Youth Policy in Latvia

6448 ID 6617 Couv youth policy latvia 29/09/08 16:36 Page 1

This international review of the national youth policy in Latvia, like preceding reviews, aims to fulfil three distinct objectives: Youth policy in Latvia - to advise on national youth policy; - to identify components which might combine to form a harmonised approach to youth policy across Europe; and - to contribute to a learning process in relation to the development and implementation of youth policy. The Directorate of Youth and Sport of the Council of Europe embark- ed on its international reviews of national youth policy in 1997. Latvia, at its own request, is the fourteenth country to be the focus of an international review. This report goes from the historical background through to the present day and includes information gather- ed by the international review team as well as its analyses and recommendations concerning the development, perspectives and

challenges for the future of youth policy in Latvia. Youth policy in Latvia

The Council of Europe has 47 member states, covering virtually the entire continent of Europe. It seeks to develop common democratic and legal principles based on the European Convention on Human Rights and other reference texts on the protection of individuals. Ever since it was founded in 1949, in the aftermath of the Second World

COUNCIL CONSEIL War, the Council of Europe has symbolised reconciliation. OF EUROPE DE L'EUROPE

ISBN 978-92-871-6448-3 PublishingCouncil of Europe -:HSTCSH=V[EE]D:

€15/US$30

http://book.coe.int Council of Europe Publishing Editions du Conseil de l’Europe

Youth policy in Latvia

Conclusions of the Council of Europe international review team

Herwig Reiter, rapporteur general Seija Astala (Chair) Guy-Michel Brandtner Aleksandar Jovanovic Metka Kuhar Howard Williamson Julia Zubok

Council of Europe Publishing The opinions expressed in this publication may not reﬂect the ofﬁcial policy of the Council of Europe. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated, reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic (CD-Rom, Internet, etc.) or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the Public Information and Publications Division, Directorate of Communication (F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex or [email protected]).

Cover design: Documents and Publications Production Department (DPPD), Council of Europe Layout: Jouve, Paris

Council of Europe Publishing F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex http://book.coe.int

ISBN 978-92-871-6448-3 © Council of Europe, November 2008 Printed at the Council of Europe Contents

Executive summary ...... 5

CHAPTER 1: Background and methodology ...... 11 International youth policy reviews of the Council of Europe ...... 11 The Latvian youth policy review ...... 12 Structure of the report ...... 14

CHAPTER 2:Introduction to Latvia ...... 15

CHAPTER 3:Youth and youth policy in Latvia ...... 19 “Youth” ...... 19 “Youth policy” – the national context ...... 19 Funding ...... 24 Legislation ...... 25 Principles ...... 27 Key institutions and actors of regional and local “youth policy” delivery ...... 29 Youth organisations and the political representation of young people ...... 32

