Bundesnetzwerk Bürgerschaftliches Engagement (BBE) / National Network for Civil Society, Germany

09:45 Parallel workshops 2nd block: Volunteering and its benefits to society

Workshop 4 Empowerment of individuals / Validating skills and qualifications with examples from France, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic and the European level

Hervé Sérieyx, France Bénévolat Jo Peeters, Scouting Gelderland, the Netherlands Pavel Trantina, European Alliance for Volunteering

Moderated by Gabriella Civico, European Volunteer Centre

Workshop 5 Promotion of volunteering as promotion of democracy with examples from Germany, the United Kingdom and Sweden

Rachel Wharton, Compact Voice, United Kingdom Jenny Ögren, Överenskommelsen / The Agreement, Sweden Mirko Schwärzel, European Volunteer Centre

3

Page 28 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – Programme of the conference

Moderated Dr. Frank Heuberger, Bundesnetzwerk Bürgerschaftliches Engagement (BBE) / National Network for Civil Society, Germany

Workshop 6 Volunteering as an impulse for social innovation and social entrepreneurship with examples from Ireland, Germany and the United Kingdom

Eamonn Fitzgerald, Social Entrepreneurs Ireland Dr. Joachim Rock, Der Paritätische Gesamtverband, Germany Sara Allen, Cabinet Office Centre for Social Action, United Kingdom Norbert Kunz, Social Impact, Germany

Moderated by Sebastian Wehrsig, Centre for Social Investment, Germany

11:45 Coffee break

12:15 Reports of the workshops from day 2 (Workshops 4-6)

12:45 Panel discussion – taking stock and looking ahead

Gabriella Civico, European Volunteer Centre John MacDonald, European Commission, Directorate General for Communication Prof. Dr. Sebastian Braun, Humboldt-University of Berlin, Germany

Moderated by Dieter Schöffmann, VIS a VIS, Germany

14:00 End of conference and lunch

Simultaneous interpretation: German, English and French

4

Page 29 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – Programme of the conference

Bénévolat en Europe – Échange international sur des concepts et leur utilité pour la société

le 13 et 14 janvier 2014 Berlin (Hôtel Aquino)

Programme

Lundi 13/01/2014

13:30 Inscription et casse-croûte de bienvenue

14:30 Bénévolat en Europe – un échange international sur des concepts et leur utilité pour la société Mots de bienvenue et l’ouverture de la conférence Michael Löher, Gérant de l’Association Allemande pour l’Action Sociale Publique et Privée

Secrétaire d’État Dr. Ralf Kleindiek, Ministère fédéral de la Famille, des Personnes Agées, des Femmes et de la Jeunesse

15:00 L’importance du bénévolat dans l‘UE – statu quo et derniers développements John MacDonald, Commission européenne, Direction générale de la Communication

15:30 Pause

1

Page 30 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – Programme of the conference

16:00 Ateliers simultanés 1er bloc : Formes concrètes des concepts et des stratégies

Workshop 1 Les conditions générales fixées par l’Etat et les stratégies pour promouvoir le bénévolat avec des exemples de l’Autriche, du Danemark et de l’Allemagne

Anton Hörting, Ministère fédéral du Travail, des Affaires Sociales et de la Protection des consommateurs, Autriche Ole Christian Madsen, National Volunteer Centre, Danemark Dr. Rupert Graf Strachwitz, Maecenata Institute for Philanthropy and Civil Society, Allemagne

Présentation : Mirko Schwärzel, European Volunteer Centre

Workshop 2 Mesurer l’engagement avec des exemples au niveau européen, de l’Italie, du Portugal et de l’Allemagne

Ksenija Fonovic, SPES Centro di servicio per il volontariato del Lazio, Italie Cristina Ramos, Statistics Portugal Prof. Dr. Clemens Tesch-Römer, Deutsches Zentrum für Altersfragen, Allemagne

Présentation : Anna Waldhausen, l’Observatoire de l’évolution sociopolitique en Europe

Workshop 3 Des programmes d’engagement au niveau national et européen avec des exemples de la France, de l’Allemagne et au niveau européen

Amandine Hubert, Ministère des Sports, de la Jeunesse, de l'Éducation populaire et de la Vie associative, France

2

Page 31 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – Programme of the conference

Dr. Jens Kreuter, Ministère fédéral de la Famille, des Personnes Agées, des Femmes et de la Jeunesse, Allemagne Heike Zimmermann, JUGEND in Aktion, Allemagne

Présentation : Christine Wingert, Point de contact en Allemagne „L’Europe pour les citoyens “

18:00 Assemblée plénière

18:30 Fin de la première journée - dîner

Mardi 14/01/2014

09:00 Café de bienvenue

09:15 Impulsion et rapports des workshops de la première journée de la conférence (les Workshops 1-3) Dr. Ansgar Klein, Bundesnetzwerk Bürgerschaftliches Engagement (BBE) / National Network for Civil Society, Allemagne

09:45 Workshops simultanés 2ième bloc : L’utilité du bénévolat pour la société

Workshop 4 L’empowerment de l‘individu / validation des compétences avec des exemples de la France, des Pays-Bas, de la République tchèque et au niveau européen

Hervé Sérieyx, France Bénévolat Jo Peeters, Scouting Gelderland, Pays-Bas Pavel Trantina, European Alliance for Volunteering

Présentation : Gabriella Civico, European Volunteer Centre

Workshop 5 Promotion de l’engagement comme moyen pour promouvoir la démocratie avec des exemples du Royaume Uni, de la Suède et de l’Allemagne

3

Page 32 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – Programme of the conference

Rachel Wharton, Compact Voice, Royaume Uni Jenny Ögren, Överenskommelsen / The Agreement, la Suède Mirko Schwärzel, European Volunteer Centre

Présentation : Dr. Frank Heuberger, Bundesnetzwerk Bürgerschaftliches Engagement (BBE) / National Network for Civil Society, Allemagne

Workshop 6 L‘engagement en tant qu’impulsion pour l‘innovation sociale et pour l’entreprise sociale avec des exemples de l’Irlande, de l’Allemagne et du Royaume Uni

Eamonn Fitzgerald, Social Entrepreneurs Ireland, Irelande Dr. Joachim Rock, Der Paritätische Gesamtverband, Allemagne Sara Allen, Cabinet Office Centre for Social Action, Royaume Uni Norbert Kunz, Social Impact, Allemagne

Présentation : Sebastian Wehrsig, Centre for social Investment, Allemagne

11:45 Pause

12:15 Rapports des workshops de la deuxième journée de la conférence (les Workshops 4-6)

12:45 Débat public - Bilan et perspectives d‘avenir

Gabriella Civico, European Volunteer Centre John MacDonald, Commission européenne, Direction générale de la Communication Prof. Dr. Sebastian Braun, l’Université Humboldt de Berlin, Allemagne

Présentation : Dieter Schöffmann, VIS a VIS, Allemagne

14:00 Fin de la conférence – déjeuner

4

Page 33 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – Programme of the conference

Interprétation simultanée : allemand, anglais, français

5

Page 34 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – List of experts

2.2 List of experts

Bürgerschaftliches Engagement in Europa - Internationaler Austausch über Konzepte und deren gesellschaftlichen Nutzen

Liste der Referenten/innen

Allen, Sara Cabinet Office Centre for Social Action London, UNITED KINGDOM

Prof. Dr. Braun, Sebastian Humboldt Universität zu Berlin Berlin, Deutschland

Civico, Gabriella European Volunteer Center Brussels, BELGIUM

Fitzgerald, Eamonn Social Entrepreneurs Ireland Dublin, IRELAND

Fonovic, Ksenija SPES Centro di servizio per il volontariato del Lazio Rome, ITALY

Dr. Heuberger, Frank Bundesnetzwerk Bürgerschaftliches Engagement Berlin, Deutschland

Hörting, Anton Bundesministerium für Arbeit, Soziales und Konsumentenschutz Vienna, AUSTRIA

Hubert, Amandine Ministère des Sports, de la Jeunesse, de l'Èducation populaire et de la Vie associative Paris, FRANCE

Dr. Klein, Ansgar Bundesnetzwerk Bürgerschaftliches Engagement Berlin, Deutschland

Dr. Kleindiek, Ralf Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend Berlin, Deutschland

Dr. Kreuter, Jens Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend Berlin, Deutschland

Kunz, Norbert Social Impact gGmbH Berlin, Deutschland

Löher, Michael Deutscher Verein für öffentliche und private Fürsorge e.V. Berlin, Deutschland

Page 35 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – List of experts

MacDonald, John Europäische Kommission, Generaldirektion Kommunikation Brussels, BELGIUM

Madsen, Ole Christian Center for fivilligt social arbejde / National Volunteer Centre Odense, DENMARK

Ögren, Jenny Överenskommelsen / The Agreement Stockholm, SWEDEN

Peeters, Jo Scouting Gelderland Velp, NETHERLANDS

Ramos, Ana Cristina Instituto Nacional de Estatistica / Statistics Portugal Lisbon, PORTUGAL

Dr. Rock, Joachim Deutscher Paritätischer Wohlfahrtsverband - Gesamtverband e.V. Berlin, Deutschland

Schöffmann, Dieter VIS a VIS Köln, Deutschland

Schwärzel, Mirko Bundesnetzwerk Bürgerschaftliches Engagement Berlin, Deutschland

Sérieyx, Hervé France Bénévolat Paris, FRANCE

Dr. Graf Strachwitz, Rupert Maecenata Institut für Philanthropie und Zivilgesellschaft Berlin, Deutschland

Prof. Dr. Tesch-Römer, Deutsches Zentrum für Altersfragen Clemens Berlin, Deutschland

Trantina, Pavel European Alliance for Volunteering

Waldhausen, Anna Institut für Sozialarbeit und Sozialpädagogik e. V. Frankfurt am Main, Deutschland

Wehrsig, Sebastian Centrum für Soziale Investitionen und Innovationen Berlin, Deutschland

Wharton, Rachel Compact Voice London, UNITED KINGDOM

Wingert, Christine Kontaktstelle Deutschland "Europa für Bürgerinnen und Bürger" Bonn, Deutschland

2/3

Page 36 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – List of experts

Zimmermann, Heike JUGEND in Aktion Bonn, Deutschland

3/3

Page 37 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – List of participants

2.3 List of participants

Bürgerschaftliches Engagement in Europa - Internationaler Austausch über Konzepte und deren gesellschaftlichen Nutzen

Liste der Teilnehmer/innen

Ambronn, Dieter Deutsches Rotes Kreuz LV Schleswig-Holstein e.V. Kiel, Deutschland

Au, Cornelia Deutsches Zentrum für Altersfragen Berlin, Deutschland

Beck, Martin Bündnis 90/Die Grünen-Fraktion des Abgeordnetenhauses von Berlin Berlin, Deutschland

Becker, Christel Bezirksamt Pankow von Berlin Berlin, Deutschland

Becker, Gerd Stadt Frankfurt am Main Frankfurt am Main, Deutschland

Bialkowski, Thomas Senatsverwaltung für Wirtschaft, Technologie und Forschung des Landes Berlin Berlin, Deutschland

Böhme, Peter Landeshauptstadt Potsdam Potsdam, Deutschland

Borgolte, Katharina Region Hannover Hannover, Deutschland

Boughton, Phil Volunteer Ireland Dublin, IRELAND

Braun, Joachim Institut für Sozialwissenschaftliche Analysen und Beratung Köln, Deutschland

Büchel, Daniel Unionhilfswerk gGmbH Berlin, Deutschland

Christiani, Dorothee Centrum für Corporate Citizenship Deutschland e.V. Berlin, Deutschland

Crossick, Bettina Ministry of Justice, National Offender Management Service London, UNITED KINGDOM

Page 38 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – List of participants

Dehmer, Mara Deutscher Paritätischer Wohlfahrtsverband - Gesamtverband e.V. Berlin, Deutschland

Dunger-Löper, Hella Der Regierende Bürgermeister von Berlin, Senatskanzlei Berlin, Deutschland

Eckert, Kathrin Deutsches Rotes Kreuz LV Brandenburg e.V Potsdam, Deutschland

Eichhorn, Katja Caritasverband für das Erzbistum Berlin e.V. Berlin, Deutschland

Eickhoff, Matthias Rechtsanwalt Hann. Münden, Deutschland

Eisbein, Iris Engagement Global gGmbH Bonn, Deutschland

Elping, Nicole Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend Berlin, Deutschland

Engler, Christoph Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend Berlin, Deutschland

Fischer, Juliane Stiftung Gute-Tat.de Berlin, Deutschland

Flídrová, Martina Business for society / Byznys pro společnost Praque, CZECH REPUBLIC

Fraaß, Stefanie Technische Hochschule Nürnberg Nürnberg, Deutschland

Fuchs, Petra Deutscher Verein für öffentliche und private Fürsorge e.V. Berlin, Deutschland

Geiger-Wahl, Rosa Caritasverband der Diözese Rottenburg-Stuttgart e.V. Stuttgart, Deutschland

Geisler, Manfred B. Diehl-Zesewitz-Siftung, Die Zeitstifter Magdeburg, Deutschland

Hankeln, Andrea Ministerium für Familie, Kinder, Jugend, Kultur und Sport des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen Düsseldorf, Deutschland

Harty, Ryan Bundesverband Deutsche Tafel e.V. Berlin, Deutschland

2/8

Page 39 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – List of participants

Haß, Rabea Centrum für Soziale Investitionen und Innovationen Berlin, Deutschland

Hauns, Patrik Stadt Ettlingen Ettlingen, Deutschland

Hebecker, Klaus Region Hannover Hannover, Deutschland

Heinrich, Laure Engagement Global gGmbH Berlin, Deutschland

Heite, Elisabeth Seniorennetz Gelsenkirchen e.V. Gelsenkirchen, Deutschland

Henkinbrant, Mathilde Service public fédéral sécurité sociale Brusseles, BELGIUM

Hermann, Thomas Niedersächsisches Ministerium für Soziales, Frauen, Familie, Gesundheit und Integration Hannover, Deutschland

Hübel, Petra Bezirksamt Treptow-Köpenick Berlin, Deutschland

Iglück, Sabine Bezirksamt Lichtenberg von Berlin Berlin, Deutschland

Jähnert, Hannes Deutsches Rotes Kreuz Generalsekretariat Berlin, Deutschland

Dr. Jörs, Inka Der Regierende Bürgermeister von Berlin, Senatskanzlei Berlin, Deutschland

Jüngst, Thomas Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend Berlin, Deutschland

Prof. Dr. Karl, Fred Universität Kassel Kassel, Deutschland

Kavelashvili, Nino Bundesnetzwerk Bürgerschaftliches Engagement Berlin, Deutschland

Kemmer, Daniela Union Sozialer Einrichtungen gGmbH Berlin, Deutschland

3/8

Page 40 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – List of participants

Kirner, Andreas Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend Berlin, Deutschland

Dr. Klaus, Manfred H. Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft Kommunal - und Regionalpolitik Bernau, Deutschland

Kleber, Julia polidia GmbH Berlin, Deutschland

Klie, Anna Evangelische Hochschule Freiburg Freiburg, Deutschland

Kluchert, Fritz CDU-Fraktion des Abgeordnetenhauses Berlin Berlin, Deutschland

Prof. Dr. phil. Kolhoff, Ludger Ostfalia Hochschule für angewandte Wissenschaften Wolfenbüttel, Deutschland

Köpke, Matthias Youth Bank Deutschland e.V. Berlin, Deutschland

Kopp, Ursula Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend Berlin, Deutschland

Kreuch, Philipp Der Regierende Bürgermeister von Berlin, Senatskanzlei Berlin, Deutschland

Krug, Irene Der Regierende Bürgermeister von Berlin, Senatskanzlei Berlin, Deutschland

Krüger, Evelin Sustainable Europe Deutschland e.V. Berlin, Deutschland

Krugly, Aleksandra Ministry of Labour and Social Policy of the Republic of Poland Warsaw, POLAND

Küntziger, Jacques Ministère de la Famille, de l'Intégration et à la Grande Région Luxembourg, LUXEMBOURG

Labigne, Anaël Hertie School of Governance Berlin, Deutschland

Labitzke, Gerald Bertelsmann Stiftung Gütersloh, Deutschland

Leskow, Hans-Jürgen Landkreis Teltow-Fläming Luckenwalde, Deutschland

4/8

Page 41 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – List of participants

Ludwig, Marc D. Servicestelle Jugendbeteiligung e.V. Berlin, Deutschland

Markowski, Cornelia Deutscher Verein für öffentliche und private Fürsorge e.V. Berlin, Deutschland

Matysiak, Ilona The Maria Grzegorzewska Academy of Special Education Warsaw, POLAND

Meissner, Jens Bezirksamt Treptow-Köpenick Berlin, Deutschland

Mißbach, Christian Diakonisches Werk Evangelischer Kirchen in Mitteldeutschland e.V. Halle, Deutschland

Dr. Möltgen, Thomas Diözesan-Caritasverband für das Erzbistum Köln e.V. Köln, Deutschland

Moser, Beate Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend Berlin, Deutschland

Möwisch, Anja Rechtsanwältin Hannover, Deutschland

Müller, Heike Stiftung Gute-Tat.de Berlin, Deutschland

Dr. Müller-List, Gabriele Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend Bonn, Deutschland

Nied, Carola Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart Stuttgart, Deutschland

Dr. Olma, Bernd Rudolf Olma Coaching & Training Wilhelmshaven, Deutschland

Pawlak, Robert The Maria Grzegorzewska Academy of Special Education Warsaw, POLAND

Dr. Pfeiffer, Wolfram Universität Leipzig Leipzig, Deutschland

Pingel, Ulla Berlin, Deutschland

Pörksen, Heike Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung Berlin, Deutschland

5/8

Page 42 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – List of participants

Reuschel, Marion Fürst-Donnersmarck-Stiftung zu Berlin Berlin, Deutschland

Richter, Christiane Seniorpartner in School e.V. Berlin, Deutschland

Rieck Moncayo, Mariana Deutscher Verein für öffentliche und private Fürsorge e.V. Berlin, Deutschland

Dr. Rosendahl, Bernhard Ministerium für Soziales, Gesundheit, Familie und Gleichstellung des Landes Schleswig-Holstein Kiel, Deutschland

Rößner, Marcus Forum für Community Organizing e. V. Berlin, Deutschland

Samfaß, Katharina Bundesverband Deutsche Tafel e.V. Berlin, Deutschland

Dr. Schirmer, Ursula Hochschule Neubrandenburg Neubrandenburg, Deutschland

Schmerer, Karl Friedrich Heim gGmbH Chemnitz, Deutschland

Schneider, Jürgen Armutsnetzwerk e.V. Sulingen, Deutschland

Schorr, Claudia Deutsches Rotes Kreuz e.V. Generalsekretariat Berlin, Deutschland

Schwalbach, Reinhard IJAB Fachstelle für intern. Jugendarbeit der Bundesrepublik Deutschland e.V. Bonn, Deutschland

Sedláček, Aleš Czech Council of Children and Youth / Česká rada dětí a mládeže Prague, CZECH REPUBLIC

Dr. Sendler, Hans H. Th. Eusendor Berlin, Deutschland

Smolarz, Heidi Berlin, Deutschland

Dr. phil. Sowarka, Doris Deutsches Zentrum für Altersfragen Berlin, Deutschland

6/8

Page 43 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – List of participants

Spindler, Herbert sozial.label e. V. Berlin, Deutschland

Stallkamp, Andreas Landkreis Osnabrück Osnabrück, Deutschland

Stegmann, Michael Stadt Hanau Hanau, Deutschland

Prof. Dr. phil. Stock, Lothar Hochschule für Technik, Wirtschaft und Kultur Leipzig Leipzig, Deutschland

Pörksen, Heike Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung Berlin, Deutschland

Reuschel, Marion Fürst-Donnersmarck-Stiftung zu Berlin Berlin, Deutschland

Richter, Christiane Seniorpartner in School e.V. Berlin, Deutschland

Rieck Moncayo, Mariana Deutscher Verein für öffentliche und private Fürsorge e.V. Berlin, Deutschland

Dr. Rosendahl, Bernhard Ministerium für Soziales, Gesundheit, Familie und Gleichstellung des Landes Schleswig-Holstein Kiel, Deutschland

Rößner, Marcus Forum für Community Organizing e. V. Berlin, Deutschland

Samfaß, Katharina Bundesverband Deutsche Tafel e.V. Berlin, Deutschland

Dr. Schirmer, Ursula Hochschule Neubrandenburg Neubrandenburg, Deutschland

Schmerer, Karl Friedrich Heim gemeinnützige GmbH Chemnitz, Deutschland

Schneider, Jürgen Armutsnetzwerk e.V. Sulingen, Deutschland

Schorr, Claudia Deutsches Rotes Kreuz e.V. Generalsekretariat Team 23 Berlin, Deutschland

Schwalbach, Reinhard IJAB Fachstelle für intern. Jugendarbeit der Bundesrepublik Deutschland e.V. Bonn, Deutschland

Sedláček, Aleš Czech Council of Children and Youth / Česká rada dětí a mládeže Praha, TSCHECHIEN

Dr. Sendler, Hans H. Th. Eusendor Berlin, Deutschland

Smolarz, Heidi Berlin, Deutschland

6/8 Störkle, Mario Hochschule Luzern Luzern, SWITZERLAND

Stuth, Andreas Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend Berlin, Deutschland

Sýkorová, Kateřina Business for society / Byznys pro společnost Praque, CZECH REPUBLIC

Dr. Tragust, Karl Autonome Provinz Bozen, Agentur für soziale und wirtschaftliche Entwicklung Bozen, ITALY

Traschkowitsch, Peter Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs Wien, AUSTRIA

Tümmler, Christiane Der Regierende Bürgermeister von Berlin, Senatskanzlei Berlin, Deutschland

Dr. Tümmler, Siegfried Institut für jugendpolitische Themen Berlin, Deutschland

Ullrich, Sabine Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend Berlin, Deutschland

Dr. Waldmann, Marcus Vertretung des Landes Mecklenburg- Vorpommern beim Bund Berlin, Deutschland

Wanke, Manja Senatsverwaltung für Gesundheit und Soziales des Landes Berlin Berlin, Deutschland

Weber, Thomas Deutsches Rotes Kreuz e.V., Generalsekretariat Berlin, Deutschland

7/8

Page 44 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – List of participants

Dr. Zenk, Guenter Senior Experten Service, Stiftung der Deutschen Wirtschaft für internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH Bonn, Deutschland

8/8

Page 45 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – Welcome speech // Michael Löher

2.4  Volunteering in Europe – International exchange about concepts and benefits to society 2.4.1 Welcome speech German Association for Public and Private Welfare – Michael Löher

Welcoming speech by Michael Löher, Executive Director, German Association for Public and Private Welfare, given at the international conference “Volunteering in Europe“ on 13 January 2014

(Check against delivery)

Dear State Secretary Dr Kleindiek,

dear Mr Linzbach, dear Ms Elping,

dear Mr MacDonald,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

A very warm welcome to this international conference on “Volunteering in Europe" on behalf of the entire Deutscher Verein für öffentliche und private Fürsorge. Deutscher Verein is one of the organisations running the “Observatory for Sociopolitical Developments in Europe”, which invited you to this conference to exchange experiences and ideas and get networked.

Deutscher Verein has dealt with and worked on volunteering in the discussions here in Germany for many years now. As a lobby for social services and organisations, Deutscher Verein finds it very important to highlight the triad of funding, infrastructural facilities and legal security when it comes to volunteering. Our opinions and position papers will give you an outline and you will find an overview in your conference folders.

Deutscher Verein does not only actively participate in the German discussions but is always also very interested in what is going on in other European countries so that it can contextualise the German debate and find or recommend best practices.

Given that here in Germany we now have a new Federal Government which can also exert its influence in Europe, we are all very curious what the newly appointed State Secretary Dr. Kleindiek is going to say in his introductory speech on how the Federal Government wants to support volunteering. I look forward to your impetus for the later discussions.

I would like to extend our special thanks to the Federal Ministry of Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth, which is funding us and without which this conference would not have been convened.

Page 46 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – Welcome speech // Michael Löher

So, Ladies and Gentlemen, I am delighted to see you all here - so many participants and speakers from all over Europe. For me, this signals the significance of this issue, in the European context in particular.

Let me add a few words on how this conference came about and what objectives it has:

This conference originates from the idea to push ahead the networking of governmental, European and civil society players in order to promote volunteering.

This conference thus continues a number of specific events that the Observatory has already organised on this issue. Let me just mention the conference on “Senior Citizens and Volun- teering“ in Berlin in 2011and last year’s event Michael Löher (German Association for Public and Private with a focus on measuring volunteering. Welfare)

This conference now is intended to shed some light on the European dimension and strengthen the international debate.

A “European exchange on policies of volunteering” as a tool to be used to learn from each other has been explicitly mentioned in the Federal Government’s volunteering strategy, which also describes the project of establishing “a policy field of volunteering at the European level”.

And only last month, the European Parliament has again shown that it wants a better volunteering policy when in its Resolution on volunteering and voluntary activity in Europe it asked the Commission to promote a joint European approach in volunteering.

This, however, needs an exchange on what we have in common in Europe, what joint solutions we may find to rise to the challenges and where we could make use of joint opportunities?

This is where you come in, Ladies and Gentlemen, and where you can contribute your ideas and experiences, no matter if you represent a public institution or civil society. The six workshops here will give you ample opportunity. Today, it will be primarily about public frameworks and strategies of promoting volunteering. Tomorrow, we will focus upon volunteering and its benefits to society, that is, why do we as a society or state want to promote volunteering in the first place?

Page 47 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – Welcome speech // Michael Löher

So please participate in the discussions in a very active fashion and also make use of the breaks to get networked in order to make this conference a real success.

Let me wish you and all of us good and inspiring discussions and new momentum for an on- going pan-European exchange.

Thank you all very much!

Page 48 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – Welcome speech // Dr. Ralf Kleindiek

2.4.2 Welcome speech Federal Ministry of Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth – State Secretary Dr. Ralf Kleindiek

Speech by Dr. Ralf Kleindiek, State Secretary, Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth

given at the

International conference

“Volunteering in Europe – International exchange about concepts and benefits to society“

on 13 January 2014

(Check against delivery.)

Page 49 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – Welcome speech // Dr. Ralf Kleindiek

Dear Mr Löher,

dear Mr MacDonald,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I would like to extend my warm welcome to you and tell you how pleased I am that I can speak to you here at the beginning of this international conference.

In Germany, people do volunteer work for other people 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Often, this work remains invisible and is still a matter of course. The private welfare sector alone, with its six major welfare organisations, AWO, DRK, Caritas, Diakonie, Zentralwohlfahrtsstelle der Juden and Paritätischer Gesmatverband, has up to three million people who do unpaid volunteer work.

Often, the public at large doesn’t even know,

• what the many volunteers in more than 600,000 registered associations, more than 19,000 foundations, about 300 community foundations, more than 360 volunteer agencies and many other civil-society organisations actually do;

• what citizens in their associations, parishes or neighbourhoods do for children, mothers or the elderly and many others;

• how many people champion social or cultural causes or work in sports, for the environment, in disaster relief organisations etc. etc.

More than one third of all the citizens older than 14 years of age do volunteer work in one form or another.

That is 23 million people!

All these people shape our society in an indispensable fashion. After all, volunteering is an expression of a vibrant civil society and responsible civism. Volunteering always means lived solidarity and co-responsibility with and for the disadvantaged and needy. If someone does voluntary work for others, they deserve our full support. It is therefore in our society’s very own interest and my ministry’s responsibility to preserve, cultivate and consolidate the structures of volunteering in Germany.

Page 50 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – Welcome speech // Dr. Ralf Kleindiek

This includes coming up with volunteering incentives. After all, volunteering also faces competition with other options.

Therefore, the new Federal Government’s coalition agreement provides for a strengthening of volunteering in Germany. The primary task is to trigger local self-organisation processes:

We want to continue to promote volunteering opportunities for our citizens. We want to improve the framework of unpaid voluntary work. We want to take up more volunteering experiences and ideas. We want to see to more acknowledgement of all the generations’ volunteering and unpaid voluntary work. We want to continue to promote and support the welfare organisations’ work. And we want to facilitate the establishment of entrepreneurial initiatives (e.g. village shops, day-care centres, energy projects, age-appropriate housing).

This is our to-do list for the next four years.

Let me now highlight some specific projects:

Volunteering is indispensable if it is about an active shaping of what impact the demographic change will have and reinforcing social cohesion. The majority of the population would like to remain in their home and familiar environment and take part in social life even when they are old, ill, in need of care or disabled. They don’t want to move into a nursing home or any other in-patient facility.

We have to support these people by, for example, creating local contact points for the elderly. This requires a professional infrastructure on the one hand, but is simply not feasible without local volunteering on the other. Here, we will work upon possible solutions.

And a customised and dependable support structure aside, there is also the multi- generational approach. In such houses, inter-generational solidarity is actually lived and developed on a daily basis. The “multi-generation house action programme” will further develop the multi-generational and volunteering infrastructure having been established and expanded in almost all rural and urban district since 2006.

We do now fund 450 multi-generation houses in Germany that provide space for joint activities and create a new neighbourly environment. We deem it essential that we provide

Page 51 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – Welcome speech // Dr. Ralf Kleindiek

leeway and a supportive framework for volunteering. There simply must be places in towns and villages at which people show commitment, support each other and can receive help and advice.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Volunteer services are a special form of volunteering and educational services. You will here discuss them in the context of volunteering programmes and be presented examples, the situation in Germany, for instance, which will also later be discussed in a workshop. So here, it shall suffice to say that:

Volunteer services are on the upswing in Germany. Volunteer services change perspectives. We know that social services do make male adolescents at least think about perhaps choosing a job in the social sector, not usually considered to be a male domain. Here, we see a direct use of volunteer services.

Volunteer services broaden horizons through their international component, be it our “Internationaler Jugendfreiwilligen- dienst” (international youth volunteer service) with over 3,000 volunteers, the European Voluntary Service, the “weltwärts“ programme run by the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation or the Foreign Ministry’s “kulturweit“ programme.

Dr. Ralf Kleindiek (BMFSFJ) We also want to provide more foreign volunteers who want to do their service here in Germany with such an opportunity in the so-called “Incoming” sector. In cooperation with the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation, we have come up with a “weltwärts-south-north-component” in the “Bundesfreiwilligendienst” (Federal Volunteer Service), for example.

We want further to develop these services in all their diversity and by preserving their high quality and expand them in a fashion that takes account of civil society’s responsibility.

Page 52 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – Welcome speech // Dr. Ralf Kleindiek

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The social significance of social volunteering is certainly on the increase, but often without the institutions and their paid staff being sufficiently prepared for it. This makes cooperation sometimes difficult and may lead to resignation or even retirement from unpaid volunteer work. We want to reduce the potential for conflicts here and see less red tape and more good cooperation practices.

Before the year is out, we will present the result of a study that examines the cooperation between paid and unpaid staff in the care sector, sports and the cultural arena, provides the first reliable data in this field and will lead to action guidelines.

Regarding volunteering, acknowledgement is of great importance. In contrast to paid staff, unpaid volunteer staff does not get a monthly paycheque. But they do not work “for nothing” either. Volunteering deserves acknowledgement – both on a small scale and on a large one, catching the attention of the media.

By having annually awarded the “Deutscher Engagementpreis” (German volunteering prize) to mark the International Volunteer Day (December 5) since 2009, the Federal Ministry of the Interior, in conjunction with the Association of German Foundations and other partners from civil society, contributes to a better social acknowledgement of volunteering and honours it.

One important aspect of the prize is that the winners have not applied for it. Other people have selected and proposed them as their “personal volunteering heroes” because they achieve a lot on a small scale and, when looking at the combined total, also change a lot on a large scale and thus in our society.

The public attention and climate of estimation triggered by the German volunteering prize provide huge momentum to a nationwide strengthening and acknowledgement of volun- teering in all its aspects.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Volunteering is no longer just a private hobby. Companies have also discovered social commitment as an important and necessary cause: almost two thirds of all German companies (64 per cent) show volunteering activities, focusing upon their direct local and regional environment.

Page 53 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – Welcome speech // Dr. Ralf Kleindiek

Not in an entirely disinterested fashion, to be sure. After all, such commitment also polishes one’s image, but in all fairness their engagement also stands for sustainability and a bull’s- eye-approach.

By cooperating with business, we reinforce the support for volunteering in Germany. If companies support their staff in their volunteering, this is a win-win situation: society wins, the volunteers win and the company does also win. Therefore, in conjunction with business we champion the triad of family, job and volunteering. I consider the further development of volunteering among the staff of private and public employers and welfare organisations to be an important area for volunteering.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

These were some examples to outline our projects for the next four years. They all show that the Federal Government attaches much importance to volunteering when it comes to rising to the challenges we face. It relies on our society’s strength, potential and self-organisational skills.

By this parliamentary term’s halfway point, or thereabout, the Federal Government will publish a volunteering report. This second volunteering report is to present the development of volunteering in Germany. The main issues will be the demographic change and the impact of volunteering upon local developments.

Irrespective of all our efforts to promote and support volunteering and come up with a good framework for it, we must never forget that the most important factor are the citizens themselves and their self-confidence, self-organisational skills and their ability to take action and continue to do so. And you, Ladies and Gentlemen, are important, too. You, the volunteering decision-makers from civil society, the political arena, science and administration, are needed to help us to create the right framework.

So let me conclude by wishing you all the best in your work in Europe and an interesting and inspiring conference here in Berlin.

Thank you very much!

Page 54 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – Welcome speech // John MacDonald

2.4.3 Volunteering in the EU – Its value, status quo and latest developments - John MacDonald

Speech by John MacDonald, European Commission, given at the international conference “Volunteering in Europe“ on 13 January 2014

Volunteering in the EU – Its value, status quo and latest developments

(Check against delivery.)

Thank you very much, Mister State Secretary, Mister Löher, Ladies and Gentleman, thank you for having me here today. Some of you may remember me from the European Year of Volunteering 2011 because I was the Head of the Task Force in the European Commission that was in charge of running the European Year of Volunteering. Since then, through no fault of my own, I have also been given the job of being in charge of the European Year of Citizens 2013. So probably I am the only person in the European Commission who has been in the position of running two European Years.

What are these European years about, what do we try to do with them? In general any European Year aims to do two things: we want to raise awareness about the issue concerned and, secondly, we want to ensure that the European Year acts as a policy development catalyst. In other words, that it encourages longer lasting developments in the area of policy development for the years after the European Year ended. In trying to do this we need money, but you will also be aware that the budgets that we have available in the European Commission to run these European Years tend to be rather modest to say the least and especially if you take in account that we are talking about running a Europe-wide year-long campaign. So we need and rely on multipliers, interested parties and stakeholders who will work with us as partners to help implement these European Years. Our main partners typically are the offices of the European Commission that we have in each of the Member States, we call them Representation Offices. There are the European Parliament’s own Information Offices in each of the Member States and also when we have the money we often are able to ensure that the Member States are able to appoint an appropriate authority in their administrations to look after the implementation of a European Year in their jurisdiction. Crucially and in particular in the area of volunteering we made sure that we had a good collaboration with the voice of Civil Society. In the European Year of Volunteering 2011 this was made very easy for us because the relevant Civil Society organisations that work in the area of volunteering all got together in a handy package called the ‘European Year of Volunteering Alliance’. This alliance ensured that we had a one-stop address to turn to, one phone call to make to one person, to represent the interests of Civil Society in volunteering in that year. So successful was that approach that the same thing was done in the European Year of Citizens 2013 where we have a unique constellation of 62 Europe-wide Civil Society organisations and networks that are engaged in issues of European integration, citizen’s

Page 55 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – Welcome speech // John MacDonald

engagement and EU citizenship. These very disparate organisations got together under one umbrella, calling itself the ‘European Year of Citizens Alliance’. And for us running the European Year it is very handy to have such a key partner representing Civil Society to work with.

I talked about a policy development legacy being an important ambition for any European Year. And in the European Year of Volunteering we were richly blessed with many policy- oriented documents. We had a Commission Communication on volunteering that appeared in September 2011, we had two sets of Council Conclusions on volunteering issues, we had a Declaration by the national coordination bodies, also on volunteering issues, we had an Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee and from our friends in the Civil Society organisations - the Alliance - we had a Policy Agenda for Volunteering in Europe (P.A.V.E.), we call it the ‘PAVE document’. These documents and more recently, very recently in fact, I think it was just a couple of weeks ago, Mr Marco Scurria, an Italian MEP, produced a European Parliament resolution on volunteering and voluntary activity in Europe. This is yet another policy-oriented document that is testament to the on-going policy development legacy that we have been able to look back on since the European Year of Volunteering 2011.

Other things have been going on too, that have ensured that the momentum that we build up during 2011 continued beyond the end of that year. We have had for example recently the designation of the first ever European Volunteering Capital for 2014, which is the municipality of Barcelona. And there have been many other initiatives taken by various people since the end of 2011.

The Commission has not been resting John MacDonald (European Commission) either. We have also been involved in ensuring a follow-up to the European Year. You may have already heard of the EU Aid Volunteers scheme that was talked about during 2011 and came into being in the form of various pilot projects in the years since. My colleagues who are running that scheme tell me that we are about to make a formal proposal for setting it up, a little later than was originally planned, in March 2014. And we expect then the EU aid volunteers with all their accoutrements to be fully operational in 2015. This EU Aid Volunteers scheme is a very much hands-on and service-oriented initiative.

Page 56 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – Welcome speech // John MacDonald

The Commission has also been involved in rather more scene-setting and framework-giving work, especially when it comes to recognition of volunteering. Mr Kleindiek talked about the recognition of volunteering being an important part and we totally agree. Our modest contribution in this area was the recent adoption of a 'Council Recommendation on the recognition of non-formal and informal learning outcomes'. Non-formal and informal learning outcomes are precisely what volunteers get when they do some volunteering. In these difficult economic times it cannot be denied that this form of giving a system of recognition to the skills and competences that people get when they do some volunteering is important, especially for younger people who may be looking for a job. I know that this is not appreciated by all our friends in the world of volunteering. I have heard many times people complain that the public authorities around Europe have become far too utilitarian in their approach to volunteering, by focussing on its ability to give people skills and competences which they can then enter into their CVs to improve their job prospects. But it is undeniable: that is an important thing that can result from doing some volunteering work, and so why not, especially in these difficult economic times, at least introduce a mechanism for providing some form of recognition of the skills and competences people can get when they do volunteering. These benefits in terms of skills and improved competences focus on the individual and how the individual can benefit from being a volunteer. We are in the Commission keen to remind you, and I would like to reassure you, that the utilitarian approach is not all that we understand volunteering to be. For us volunteering goes to the heart of the core values of the European Union and it is about so much more than just the acquisition of skills and competences.

In our own Communication, which we made in December 2011 – this is essentially a policy declaration by the European Commission – we emphasize the role of volunteering and of volunteers to be the glue that holds society together. Volunteering addresses the objective of solidarity that is one of the core values of the EU and it helps with the integration of the economically and socially marginalized. It helps fight racism, prejudice and bigotry and it is a very visible expression of responsible democratic citizenship. The famous artist Marjorie Moore said that volunteering is the ultimate exercise in democracy. She said: “You vote in elections once a year, but when you volunteer you vote every day about the kind of community you want to live in.” And as we gear up for the European Parliament elections in May this year, I am pleased to see that there has been an ever greater focus on this civic participation element, this citizen’s engagement focus, through volunteering and through other means of expression that have developed in the recent past.

I think that we can make a convincing case that we have been building up to this for a number of years. Never before have we had a series of European Years that have been

Page 57 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – Welcome speech // John MacDonald

thematically linked like the past four European Years. In 2010 we had the European Year of Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion, 2011 swiftly followed with the European Year of Volunteering, 2012 was the European Year of Active Ageing and Intergenerational Solidarity and in 2013 we had the European Year of Citizens. The theme linking these years has been citizen’s engagement one could say, civic participation, and there is a good reason to welcome this red threat that runs through these four European Years. Because most of the policy areas that we would like to ensure policy development in are Member State competences — the European Union institutions cannot tell the Member States what to do in these areas. Instead we have to recommend, encourage and foster policy development in these areas. And it really helps when we are able to keep the momentum up, through, for example, this kind of series of European Years with a thematic link between them. The likelihood is higher then, that a long-lasting, meaningful set of measures can be taken by the appropriate authorities across Europe to help make this continent a better place for its citizens to live in in the future.