CHAPTER 4:Key domains of youth policy...... 37 ts

Education and learning ...... 38 en Formal general education ...... 39 Formal professional education and labour market matching . . 45 Cont Formal higher education...... 47 Non-formal and out-of-school education...... 49 3 4 Youth policy in Latvia pedx5– 5 Appendix Nati – 4 Appendix pedx2–Prog – 2 Appendix Appendi CHA Sour 5: CHAPTER Appendi Re Epilogue co PT ce mmendation R6:Supporting ER s 10 ...... x x 95 ...... eetddata Selected – 3 rgam fthe of Programme – 1 Cr Yo prsplc ...... 54 ...... Fa ...... policy . . Sports ...... Health ...... Employment oilicuin...... 73 ...... polari . Urban-rural ...... inclusion . Social . . . . outsiders and Elites International di The Yo Yo Yo Yo Nation dcto n h ttso the of status the and education oss-cutting iypolicy, mily t ok riigadworking and training work, uth t utc...... justice. uth t researc uth t nomto...... information. uth and participation uth s on ss ra ...... mnto of emination al al m ftesec the of mme pno and opinion pno and opinion yo co h ch ke t policy uth ...... oeainadex and -operation fo l efr,sca rtcin...... protection social welfare, ild iss y sa Latv r in 81 ...... tion. fi ues s visit rst go re re ia n ii to visit ond dpractic od ci ...... fo pnet eto nemployment on section to sponse pnet eto nminority on section to sponse iesi ...... tizenship 116 ...... r yo to t policy uth Lat ch co Russi e vi Latvia ne...... 90 ...... ange ndition 89 ...... a 114 ...... nlanguage an 115 ...... s 85 ...... 11 ...... 120 . . . . 62 83 83 63 97 56 67 67 72 61 75 8 7 expres and inv and dedication The Lat Fo ch l t strengths its all pa the transfor of beginning the at To effectivenes ot,Latv south, the Thi summar Executive oiyo the of policy Co ge h iebig h political the being, time the r allenges ni fErp Directorat Europe of uncil rt s vi ma fteErpa no n20.Tedvlpeto Latv of development The 2004. in Union European the of repor ther ,“youth” a, ge diinldcmnsadsourc and documents additional – ouet and documents – a – w study two – h draft the – s nsourc in eoiy eecuileeet fterve rcs.TeIRT The process. review the of elements crucial were nerosity, ma t rttd oal to gratitude its pa rprto fteinternatio the of preparation h two the Re the in held were people, young wi Te Minist wi t intwrswsensadrso oit n economy and society of standards western towards tion co ia m(R)i uyadOtbrNvme 200 October/November and July in (IRT) am ersnsthe represents th ass hteohrtwo other the th ze rt s Re esi h eiwproces review the in ners peepooo ftemeig n discus and meetings the of protocol mplete is kne ftheir of ke ociated es is ry ulco Latv of public mn hs omrSo former those among n weaknesse and y co oilgroup social a o hlrnand Children for nomn thi informing na institution nr visits untry visi inlrepor tional co wi ol so n week one of ts ntribution eeto h Latv the of vement hsc a such th 199 l fi h ate n niiul inv individuals and parties the ha dnsfo h nentoa eiwof review international the from ndings Ba of e s ia s fe a After 0s. dot pro nd-outs tcst ltic of s by wi Yo t ,hsto has s, repor yo on ca hfzybudre;it boundaries; fuzzy th s emo nentoa xet,selected experts, international of team a t n Spor and uth Fa ra t policy, uth n presentatio and at tegor yo iyAffairs mily ia transformation. dical nal s soi ntenrhadLtunai the in Lithuania and north the in Estonia es, t y s t oiyi Latv in policy uth ea vi nld h follow the include ca et ra y ch review easse agains assessed be vi i n stil and pid ia iaadi the in and Riga pital f“youth” of co ded ia es oLatv to par n un as t. co . re htrgie independence regained that tries by nadto oapre a to addition In wel ns tn ia ns h Latv the le nthe in ulted r,teprofes the ers, syo as l by , la l ia as 7, ra ck non socio-economic ongoing h International the prepared , in ol gsfrom nges wel uigwihmeetings which during si s g: ved. t rciinr and practitioners uth on ia la ento.In definition. clear a ia as l t n s uhrte and authorities n h bac the ci yo fteITduring IRT the of isof ties hi hospitality their t policy, uth co na si , by pa ea hybecame they nls and onalism reo the of urse tional aoyvisit, ratory h Latv the kg l teenage rly Ce wa on of round i and sis Revi by t to nts yo wi uth the ia ew th n