In the area of volunteering, we have seen the usefulness of this in the policy recommendations that I mentioned briefly, the PAVE document, and we saw it again last month. At the culmination of the European Year of Citizens in Vilnius, at our closing conference in December, the European Year of Citizens Alliance presented the Commission with its set of recommendations from the point of view of Civil Society for how authorities at the EU level, but also at the Member State level and

elsewhere, and how Civil Society John MacDonald (European Commission) organisations themselves, can take things forward in the years to come. A series of around 80 recommendations where ceremonially handed over to the Commission’s Vice President, Madame Viviane Reding, at that event, and she immediately committed the Commission to responding to those recommendations formally in due course — and we will do so.

In other words, it means that citizen’s engagement, civic participation, will be issues that will definitely continue to be in focus, certainly on the EU level, for the months and years to come.

Page 58 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – Welcome speech // John MacDonald

Another big deliverable in 2013, that will help maintain this momentum, was the 2013 edition of the EU Citizenship Report, produced by the European Commission. This report informs about the EU rights that we as citizens of the EU automatically enjoy on top of any rights that we already have as citizens of a Member State. It talks about the obstacles that citizens encounter when trying to enjoy those EU rights in their daily life. The report’s findings were based on wide-ranging consultations, and put forward twelve tangible actions in six key areas, such as employment, free movement, electoral rights and information. Their aim is to make the life of EU citizens easier, notably in cross boarder situations. Some of these actions will make things easier for volunteers and for volunteering organisations, such as measures to remove the obstacles faced by EU citizens in relation to their identity and residence documents. The report also highlights the need to facilitate the mobility of persons with disabilities within the EU by supporting the development of a mutually recognized EU disability card to ensure equal access to service benefits and transport, tourism, culture and leisure, for example. And there will be measures taken to ensure that local administrations are given the tools to fully comprehend the free movement and other EU rights that citizens have. Hopefully better-informed administrations would then not need to be brought before the EU Ombudsman by citizens, including volunteers, who may feel that their rights have been denied them.

These are just some of the examples to illustrate how the European Year of 2013 will have a long-lasting impact in terms of policy making in the area of civic engagement, especially more tangibly in helping to create a better functioning, facilitated environment for volunteers and volunteering organisations with less red tape or unnecessary hurdles, so that they can do their necessary work as the glue that holds society together.

It is sobering and encouraging at the same time to realize, therefore, that the Commission, being so impressed with what happened during 2013, has decided not to have a European Year 2014 with a different topic. I quote from an answer given to an MEP very recently, who asked what the theme of the European Year 2014 was going to be. The answer was: “Given the specific nature of 2014 as a year of elections of the European Parliament and a year of transition, the Commission considered that it would be more appropriate to continue actions related to the European Year 2013 into 2014. The European Year of Citizens has been a success and many actions are relevant to participation in democracy and inclusive participation in the shaping of EU policies.” What this actually means, we are still working out. No dedicated budget has been allocated to this grand exercise yet so we will keep you posted as to developments. We are also currently setting out an action plan about what precisely we will be doing with this prolongation of the successful actions of 2013. But it means that we can show that volunteering and other expressions of civic engagement will

Page 59 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – Welcome speech // John MacDonald

continue to be focussed on during this year and beyond. We certainly have not forgotten what we said in 2011 about volunteering being at the core of EU’s values and we look forward to continuing our work therefore, with you and all our other partners that we have been so used to working with in the recent past, to make more of what we have been doing, to continue with the momentum that we have built up.

Thank you very much!

Page 60 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS1

2.5 Workshop 1

13th January 2014

Workshop 1

Public frameworks and strategies of promoting volunteering

Anton Hörting, Federal Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Consumer Protection, Austria Ole Christian Madsen, National Centre of Volunteering, Denmark Dr. Rupert Graf Strachwitz, Maecenata Institute for Philanthropy and Civil Society

Moderated by Mirko Schwärzel, European Volunteer Centre

Page 61 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS1 // Anton Hörting

Freiwilliges Engagement in Österreich // Anton Hörting

Grundsatzangelegenheiten der Senior/inn/en-, Bevölkerungs- und Freiwilligenpolitik

Freiwilliges Engagement in Österreich

13.1.2014 Anton Hörting

Grundsatzangelegenheiten der SeniorInnen-, Bevölkerungs- und Freiwilligenpolitik

Freiwilliges/ehrenamtliches/bürgerschaftliches Engagement • Freiwilliges Engagement hat in Österreich ein lange Tradition • Österreich wird in vielen Bereichen von seiner Freiwilligenkultur geprägt • Freiwilliges Engagement sichert den sozialen Zusammenhalt (über gesetzliche Verpflichtungen und sozialstaatliche Netz hinaus) • Freiwilliges Engagement/Ehrenamt kann und darf sozialversicherungspflichtige Arbeit nicht ersetzen • Hohes freiwilliges Engagement in Österreich

13.1.2014 Anton Hörting

Page 62 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS1 // Anton Hörting

Grundsatzangelegenheiten der SeniorInnen-, Bevölkerungs- und Freiwilligenpolitik

Struktur und Volumen der Freiwilligenarbeit in Österreich

Bundesweite Bevölkerungsbefragung (IFES, 2013)

13.1.2014 Anton Hörting

Formen der Freiwilligenarbeit

Freiwilligenarbeit Freiwillige Leistung ohne Bezahlung für Personen außerhalb des eigenen Haushalts

Formelle Freiwilligenarbeit Informelle Freiwilligenarbeit Aktivitäten im Rahmen von Nachbarschaftshilfe Organisationen und Vereinen

13.1.2014 Anton Hörting

Page 63 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS1 // Anton Hörting

Bundesweite Beteiligungsquote an Freiwilligenarbeit (in %)

0 20 40 60 80 10 0

Gesamt 46

formelle 28 Freiwilligenarbeit

informelle 31 Freiwilligenarbeit

nichts davon 54

Basis: Gesamt, n=4.000

Beteiligungsquote im Zeitvergleich (in %)

0 20 40 60 80 10 0

46 Gesamt 43.8

formelle 28 Freiwilligenarbeit 27.9

informelle 31 Freiwilligenarbeit 27.1

2012 54 nichts davon 2006 56.2

Basis: Gesamt, n=4.000

Page 64 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS1 // Anton Hörting

Hochrechnung in Millionen

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Gesamt 3.2-3.4 Millionen

formelle 1.9-2.1 Millionen Freiwilligenarbeit

informelle 2.1-2.3 Millionen Freiwilligenarbeit

Basis: Österreichische Bevölkerung (01.01.2012), N=7,2 Millionen

Beteiligungsquote nach Geschlecht (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

49 Gesamt 42

32 formelle Freiwilligenarbeit 24

32 informelle Freiwilligenarbeit 31

Männer Frauen

Basis: Gesamt, n=4.000

Page 65 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS1 // Anton Hörting

Beteiligungsquote nach Alter (in %)

0 20 40 60 80 10 0

15-29 Jahre 43

30-39 Jahre 42

40-49 Jahre 46 Gesamt 50-59 Jahre 55

60-69 Jahre 53

70 Jahre + 36

15-29 Jahre 27

30-39 Jahre 27 formelle 40-49 Jahre 28 Freiwilligen- arbeit 50-59 Jahre 32

60-69 Jahre 32

70 Jahre + 22

15-29 Jahre 27

30-39 Jahre 28 informelle Freiwilligen- 40-49 Jahre 31 arbeit 50-59 Jahre 44

60-69 Jahre 39

70 Jahre + 23

Basis: Gesamt, n=4.000

Beteiligungsquote nach Bildung (in %)

0 20 40 60 80 10 0 Pflichtschule ohne 35 Ausbildung

Pflichtschule mit Lehre 42 Gesamt Fachschule 50

Matura 54

Hochschule/ 61 Akademie

Pflichtschule ohne 19 Ausbildung

formelle Lehre 24 Freiwilligen- arbeit Fachschule 30

Matura 35

Hochschule/ 45 Akademie

Pflichtschule ohne 25 Ausbildung

Lehre 29 informelle Freiwilligen- Fachschule 35 arbeit Matura 37

Hochschule/ 41 Akademie

Basis: Gesamt, n=4.000

Page 66 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS1 // Anton Hörting

Beteiligungsstruktur nach Geschlecht

Gesamt

Frauen 48% Männer 52%

formelle informelle Freiwilligenarbeit Freiwilligenarbeit

Frauen Männer 44% Frauen 49% 51% Männer 56%

Basis: formelle Freiwilligenarbeit, n=1.110; informelle Freiwilligenarbeit, n=1.257

Formelle Freiwilligenarbeit nach Bereichen

0 10 20 30 40

Gesamt 28

Katastrophenhilfs- und 5 Rettungsdienste

Kunst, Kultur, 6 Freizeit

Umwelt, Natur und 3 Tierschutz

kirchlicher oder religiöser 5 Bereich

Sozial- und 4 Gesundheitsbereich

Politische Arbeit und 3 Interessensvertretung

Bürgerliche Aktivitäten 5 und Gemeinwesen

Bildung 3

Sport und Bewegung 8

Basis: Gesamt, n=4.000, Angabe in Prozent

Page 67 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS1 // Anton Hörting

Formelle Freiwilligenarbeit: Struktur nach Geschlecht

0 20 40 60 80 10 0

Gesamt 56 44

Katastrophenhilfs- und 77 23 Rettungsdienste

Kunst, Kultur, 51 49 Freizeit

Umwelt, Natur und 46 54 Tierschutz

kirchlicher oder religiöser 41 59 Bereich

Sozial- und 36 64 Gesundheitsbereich

Politische Arbeit und 62 38 Interessensvertretung

Bürgerliche Aktivitäten 57 43 und Gemeinwesen

Bildung 45 55

Sport und Bewegung 69 31

Basis: Gesamt, n=4.000, Angabe in Prozent Männer Frauen

Formelle Freiwilligenarbeit: Zeitaufwand in den letzten 7 Tagen

0 20 40 60 80 10 0

Katastrophenhilfs- und 12 21 12 6 3 45 3.7 Rettungsdienste

Kunst, Kultur, 25 28 8 6 3 30 4.1 Freizeit

Umwelt, Natur und 23 21 12 7 3 34 4.1 Tierschutz

kirchlicher oder religiöser 39 20 9 42 27 3.3 Bereich

Sozial- und 23 27 6 7 4 34 4.0 Gesundheitsbereich

Politische Arbeit und 16 24 18 4 2 35 4.0 Interessensvertretung

Bürgerliche Aktivitäten 27 17 6 41 46 2.6 und Gemeinwesen

Bildung 23 23 7 6 5 35 4.3

Sport und Bewegung 29 26 14 6 1 25 3.8

1-2 Stunden 3-5 Stunden MW 6-10 Stunden 11-20 Stunden über 20 Stunden nie

Basis: in den einzelnen Bereichen ehrenamtlich tätig

Page 68 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS1 // Anton Hörting

Informelle Freiwilligenarbeit nach Bereichen

0 10 20 30 40

Gesamt 31

für andere diverse 11 Hausarbeiten erledigen

Reparaturen und handwerkliche Arbeiten 10 für Nachbarn bzw. Freunde durchführen Besuche bei betreuungs- bedürftigen Personen 10 machen

Betreuung von pflegebedürftigen 6 Personen

Fahrtendienste 6

Gartenpflege bei Nachbarn 7 bzw. anderen Personen

Mithilfe bei Katastrophen 4

Amtswege und Schriftverkehr für andere 7 erledigen bzw. mithelfen

privat unbezahlte Nachhilfe 4 geben

Basis: Gesamt, n=4.000, Angabe in Prozent

Informelle Freiwilligenarbeit: Struktur nach Geschlecht

0 20 40 60 80 10 0

Gesamt 49 51

für andere diverse 43 57 Hausarbeiten erledigen Reparaturen und handwerkliche Arbeiten 81 19 für Nachbarn bzw. Freunde durchführen Besuche bei betreuungs- bedürftigen Personen 32 68 machen Betreuung von pflegebedürftigen 37 63 Personen

Fahrtendienste 52 48

Gartenpflege bei Nachbarn 56 44 bzw. anderen Personen

Mithilfe bei Katastrophen 70 30

Amtswege und Schriftverkehr für andere 52 48 erledigen bzw. mithelfen

privat unbezahlte Nachhilfe 37 63 geben

Männer Frauen

Basis: Gesamt, n=4.000, Angabe in Prozent

Page 69 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS1 // Anton Hörting

Informelle Freiwilligenarbeit: Zeitaufwand in den letzten 7 Tagen

0 20 40 60 80 10 0

31 20 9 4 2 31 3,4

1-2 Stunden 3-5 Stunden 6-10 Stunden MW 11-20 Stunden über 20 Stunden nie

Basis: informelle Freiwilligenarbeit, n=1.257

Gründe für Freiwilligenarbeit (1/2)

0 20 40 60 80 10 0

Ich möchte damit 58 35 3 2 anderen helfen

Es macht mir Spaß 44 44 6 1

Ich möchte etwas Nützliches für das 41 44 6 5 Gemeinwohl beitragen

Es bietet mir die Möglichkeit, meine 37 46 7 6 Erfahrungen zu teilen

Ich treffe Menschen und 37 44 8 7 gewinne Freunde

Ich kann meine Fähigkeiten und 34 44 8 10 Kenntnisse einbringen

Ich möchte mich für eine wichtige Sache 32 42 11 10 engagieren

trifft voll und ganz zu trifft eher schon zu trifft eher nicht zu trifft überhaupt nicht zu

Basis: Freiwilligenarbeit, n=1.825, Angabe in Prozent

Page 70 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS1 // Anton Hörting

Gründe für Freiwilligenarbeit (2/2)

0 20 40 60 80 10 0

Es hilft mir, aktiv zu 32 41 11 12 bleiben

Es gibt mir die Möglichkeit, 31 41 15 9 dazuzulernen

Ich arbeite ehrenamtlich, weil ich möchte, 27 43 13 13 dass auch mir geholfen wird, wenn ich Hilfe

Es bringt auch mir einen 21 48 16 10 Nutzen

Es erweitert meine 30 38 17 11 Lebenserfahrung.

Es bringt mir gesellschaftliche 22 36 18 15 Anerkennung

Es hilft mir für meinen 7 16 20 52 Beruf

Ich hoffe, dass mir die Tätigkeit hilft, einen 5 13 17 61 bezahlten Job zu finden

trifft voll und ganz zu trifft eher schon zu trifft eher nicht zu trifft überhaupt nicht zu

Basis: Freiwilligenarbeit, n=1.825, Angabe in Prozent

Gründe gegen Freiwilligenarbeit (1/2)

0 20 40 60 80 10 0

Ich bin niemals gefragt 37 24 12 18 8 oder gebeten worden

Ich habe nie 32 25 15 20 8 darüber nachgedacht

Ich bin durch familiäre 31 23 15 25 6 Aufgaben ausgefüllt

Ich bin über die Möglichkeiten einer Freiwilligenarbeit 12 26 14 38 9 zu wenig informiert

Es lässt sich mit meinem 16 18 12 46 8 Beruf nicht vereinbaren

trifft voll und ganz zu trifft eher schon zu trifft eher nicht zu trifft überhaupt nicht zu w.n./k.A.

Basis: keine Freiwilligenarbeit, n=2.175, Angabe in Prozent

Page 71 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS1 // Anton Hörting

Gründe gegen Freiwilligenarbeit (2/2)

0 20 40 60 80 10 0

Das ist nichts für 16 14 13 49 8 meine Altersgruppe

Es gibt in meiner Nähe keine für mich attraktiven Möglichkeiten, 8 20 14 39 19 ehrenamtlich zu arbeiten

Ich fühle mich durch Krankheit 10 12 13 58 6 oder Behinderung nicht in der Lage

Ich kann mir das nicht leisten, da es für mich mit 5 11 17 57 10 zu hohen Kosten verbunden ist

Ich habe das Gefühl, dass ich keinen nützlichen 5 11 18 57 10 Beitrag leisten kann

Ich habe schlechte 2 6 12 72 8 Erfahrungen gemacht

trifft voll und ganz zu trifft eher schon zu trifft eher nicht zu trifft überhaupt nicht zu w.n./k.A.

Basis: keine Freiwilligenarbeit, n=2.175, Angabe in Prozent

Grundsatzangelegenheiten der SeniorInnen-, Bevölkerungs- und Freiwilligenpolitik

FWE- Maßnahmen

• Freiwilligengesetz (seit 1.6.2012)

Definition FWE u. Freiwilligenorganisationen, Fördermöglichkeit Freiwilligenbericht, -web und -pass Freiwilligenrat Anerkennungsfonds Kostenlose Strafregisterbescheinigung Freiwilliges Soziales Jahr • Freiwilliges Umweltschutzjahr • Gedenkdienst • Sozialdienst im Ausland (Sozialrechtl. Absicherung, pädagogische Begleitung, Arbeitsmarktneutralität, Familienbeihilfenanspruch (auch Europ. Freiwilligendienst)

13.1.2014 Anton Hörting

Page 72 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS1 // Anton Hörting

Grundsatzangelegenheiten der SeniorInnen-, Bevölkerungs- und Freiwilligenpolitik

FWE – Maßnahmen

• Rechtliche Absicherung – Weitestgehende Absicherung im Rettungs- und Katastrophenwesen (Unfall- und Haftpflichtversicherung) – Landesgesetzliche Regelungen – Private Versicherungen

• Spendenabsetzbarkeit (Steuerrecht)

• Österreichischer Freiwilligenrat (seit 2003) gesetzl. seit 2012 – Brücken zwischen den Organisationen bauen – Beratungsgremium der Politik – gemeinsame Entwicklung und Weiterentwicklung von Maßnahmen zur Förderung freiwilligen Engagements

• 10 Freiwilligenzentren – Regionale Zentren zur übergreifenden Gewinnung, Vermittlung und Betreuung von Freiwilligen und Freiwilligenorganisationen

13.1.2014 Anton Hörting

Grundsatzangelegenheiten der SeniorInnen-, Bevölkerungs- und Freiwilligenpolitik

FWE – Maßnahmen

• Qualitätssicherung für Freiwilliges Engagement – Aus- und Weiterbildung • Freiwillige • Freiwilligenkoordinatorinnen und -koordinatoren

• Freiwilligenpass und –nachweis – Kompetenzerwerb dokumentieren und sichtbar machen – Erlangte Fertigkeiten in den beruflichen Kontext übertragen – Verknüpfung mit Wirtschaft

• Informationsmaßnahmen – Freiwilligenbericht – Broschüren – Kalender

• Freiwilligenmesse

13.1.2014 Anton Hörting

Page 73 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS1 // Anton Hörting

Grundsatzangelegenheiten der SeniorInnen-, Bevölkerungs- und Freiwilligenpolitik

FWE – Maßnahmen

• Modellprojekte – (Zielgruppen: Jung/Alt – Generationen; Menschen mit Migrationshintergrund; neue Formen FWE …)

• Auszeichnung und Ehrung von Freiwilligen

• Anerkennungsfonds FWG

• Freiwilligenplattform im Internet www.freiwilligenweb.at

13.1.2014 Anton Hörting

Grundsatzangelegenheiten der SeniorInnen-, Bevölkerungs- und Freiwilligenpolitik

Vielen Dank für Ihre Aufmerksamkeit

13.1.2014 Anton Hörting

Page 74 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS1 // Ole Christian Madsen

The Danish nonprofit sector – Co-creating better welfare? // Ole Christian Madsen

Berlin: January 13–14,2014

The Danish nonprofit sector - Co-creating better welfare?