5 Executive summary 6 Youth policy in Latvia co practi Lat ov actor- is eeomn,rqie fu requires development, politi that yo which oiyi h ein.Teitouto of introduction The regions. the in policy the t sen its economic its formulates usually sense) rele are interests, Yo co qipdwt oha both with equipped str ca co super encourages, profes as The policies. differen viaiiyof availability ntemuni the in The the among Yo yo of etnso iaadother and Riga of settings more co Fa little the to years n h eiinpoesis process revision the and policy youth the 2004, In depa focu iyAfis hc urnl od the holds currently which Affairs, mily aiiso uiiaiis hl h Ministr the While municipalities. of pacities et like pects t Gs einlbde and bodies regional NGOs, uth t oiydpnspicplyon principally depends policy uth nsi odnto.Hwvr h Ministr the However, -ordination. srcieyuhin youth nstructive nditions. eral t oiydeliver policy uth t atcpto n information, and participation uth at oeimpro some yo vi ce s egies ca an co co rt ca t oiyinstitution policy uth eal maac navailab in imbalance derable ce edn ob ntelower the on be to tending l ra ta si teof ntre a establi was et remai ment, si ecutrdit three into clustered be n cnrto fresourc of ncentration udn ufr rmtesrn roiiso indi of priorities strong the from suffers funding ns yo l ci t Thi . onali hrthan ther gtdpirte.Faeoklegi Framework priorities. rgeted yo iiyto tivity ldtd“nweg”about “knowledge” olidated t oiydevelopment policy uth fi yo uth rcumstances. ci ke nancially s la sa uth palities, yo re dimen yo y yo etete,dpnigo h perspective the on depending twenties, te ve tion. ci t eerh di research, uth fl principles t oiymkn ufr rman from suffers policy-making uth t ciiisare activities uth tizenship ch xv dimension exive ci etin ment co hdi 05i re oln the link to order in 2005 in shed va vis sa motn play important an ns iesi rmtseult among equality promotes tizenship ang tn-rvnapproa ntent-driven tt thi to nt si , ovmn ndecis in volvement y, sadspot h eeomn frgoa n municipa and regional of development the supports and es is n which on, fea hr sstill is there es ieyt impro to likely eo the below rt sible gnawas agenda Yo in yo s ma e impro her ch co uth s nld the include yo t policy uth co aracteri tiue odmcai oe sharing, power democratic to ntributes non.Mr rec More ongoing. jo es dimen rfsinlprofi professional t preferen uth eaed.The agenda. re r ss is we ma ci ha remai le mnto frslsand results of emination c fyuhplc development policy youth of (c) urnl nyotie nLatv in outlined only currently co ke ties, fr,icuinadnon-discrimi and inclusion lfare, ogaate iiu pr minimum guaranteed no y fo h age the of lf ndimen in is na si ud;thi funds; ve si nsi y of n ln which along on, ve rnfre to transferred co gthi ng yo framed inllvladotieteprivileged the outside and level tional etadthe and ment iitr inv ministers ns as ion-making is radfnigpar funding and er ch derable. Yo Ed co -operation t ersne npolicy in represented uth the Co sl insuffi t Affair uth ihadrgoa iprte nthe in disparities regional and high cto n cec,tefre lead former the Science, and ucation odnto and -ordination to wel ma ce to for ation uncil s si situ yo s, s nrespon in dimen n.The ons. as l by oiotldimension horizontal y t oiyadministration. policy uth further n diin to additions ent ra ci to nyi thi if only ation as eadaporaeemployment appropriate and le Fu fCide and Children of of seven n and ent nge. ciiisaditrsso the of interests and activities rt s n h ento fsociety. of definition the and ov wel wi ol the h Ministr the Yo si emr,tepreto at perception the hermore, Co co yo e.However ved. rsiaino h actual the of erestimation th n hr h suc the where on, uth yo vi as l co Co nsi -ordinators, etcldimension vertical t policy uth si co ulactors dual yo youn ass t oiy(na (in policy uth tiue othe to ntributes rsodnl,there rrespondingly, iiyfor bility ta eaino additional of deration la ty nsi t oiyprinciples policy uth Po nitrainlbest international in co ke gl nthe in rgely , cae specialised ociated go epelvn in living people g licy eainof deration huhit though mncto,the mmunication, n, y dpatc,and practice, od s ovision ia fCide and Children of e position new wi h landscape the Co maki n Fa , htepolicy the th as yo is yo emphasis b fso of (b) as -ordination, iyAffairs mily hl there while na fa t policy uth ke t policy uth outdated, ng. wel ci o has now fyouth of inare tion maki y ce litating na ov actors yo a of (a) as l ss rrow eral ci uth