Ole Christian Madsen MSc (Pol.Sci.) EDIC Manager and a Consultant

Albanigade 54E, 1. sal, 5000 Odense C Tel.: +45 66 14 60 61

[email protected] www.frivillighed.dk\eu E-mail: [email protected]

Agenda

. Facts & figures about Denmark and volunteering in Denmark . Historical view . Why volunteering in a welfare state? . The strategy in Denmark?

Page 75 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS1 // Ole Christian Madsen

Denmark

Population: 5.500.000

Page 76 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS1 // Ole Christian Madsen

43,094 km2

Constitutional monarchy

Head of stat: two women:

Page 77 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS1 // Ole Christian Madsen

Volunteering among the Danish population (2013)

• 40 % volunteer last 12 month (25 % in 1999, 35 % in 2004) • Slightly more male volunteers that female • Most volunteers are between 30 – 49 years • Most volunteers within sport and leisure activities, • But an increase in volunteering within the social and health area • Volunteers spent in average 17 hours per month – young people spent more hours than other age groups (2004)

Page 78 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS1 // Ole Christian Madsen

Volunteering takes place in (n = 114%)

• Culture/sports/leisure 43 %

• Social/health 33 %

• Community 16 %

• Politics (unions/international), Environment/religion 12 %

• Education 10 %

Volunteers do voluntary work in

• The voluntary sector 86 %

• The public sector 16 %

• The private sector 5 %

• The Danish Church 2 %

• Other 4 %

Page 79 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS1 // Ole Christian Madsen

Voluntary organisations Total of 100,200

• Associations – local (83,000) – National (3,000)

• Self-governing institutions (8,000) – Day-care centres, nursing homes, shelters, social café, crisis centres etc. – Free/private schools, folk high schools etc. – Museums and sportcentres – Community centres, activity centres etc.

• Charitable foundations (6,200)

The voluntary sector in general • The value of voluntary work in Denmark equals 9,6 % of the gross domestic product (GDP) (around 20 billion Euro).

• 250,661 full time staff – 140,620 paid staff (full time) – 110,041 volunteers (full time)

• 2/3 of the paid staff employed within ’social service’ and ’education’

Page 80 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS1 // Ole Christian Madsen

Background/history for volunteering • Long tradition of forming associations

• The freedom of association is secured by § 78 of Grundloven (the Danish Constitution from 1849)

Historical

• From the 1930s, and in particular during the 1960s and 1970s, the system of public social welfare services expanded gradually. » 1933 saw a large-scale social reform, which is regarded as the foundation stone of the Danish welfare state » Danish Social Assistance Act of 1976

Page 81 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS1 // Ole Christian Madsen

• From the mid-1970s and into the 1980s, the welfare state was struggling with severe problems. It was a period of general economic recession, high unemployment and rising public expenditure

1980 +

• The post-1980 years were characterised by a desire to find alternative solutions to the social problems of society. At the same time, the period saw a need for decentralisation and a local community approach

Page 82 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS1 // Ole Christian Madsen

From the welfare state to the welfare society.

• The reorientation of Danish social policy meant that the public sector should no longer be solely responsible for citizens’ welfare. Social problems should not exclusively be addressed at a social security office, and everyone - voluntary organisations, private companies, the family, the individual, etc. - was therefore encouraged to share in the social responsibility.

And also at that time :The National Knowledge & Development Centre of Volunteering

• A vision for the collaboration, dialog and support between "The State" and civil society The ideas behind the center was created with inspiration from Israel, where the then Minister of Social Affairs Palle Simonsen was on a state visit Golda Meier: A democratic nation's success depends largely on the success of the state to have a good dialog, relationships and collaboration with its citizens / civil society The result was in DK Contact Committee in 1982 and from there our center in 1992 The purpose of the CFSA has since been supporting and promoting voluntary (social) work

Page 83 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS1 // Ole Christian Madsen

Political

• All parties in parliament agrees and care for the volunteering sector. – That gives consensus and opportunities

Why do Politicians like the sector?

- for difference reason. Democratic, diversity, engagement, society …… But also economic, budget (Local)......

Page 84 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS1 // Ole Christian Madsen

Laws and regulatory framework

• Social Service Act – Oblige municipalities to coorporate with and support volunteering within the social/health area • Danish Act on Popular Education – Oblige municipalities to support voluntary organisations within the educational field • Danish Act on Foundations and Certain Associations

Why volunteering in a welfare state?

 High taxes pay for social services!  Social services take place in public institutions!  Professionals takes care of social problems!  Everyone can get help if they really want to!

So…it’s all taken care of!

Page 85 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS1 // Ole Christian Madsen

Why volunteer in a welfare state?

Well…not quite!

The role of civil society in a welfare state: 1. Civil society as ground for learning and innovation 2. Civil society as ground for innovation & new methods 3. Why do Danish people volunteer? 4. How can organisations keep volunteers interested ?

1. Civil society as ground for learning and innovation

Formal education Different levels af schooling, e.g. elementary school, high school, university etc. (i.e.Habermas’ system )

Personal development Partipation in organisations: culture, sports, leisure, social, community etc. = meaning,morals and identity (i.e Habermas’ lifeworld)

Page 86 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS1 // Ole Christian Madsen

1. Civil society as ground for learning and innovation The voluntary sector contributes to shape a person in full…

 Personal freedom  Public watchdog  Democrat in every aspect of life (qualified decisionsmakers)  Human rights  Self-help and empowerment  Active citizenship

2. Civil society as ground for innovation and new methods

Civil society as ground for…

Social entreprenuership - The ability to discover problems that the public sector doesn’t (Non-profit) - Marketbased solutions with a social aim - Making money & helping society

User-based solutions - Fresh ideas from the target group itself. - Ownership and personal investment

More room for experimentation - No rules and legislation = more innovation! - Non-govermental financing af new social ideas (less barriers, easier to start up)

Page 87 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS1 // Ole Christian Madsen

3. Why volunteer?

The

Career organizational goal Learning

Social expectations Values

Influence/power Identity

Friendship

3. Challenges for organisations

• Recruitment of volunteers – Activities vs. administrative work/management • Project making is gaining ground thus undermining the traditional hierarchical forms of organization • Individualization and lifestyle orientation • Increasing expectations from public institutions that organisations act ”professionally” and according to predetermined standards

Page 88 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS1 // Ole Christian Madsen

4. How can organisations keep volunteers interested ?

Awareness of the organization's values - Underlying values should be visible - Ongoing discussion and dialogue on values - Influence on goals = improvement of voluntary efforts and commitment!

Assignments with development potential - Opportunities to learn new skills and acquire knowledge

Support and guidance Good/bad experiences: Guidance and coaching

The framework which is provided to support volunteering in Denmark.

• The National Knowledge & Development Centre of Volunteering in Denmark • Local Volunteering centers (70) • Projekt Frivillig (social service) • And Funding….

Page 89 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS1 // Ole Christian Madsen

Funding of the voluntary sector

• Local funding – Voluntary social work (§18): – Health prevention among the elderly (§79): – The Danish Act on Popular Education: grants and premises

• National funding – Danish Pools and Lotto Funds (basic grants): 200 mill. Euros – Projects Funding

The future?

Page 90 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS1 // Ole Christian Madsen

National initiatives to support volunteering in Denmark.

• National civil society strategi 2010 • National charter for interaction between the voluntary sector and the public sector (2013) • Barrier and solution catalog for the voluntary sector (2012) • The strategy: Co-creating better welfare 2012

All strategies can be summarized by the following three goals:

• Pooling the resources of all three sectors through co-creation • Eliminating the structural barriers for becoming a volunteer • Strengthening the capacity of civil society to match the demands of co-creation

Page 91 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS1 // Ole Christian Madsen

But

• The main conclusion is that the volunteering sector should be treated as an independent and equal partner and collaboration is the main focus to Co- creating better welfare

Voluntary feed on desire and being killed by compulsion

Page 92 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS2

2.6 Workshop 2

13th January 2014

Workshop 2

Measuring volunteering

Ksenija Fonovic, Centro di Servicio per il Volontariato del Lazio (SPES), Italy Cristina Ramos, Statistics Portugal Prof. Dr. Clemens Tesch-Römer, The German Centre of Gerontology

Moderated by Anna Waldhausen, Observatory for sociopolitical developments in Europe

Page 93 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS2 // Ksenija Fonovic

Measuring volunteering – ILO Standard // Ksenija Fonovic

Measuring volunteering - ILO Standard

Ksenija Fonović

Vicedirettore SPES - Centro di Servizio per il Volontariato del Lazio

Topics of the presentation

1) ILO Manual on the measurement of volunteer work 2) EVMP – European Volunteer Measurement Project and new developments 3) Italian implementation of the ILO Volunteering Module in the national statistical survey 2013

Berlin 2014 - Ksenija Fonovic 2

Page 94 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS2 // Ksenija Fonovic

ILO Manual on the measurement of volunteer work

Prof. Lester Salamon + International Labour Organisation + www.ccss.jhu.edu International Technical Experts Group > Global Consensus Statistical Standard

Berlin 2014 - Ksenija Fonovic 3

From little or no data on volunteering… Or, in the best of cases, methodological chaos…

Volunteer Survey Definition rate National Survey of • Formal volunteering 48% Volunteering UK, 1997 • Informal volunteering 74% European Quality of • “volunteering and Life Survey, 2007 charitable activities” 31% Gallup Worldview • “Organizational volunteering” 29% Survey, 2010 • “Helping strangers” 52% Harmonized European • Organizational work 2% Time Use Survey, 2009 • Informal help to others 10%

Berlin 2014 - Ksenija Fonovic 4

Page 95 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS2 // Ksenija Fonovic

To ILO Manual common broad statistically acceptable and accepted: DEFINITION “Unpaid non-compulsory work; that is, time individuals give without pay to activities performed either through organizations or directly for others outside their own household.” Berlin 2014 - Ksenija Fonovic 5

KEY CRITERIA FOR A COMMON SYSTEM > ILO MANUAL

 Breadth — encompassing the different forms of volunteering found in different countries and cultures.  Conceptual clarity — understandable to the broadest array of stakeholders. Facilitate distinctions.  Objectivity — utilizing measures grounded in empirical observations wherever possible.  Comparability — allowing systematic comparisons  Feasibility — fit with existing statistical systems and financially and operationally sustainable.

Page 96 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS2 // Ksenija Fonovic

ILO MANUAL SURVEY MODULE

What does the survey module ask?  “In the last four weeks did you spend any time on this kind of unpaid activity?”  How many hours?  What did you do?  Directly or through an organization?  Name or kind of organization?  5 Prompts (for those unable to recall).

Measuring the ECONOMIC VALUE of voluntary activities contribution – ILO Manual standard

 How many hours? x  What did you do? (ISCO code for professions: replacement cost) > Financial measure > GDP

Berlin 2014 - Ksenija Fonovic 8

Page 97 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS2 // Ksenija Fonovic

WHAT WILL WE LEARN? - BASIC ILO MODULE

 How many volunteers and who they are.  How many hours they volunteer.  What jobs volunteers perform.  Economic value of volunteer work.  Organizational auspices of work (direct/ nonprofit/for-profit/government).  Fields in which volunteering occurs.

Volunteer rates, demographic profiles of volunteers, economic contribution by sectors of activity… COMPARABLE across EU and globally

DEVELOPING VOLUNTEERING

BARRIERS

I M P A C T S

ON BENEFI- ON ON SOCIETY CIARIES VOLUN-TEERS

Page 98 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS2 // Ksenija Fonovic

European Volunteer Measurement Project Partnership

for a comprehensive collaborative effort: + Volunteering Organisations and Networks + Statistics Agencies + www.evmp.eu Governments and EU policy makers Berlin 2014 - Ksenija Fonovic 11

EVMP APPROACH: INTERCONNECTEDNESS

Combined bottom-up and top-down approach  Building the culture of measurement in the volunteering community • Information, awareness raising, training  Engaging statistical institutes and facilitating civil society - statistical agency collaborations • Joint initiatives, technical training/support/exchange  Advocacy – policy influencing at national/EU level • Institutional documents and third sector policy agenda

Page 99 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS2 // Ksenija Fonovic

Volunteer measurement European policy endorsements

• European Parliament Report on recognising and promoting cross-border voluntary activities in the EU • Council of the European Union Conclusions on the

Role of Voluntary Activities in Social Policy • European Commission Communication on EU Policies and Volunteering • European Economic and Social Committee Opinion on the Commission Communication • EYV 2011 Alliance P.A.V.E. Policy Agenda on Volunteering in Europe • EYV 2011 National Coordinating Bodies Declaration for Sustainability of Action on Voluntary Activities and Active Citizenship

EVMP Developments

• European Year of Volunteering 2011: Momentum for policy making and European awareness

• ILO Manual implementations – Poland, Hungary, Portugal, Italy – Progress in Ireland, Belgium, …

• 2013 EESC Opinion “Statistical tools for measuring volunteering”

• From January 2013 TSI – Third Sector Impact Project

Berlin 2014 - Ksenija Fonovic 14

Page 100 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS2 // Ksenija Fonovic

ILO VOLUNTEERING MODULE IMPLEMENTATION - ITALY

• Translation • National Statistical • Reality check (prompts, plan distinctive activities) • Reference expert • Training of interviewers • Peer competence • Data validation exchange • Dissemination • Connect to • non-profit census ISTAT VSC (NPI satellite ILO standard Network of account) Volunteering module implement volunteer • National accounts for in 2013 support centres economic value calculation for satellite account on volunteering • BES: new indices on FVP well-being Volunteering Third sector research networks foundation

• Human resources in support of implementation • Preparation work for additional questions • Endorse! • Data validation • Use! • Dissemination

Italian MESV project: a partnership between ISTAT – CSVnet – FVP ESSENTIAL INFO and DISTINCTIVE TRAITS  Yearly social survey “Aspects of everyday life”: 2013  Data to be published in July 2013 (ILO standard)

Data separated as to the target: for persons + for collectivity / common goods

Individual volunteering for direct beneficiaries “outside household” – separated data: relatives + others > new ILO definition of “work”

In collaboration with Non Profit Census Istat 2013 BES: Istat system of indicators of well-being 2013 Berlin 2014 - Ksenija Fonovic 16

Page 101 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS2 // Ksenija Fonovic

Italian MESV project: a partnership between ISTAT – CSVnet – FVP ESSENTIAL INFO and DISTINCTIVE TRAITS

Additional data: towards measuring “social values” Motivations Impacts/consequences on the volunteer Length of involvement (organised) Multiple affiliation (organised)

Work continues: analyses and research – conference October 2014 > Istat e-book 2015

Berlin 2014 - Ksenija Fonovic 17

For contacts and collaborations:

ILO Manual technical support and comparative work: Prof. Lester Salamon [email protected]

Italian National Institute of Statistics volunteering expert: Tania Cappadozzi [email protected]

TSI – Third Sector Impact project in Germany Prof. Annette Zimmer [email protected]

Ksenija Fonović [email protected]

Berlin 2014 - Ksenija Fonovic 18

Page 102 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS2 // Ana Cristina Ramos

Survey on Volunteer Work 2012 // Ana Cristina Ramos

« « Survey on Volunteer Work

2012 « Volunteering in Europe. International Exchange about concepts and benefits to society

National Accounts Department Unit for Satellite Accounts and Quality Assessment of the National Accounts Ana Cristina Ramos

13th January 2014 « «

Index « 1. Why a Survey on Volunteer Work? 2. Objective of the Survey on Volunteer Work (SVW) 3. Conceptual delimitation 4. Weaknesses and potentialities of SVW 2012 5. Main results 5.1. Sociodemographic analysis 5.2. Domains of activity and organizational context 5.3. Regional analysis 5.4. International comparison 5.5. Worked hours and economic value 5.6. Volunteer Work and Social Economy

« « «

Page 103 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS2 // Ana Cristina Ramos

0. What is a Satellite Account?

«

Agriculture

Forestry

Environment National Accounts Health

Tourism Non

Social Profit

Institutions Economy « «

1.Why a Survey on Volunteer Work?

«

. Crucial resource for the resolution of several social, economic and environmental problems; . Growing importance in Social Economy (labour intensive activities); . Available information:  Little statistical visibility;  Scattered information;  Non regular;  Non harmonized or systematised data.

« «

Page 104 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS2 // Ana Cristina Ramos

1.Why a Survey on Volunteer Work?

«

Pilot survey on volunteer work 2012 (annex to Labour Force Survey 3ºQ 2012)

Record time

Statistics Portugal Simplified version (Several departments) 8 questions National Accounts • Kind of Volunteer Work Social Statistics (formal/informal); (regular/occasional) Informatics • Kind of organization Methodology • Tasks

Data collection • Length « «

1.Why a Survey on Volunteer Work?

« Pilot survey on volunteer work 2012 (annex to Labour Force Survey 3ºQ 2012)

Simplified version

8 questions • Kind of Volunteer Work (formal/informal); (regular/occasional) • Kind of organization • Tasks

• Length « «

Page 105 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS2 // Ana Cristina Ramos

2. Objective of the Survey on Volunteer Work (SVW) « Characterization of volunteer work:

. Number of volunteers; . Sociodemographic characteristics; . Institutional context; . Type of tasks; . Number of dedicated hours.

« «

3. Conceptual delimitation «

ILO Manual

Methodological and conceptual reference: Manual on the Measurement of Volunteer Work

Harmonization

Relevance « «

Page 106 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS2 // Ana Cristina Ramos

3. Conceptual delimitation «

What is Volunteer Work?

“unpaid non-compulsary work; that is, time individuals [15 years and above] give without pay to activities performed either through an organization or directly for others outside their own household.”

(Source: ILO Manual) « «

3. Conceptual delimitation « Main characteristics of Volunteer Work:

• Individuals with 15 years or more;

• It involves work:  Produces value;  At least 1 hour;  Reference period (1 year).

• Unpaid and non-compulsory work:  Through an organization Formal or organization-based voluntary work;  Directly Informal or direct voluntary work .

• Activities for others (non family members…). « «

Page 107 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS2 // Ana Cristina Ramos

3. Conceptual delimitation «

Some examples of Volunteer Work: • Formal or Organization-based Volunteer Work: teacher or tutor in an organization; participation in “Food Bank” activities, fireman, scouts; etc.;

• Informal or Direct Volunteer Work: free tutoring to the son of a neighbour or a friend; taking care of the elderly; taking

care of a friend’s pet while he is absent on holidays; etc.. « «

3. Conceptual delimitation «

Conceptual specificity:  Total Volunteer Work does not result of the sum between formal and informal work, since the individual may incur in more than one form of Volunteer Work.

Indicator:  Volunteer rate: proportion of volunteers with certain characteristics of the total resident population, with 15 years

or more, with the same characteristics. « «

Page 108 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS2 // Ana Cristina Ramos

4. Weaknesses and potentialities of SVW 2012 «

Weaknesses: • Very specific and sensitive theme, different from the main theme of the main survey (LFS) minor acceptance and commitment in the answer; • Possibility of proxy answer minor quality of the answers; • Socially “well seen” activity overvaluation of the answers (in particular in the declared hours of the volunteer work); • “Simplified” version of the ILO Manual model.

«

4. Weaknesses and potentialities of SVW 2012 « Potentialities: • Use of the best practices and international recommendations; • Use of the Labour Survey as vehicle:

 Standardization of statistical methods;  Sample selection and dimension, with guarantee of representativeness;  Use of professional means in information gathering;  Use of advanced technologies in information gathering (CAPI and CATI);  Sociodemographic characterization of the interviewed. • Actuality and sensitivity of the theme in the actual socioeconomic context Actual and pioneer statistical information.

« «

Page 109 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS2 // Ana Cristina Ramos

5. Main results of SVW 2012 5.1. Sociodemographic analysis « «

• Volunteer rate: 11.5% Volunteer rate, by sex and type of volunteer work (1 million and 40 thousand volunteers) % 14 12,7 11,5 12 10,3 • Female Volunteer Rate is higher, in any 10

kind of volunteer work (formal/informal) 8 6,8 6,2 5,9 5,7 5,8 6 4,8

4

2

0

Total Formal Informal

Total Men Women « «

5. Main results of SVW 2012 5.1. Sociodemographic analysis « «

• Volunteer rates are higher in the Volunteer rate, by age group and type of volunteer work age groups 25-44 (13.1%) and 45- % 64 (12.7%) 15 13,1 12,7 11,6 12 • Formal Volunteer work is higher 9 8,3 in younger age groups: age15-24 7,3 7,1 7,0 6,0 6,2 (8.3%) 6 4,8 3,4 2,7 3 • Informal Volunteer work is more 0 relevant in older age groups: age Total Formal Informal

45-64 (7.0%) 15-24 25-44 45-64 65+ « «

Page 110 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS2 // Ana Cristina Ramos

5. Main results of SVW 2012 5.1. Sociodemographic analysis « «

• Higher Volunteer rates in Volunteer rate, by marital status and type of volunteer work

divorced/separated individuals % (12.8%) 15 12,8 11,7 11,9 12

• Formal Volunteer work with 9 7,5 7,5 7,2 greater expression in single 6,6 5,6 5,7 6 5,1 individuals (7.5%) 4,3

2,6 3

• Informal Volunteer work is more 0 Total Formal Informal relevant in divorced/separated Single Married Widowed Divorced or separated

individuals (7.2%) « «

5. Main results of SVW 2012 5.1. Sociodemographic analysis « « • Participation in volunteer work Volunteer rate, by level of education and type of volunteer increases with the work level of % education 25 21,3

20

• Higher rates of volunteering in 14,7 14,5 15 those with tertiary education 11,8

10 9,0 8,8 (21.3%) 7,8 7,4 5,8 5,6 5,7 6,2 6,1 5 3,5 3,4 2,3 2,6 0,9 • Formal Volunteer work with 0 Total Formal Informal greater expression in single No level of education 1st cycle of primary education 2nd cycle of primary education individuals tertiary education Lower secondary education Upper secondary education Tertiary education (14.5%)

• Informal Volunteer work with greater expression in single

individuals tertiary education(7.4%) « «

Page 111 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS2 // Ana Cristina Ramos

5. Main results of SVW 2012 5.1. Sociodemographic analysis « « • Higher in Volunteer rate, by labour force status and type of volunteer Volunteer rates work unemployed individuals % 15 (13.1%) 12,8 13,1

12

9,4 • Formal Volunteer work 9 6,9 6,9 6,5 with greater expression on 6,1 6 5,2 the unemployed and 4,4 employed (6.9%) 3

0 Total Formal Informal • Informal Volunteer work Employed Unemployed Not in the labour force with greater expression on

the unemployed (6.5%) « «

5. Main results of SVW 2012 5.1. Sociodemographic analysis « «

Volunteer Work

Formal Informal

• Women; • Women; • Younger individuals; • Older individuals; • Single; • Divorced or separated individuals; • Individuals with higher level of education; • Individuals with higher level of education; • Unemployed.

• Unemployed. « «

Page 112 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS2 // Ana Cristina Ramos

5. Main results of SVW 2012 5.2. Domains of activity and

organizational context «

Breakdown of volunteers by type of volunteer work and the International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO)

33,9 Service workers and shop and market sales workers 16,5 51,7 26,1 Elementary occupations 27,9 24,2 19,0 Technicians and associate professionals 32,2 5,5 8,0 Professionals 8,4 7,6 6,5 Clerks 9,9 3,0 2,9 Plant and machine operators and assemblers 1,5 4,3 2,2 Craft and related trades workers 0,9 3,6 1,4 Legislators, senior officials and managers 2,7 0,0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 % Total Formal Informal

Main tasks (accordingly to equivalent tasks of the International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO) ): Total: 1) Service workers and shop and market sales workers (33.9%), 2) Elementary occupations (26.1%)

3) Technicians and associate professionals (19.0%) « «

5. Main results of SVW 2012 5.2. Domains of activity and

organizational context «

Breakdown of volunteers by type of volunteer work and the International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO)

33,9 Service workers and shop and market sales workers 16,5 51,7 26,1 Elementary occupations 27,9 24,2 19,0 Technicians and associate professionals 32,2 5,5 8,0 Professionals 8,4 7,6 6,5 Clerks 9,9 3,0 2,9 Plant and machine operators and assemblers 1,5 4,3 2,2 Craft and related trades workers 0,9 3,6 1,4 Legislators, senior officials and managers 2,7 0,0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 % Total Formal Informal

Main tasks (accordingly to equivalent tasks of the International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO) ): Formal: 1) Technicians and associate professionals (32.2%), 2) Elementary occupations (27.9%)

3) Service workers and shop and market sales workers (16.5%) « «

Page 113 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS2 // Ana Cristina Ramos

5. Main results of SVW 2012 5.2. Domains of activity and

organizational context «

Breakdown of volunteers by type of volunteer work and the International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO)

33,9 Service workers and shop and market sales workers 16,5 51,7 26,1 Elementary occupations 27,9 24,2 19,0 Technicians and associate professionals 32,2 5,5 8,0 Professionals 8,4 7,6 6,5 Clerks 9,9 3,0 2,9 Plant and machine operators and assemblers 1,5 4,3 2,2 Craft and related trades workers 0,9 3,6 1,4 Legislators, senior officials and managers 2,7 0,0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 % Total Formal Informal

Main tasks (accordingly to equivalent tasks of the International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO) ): Informal: 1) Service workers and shop and market sales workers (51.7%), 2) Elementary occupations (24.2%)

3) Professionals (7.6%) « «

5. Main results of SVW 2012 5.2. Domains of activity and

organizational context «

Breakdown of female volunteers by International Breakdown of male volunteers by International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO) Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO)

% % 8,1 8,1 2,6 11,7 17,7 5,4 7,9

20,8 27,2 25,2

41,0 24,3

Elementary occupations Elementary occupations Service workers and shop and market sales workers Service workers and shop and market sales workers Technicians and associate professionals Technicians and associate professionals Professionals Professionals Clerks Clerks Others Others

• 41.0% of women developed activities equivalent to those of personal service’s workers (e.g. aid to the elderly, children, sick and bedridden patients). • Men showed bigger heterogeneity: 27.2% in activities of unskilled workers/ elementary occupations (e.g. cleaning of spaces, collection of food, cloth or donations, among others) 24.3% tasks related to service workers and shop and market sales workers (e.g. firefighters).

« «

Page 114 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS2 // Ana Cristina Ramos

5. Main results of SVW 2012 5.2. Domains of activity and

organizational context «

Breakdown of formal volunteers by International Classification of Non-Profit Organizations (ICNPO)

42,9 Social services 36,3 48,5

22,9 Culture and recreation 33,2 14,1

21,7 Religion 17,3 Total 25,4

3,5 Men Environment 3,9 3,2 Women 3,0 Education and research 3,0 3,0

6,0 Others 6,3 5,7

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 %

• Total: social services (42.9%), culture and recreation (22.9%) e religion (21.7%); • Women: social services (48.5%) e religious activities (25.4%).

• Men: social services (36.3%) e culture and recreation (33.2%); « «

5. Main results of SVW 2012 5.3. Regional analysis « «

Breakdown of total volunteers by NUTS II • (34.6%), (27.4%) Norte Lisboa % 6,4 1,7 and Centro (24.1%) were the 3,7 2,0 regions with the higher 27,4 concentration of volunteers;

• Algarve (3.7%), Madeira (2.0%) 34,6 and Açores (1.7%) were the regions with the smallest 24,1 concentration of volunteers.

Norte Centro Lisboa Alentejo Algarve A. R. Açores A. R. Madeira « «

Page 115 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS2 // Ana Cristina Ramos

5. Main results of SVW 2012 5.3. Regional analysis

Volunteer Rate, by type of volunteer work and by region NUTS II «

% 15

12,3 12,0 11,5 11,3 10,5 10,3 10,1 10 8,8 7,2 6,36,3 6,2 5,95,8 5,95,7 6,0 5,8 5,7 5,25,5 4,7 5 3,4 2,9

0 Portugal Norte Centro Lisboa Alentejo Algarve A. R. Açores A. R. Madeira Total Formal Informal

• Centro and Lisboa presented volunteer rates above the national average (11.5%): 12.3% and 12.0%, respectively;

• The formal volunteer rate is, in general, higher than the informal volunteer rate, with

the exception of the A.R. of Madeira (7.2%) and Algarve (5.5%). « «

5. Main results of SVW 2012 5.3. Regional analysis « «

Total volunteers by sex and by region NUTS II (% of resident population with 15 years and above, by region) % 10

7,1 7,0 6,6 6,3 6,5 6,5 5,7 5,1 5,2 4,9 5,1 4,9 4,6 5 4,0 3,7 3,6

0 Portugal Norte Centro Lisboa Alentejo Algarve A. R. Açores A. R. Madeira Men Women

Women showed greater participation in voluntary activities in all

regions, particularly in Centro (7.1%) and Lisboa (7.0%). « «

Page 116 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS2 // Ana Cristina Ramos

5. Main results of SVW 2012 5.3. Regional analysis « «

Total of volunteers by age group and by region NUTS II (% of resident population with 15 years and above, by region) % 8

6,2 6,3 6,0 6,0 6,0 5,9 6 5,6 5,1 5,4 5,3 5,2 5,2 4,9 4,7 4,9 4,1 4

2

0 Portugal Norte Centro Lisboa Alentejo Algarve A. R. Açores A. R. Madeira 15-44 45+

Only in Centro region the volunteers within the age group of 45 or

more were more significant than the younger group (6.3% vs. 6.0%). « «

5. Main results of SVW 2012 5.3. Regional analysis

Breakdown of formal volunteers by International Classification of Non-Profit Organizations « « (ICNPO) and NUTS II % 60 54,6 48,0 50 42,9 44,3 41,2 40,3 40 37,2 35,3 33,4 31,3 32,5 30 25,7 23,7 23,6 23,3 22,9 21,4 22,5 21,7 19,5 17,4 16,9 20 16,2 12,5 11,7 12,1 13,1 13,0 10,2 9,8 11,4 10,5 10

0 Portugal Norte Centro Lisboa Alentejo Algarve A. R. Açores A. R. Madeira Social services Culture and recreation Religion Others

• Portugal: the formal volunteers are concentrated in social services (42.9%); • Alentejo: it stands out by having 54.6% of activities in social services; •A.R. Açores: culture and recreation (33.4%) was more relevant than social services (32.5%); • Norte and Lisboa: were the regions with the highest concentration of volunteers in religious organizations (25.7% e 23.7%, respectively); • A.R.: religious activities are equally expressive (23.6% in Açores and 23.3% Madeira);

• A.R. Madeira: religious activities with higher magnitude than those of culture and recreation . « «

Page 117 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS2 // Ana Cristina Ramos

5. Main results of SVW 2012 5.4. International comparison

Volunteer rate in EU27 « % 60 57

50 43 39 40 37 35 34 34 32 30 29 30 26 26 24 24 24 23 23 23 22 22 21 20 16 15 14 14 12 12 9 10

0 NL DK FI AT LU DE SI IE EE SK BE IT FR EU27 LT CZ CY UK LV HU SE MT ES RO EL PT BG PL

Souces: Survey on Volunteer Work 2012 (PT); Eurobarometer 2011 (other MS)

• Higher volunteer rates: northern Europe, particularly Netherlands (57% of the resident population with 15 or more years admitted their participation in volunteer work). • Smaller volunteer rates in countries of the late Eastern Europe (Poland was the Member State with the smallest rate: 9%).

• Portugal was in the antepenultimate position, with 11.5% (12% on the chart due to rounding). « «

5. Main results of SVW 2012 5.4. International comparison

Volunteer rate and GDP per capita PPP in EU27 (UE27 = 100) « % 60

NL 50

DK 40 FI AT SI EE 30 DE IE LU Volunteer rate SK IT FR BE LT LV 20 CZ CYUE27 UK HU SE RO EL MT ES 10 BG PT PL 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 GDP per capita (PPP)

Souces: Survey on Volunteer Work 2012 (PT); Eurobarometer 2011 (other MS); Eurostat

The relative position of Portugal may be explained, partially, by the culture of participation in volunteer activities and by the socio-economic conditions of the country. Indeed, there seems to be some correlation between the degree of economic development and the rate of volunteer

work. « «

Page 118 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS2 // Ana Cristina Ramos

5. Main results of SVW 2012 5.4. International comparison

Domains of activity « %

Others Political organizations Advocacy organizations Professional organizations, unions Recreation Environment, animal rights, etc. Religious organizations Community associations Charitable or social support Culture, art, education Sports

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 PT UE

Souces: Survey on Volunteer Work 2012 (PT); Eurobarometer 2011 (other MS)

Portugal: with higher relevance in social services and religious activities and minor in sports, culture, community associations, advocacy and professional

organizations and trade unions, compared to the European average. « «

5. Main results of SVW 2012 2 5.5. Worked hours and economic value

 Hours volunteered: • 368.2 million hours, equivalent to 4.1% of the total hours worked in Portuguese National Accounts.

• 29 hours per month (average)

• Monthly average in formal volunteering slightly higher than that observed in the informal (30 vs. 28 hours)

Page 119 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS2 // Ana Cristina Ramos

5. Main results of SVW 2012 5.5. Worked hours and economic value « «

Economic value of volunteer work as a proportion of GDP (current prices; 2012)

% 2%

1,09% 0,99% 1%

0,61%

0% Minimum Wage Salary of social services Salary per professional occupation

 Economic value: • National Minimum Wage: €1 014,6 billion: 0.61% of national GDP; • "Salary per professional occupation“: € 1 798,1 billion: 1.09% of national GDP; • “Salary of social services”: €1 636,3 billion: 0.99% of national GDP.

« «

5. Main results of SVW 2012 5.6. Volunteer Work and Social Economy « «

It is estimated that about 483 thousand individuals have developed volunteer work in Social Economy organizations, which corresponds to approximately 90% of formal volunteer work.

Comparing with the total hours worked in the National Accounts and the full time equivalent (FTE) associated, it is estimated that volunteer work, expressed in FTE, equals about

40% of Employment (ETC) of Social Economy. « «

Page 120 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS2 // Ana Cristina Ramos

For more information…

Press release: http://www.ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpid=INE&xpgid=ine_destaques&DESTAQUESdest_boui=157410423&DE STAQUESmodo=2&xlang=en

Publications: Social Economy Satellite Account: http://www.ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpid=INE&xpgid=ine_publicacoes&PUBLICACOESpub_boui=1575 43613&PUBLICACOEStema=55557&PUBLICACOESmodo=2 Labour Force Survey: http://www.ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpid=INE&xpgid=ine_publicacoes&PUBLICACOESpub_boui=1533 67812&PUBLICACOEStema=55574&PUBLICACOESmodo=2

Tables: http://www.ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpid=INE&xpgid=ine_contas_nacionais&contexto=cs&selTab=tab3&perfil= 97154797&INST=116634832

Thank you for your attention. [email protected]

Page 121 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS2 // Clemens Tesch-Römer

German Survey on Volunteering (FWS) 2014 // Clemens Tesch-Römer

German Survey on Volunteering (FWS) 2014

Clemens Tesch-Römer, Julia Simonson, Jochen P. Ziegelmann, and Claudia Vogel

German Centre of Gerontology

Bürgerschaftliches Engagement in Europa – Internationaler Austausch über Konzepte und deren gesellschaftlichen Nutzen Berlin, January 13-14, 2014

Structure

1. Short HistoryHistory of of the the FWS FWS 2. Measurement of Volunteering in the FWS 3. Reporting on Volunteering: Plans for 2014 4. Fourth Wave of the FWS: Data Collection in 2014 5. Data Availability

2

Page 122 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS2 // Clemens Tesch-Römer

Short History of the German Survey on Volunteering

– Representative survey on voluntary activities of the German population aged 14 and older

– Allows detailed reporting on volunteering across population groups and regions, serves as a basis for social accounting on volunteering in Germany

– Data collection in 1999, 2004, 2009 and 2014 (planned) as computer assisted telephone interview (CATI), cross-sectional survey

– Funded by the Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth (BMFSFJ)

– Scientific supervision and management of the survey since 2012: German Centre of Gerontology (http://www.dza.de/en)

3

Structure

1. Short History of the FWS 2. Measurement of Volunteering in the FWS 3. Reporting on Volunteering: Plans for 2014 4. Fourth Wave of the FWS: Data Collection in 2014 5. Data Availability

4

Page 123 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS2 // Clemens Tesch-Römer

FWS: Two-Step Approach to Assess Volunteering

1. Activities “There are many possibilities to participate in activities outside paid work or family, for example in a club, an initiative, a project or a self- help group. I will name several possible areas, please tell me if you actively participate in one or more of these areas. Do you actively participate in ... ” (14 areas: e. g., ‘culture and music’ or ‘health sector’)

2. Volunteering When ‘yes’ in at least one of the 14 areas: “We are now interested if you work voluntarily in one of the areas mentioned above, which means if you volunteer in clubs, initiatives, projects or self-help groups. We are referring to voluntary activities where no payment or only small allowances are received.”

5

FWS: Domains of Volunteering

1. In the area of sport and physical activity 2. In the area of culture and music 3. In the area of leisure time and socialising 4. In the social sector 5. In the health sector 6. In activities concerning school and nursery school 7. In the area of out-of-school youth work or adult education 8. In natural conservation, environmental protection or animal welfare 9. In the area of politics and political interest groups 10. In the area of professional interest group outside your company 11. In activities connected to a church or a religion 12. In the area of justice or crime problems 13. In an emergency or rescue service or in the volunteer fire brigade? 14. In another domain not mentioned above

6

Page 124 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS2 // Clemens Tesch-Römer

Similarities and Differences of ILO and FWS Assessment Concepts

ILO FWS Activities unpaid non-compulsory activities, tasks, unpaid non- work compulsory work Reward time individuals give time individuals give without without pay pay Context activities performed activities mostly performed in either through an the context of clubs, initiatives, organization or directly projects or self-help groups Sphere outside own outside own household household Time frame last 4 weeks additional question: „now consider last 4 weeks“ (for the first time in 2014)

7

Structure

1. Short History of the FWS 2. Measurement of Volunteering in the FWS 3. Reporting on Volunteering: Plans for 2014 4. Fourth Wave of the FWS: Data Collection in 2014 5. Data Availability

8

Page 125 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS2 // Clemens Tesch-Römer

Trends

General idea - Monitoring rates over historical time for different groups (gender, age groups, educational status, migration status)

Trends - Volunteering rates (global and for 14 areas) - Rates of active individuals - Rates of individuals willing to volunteer - New or changing forms of volunteering (e. g. neighbourly help, online volunteering, monetisation)

9

The Volunteers

General idea - Detailed description of the most time intense activity - Detailed description and analysis of the volunteers’ activities, motives, and correlates (e. g. well-being and subjective health) in different groups (gender, age groups, educational status, migration status)

Analysis of volunteering - Volunteering of men and women - Volunteering of different age groups

- Volunteering of migrants - Volunteering in different socioeconomic groups (education, income)

10

Page 126 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS2 // Clemens Tesch-Römer

Regional and Organizational Contexts

Demografische Cluster 1 2 3 4 General idea - Analysing impact of regional and organisational contexts on rates of volunteering, being active, willingness to volunteer.