ng. es o- of is is a l l coleuain Thi education. school co the incr the Second, h ihsau fedu of status high The National the of “the represent base membership the and enhanced, ftebdrptto n ult of quality and reputation bad the of thi behind intention policy the yet achievement; of tg.Tid inv Third, stage. yo the ex tthe At development atr ee,has level, Masters pro anticipate to attempts youn Howeve terms, economic Latv in suc Russi ioiis h colrfr f20 nrdcdexte introduced 2004 of reform school The minorities. diinlyafce for affected additionally a on developed be to need lhuhteLtinlabour Latvian the Although ge National un h La the youn ver fmr inno more of h me the fa pers un lob The societystructuresand people employmen summer of programme a run agencies employment upre,telwaethre age low the supported, ci ce t tran uth ployeducation mpulsory ea rmpermanent from – neral employmentremain e recon der y byi ce lities, ge yo ist ll o n institution and low epeado saigthe escaping of and people g epefo h g of age the from people g na an ssi n rdto fhobb of tradition ent tv gta pro that ng ea tiigfravne dctoa merits educational advanced for striving neral t population uth sa ia as and inlsrcue n institution and structures tional wi r, ia on. nmnrt col,ms fte for them of most schools, minority in n la etm,temtvto findividual of motivation the time, me Yo ure hoppor th as uhrte edt ermne ftheir of reminded be to need authorities n h oiaino thi of domination the si gaei particular in nguage co uth tion st Fo wel va ca tnet reinforc to ntinue uto.Etbihdorgani Established ruction. ca rh dctoa reform educational urth, vo lls ieadles and tive Co s aigpar easing sby as l ssgreat uses ol nLatv in c of ice swl so neeya basis. everyday an on as well as vi ni fLa of uncil o hruhrsac noistrue its into research thorough for tun eeti ihreuain seilya the at especially education, higher in vement eoeapplrwyo pos of way popular a become edvreoppor diverse de may s te o work for ities ca civic wi s a ext was s youn ihfemale high ia a ini a in tion young hoppor th r trigto starting are ke un y inv iiaini pe eodr education secondary upper in ticipation ce s co y n neeteuain pr education, interest and un earmd o nqaiisi oit n o levels low and society in inequalities for remedy a be epe hudb broadened. be should people” g co i eety h ouaiyo h riig however, training, PhD of popularity The recently. til hl nie rtcs.The criticism. invites shold tv problemaffecting ss co ol mplementar 13 ce a fou ia, ne o1 er,nwincludin now years, 11 to ended e cr mn Latv among ncern women sof es s vementare is vninltype nventional socia co rt er.Wiethe While years. rdtoa omof form traditional ma tun further it bu hi sur their about ainty un un ex un kthsrec has rket ities la ddin nded tu fa tr einei rtce environment protected a in perience l nqaiis Labour inequalities. mlyetafter employment by y bour vo ha iisto nities vo is ieLatv like sa ma s urable nasneof absence an eproblems ve o ennflou meaningful for ca basis. y tthe at la tion of inladprofes and tional ma rgely gnlsd ept t impor its despite rginalised, 92 suff 1992, youn ci yo rket s s ia la yo tizen youn tponing co fnnfra dcto,which education, non-formal of of ia un t ersnainand representation uth ge bour ov is t inv uth s uhrte n systematic and authorities n eo Latv of re it,Latvia Fifth, gpeople. yo yo ea dao pro of idea neral matc derdeveloped.Inthi reform ca rddrn re during ered civil eetdin reflected as s g ovi t work uth t ersnainlk the like representation uth nsi wi ss nodrt establish to order in uses, opriiaenest be to needs participate to Yo viva Russi ma r–lk ava Gsin NGOs Latvian like – er wel ch ding hesrn nacademic an ensuring th igaestil are hing increasing ma ca oit respon society ve uth ol ild ktthat rket ma l, as l erdec reer is t- ve ent ev.Latv leave. ternity co ia n.I thi In ans. Re fsho activities. of-school as ca la Co ktparticipation rket somewhat si etaecurrently are ment mpulsor w er fpre- of years two g oiistowards policies n lal,reflective clearly, , g proportion rge co gionaldifferences eadpre-school and re t a str a has nltrac onal uncil ma sustainable for e tthe at mes sindic is Ba ny ch sosamong isions popularity vi ch l ce liigto claiming aracterised ding ch ways tan at lrnand ildren y wa s tyears, nt s si lrand elor teaching n and ong respect, ta un ks bilities. tv of ative ca c in nce youn First, . Thi . yo y, clear. ea be n co civil s uth the ia rly of of st is is n g s