Regional and organisational contexts - Link to official statistics (INKAR) - Assessment of information on the organisation of volunteering - Link to organisational surveys

Example: Counties with rapid population ageing Regional differences Counties having grown old gradually in population ageing Average counties 11 Counties with a stable growth

Nation Wide and State Specific Reports

General idea - In addition to a nation-wide representative report, there will be a second report on the level of the Laender (federal states in Germany, which are highly relevant actors in volunteering policy)

Type of reports - Nation wide report, representative for Germany - Laender-Report on 14 of the 16 Laender, containing a comparison between the Laender and specific short reports representative for each Land

12

Page 127 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS2 // Clemens Tesch-Römer

Structure

1. Short History of the FWS 2. Measurement of Volunteering in the FWS 3. Reporting on Volunteering: Plans for 2014 4. Fourth Wave of the FWS: Data Collection in 2014 5. Data Availability

13

Adapting Instrument for 2014 Data Collection

1. Preserving continuity - Retention of original items (e. g. assessment of volunteering) - Modifying items (e.g. adapting socio-demographics, standardising use of terms and concepts, taking changing general conditions into consideration)

2. Checking redundancy - Elimination of redundant questions

3. Adding items - Items capturing new or changing forms of volunteering - Assessment of individuals’ living situation (both volunteers and non- volunteers) - Links to regional and organisational data (e. g. from organisational surveys and official statistics) 14

Page 128 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS2 // Clemens Tesch-Römer

Data Collection 2014

– Landline and mobile telephones Representative telephone sample of persons aged 14 years and older (70 per cent land line and 30 per cent mobile phone interviews) – Duration of interview Intended duration 30 min (in earlier waves: 20 min ) – Sample size ≈ 28,600 interviews (funding: 25,000 interviews are funded by the Federal Ministry; 3,600 interviews are funded by the Laender) – Immigrants Improved inclusion of immigrants with translated questionnaire (five languages: Turkish, Russian, Polish, Arabic, English) – Data collection infas Institute for Applied Social Sciences 15

Structure

1. Short History of the FWS 2. Measurement of Volunteering in the FWS 3. Reporting on Volunteering 4. Fourth Wave of the FWS: Data Collection in 2014 5. Data Availability

16

Page 129 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS2 // Clemens Tesch-Römer

Data Availability

– Research Data Centre The original data sets are anonymised and available, for academic research purposes and free of charge, as Scientific Use Files (SUF) at the Research Data Centre of the German Centre of Gerontology.

– www.fdz-dza.de Extensive documentation on data, data access and publications (in English and German)

– Data Sets Data sets for survey years 2004 and 2009 are already available. Data set for survey year 1999 is currently being prepared for publication. Data set for survey year 2014 will be made available in the year 2016.

17

Thank you!

www.german-survey-on-volunteering.org

[email protected]

18

Page 130 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS3

2.7 Workshop 3

13th January 2014

Workshop 3

Varieties of volunteer programmes on national and European level

Amandine Hubert, Ministère des Sports, de la Jeunesse, de l‘Éducation Populaire et de la Vie Associative, France Dr. Jens Kreuter, German Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth Heike Zimmermann, JUGEND in Aktion, Germany

Moderated by Christine Wingert, Contact Point Germany „Europe for Citizens“

Page 131 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS3 // Amandine Hubert

The « service civique » : a French volunteer program // Amandine Hubert

The « service civique » : a French volunteer program

1) The national priorities related to the promotion of volunteering 2) A focus on the « service civique » :the framework 3) Figures

13/01/2014, Berlin « Volunteering in Europe International exchange about concepts and benefits to society »

National priorities

The French priorities related to volunteering :

 Increase the number of volunteers (all brackets of age but particularly among the young);

 Help associations maintain a regular and motivated volunteering (through frameworks which can contribute to motivate, recognize and support volunteers).

13/01/2014, Berlin « Volunteering in Europe International exchange about concepts and benefits to society »

Page 132 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS3 // Amandine Hubert

Current developments

1) The development of volunteering :  among all the young people: a more systematic and coordinated information through actors within high schools + the « service civique » program  among working people: a possible new framework in progress: a volunteering leave  among seniors: a reflexion in progress to increase the recognition of older volunteers. + funds dedicated to the training of volunteers (11 millions € through FDVA + 15 millions € for the sport volunteers through the CNDS). 13/01/2014, Berlin « Volunteering in Europe International exchange about concepts and benefits to society »

Current developments

2) The promotion of the recognition of volunteering 2 portfolios created to help any volunteer and “service civique” volunteers to identify the skills demonstrated through their volunteering; Frameworks promoted at high school (improvement of “livret personnel de compétences”) and universities (increase of universities recognising volunteering through ECTS credits) in order to take into account these experiences. A guide to encourage the economic development of volunteering within the budgets of associations

13/01/2014, Berlin « Volunteering in Europe International exchange about concepts and benefits to society »

Page 133 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS3 // Amandine Hubert

The « service civique » framework

 Created through a law, the 10th March 2010.

 A specific form of volunteering, different from a totally free and individual involvement.

 Two main goals: - To reinforce the sense of citizenship, national cohesion and social diversity; - To give the chance to young people to get involved, to volunteer in a collective project.

13/01/2014, Berlin « Volunteering in Europe International exchange about concepts and benefits to society »

The « service civique » framework

 For anyone. The State brings a financial support for the European young people from 16 to 25 years old.

 Various fields of assignments : Culture and leisure, development asistance and relief projects; eudcation; environment; emergency interventions; citizenship; health; solidarity; sport.

 For assignments operated all over the world in a French legal entity.

13/01/2014, Berlin « Volunteering in Europe International exchange about concepts and benefits to society »

Page 134 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS3 // Amandine Hubert

The « service civique » framework

 A volunteering : for a mission of public interest 6 to 12 months, at least 24 hours a week, 2 days off a month

 In a French legal entity which has received the agreement of the « Service Civique » Agency: Non-profit organization, local authority, state-owned establishment

The French legal entity can make the volunteer available for a third legal entity, including a European one. Such a secondment is non-profit.

13/01/2014, Berlin « Volunteering in Europe International exchange about concepts and benefits to society »

The « service civique » framework

The State brings a specific support for young volunteers from 16 to 25 years old.

The young benefits from:  A compensation (573€ a month, increased under specific conditions such as social criteria, mobility, …)

 Social insurance (health insurance and pension) including for European volunteers

 Both mainly paid by the State

13/01/2014, Berlin « Volunteering in Europe International exchange about concepts and benefits to society »

Page 135 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS3 // Amandine Hubert

The « service civique » framework

Other advantages for the young:

1) A civic training given by a tutor in the organisation who :  offers a general training  assists the young during its mission  helps the young to think about its future

2) A certificate of the volunteering

3) An experience liable to be taken into account in studies and in the accreditation for work experience.

13/01/2014, Berlin « Volunteering in Europe International exchange about concepts and benefits to society »

Figures

French volunteers In 2010, 16 millions of individuals above 16 years old.

Service civique volunteers In 2013, 33 000 young people in service civique.

In 2014, the service civique program should benefit to 35 000 young people.

13/01/2014, Berlin « Volunteering in Europe International exchange about concepts and benefits to society »

Page 136 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS3 // Amandine Hubert

More information on volunteering in France

www.associations.gouv.fr

13/01/2014, Berlin e

Page 137 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS3 // Jens Kreuter

Volunteer Services in Germany // Kreuter

Volunteer Services in Germany

- BFD = Federal Volunteer Service - FSJ = Voluntary Social Year - FÖJ = Voluntary Ecological Year - IJFD = International youth volunteer service

I. Overview: 1. Volunteer services at home: I Voluntary Social/Voluntary Ecological Year (FSJ/FÖJ) I Federal Volunteer Service (Bundesfreiwilligendienst - BFD)

2. Volunteer services abroad: I International Youth Volunteer Service (IJFD) I ‘weltwärts’, a development volunteer service by the BMZ I Voluntary Social/Ecological Year abroad I ‘Other Service Abroad’ (ADiA)

3. EVS

Page 138 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS3 // Jens Kreuter

II. Youth Voluntary Services FSJ/FÖJ: I In 1954 protestant church called upon young people to do “deaconic year”, catholic church and social welfare institutions followed.

I In 1964 “Act to Promote the Voluntary Social Year (FSJ)” entered into force.

I In 1991 “Act to Promote the Voluntary Ecological Year (FÖJ)” entered into force.

I In 2008, both were united under the “Act to Promote Youth Voluntary Services” (JFDG).

→ open to people who have not reached the age of 27.

III. Federal Volunteer Service (BFD):

I The Federal Volunteer Service started on 1 July 2011. Legal basis is the Federal Volunteer Service Act (BDFG - Bundesfreiwilligendienstgesetz). 1. Background:

Effective 1 July 2011, compulsory military service, and implicitly also the alternative “option” of civilian service, was suspended in Germany.

I Alternative Civilian Service: During the 50 years of its existence, some 2.7 million young men overall completed civilian service. In 2009, the last year for which data is available, approx. 90,000 young men were called up and served in some 37,000 assignment places, especially in the social field, but also in environmental protection and nature conservation.

Page 139 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS3 // Jens Kreuter

2. Strategy:

I The Federal Government launched a twin-track strategy to make up for the suspension of civilian service:

- Extension and strengthening of the existing youth voluntary services, the Voluntary Social Year (FSJ) and the Voluntary Ecological Year (FÖJ) and

- Opening up new commitment options through the Federal Volunteer Service (BFD)

I Today: 45.000 volunteers in the new BFD.

I In parallel, the number of volunteers in the youth voluntary services FSJ/FÖJ continues to rise.

I Historic figure: more than 95.000 volunteers!

IV. More details on BFD, FSJ and FÖJ: 1. New target group in BFD:

I The new Federal Volunteer Service (BFD) is offered to men and women of any age having completed compulsory schooling.

I So far, approximately 40 % of BFD-volunteers are older than 27 years (“Ü 27”).

I Generally, BFD, FSJ and FÖJ are full-time services of 40 hours a week. For volunteers older than 27 years, part-time service of more than 20 hours is also an option.

I They last usually 12, not less than six and not more than 24 months.

Page 140 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS3 // Jens Kreuter

2. Fields of Assignment in BFD, FSJ and FÖJ (examples)

a) Social assignments: I Help elderly persons and persons with disabilities I Hospitals and emergency (medical) services I Child and youth services (such as child day-care centres, youth centres, all-day schools)

b) Ecological assignments: I Associations active in environmental protection and nature conservation I Landscape and forest management, protection of water bodies I Environmental education, information and communication

c) new assignment fields: culture, sports, integration

All areas: Voluntary service is no employment and must be labour market-neutral.

3. Education and Orientation: I BFD, FSJ and FÖJ are periods of education and orientation: New skills are acquired under real-life conditions.

I The volunteers are instructed and guided at the assignment projects.

I Seminars of not less than 25 days in a 12 months‘ period are mandatory. They teach social, cultural and intercultural skills and strengthen the sense of responsibility for the common weal.

I All volunteers are issued with a report/certificate as their service ends; it focuses mainly on the vocational training elements of the service.

Page 141 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS3 // Jens Kreuter

4. „Incoming“: foreign volunteers in BFD, FSJ and FÖJ

I Foreign volunteers (incomers) are welcome to do voluntary service (BFD/FSJ/FÖJ) in Germany.

I Visa for Non-EU citizens who come to Germany for doing BFD, FSJ/FÖJ is given automatically.

I No need for a work permit.

I Strong rise in number of places in voluntary services; prospects for incomers improved again.

5. Pocket money, social insurance and public funding I All volunteers are subject to the statutory social security system. The contributions to health, long-term care, unemployment, pension and accident insurance are borne by the project agencies or assignment projects.

I Volunteers can receive pocket money as an acknowledgement for their commitment.

I Board and lodging are usually provided in kind, although reasonable expenses may also be paid instead.

Funding: With approx. 300 million euros per year, the Federal Government is providing more funds than ever before for volunteer services.

Page 142 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS3 // Jens Kreuter

Government support for the BFD/FSJ/FÖJ:

I BFD: Funding per month and volunteer place is up to 550 euros, 200 euros of which for training and guidance.

I FSJ/FÖJ:Funding is up to 200 euros per month and volunteer place which exclusively go towards the training and guidance provided by youth volunteer services.

I Where the relevant legal requirements apply, the volunteer is eligible to family allowance.

I Enhanced sponsoring of volunteers with special needs for training and educational support: Funds for training and guidance are being stepped up through an additional amount of up 100 euros per month and volunteer place.

6. Who benefits? I Voluntary services are educational and orientation services.

I The volunteers acquire important skills that are greatly sought after in young people, inter alia, as key qualifications on the labour market and in training.

I In the Federal Volunteer Service (BFD), older volunteers can share their life experience and know-how with others.

I BFD, FSJ and FÖJ are often the first step towards subsequent long-term civic commitment in the community.

I As a result, volunteers make valuable contributions, benefiting both themselves and society.

Page 143 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS3 // Jens Kreuter

V. International Volunteer Services: 1. International Youth Voluntary Service (IJFD): Idea and Concept

I The IJFD was introduced in late 2010.

I As many youths and young adults as possible are to be given the opportunity to complete an education- and orientation-year abroad.

I Project agencies and assignment places require specific recognition.

I Surge to 3,000 volunteers; implemented by more than 120 civil society organisations (project agencies).

Framework conditions and public funding

I Eligibility after completion of compulsory full-time schooling up to age 26 years.

I Duration between six and 18 months.

I Assignments in the social field, nature conservation and environmental protection, also in peace- and reconciliation-work.

I No membership in public German social security, coverage is through private insurance contracts.

I Funding of up to 350 euros per volunteer/month for training and mentoring, pocket money, board, lodging, travel expenses and insurance premiums; child allowance.

Page 144 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS3 // Jens Kreuter

2. weltwärts (world bound): I introduced in 2008 by the Federal Ministry for Economic Co- operation and Development based on a specific guideline.

I Eligible are volunteers aged 18 to 28 years.

I Comprises 240 sending organisations with 6,900 recognised places in developing countries only and approx. 3,000 volunteers sent each year

I Assignments: all development policy fields of work

I Funding: 610 euros per month (up to 230 euros for training/support of local partner projects, up to 350 euros for insurance premiums, pocket money, board and lodging, as well as ca. 30 euros subsidy towards international health insurance). The project agency must carry at least 25 % of the overall expenses.

3. EVS:

I Only full two-way-program.

I Development largely depending on EU-decisions.

I Approx. 750 participants from Germany, a few less “incoming”.

Page 145 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS3 // Jens Kreuter

4. Youth volunteer services FSJ/FÖJ abroad:

I Unlike the Federal Volunteer Service, the youth volunteer services FSJ and FÖJ may also be completed abroad.

I Agencies responsible must be headquartered in Germany and specially recognised for the FSJ and FÖJ abroad.

I The same provisions apply – also with regard to funding – as for the domestic FSJ/FÖJ.

5. Anderer Dienst im Ausland – ADiA (Alternative Service Abroad)

I The ADiA has been a legally regulated voluntary service since 1986

I It offers the project agencies the possibility to have their places state-recognised while retaining a large degree of flexibility.

I Does not receive funding.

Page 146 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS3 // Jens Kreuter

Thank you very much for your attention.

Dr. Jens Kreuter, German Federal Ministry for Family, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth Phone: +49-228-930-2722; mail: [email protected]

Page 147 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS3 // Heike Zimmermann

Erasmus+ – Jugend in Aktion // Heike Zimmermann

Erasmus+ JUGEND IN AKTION

Tagung „Bürgerschaftliches Engagement in Europa“ Berlin, 13.-14.01.2014

Heike Zimmermann, Programmreferentin JUGEND IN AKTION

Erasmus+ JUGEND IN AKTION

Page 148 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS3 // Heike Zimmermann

Aktuelle Programme Das neue integrierte Programm (2007-2013) (2014-2020)

Internat. Hochschulbildung Erasmus+: Lebenslanges (Erasmus Mundus, Comenius, Leonardo, Erasmus, Lernern: Tempus, Grundtvig, JUGEND IN AKTION, Sport Alfa, Edulink)

Grundtvig KA 1 KA 2 KA 3 Erasmus Learning Institutional Policy Leonardo Mobility co-operation support Comenius JUGEND IN AKTION 63 % 28 % 4,2 %

Verbindung der Bereiche mit drei gemeinsamen Schlüsselaktionen

Erasmus+ JUGEND IN AKTION

EU-Programm Erasmus + JUGEND IN AKTION

_ Laufzeit vom 01.01.2014 bis 31.12.2020

_ Gesamtvolumen 14,8 Mrd. Euro (plus 40 %); _ voraussichtlich 1,48 Mrd. für JUGEND IN AKTION statt 886 Mio. wie bisher

_ Förderung nicht-formaler Bildung

Erasmus+ JUGEND IN AKTION

Page 149 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS3 // Heike Zimmermann

Programmländer

EU-Mitgliedsländer

Belgien, Bulgarien, Dänemark, Deutschland, Estland, Finnland, Frankreich, Griechenland, Kroatien, Irland, Italien, Lettland, Litauen, Luxemburg, Malta, Niederlande, Österreich, Polen, Portugal, Rumänien, Schweden, Slowakische Republik, Slowenien, Spanien, Tschechische Republik, Ungarn, Vereinigtes Königreich, Zypern

Nicht EU-Mitgliedsländer

Island, Liechtenstein, Ehemalige Jugoslawische Republik Mazedonien, Norwegen, Schweiz, Türkei

FB /jugendfuereuropa @jugend_f_europa Erasmus+ JUGEND IN AKTION

Benachbarte Partnerländer

Westliche Balkans (Region1)

Albanien, Bosnien und Herzegowina, Republik Kosovo, Montenegro, Serbien

Ländern des Eastern Partnership (Region 2)

Armenien, Aserbaidschan, Georgien, Moldawien, Ukraine, Weißrussland

Süd-Mediterrane Länder (Region 3)

Algerien, Ägypten, Israel, Jordanien, Libanon, Libyen, Marokko, Palästinensische Behörde im Westjordanland und dem Gazastreifen, Syrien, Tunesien

Russische Föderation (Region 4)

FB /jugendfuereuropa @jugend_f_europa Erasmus+ JUGEND IN AKTION

Page 150 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS3 // Heike Zimmermann

Antragsberechtigte

_ Jugendorganisationen _ Träger der freien Jugendhilfe _ NGOs und Einrichtungen im Jugendbereich _ Jugendliche, die sich in informellen Gruppen zusammenfinden _ Soziale Unternehmen z.B. GmbH

FB /jugendfuereuropa @jugend_f_europa Erasmus+ JUGEND IN AKTION

Antragsberechtigte

Besondere Förderbedingungen (50%) gelten für:

_öffentlich regionale oder nationale Einrichtungen für Jugendliche, z.B. Landesjugendämter _Dauerhafter Zusammenschluss von Regionen _Projektbezogene europäische Gruppe regionaler Kooperation _A profit making body active in Corporate Social Responsibility

FB /jugendfuereuropa @jugend_f_europa Erasmus+ JUGEND IN AKTION

Page 151 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS3 // Heike Zimmermann

Erasmus+ Ein EU Programm – Drei Leitaktionen:

Leitaktion 1: Lernmobilität von Einzelpersonen

Leitaktion 2: Zusammenarbeit zur Förderung von Innovation und zum Austausch von bewährten Verfahren

Leitaktion 3: Unterstützung von Politikreformen im Jugendbereich

Erasmus+ JUGEND IN AKTION

Leitaktion 1 – Lernmobilität von Einzelpersonen

Diese Aktion unterstützt:

_ Jugendbegegnungen

_ Europäischen Freiwilligendienst (EFD)

_ Mobilitätsmaßnahmen für Fachkräfte der Jugendarbeit

FB /jugendfuereuropa @jugend_f_europa Erasmus+ JUGEND IN AKTION

Page 152 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS3 // Heike Zimmermann

KA 1 – Europäischer Freiwilligendienst

Wer? Jugendliche zwischen 17 und 30 Jahren

Wo? In Programmländern und benachbarten Partnerländern

Wie lang? 2 - 12 Monate 2 Wochen - 2 Monate für Jugendliche mit erhöhtem Förderbedarf oder für Gruppenfreiwilligendienste mit mindestens 10 Freiwilligen

Wie viel? Reisekosten nach Entfernung, Festbetrag für Projektdurchführung (DE 520,- €/ Monat), Taschengeld (DE 110,-€/Monat), Sprachkurs (ggf. 150,- €) sowie ggf. Außergewöhnliche Kosten (100%)

FB /jugendfuereuropa @jugend_f_europa Erasmus+ JUGEND IN AKTION

Merkmale und Bedingungen eines EFD-Projektes

_ Findet in einem anderen Land statt _ Dient keinem Gewinnzweck und ist unentgeltlich _ Ist gemeinnützig _ Ist zeitlich begrenzt _ Ist kein Ersatz für einen bezahlten Arbeitsplatz _ Ist nicht Teil eines Studiums oder einer beruflichen Ausbildung _ Klar definiertes pädagogisches Ziel des Dienstes _ Vorbereitung, Begleitung und intensive Nachbereitung des Dienstes _ Pädagogisches Begleitprogramm für Freiwillige _ Kooperation zwischen Entsendeorganisation und Aufnahmeprojekt

FB /jugendfuereuropa @jugend_f_europa Erasmus+ JUGEND IN AKTION

Page 153 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS3 // Heike Zimmermann

Freiwillige bekommen... Europäischer Freiwilligendienst

_ Vorbereitung und Begleitung _ Reisekosten (ggf. Eigenbeteiligung) _ Einführungstraining _ Unterkunft und Verpflegung _ Laufende Schulung _ Zwischentreffen _ Sprachunterricht _ Zertifikat (Youthpass) _ Persönliche, pädagogische Betreuung _ Nachbereitung _ Versicherung _ Rückkehrevent (optional) _ Taschengeld

FB /jugendfuereuropa @jugend_f_europa Erasmus+ JUGEND IN AKTION

Europäischer Freiwilligendienst

Was bleibt? = Bisheriges Verfahren für den EFD wird weitestgehend beibehalten = kaum Änderungen bei den Fördersätzen

Was ist neu? = Herabsetzung des Mindestalters auf 17 Jahren = neue Projektdatenbank, in der freie Stellen angezeigt werden = Erstattung der Internationalen Reisekosten durch Entfernungspauschalen = Akkreditierung von Projekten für die volle Programmlaufzeit

FB /jugendfuereuropa @jugend_f_europa Erasmus+ JUGEND IN AKTION

Page 154 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS3 // Heike Zimmermann

Leitaktion 2 – Strategische Partnerschaften

Diese Aktion unterstützt:

_ mittel- bis längerfristige Projekte, die auf Innovationen im Bildungs- und Jugendbereich und nachhaltige Wirkungen auf die beteiligten Organisationen sowie auf systemischer Ebene abzielen

_ transnationale Jugendinitiativen

_ auch sektorübergreifende Projekte

Erasmus+ JUGEND IN AKTION

KA 2 – Strategische Partnerschaften Mögliche Aktivitäten

= Treffen zum Austausch guter Praxis unter den beteiligten Partnern = Entwicklung, Erprobung und Einführung neuer Curricula / Bildungskonzepte / Trainingsmaterialien / Methodenhandbücher / … = Zusammenarbeit von Jugend- und Bildungsbereich zur Anerkennung von Kompetenzen aus dem nicht formalen, informellen und formalen Bildungsbereich = Zusammenarbeit von öffentlichen Einrichtungen auf lokaler oder regionaler Ebene zur Weiterentwicklung des Bildungs- oder Jugendbereichs und Integration in lokale / regionale Entwicklungspläne = Transnationale Jugendinitiativen zur Entwicklung von Partizipation / aktiver Bürgerschaft und Unternehmergeist = …

FB /jugendfuereuropa @jugend_f_europa Erasmus+ JUGEND IN AKTION

Page 155 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS3 // Heike Zimmermann

KA 2 – Strategische Partnerschaften Geförderte Aktivitäten

= Projektmanagement und –umsetzung (Pauschale pro Organisation) = Transnationale Treffen der Projektpartner (FK-Pauschale und Pauschale pro Person) = Geistige Produkte (Pauschale pro Tag , gestaffelt nach Personalgruppen) = Multiplikator/-innentreffen (Pauschale pro TN) = Transnationale Lern-/ Lehr- und Trainingsaktivitäten (FK-Pauschale und Pauschale pro Tag und Person) = Außergewöhnliche Kosten (Beitrag zu realen Kosten) = Besonderer Unterstützungsbedarf (Beitrag zu realen Kosten)

Projekt kann, muss aber nicht alle Bestandteile enthalten. Förderbeträge sind jeweils einzeln und gesamt gekappt.

FB /jugendfuereuropa @jugend_f_europa Erasmus+ JUGEND IN AKTION

Leitaktion 3 – Unterstützung von Politikreformen

1.Knowledge in the field of education, training and youth 2.Prospective Initiatives 3.Support for European policy tools 4.Cooperation with international organisations 5.Stakeholder dialogue, policy and programme promotion

FB /jugendfuereuropa @jugend_f_europa Erasmus+ JUGEND IN AKTION

Page 156 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS3 // Heike Zimmermann

Leitaktion 3 – Begegnungen junger Menschen mit Verantwortlichen der Jugendpolitik

Diese Aktion unterstützt die Umsetzung des Strukturierten Dialogs zwischen jungen Menschen, Jugendorganisationen und Verantwortlichen und Experten für Jugendpolitik auf internationaler, nationaler, regionaler und lokaler Ebene.

Der Strukturierte Dialog soll Jugendlichen die Möglichkeit bieten, sich aktiv am demokratischen Leben zu beteiligen. Er unterstützt die Interaktion zwischen Jugendlichen, Politikern und Verantwortlichen aus der Verwaltung, um die Politikgestaltung zu verbessern und Jugendliche an der Umsetzung der EU- Jugendstrategie zu beteiligen.

Der Dialog ist durch ausgewählte Themen und feste Zeitläufe strukturiert.

Erasmus+ JUGEND IN AKTION

LA 3 - Welche Aktivitäten sind möglich? Begegnungen junger Menschen mit Verantwortlichen der Jugendpolitik

Nationale und internationale Veranstaltungen können sein: _ Treffen zur Diskussion und Information über Fragen, die für den Strukturierten Dialog oder die Umsetzung der EU-Jugendstrategie von Bedeutung sind, _ Treffen zur Vorbereitung des offiziellen Jugendevents der jeweiligen Ratspräsidentschaft, _ Events, die Debatten über und Informationen zu Jugendpolitik im Rahmen der der Europäischen Jugendwoche ermöglichen, _ Konsultationen junger Menschen zu ihren Bedürfnissen im Bereich Partizipation am demokratischen Leben, _ Treffen zur Diskussion und Information zum Thema Partizipation am demokratischen Leben, _ Events, die die Funktionsweise demokratischer Institutionen /Prozesse und die Rollen von Entscheidungsträgern simulieren. Erasmus+ JUGEND IN AKTION

Page 157 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS3 // Heike Zimmermann

Chancen & Möglichkeiten in Erasmus+

_ neue Aktionsfelder wie z.B. Strategische Partnerschaften _ Europäische Jugendarbeit- und politik wird sichtbarer – EU Jugendstrategie, EU2020 etc. _ Es gibt bedeutend mehr Mittel _ Längerfristige strategische Partnerschaften werden ermöglicht _ Vereinfachte Förderung und Abrechnung, mehr Pauschalen _ Weitere Stärkung des Strukturierten Dialogs _ Übergreifende Zusammenarbeit zwischen Jugendpolitik und anderen Politikfeldern wird gefördert

FB /jugendfuereuropa @jugend_f_europa Erasmus+ JUGEND IN AKTION

Informationen zum neuen Programm

www.jugend-in-aktion.de

_ Alle Termine _ Alle Richtlinien _ Alle Downloads _ Alle Kontakte

Newsletter infoMail

(auch für das noch laufende Programm)

Erasmus+ JUGEND IN AKTION

Page 158 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS4

2.8 Workshop 4

14th Januar 2014

Workshop 4

Empowerment of individuals / Validating skills and qualifications

Hervé Sérieyx, France Bénévolat Jo Peeters, Scouting Gelderland, the Netherlands Pavel Trantina, European Alliance for Volunteering

Moderated by Gabriella Civico, European Volunteer Centre

Page 159 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS4 // Hervé Sérieyx

Passeport Bénévole – Volunteer Passport 1 // Hervé Sérieyx

Passeport Bénévole

VOLUNTEER PASSPORT

Recognition of experience and development of volunteers’skills

France Bénévolat 2014 – tous droits réservés

Objectives of the Volunteering Passport • Enhance the volunteer skills • Formalize the voluntary actions • Create a bridge between the volunteer experience and career • Make volunteering more attractive

France Bénévolat 2014 – tous droits réservés

Page 160 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS4 // Hervé Sérieyx

Volunteer Association Local institutions

Stakeholders within the employment world Certifying VAE (valuying of experience)

France Bénévolat 2014 – tous droits réservés

Volunteer Passport

Volunteering has enabled you to acquire skills and experience Volunteer Passport is a tool that allows you : ► To keep a record of these skills and experiences ► To emphasize them ► To use in through your professional path

EMPHASIZE IT IN YOUR RESUME

France Bénévolat 2014 – tous droits réservés

Page 161 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS4 // Hervé Sérieyx

Volunteer Passport

► Volunteer Passport is a tool for valuing your volunteers. ► It helps you to manage and retain them better Filling in the Volun- teer Passport is a way of recognize your volunteers and emphasize on how usefull they are for your NPO

France Bénévolat 2014 – tous droits réservés

Volunteer Passport

► Volunteer passport can help energize your community life ► Volunteer Passport can help you enhance and encourage volunteers in your community

France Bénévolat 2014 – tous droits réservés

Page 162 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS4 // Hervé Sérieyx

Volunteer Passport

► Volunteering is important, it must be taken into account in building careers. ► Partnerships with Official Employment institutions

► The Volunteer Passport is an element that you must include in the compilation of dossiers VAE ► Partnerships with the relevant Ministries : Education, work and employment France Bénévolat 2014 – tous droits réservés

France Bénévolat 2014 – tous droits réservés

Page 163 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS4 // Hervé Sérieyx

Diffusion du Passeport Bénévole entreprises

associations

services de l'Etat

1% 4% service aux assos MDA

24% collectivités territoriales

bénévoles

1% 68% 2%

France Bénévolat 2014 – tous droits réservés

• By levels of education / diploma

22% 28%

2%

29% 19%

BAC + 4 et + BAC +2/3 BAC CAP/BEP autres

France Bénévolat 2014 – tous droits réservés

Page 164 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS4 // Hervé Sérieyx

• By professional status

18% 35%

37% 9% 1% au foyer en poste congé parental retraite recherche d'emploi

France Bénévolat 2014 – tous droits réservés

• By age 15% 15%

24%

46%

16-25 26-35 36-55 55et +

France Bénévolat 2014 – tous droits réservés

Page 165 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS4 // Hervé Sérieyx

Partners of Volunteer Passport

France Bénévolat 2014 – tous droits réservés

Page 166 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS4 // Hervé Sérieyx

Passeport Bénévole – Volunteer Passport 2 // Hervé Sérieyx

THE VOLUNTEER PASSPORT SCHEME

WHAT IS THE VOLUNTEER PASSPORT? The volunteer passport is a link between the volunteer and voluntary and community organisations. It provides evidence of the volunteers skills and experience in different forms of volunteering and in all types of voluntary organisations. The passport will follow the volunteer throughout his/her volunteering career to demonstrate how he/she is developing through his/her experience.

WHAT DOES THE VOLUNTEER PASSPORT DO? The purpose of the passport is:

To list and describe in detail each role the volunteer undertakes

To document any training undertaken by the volunteer

To integrate these elements in a profile of the volunteer

To accredit the skills and competences developed through volunteering

To emphasize the recognition of the volunteer’ skills from the association to the professional world thanks to the specific sheet inside the portfolio (title “How to identify skills and qualifications)

HOW DID THE VOLUNTEER PASSPORT SCHEME START? The Volunteer Passport was launched by France Bénévolat in 2007. It was based on

a set of tools already drawn up by other partner organisations,

on the example of a similar scheme in Switzerland,

and on the experience of a regional volunteer centre in France. The passport consists of a set of records containing:

details about the individual,

details on the volunteering assignment (description, skills developed, any special notes),

details of any certificates awarded by the organisation (including a description of the achievement, skills developed, any special notes),

a schedule of all the volunteering roles undertaken by the individual,

a record of any training, qualifications or continuing professional development undertaken by the volunteer.

Page 167 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS4 // Hervé Sérieyx

Page 2

WHO SUPPORTS THE VOLUNTEER PASSPORT SCHEME? The Volunteer Passport is backed by public sector organisations such as:

The Department of Health, Youth and Sport in France (Le Ministère de la Santé, de la Jeunesse et des Sports)

The Department of National Education in France (Le Ministère de l’Education Nationale)

AFPA – The national agency for lifelong learning (in France)

POLE EMPLOI – The national agency for Employment (in France)

Public bodies such as, Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations (The Government Investment Bank in France) The Volunteer Passport costs just one euro and can be purchased through the France Bénévolat network or through our partner volunteer organisations. Initially, 15,000 copies were printed in 2007 and a further 40,000 copies were released in 2008. More recently the City of Paris alone, has distributed 10,000 copies to the voluntary organisations that work with the local authority.

now, 100.000 documents have been distributed. WHO IS THE VOLUNTEER PASSPORT INTENDED FOR? The main target groups for the volunteer passport scheme are:

Young people, in any volunteering role

Employees looking for a change of career

Unemployed people seeking to develop their skills and experience It will also help volunteer-involving organisations to better match those individual volunteers to the roles they have available.

HOW WILL IT BENEFIT THE VOLUNTEER? Documenting your volunteering experience will give you the chance

To build your professional profile by bringing together the different responsibilities you have taken on, the training you have undertaken, and the achievements you have made through volunteering activities over time,

To define clearly what the organisation expects you to do, in each role you take on,

To have the skills and competence you develop assessed objectively, so that you know what progress you are making through volunteering and can decide what new skills you need to develop,

Page 168 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS4 // Hervé Sérieyx

Page 3

To get the most out of your volunteering experience and potentially add value to your future career.

HOW WILL IT BENEFIT THE ORGANISATION? Documenting the skills, competence and experiences you offer your volunteers, will give you the chance to

guide and support the individual volunteer more effectively

define clearly what is expected of the individual, what is involved in the role they are taking on and the level of responsibility required of them

get better results by making the most of the skills, competences and personal abilities volunteers bring to your organisation and by managing the volunteer experience more effectively.

AND FOR BOTH PARTIES….. The volunteer passport will help make a better match between potential volunteers and the volunteering roles that organisations have on offer.

France Bénévolat - International January 2014

Page 169 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS4 // Jo Peeters

Does volunteering contribute to people’s employability? // Jo Peeters

Does volunteering contribute to people’s employability?

A research study of the University of Bath and the European Youth Forum (2012) gives an overview of skills that young people can develop by volunteering in youth work. More than 220 youth organizations all over Europe, and more than 1200 young people were involved in the project.

The researchers also asked employers about the main general skills asked for. These were compared with the skills that organizations and young people mentioned. One of the conclusions is that many of the general skills that employers are looking for can be developed by participating in youth work.

The main recommendation to organizations is that they should support young people in becoming aware of the skills they develop, and in making these skills visible to (e.g.) employers.

The full report of the study can be found here: http://issuu.com/yomag/docs/reportnfe_print The executive summary can de found here: http://issuu.com/yomag/docs/nfe_employabilitystudy-executivesummary

The USA Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) published the report of a research study that demonstrates the connection between volunteering and employability.

The study “Volunteering as a Pathway to Employment: Does Volunteering Increase Odds of Finding a Job for the Out of Work?” is groundbreaking in the USA, being the first-ever federal research that “provides the most compelling empirical research to date establishing an association between volunteering and employment in the United States”. The study demonstrates for instance that unemployed people who volunteer are 27% more likely to find jobs that those who do not. Further details about the study are available on the CNCS website. The full report is available online:http://www.nationalservice.gov/sites/default/files/upload/employment_research_report.pdf As is a video summary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBLIuDTvrxs

How can people make visible what they have learned through volunteering?

This is a process that can be divided into 6 steps:

1. Awareness 2. Recording the skills 3. Self assessment 4. Assessment by others 5. Validation 6. Recognition

Which tools are available fort his process?

1. Awareness: learning diary, skills games 2. Recording the skills: volunteer portfolio, competence passport 3. Self assessment: questionnaires 4. Assessment by others: 360 degrees feedback, STAR-interview 5. Validation: examples of competence systems/models 6. Recognition: national system for formal recognition.

For more information:

Jo Peeters Email: [email protected]

Page 170 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS4 // Pavel Trantina

Pavel Trantina

Page 171 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS4 // Pavel Trantina

MISSION

The European Alliance for Volunteering acts as a collaborative and supportive hub for European, national and regional organisations involving volunteers or who support or promote volunteering to advocate for positive change in the volunteering sector.

OBJECTIVES

• Actively coordinate and develop efforts aimed at appropriate follow-up by targeted stakeholders of the policy recommendations contained in P.A.V.E. and pursue other policy developments; • Monitor and communicate developments in the European environment for volunteering and related policies, acting as a knowledge hub for volunteering; • Coordinate and develop initiatives that respond to European policies impacting on volunteers and the volunteering sector.

Page 172 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS4 // Pavel Trantina

Page 173 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS4 // Pavel Trantina

Page 174 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS4 // Pavel Trantina

Valorise-toi! / Empower yourself!

http://goo.gl/2CMN0

Osobní kompetenční Personal Competenceportfolio Portfolio(OKP) (CZ) www.kliceprozivot.cz

Page 175 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS4 // Pavel Trantina

P.A.V.E. – legacy of EYV 2011 Alliance Steering Group

Wider Alliance

P.A.V.E •More efficient and effective policy framework

•To support and promote volunteers, volunteering and volunteer-involving organisations. •Ensure a lasting legacy for EYV 2011 by encouraging all stakeholders to address the shortcomings of current policies. •Addresses Stakeholder groups according to EYV 2011 objectives

Page 176 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS4 // Pavel Trantina

P.A.V.E. recommendations regarding recognition/validation

Recognise voluntary activities in order to encourage appropriate incentives for individuals, companies and volunteer-development organisations

2.3.1 Develop and promote a European Volunteer Card. Such a card would recognise and support the contribution of volunteers and highlight the potential for the cross-border nature of volunteering. It could be developed following the models of euro26 and ISIC9.

2.3.2 Support the continued gathering of good practice recognition tools across the EU. This can be done taking inspiration from existing platforms which gather knowledge and build on the work undertaken by the EYV 2011 Alliance.

P.A.V.E. recommendations regarding recognition/validation

3.3.3 Standardise the outcomes of recognition tools and other opportunities to gain supplementary European Credits at universities through volunteering. This would mean that the European Credit Transfer Accumulation System (ECTS) would incorporate a standard mechanism for recognising learning achieved through volunteering.

4.3.3 Develop in partnership with other stakeholders national standards for measurement of personal competences gained through volunteering. Recognised accreditation for prior learning (APL) through volunteering would facilitate better understanding of its value to Life-Long-Learning processes. Partnerships with other stakeholders should also be used to develop suitable tools which take into account the existing culture of recognition and serve to recognise the variety of competences that can be gained through volunteering. These should be developed within a common framework to enable the transferability of skills.

Page 177 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS4 // Pavel Trantina

P.A.V.E. recommendations regarding recognition/validation

5.3.1 Raise awareness of the contribution that employees engaged in volunteering can make. Especially to economic and social capital through the skills and competences they gain through volunteering whether undertaken as part of an internal employee volunteering scheme or volunteering at an employee’s own initiative

5.3.3 Develop human resources policies and capacities to assist employees and potential employees in better communicating the learning achieved through volunteering. This will increase the recognition of the critical role of volunteering in increasing employability, personal development and active citizenship.

P.A.V.E. recommendations regarding recognition/validation

6.3.1 Ensure that the methods of recognition continue to reflect volunteers’ needs. Establish a strategic approach to the recognition of volunteering, identifying the aims of such a strategy, the needs of different stakeholders, available resources and methods of monitoring and evaluation basing the recognition methods and practices on the individual needs of volunteers and on self-recognition tools.

6.3.2 Develop systems to recognise the knowledge, skills, and competences acquired through volunteering. Making full use of available tools for qualitative recognition and accreditation and the development of new initiatives.

6.3.3 Establish systems of volunteer management which also develop and sustain a culture of recognition within the organisation. This will enable both staff and volunteers to be aware of their role in recognising volunteering.

Page 178 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS4 // Pavel Trantina

“Strasbourg Process”

• Launched in the Statement of the participants of the ‘Symposium on recognition of youth work and non-formal learning/education’, held in Strasbourg in Autumn 2011.

• It identifies a number of relevant actions and measures to be launched or supported on the various levels of youth work and youth policy in Europe, at European, national, regional and local level and in all infrastructures that exist in the youth field, in youth NGOs, in public services, in the training, research and policy communities.