7 Executive summary 8 Youth policy in Latvia Cu youn There oet n oilecuin There exclusion. social and poverty ha Howeve link systematic ma pa ac o suc for abroad, the working of Some Affairs. Lat learning is iie esetvsadlife and perspectives limited oto h nqaiisi the in inequalities the of Most policy other the with it integrated of one being Despite in society in and people co impr ac adopting economic difficult and re poverty which to extent the pres The for nteone the On oiis ssu as policies, societ given any in of There established. been envi an within Internet- impro altogether and would that top” the to po of encouragement policy and research term in co osub to pa epe feigspecialised offering people, as nte oiyarea policy another tu prtvl o rfie So profile. low mparatively l lya impor an play uld dadsca ser social and nd rt rt rnl availab rrently co vi yshos pro schools, ny youn cpto r unrbet en domi being to vulnerable are icipation cpto r atclrya iko rdcn ltsadoutsider and elites producing of risk at particularly are icipation on lyd odrcl impro directly to do ally si co ov olw strateg a follows a epe occup people, g fietaiyadprofes and nfidentiality ng st is ce s ns mn.Sxeuainotiethe outside education Sex ement. s r, neaue alcohol abuse, ance for epet oeo nete rpotof out drop they once on move to people g sun is ss yo odutta a that doubt no as equence ftedge fisngtv fet hr need There effect. negative its of degree the of hi ttsi em f o example, for of, terms in status their ful t elhne na in need health uth ch ce wel ha clear. st,adpro and to, ss l in ild yo ro s ch d h dcto ytmsest pr to seems system education the nd, as l ewe rbto n rsnser prison and probation between ca t atcpto and participation uth mn fa ov an of nment le nthe In . vi y. is nyb solved be only n om of forms vo vi de nttto-ae ac institution-based Fu ta Ye yi h raino ru of group a of creation the ce vmn nemployment. in lvement ve trl ntepooino elh ietlsamong lifestyles healthy of promotion the in role nt co that rt gal ng ca y va t ,shosadprns organi parents’ and schools s, hermore, ma s is oeo hs patter these of some fehnigthe enhancing of ge mplex r hi id their rry ubeoppor luable their ca lal edt ul peprec.Frto all, of First experience. up build to need a clearly la neral. ca yo l vision eo ava h w oiyar policy two the Latvia, of se ve g rprino Latv of proportion rge h oppor the si yo is ch l for lls nrespo in yo t atcpto,lk h oua school popular the like participation, uth fa nland onal yo thi uth urnl h igs hetto threat biggest the currently ne.O h other the On ances. yo ra t ouainflo h pattern the follow population uth r, rl system erall uth-driven situ s yo pidly ra of areas ver t rbes like problems, uth f servic of, is by co a fur eas co t ntaie nteground the on initiatives uth itethat little y uns co ncerted nsi tun tun ci e health few to.Thi ation. ch ge iesi ntefuture. the in tizenship odntdplc str policy -ordinated ce fa bilities, ligfrabroad a for elling te o respon for ities nigsceylk Latv like society anging te in ities yo na hrit processes into ther nder ss iy– mily si es h Ministr the uth-friendlines ted iehat eaiu.Sot policy Sports behaviour. health tive ch ns to hr health where oiis nldn h pr the including policies, ac yo -s rce.Tefrhrexten further The aracter. by yo r oecoeyrel closely more are co t oiy na in policy, uth s en ce fi un yo ce vi oiotldimen horizontal s fal of rst t information uth ci dn oyugpol’ needs people’s young to rding smal ia co si rt t policy uth ha qualified ce iesi essleadership versus tizenship te for ntres ain n tive ndition sa s d h tutrsof structures the nd, fa y ma youn l n h oieo h one the on police the and tion ovi co sibl iypvryo parents or poverty mily o hlrnand Children for n eiae group dedicated and co l ntemprogrammes. instream s nshos– schools in ntexts. s a of eas efwoppor few de ra uns at epeexperience people g ca e s ob more be to fhat ser health of may s g of nge yo ch nteother the on yo youn fdecisi of egies. re is na ligstil elling t development uth lrnand ildren t inv uth s ia provisi rwsense, rrow o suffi not fstratifi of la dcto and education ’s. people g will be si at ck Yo iss s no socio- of on Wi dto ed on-making co un t justice uth nsociety. in “c ol is ecritical be ues, vso of ovision nhas on hregard th l ta unci vement. derlying ha vi another tun si require . ci Family iss rgeted ca ce youn youn yo yo nof on nnels ently ha wi ities sat ls by s tion ues ca s uth uth ve th of n a g g co topic relevant along orientation additional ch to internatio uhapoes International process. a such economic vlainof evaluation ttsadwrla,ne ob pr be to need workload, and status as “invisibl wi acros cut that are policy but specific mean are di Other housing. and education from minorities h presen The di legal suffering citizens who minorities, sexual fa di of thousands informality. Finally, alternative. the often been r ss wa hdi th aracterised mmitment. wel mnto of emination co d oeac,dvriyadeult eev togrpltclatninand attention political stronger deserve equality and diversity tolerance, rds co l be uld as l sa peetr n lentv approac alternative and mplementary fi ” o different, For e”. yo iiis rthose or bilities, dnsfrom ndings un s nal as yo ha t research, uth t oimpro to politician euiie ndvlpn Latv developing in derutilised Wo egahcllocation, Geographical . tutrsof structures uth eadfcl ttsi Latv in status difficult a ve ch ca na yge by s ke rking lrn h nerto fth of integration The ildren. mpaign impor tional y ci go iesi eurstesuc the requires tizenship lmnso evidence-based of elements gahcl utrladhsoia rtra hl stronger, a while criteria, historical and cultural ographical, ve dpatc,adinternational and practice, od s co yo ta as n eiiu edr,saeasrn hostilit strong a share leaders, religious and h eeiedime reflexive the s ndition ha tdimen nt t rese uth sa rmtn h moderni the promoting wel yo eto ve yo wi mo dvantages t okadoto colactivities school of out and work uth t oktann n profes and training work uth hseileuainlnes hyaeessentially are they needs; educational special th as l co typltclraos ethnic reasons, political stly s ar -operation fa for si international ch ce sa of on rsocia or , es vnae group dvantaged yo pndsrmnto.The discrimination. open s as co si t practitioners, uth fsca xlso iepvry health, poverty, like exclusion social of nlsd h ex The onalised. nsis ia wel nsi is oit.Latv society. n ia wi s sge as l n smainly ts group nof on l hLatv th co ce eotn,are reporting, he yo go ss l ebenefi be uld t oiy General policy. uth yo ,wt strong with s, sa dpatc hudb par be should practice od u naeeto additional of engagement ful is yo t oiyadinformation. and policy uth dr r typical are nder, ia co ino uoensocieties European of tion lw evn the leaving slow; t oiy which policy, uth s n fRussi of oeainadex and -operation yo nld yug people (young) include ch ia as t policy uth ne discus ange, oit in society n cu swl as well as wel si ci n,aogthem among ans, rnl neglected, rrently onali ca remph er al. as l tegor co Fu sa is l benefi uld rt as ca hi role, their y co in the tion, y hermore, primarily si ha ge tegories towards asis fnon- of un wel ch nand on sexual neral, eso ve ange tr as l t is y on of t