• The participants of the Symposium entrusted the Expert Group on Recognition of Youth Work and of Non-formal Learning/Education with editing the draft Plan of Action as developed during the Symposium and with publishing its final version.

Page 179 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS4 // Pavel Trantina

“Strasbourg Process”

• 7 main chapters:

• Political process • Promotion and Campaigns • Cooperation and Partnerships • Knowledge • Quality • Tools • Resource sand Support

EU policies and initiatives

• Council of the European Union Recommendation on validation of non-formal and informal learning (12/2012) • EQF – NQFs by 2018

• European Area of Skills and Qualifications – public consulation http://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/EASQsurvey2013

• European Skills Passport /Europass Experience development

• Overview of European development in the area of recognition tools in the youth field: : www.salto-youth.net/recognition

Page 180 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS4 // Pavel Trantina

Follow us on www.facebook.com/volunteeringalliance

Page 181 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS5

2.9 Workshop 5

14th Januar 2014

Workshop 5

Promotion of volunteering as promotion of democracy

Rachel Wharton, Compact Voice, United Kingdom Jenny Ögren, The Agreement / Överenskommelsen sociala området, Sweden Mirko Schwärzel, European Volunteer Centre

Moderated by Dr. Frank Heuberger, Bundesnetzwerk Bürgerschaftliches Engagement/ National Network for Civil Society (BBE))

Page 182 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS5 // Rachel Wharton

The Compact – „The Power of Partnerships“ // Rachel Wharton

The Compact – “The Power of Partnerships”

Rachel Wharton Compact Voice January 2014

Compact Voice

Compact Voice works to ensure that strong, effective partnerships are at the heart of all relationships between the voluntary sector and government - locally and nationally.

Network of 3,100 members

• Sharing best practice from across England

• Providing information and resources

• Meeting regularly with government and advocating on behalf of the sector

• Offering practical help and guidance on how to get the Compact working for your organisation

Page 183 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS5 // Rachel Wharton

What is the Compact?

• Has existed since 1998

• Agreement between government and the voluntary and community sector

• Sets out 5 key principles that provide a foundation for better partnership working

• Applies only to England

• Its principles are based on engagement with government and the voluntary sector

Compact Principles

• Independence and the right to campaign

• Consulting with charities when developing policies

• Supporting charities to deliver projects and services

• Understanding the impact of changes to funding and other forms of support

• Protecting and considering disadvantaged groups

Page 184 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS5 // Rachel Wharton

Local Compacts

• 165 local Compacts across England

• 97% of the country have a local Compact

• Many of these will reinterpret the principles of the national Compact to reflect local need

• Local Compact Annual Survey: 88% of respondents think they are important

• Local Compact groups support local partnerships

Why are local Compacts Important

• Provides a foundation for partnership working across the sectors.

• Enables open dialogue and a level playing field

• Strengthens policy development based on insight and expertise of organisations dealing with different communities

• Helps the voluntary sector to engage with new partnerships and vice versa

• Recognising the Compact can provide reassurance to the voluntary sector that they are being properly considered

Page 185 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS5 // Rachel Wharton

The Compact and Volunteering

• Volunteering Code of Good Practice

• How to work together to support and promote volunteering and voluntary action

• Volunteering is an important expression of citizenship and fundamental to democracy.

• It is the commitment of time and energy for the benefit of society and the community, and can take many forms.

• It is freely undertaken and not for financial gain.

Local Compact Successes

The Merton Compact

Practical improvements that could be made to improve the relationship between the statutory and voluntary sectors

Community involvement and voluntary action are essential to the quality of life in Merton

It is recognised that the voluntary sector makes a valuable contribution to the economic, environmental and social development of Merton

Page 186 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS5 // Rachel Wharton

Local Compact Successes

Lancashire United Against Hate

A range of organisations came together voluntarily to form a partnership called ‘Lancashire United Against Hate’.

Encouraged cohesion, community involvement , equality and inclusion

The partnership has helped both statutory and VCS organisations improve service provision for victims of hate crimes.

The work of this unique partnership has also supported them with their prevention strategies.

Local Compact Successes

The Sutton Compact

1. Community involvement and voluntary action are essential to a democratic society and to the quality of life in Sutton.

The process of discussing and agreeing the new Compact had a positive effect on clarifying and enhancing the positive working relationships across all sectors.

In addition, a number of joint projects have developed as a result of the new Compact

A joint project between London Borough of Sutton and the voluntary sector to develop a local framework to measure social value in the local commissioning process.

Page 187 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS5 // Rachel Wharton

Any Questions?

More information on our website: www.compactvoice.org.uk

Page 188 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS5 // Jenny Ögren volunteering in europe // Jenny Ögren

THE AGREEMENT

What is the Swedish Agreement in the social sphere?

Three parties forms a working group - Idea-based organizations coordination group - Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions (SALAR) - Government Offices (Ministry of Social Affairs and Ministry of Education – gender, equality, politics for civil society)

Main objectives 1) to strengthen the non-profit organizations self-reliant and independent role as articulators and opinion leaders 2) to develop a greater diversity of providers and suppliers of health and social care

Page 189 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS5 // Jenny Ögren

What is NOT the Swedish Agreement in the social sphere?

An organization An association with memberships An authority or a governmental unit Legally binding An investigation or a project

A common starting-point

The Agreement is characterized by a strong belief that the idea-based organizations play an important role in the society in which these organizations are both a prerequisite and an expression of an open, democratic and prosperous society.

The purpose of the Agreement is to strengthen the ideological organizations and to improve and develop the opportunities for a better interaction.

The idea-based organizations: contribute to a vigorous and living society are articulators and opinion leaders provide actions for people to contribute to the development of society

Page 190 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS5 // Jenny Ögren

Six common principles

Autonomy and independence Dialogue Quality Continuity Transparency Diversity

Each party has a plan of action with undertakings and measures.

Five-year-follow-up

Key findings: The national Agreement serve as a role model to local agreements The national Agreement has contributed to make idea-based activities more visible The national Agreement has contributed to increase acknowledgement and legitimization of idea-based organizations’ role and importance The agreement has served as a catalyst – strengthened many smaller idea-based organizations in their arguments and contributed to better arguments in negotiation with the public sector

Page 191 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS5 // Jenny Ögren

Future perspective

the Agreement should not be rewritten need for specifications to enable adequate monitoring respondents from the Government Offices and SALAR consider that processing the Agreement takes time the idea-based organizations think that a change in process takes too long time important to clarify objectives and indicators related to the Agreement

The public sector can be Idea-based organizations can be described as: described as: •Bound to laws and regulations •Formed around an idea •Relating to elected politicians •Aiming towards an ideal world opinions •Based on values •Hierarchic •Creating meaning •Bureaucratic •Together with likeminded •Just/equitable •For me and for others •Equal Reliance, confidence, •Because I want to •Predictable trust •Traceable

Create order, Values, meaning, equality and ideals justice for all

Page 192 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS5 // Jenny Ögren

Further information

www.overenskommelsen.se Newsletter, Facebook and Twitter National office E-mail [email protected] Phone +46-8-23 31 30

Thanks for Your attention!

Page 193 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS5 // Mirko Schwärzel

Impuls – Entwicklung und Perspektive in Deutschland // Mirko Schwärzel

Vernetzungskonferenz: Bürgerschaftliches Engagement in Europa – Internationaler Austausch über Konzepte und deren gesellschaftlichen Nutzen am 13. und 14. Januar 2014, Berlin (Hotel Aquino)

Workshop 5: Engagementförderung als Demokratieförderung Impuls: Entwicklung und Perspektive in Deutschland Mirko Schwärzel

Einleitung Mit der Arbeit und dem Abschlussbericht der Enquete-Kommission „Zukunft des bürgerschaftlichen Engagements“ des Deutschen Bundestages 2001 hat sich das Verständnis etabliert, Engagementförderung müsse sich auch immer als Demokratieförderung verstehen: Freiwillige engagieren sich für einen („ihren“) Zweck, weil sie – zumindest im Kleinen – eine gesellschaftliche Veränderung bewirken und das Gemeinwesen mitgestalten wollen. Engagementpolitik muss daher diese Partizipationsdimension in seiner Strategie berücksichtigen. Auch auf europäischer Ebene steht dieser Zusammenhang zwischen bürgerschaftlichem Engagement und Bürgerbeteiligung nicht in Frage, wie sich beispielweise in der Zieldefinition des Europäischen Freiwilligenjahres 2011 zeigt: „to work towards an enabling environment for volunteering in order to anchor volunteering a spart of promoting civic participation.“ Gleichwohl scheint in der jüngsten Vergangenheit die Tendenz zu bestehen, Engagementpolitik eher als Politik guter Rahmenbedingungen für das Ehrenamt zu verstehen und vom Diskurs über Bürgerbeteiligung und der Zukunft der Demokratie zu lösen.

1. Diskursentwicklung in Deutschland Die Traditionslinien des Diskurses der Bürgergesellschaft in Deutschland wurden von Rupert Graf Strachwitz bereits in Workshop 1 schon entlang dreier Pfade beschrieben: - Susidiarität - Korporatismus - „starker Staat“ Das „Regelungssystem“ der bürgergesellschaftlichen Beteiligung – insbesondere der Einbindung repräsentativer Dachverbände in der unterschiedlichen Bereichen Wohlfahrt, Jugend, Kultur etc. – hat sich in Deutschland daher traditionell in vielen Bereichen formalrechtlich höherwertig entwickelt als etwa in anderen Ländern jüngst im Rahmen von unverbindlichen Compacts – nämlich in Gesetzesform wie beispielsweise in den Sozialgesetzbüchern. Diese Beteiligung in Form von Einbindung der Verbände in Regelungssysteme ist traditionell aber nicht „bereichsübergreifend“, „offen“ und „transparent“, sondern politikfeldbezogen und exklusiv. Seit Anfang der 1990er-Jahre sieht sich dieses Modell – und damit insbesondere die Zivilgesellschaft – Herausforderungen gegenüber: - Sozialpolitische Reformen öffnen gesellschaftliche Dienstleistungen dem privaten Sektor: Professionalisierung und Privatisierung gemeinnütziger Dienstleistungen - Finanznot der öffentlichen Haushalte steigert die Erwartungen implizit und explizit an die Leistungsfähigkeit der Verbände und das bürgerschaftliche Engagement. Bürgerschaftliches Engagement wird vermehrt als „Ressource“ gesehen.

Page 194 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS5 // Mirko Schwärzel

- Veränderungen in Motivlagen und Interessen der Engagierten, insbesondere im Hinblick auf ihr politisches Engagement Waren die Verbände der Zivilgesellschaft in ihren korporatistischen Arrangements bisher bereichsspezifisch eingebunden, förderte diese Entwicklung die Herausbildung bereichsübergreifender Interessen. Der Diskurs des bürgerschaftlichen Engagements legt sich als Querschnittsdiskurs an. Von Beginn an ist er verwoben mit dem Grundverständnis, auch Demokratiepolitik zu sein. Leitbild Ende der 1990er-Jahre: Bürgergesellschaft! Enquete-Kommission zur Bürgergesellschaft: Bürgergesellschaft ist ein „Gemeinwesen, in dem sich Bürger nach demokratischen Regeln selbst organisieren und auf die Geschicke dieses Gemeinwesens einwirken können. Im Spannungsfeld von Markt, Staat und Familie wird Bürgergesellschaft überall dort sichtbar, wo sich freiwillige Zusammenschlüsse bilden, wo Teilhabe und Mitgestaltungsmöglichkeiten genutzt werden“ Das Staatsleitbild dazu ist der ermöglichende Staat. Die bestehenden Beteiligungsverfahren, wie sie im Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz, im Baugesetzbuch und im SGB VIII sowie in weiteren Programmen wie „Soziale Stadt“ geregelt sind, haben sich bewährt und „sind durch innovative Formen wie Runde Tische, Planungszellen/Bürgergutachten, Bürgerforen und Zukunftswerkstätten zu ergänzen. Dazu weitere Bereiche Ausbau der Beteiligungsmöglichkeiten: Patienten-Selbsthilfe und –Mitsprache“. Die Entwicklung der vergangenen Jahre ist aber gegenläufig, scheint die Diskurse wieder voneinander abzukoppeln. Auf der einen Seite gibt es eine spürbare Konjunktur des Bürgerbeteiligungsdiskurses, insbesondere als Reaktion auf die Erfahrungen mit Protest und Beschwerdeverfahren bei der Planung und Umsetzung infrastruktureller Großprojekte wie Stuttgart 21. Auf der anderen Seite scheint sich eine Reduktion des Engagementdiskurses auf die Förderung des „Ehrenamtes“ abzuzeichnen. - Auf Bundesebene lässt sich dieser Befund an der Programmatik jüngster engagementpolitischer Schlüsseldokumente festmachen: Nationale Engagementstrategie 2010, Engagementbericht 2012, Koalitionsvertrag 2013 - Auf Länderebene war es bis vor wenigen Jahren noch üblich, die Umsetzung von Bürgerbeteiligungsverfahren der Ressort koordinierenden Stelle für das bürgerschaftliche Engagement zuzuordnen (zumeist Sozialministerium oder Stabs- bzw. Leitstelle). Heute scheint es eher wieder zu einer Ressorttrennung zu kommen, wie das Beispiel der grün- roten Landesregierung in Baden-Württemberg zeigt.

2. Leitfragen für die Diskussion Bietet eine Enquete-Kommission „Zukunft der Demokratie“, wie sie derzeit vermehrt gefordert wird, eine geeignete Grundlage, die Beziehung zwischen Engagement- und Demokratieförderung neu zu ordnen und Impulse zu setzen für eine Engagementpolitik, die sich auch wieder als Demokratiepolitik versteht? Hat ein Rahmenabkommen zwischen Staat und Zivilgesellschaft in Form eines Compacts in Deutschland das Potential, einen gesamtheitlichen Rahmen für die Einbindung repräsentativer Verbände als Interessenvertreter der Bürgergesellschaft in politische Entscheidungsprozesse und gleichzeitig auch die Anwendung und Verbindlichkeit unterschiedlicher Instrumente der Bürgerbeteiligung zu regeln?

Page 195 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS6

2.10 Workshop 6

14th Januar 2014

Workshop 6

Volunteering as impulse for social innovation and social

entrepreneurship Dr. Joachim Rock, Der Paritätische Gesamtverband, Germany Norbert Kunz, Social Impact, Germany Eamonn Fitzgerald, Social Entrepreneurs Ireland Sara Allen, Cabinet Office Centre for Social Action, United Kingdom

Moderated by Sebastian Wehrsig, Centre for Social Investment (CSI)

Page 196 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS6 // Norbert Kunz Engagement als Impuls sozialer Innovation und sozialen Unternehmertums // Norbert Kunz

Engagement als Impuls sozialer Innovation und sozialen Unternehmertums

Konferenz: Bürgerschaftliches Engagement in Europa Berlin, den 13. / 14. Januar 2014

Norbert Kunz GF Social Impact gGmbH

NORBERT KUNZ

CEO Norbert Kunz has been Ashoka Fellow since 2007 he has been Ashoka Fellow. The Schwab Foundation awarded him Social Entrepreneur of the year 2010.

He is member of the Global Agenda Council on Social Innovation as well as in the European Commission Expert Group on Social Business. Moreover he has co-founded several organisations, such as the German Mikrofinance Institute and the stattauto Carsharing AG Berlin.

Page 197 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS6 // Norbert Kunz

Definition: Commitment

Soziales Engagement = die freiwillige und ehrenamtliche Aktivität von Menschen.

Social Commitment = the voluntary and unsalaried activity of people.

Definition: Commitment

Soziales Engagement = die freiwillige und ehrenamtliche Aktivität von Menschen.

Social Commitment = the voluntary and unsalaried activity of people.

Page 198 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS6 // Norbert Kunz

Privat and social sector

früher heute Es gab kaum Überschneidungen Es gibt mehr Gemeinsamkeiten zwischen den beiden Sektoren Die Anforderungen an Personal Die Anforderungen an Personal werden in beiden Bereichen waren sehr unterschiedlich vielfältiger

in the past today There were scarcely no There are more similarities. crossovers between both sectors The requests for personnel are The requests for personnel were becoming more and more very different multifacated in both sectors

L a cking d y namic i n t h e s o cial s e ctor • Seit den 90er Jahren werden die Leistungsangebote im sozialen Sektor – auch aus ökonomischen Gesichtspunkten standardisiert – die Vielfalt nimmt ab.

• Gleichzeitig entstehen neue Herausforderungen (Demografie, Integration etc.)

• Die technologische Entwicklung ermöglicht neue Formen „sozialer Dienstleistungen“

• Since the 1990s the service offers in the social sector – also because of economical factors – are standardised. The variety of offers decreases.

• Simultaneously new challenges arise (demography, integration etc.)

• The technological development facilitate new forms of „social services“

Page 199 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS6 // Norbert Kunz

N e w s e n s e o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y = n e w f o r m s o f c o m m i t m e n t

• Zweifel an dem Erfolg unseres Wirtschaftsmodells breitet sich aus

• Die Bereitschaft zur aktiven Mitgestaltung sozialer Prozesse nimmt zu

• Neue Formen des Engagements entstehen

• Doubt about the success of our economic systems dispreads

• The willingness to actively shape social processes increases

• New forms of commitment arise

F a c i l i t a t i o n o f s o c i a l i n n o v a t i o n s

• mehr Reibung • mehr Interaktion • mehr Unterstützung

• more dialogue

• more interaction • more support

Page 200 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe 2 Annex – WS6 // Norbert Kunz

S o c i a l I m p a c t I n c u b a t i o n

.

Social Impact

Idea Reframing Finance • Written • Social Business Generation application • Crowdfunding • DT seminar Seminar • Pitch • Skilled • Coaching, Consulting, • Coaching, Mentoring, Volunteering Mentoring, Workshops Consulting, Workshops,

• Peer groups, Co-Lab, Co- Iteration Selection Working • Peer groups, Co-Working process Social Business Development

T h a n k y o u v e r y m u c h

. Norbert Kunz Social Impact gGmbH Schiffbauergasse 7 14467 Potsdam

www.socialimpactlab.eu [email protected]

Page 201 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe Impressions

Beobachtungsstelle für gesellschaftspolitische Entwicklungen in Europa

Seite 1

Page 202 Observatory of Sociopolitical Developments in Europe Editorial information

Observatory for Sociopolitical Developments in Europe

3 EDITORIAL INFORMATION

Published by:

Deutscher Verein für öffentliche und private Fürsorge e.V.

This is a publication of the Observatory for Sociopolitical Developments in Europe. It was produced with the support of the German Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth (BMFSFJ). It is distributed free of charge and is not intended for sale. This publication does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the German Federal government. The publisher and/or the authors of individual articles bear responsibility for its content.

All rights reserved. Reprints or comparable use, including of extracts, are permissible only with prior written authorisation.

The Observatory is a project funded by the German Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth (BMFSFJ), D-11018 Berlin.

The Observatory’s website: http://www.sociopolitical-observatory.eu

The institutions operating the Observatory are: Deutscher Verein für öffentliche und private Fürsorge e.V. / German Association for Public and Private Welfare Michaelkirchstraße 17/18 D-10179 Berlin, Germany Phone: +49 30-62980-0 Fax: +49 30-62980-140 Internet: http://www.deutscher-verein.de

Institut für Sozialarbeit und Sozialpädagogik e.V. / Institute for Social Work and Social Education Postfach 50 01 51 D-60391 Frankfurt a. M., Germany Phone: +49 (0)69 - 95 78 9-0 Fax: +49 (0)69 - 95 789 190 Internet: http://www.iss-ffm.de

Author: Sören Hoyer

Editorial staff: Nina Ohlmeier, Juliane Gerth Layout: atelier hauer+dörfler GmbH, Berlin Pictures by: MIKA-fotografie | Berlin - www.MIKA-fotografie.de, ©thinglass / fotolia.com (Coverphoto)

Editorial design: www.avitamin.de

Date of Publication: February 2014

This publication is available only as PDF: http://www.sociopolitical-observatory.eu

Page 203