9 Executive summary

Chapter 1 Background and methodology

International youth policy reviews of the Council of Europe The Council of Europe established its process of reviewing national youth policy a decade ago, when Finland proposed the idea to the European Steering Committee for Intergovernmental Co-operation in the Youth Field (the CDEJ). Indeed, Finland was the ﬁ rst country to volunteer for the process. Since then, the process has been reﬁned but the initial objectives have remained the same. These are threefold: – to provide an external perspective on a country’s “youth policy” – to offer ideas from that country to the other countries of the Council of Europe – to build a framework for thinking about “youth policy” across Europe. The methodology of the reviews is essentially as follows, once a country has requested that such a review should take place: – a preparatory visit to establish key issues and priorities for attention – the composition of an international review team, usually comprising three youth researchers (one of whom is designated rapporteur), one representative from each of the statutory bodies of the Youth Directorate of the Council of Europe (the CDEJ and the Advisory Council that represents youth organisations) and a member of the Secretariat

– the production of a national report on youth policy by the country d methodology

concerned an – a ﬁ rst visit by the international review team – usually focused on the

central administration and youth policy objectives and aspirations ound – a second visit by the international review team – usually involving gr visits beyond the capital city and exploring issues of youth policy ck implementation and practice Ba – the preparation of a draft international review report – a national hearing in the country concerned 11 12 Youth policy in Latvia Yo Adv the represented Fin Ho the co h nentoa Review International The Will h Latv The nlso ftefo the of the inclusion After 1. eafo the of behalf n hrfr ontrqiefrhrdti ee(th here detail further require not do therefore and eiwproces review h proces The a not was emph participants researchers eeomn fLtinyuhplc.Bsdsthere Besides policy. youth Latvian of development Ljubljana rHer Mr la Though Bremen. of University situ questioni 2008 member January mentioned be in should hearing It 2. expertise. and interests co par epei Lat in people h ansourc main The information hlrnand Children fCide and Children of two ck mplemented sse fsev of nsisted t ietrt fthe of Directorate uth wa la ation. tn ing asn20 and 2002 iamson Co visi d who nd, nitrainlhaigbfr h Joint follow-up the a before – hearing international an – the – r only ers rd uncil wi wi s co st Latv to ts un Will g eopinion de nyand only Directorat rJlaZbk Ru Zubok, Julia Dr ; mple ia Re fa is s iamson, fEurope’s of miliar co n co na co tr(rappor iter vi Fa Yo eyobjective tely ha s is fa a. lce durin llected yo inlhaigi Januar in hearing tional ulcadtasaet ohteojcie n the and objectives the Both transparent. and public peetdteta:D Metka Dr team: the mplemented peino h nentoa repor international the of mpletion iyAfis200 Affairs mily ea es t ietrt fthe of Directorate uth asised Fa ci ebro h DJ rAlek Mr CDEJ. the of member a nmmes h group The members. en havi ll ia t policy uth ch iae h proces the litated s ebe endadeaoae nanme fpu of number a in elaborated and defined been ve wi iyAfis n nomto n document and information and Affairs, mily ow e of fregional of by Wa wi ng hteLatv the th te ver other is in Will nomto edn noterve proc review the into feeding information h rca oeo hsrve rcs n its and process review this of role crucial the or hthe th ttmn eadn th regarding statement g ha e/K rprdand prepared les/UK, ntttos ate n niiul inv individuals and parties institutions, Yo te Co y 2 Te asn2008). iamson nyaver a only d htthere that r,GrayGaut colo oilSine tthe at Sciences Social of School Germany/Graduate ur), eas tddnticuesuffi include not did it because t ietrt ertra nterve rcs.Prof. process. review the in Secretariat Directorate uth h ex The uncil Co m(IRT) am preparatory a g saRsinAaeyof Academy ssia/Russian co ni si uncil yo y 7) re ia ng wel un t okr n institutions.” and workers uth fErp.M Guy-Mi Mr Europe. of prepared n vi ce tr h atoiy fteITfor IRT the of “authority” the co l ew a n isol one was y y ll nterpeiu experien previous their in a ap was s eo the of de tx,temember the ntext, y n nomto pro information ent co iie iet td and study to time limited Co 1 of 08 the 2008, cre,ielyaottoyears two about ideally ncerned, uncil un by was one ythe by pointed visit, esadn the derstanding the co a the was is fErp.Treadditional Three Europe. of tdciia oc uigtenational the during voice critical ated ch co odntdterve exerc review the -ordinated Yo oiin “During position: na sa h national the ie by aired t mngmn tutr fthe of structure -management is Ku t eateto h Ministr the of Department uth inlatoiisrqetdthe requested authorities tional drJo ndar information pno httere the that opinion ha ch ci cecsi ocw and Moscow; in Sciences s n einlscope regional ent r, lBrand el fteta etta they that felt team the of Co vi lvnaUiest of Slovenia/University Co sSiaAtl,from Astala, Seija Ms va ded uncil un ni fErp and Europe of uncil no ce situ assistanc co eot(Ministr report esadteLatv the derstand s vi ess tn nsistin ol by n sub and pro ca ,fo Serbia, from c, to of ation na rrepresented er e nLatv in ved fthe of efudin found be n natu inlhearing tional vi the co iwprocess view e during ded fforeign of g o further for e sse of nsisted bl as eo the of re na la st ication ter antive wel youn is tional Yo yo on e y . uth uth ia as l ia of n g n s y youth policy. In addition, documents, websites and research evidence supporting the process and closing gaps in the knowledge of the IRT were consulted. These additional sources are indicated in the list of references. During the preparatory visit by Prof. Howard Williamson, from 29 to 31 January 2007, key issues of Latvian youth policy were explored and discussed with the Minister for Children and Family Affairs, members of the Youth Department, representatives of youth NGOs, regional and local administrations, and youth researchers. Priorities were identifi ed for consideration in both the Latvian national report on youth policy and in the programme of the fi rst visit of the IRT of the Council of Europe. In the course of the fi rst visit of the IRT to Latvia, from 16 to 22 July 2007, the information provided in the national report, which was available shortly before, was complemented with an introduction of official and NGO perspectives on Latvian youth policy. During this fi rst visit, which was dedicated to the state youth policy landscape represented in the capital Riga, the IRT also had the opportunity to meet the Minister for Children and Family Affairs on two occasions, as well as the Ministers for Welfare, for Education and Science, and for Interior Affairs (see Appendix 1, visit I). During a concluding meeting of the IRT, common and individual impressions were discussed and those issues identified that required additional information and/or consideration during the second visit, in order to complete and refi ne the IRT’s understanding of, and reflection on, Latvian youth policy. On the basis of the priorities articulated by the IRT at the end of the fi rst visit, the Youth Department of the Ministry for Children and Family Affairs prepared the programme for the second visit. Additionally, the months between the two visits were used by the Youth Department to collect and provide supplementary information. The members of the IRT used this period to continue to discuss and reflect on their impressions, as well as details of the national report. This resulted in a preliminary draft report that reviewed selected youth policy issues; it was available to the IRT for comment before the second visit. Apart from some complementary meetings with youth policy protagonists on the national level, the second visit to Latvia, from 29 October to 4 November 2007, was dedicated to confronting all the conceptual information about the national, regional and local youth policy framework, with the reality of youth policy on the ground and outside the capital of Riga. The IRT spent two full days “on the road”. The fi rst day led the IRT to the city of Cesis, in the region of Vidzeme, north-east of Riga. Cesis is d methodology one of the oldest towns in Latvia with about 18 500 inhabitants, most of whom are an ethnically Latvians. It is famous for its mediaeval Livonian castle, one of the most important tourist attractions of the country. Rezekne in the eastern region of Latgale was chosen as a contrast. The city has some 37 000 ethnically diverse inhabitants, ound and the region is among those with the highest unemployment in Latvia. In both gr ck cities the IRT met with youth policy actors at all levels, as well as young people at Ba schools, youth centres and youth clubs (see Appendix 2, visit II). In the course of both visits, the members of the IRT had the opportunity to ask questions and to discuss and reflect on the information provided. The common 13 14 Youth policy in Latvia eiw Se review. recommendation fo of and First ways. two in ov naubesuc fdti,wihpro which detail, of source invaluable specific on review international recent the of example h preparatory the evolv ta exerc review international sun is topic repor of terms In the of Structure nation the in and against pro reports two n synthe and poli exerc review international the review, eosrt thi demonstrate synthe two fa nentoa nweg aeof base co knowledge international an of Apar refl audien international oei supporting in role h strength the Latv is pro target” “moving Latv co (c Slo Spain, Sweden, Since 3. of the provided discussions opinion and perspective f. ke rthe er un ns u ou fatnin The attention. of focus our vaki c n nert h availab the integrate and ect rei,Latv Armenia, vi ci ia ia n t iuea titute igaciia esetv ntecurren the on perspective critical a ding tr der ing, t sadterdvlpeti uoe h progres The Europe. in development their and es n n from y a by olw h suggestion the follows yo yo hc h ot oiyifrainpoie uigtetwo the during provided information policy youth the which ha ta ca reviews last 1997, co t oiyi h erfuture near the in policy uth t oiyi oeto tran of moment a in policy uth ke Howard co ebe published. been ve ewti eea rmwr,establ framework, general a within se i reports sis fa sising prtv n,i eerhtrs miial-rudddbt of debate empirically-grounded terms, research in and, mparative un s n d uhaprocedur a such nd, ci eae ns on,terepor the doing, so In decade. na n h weaknes the and wi litating qefr fplc expe policy of form ique vi Roma ia ga visit) s inladinternationa and tional hteproeof purpose the th e h exper the ded Hungar , un lreport al s h proc the ups.The purpose. hrn oetmadthe and momentum thering yo Will drse and addressed s der re ce i,Etna uebug ihai,Mla No Malta, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Estonia, nia, t oiydvlpeti thi in development policy uth yo benefit must n uigal during and rdcdso produced co por asntruhu h hl eiwpro review whole the throughout iamson ta opriiaei European in participate to eot h vdnebsdanal evidence-based the remost, ns y ke ai for basis is s and ess n Moldo and was t tructive emt suffi to seem e n Fu ma s na by yo rt co t ke se e eiw r currentl are reviews her inlreport’s tional emo the of team t oiyi Latv in policy uth nsidered. the a oensure to has e y s le h rsn repor present the de h mrvmn ntepracti the in improvement the the l yo fa un oiydomain policy wi of va l t oiydvlpeti the in development policy uth vi yHwr Will Howard by r xeinefo otmu perspective, bottom-up a from experience is t oiydvlpeti the in development policy uth Co eot ftervesof reviews the of reports ca odn the folding hrgr osrcuigteagmn,the argument, the structuring to regard th ). yWill by na e h onainfrthi for foundation the ded rt qal isto aims equally e si ntb vlae tthi at evaluated be nnot uncil etnso h R npa in IRT the of meetings is na inlplce inv policies tional tion. nErp.Tedcmnaino both of documentation The Europe. in e ci tional Co nl justif ently t asn(02 2008) (2002, iamson emunderst team situ t Cy ist e“sfl n instructive and “useful” be to aims fErp htaenwavailab now are that Europe of Cu uncil ma rs(Williamson, prus is rrently, un yo s ypooasadintention and proposals ny e nteba the on hed s yo to n h eetps.This past. recent the and ation htthe that t. and iquenes t oiydvlpet The development. policy uth ia ver fEurope of t oiydvlpet The development. policy uth asn(02 08,which 2008), (2002, iamson h IR The y ma s npoes tdfeetstages different at process, in y y salse uigthese during established iss co yo thi oeto tran of moment ysis nsta it that ands tiuet h creation the to ntribute t oiyi Latv in policy uth e dnie nthese in identified ues eso de it a invi was T iln,teNetherlands, the Finland, s s fi steErpa and European the es prah h notes The approach. dnsfe noan into feed ndings n h formulation the and frefl of wi s s habac a th i of sis ca stage. fa rw rt report. ce Co clr eean were icular, nstructuring in r omto th of format l as ay cigupon ecting co co co ss e oassess to ted E , a a has un un wel 200 nr visits untry wo Cy (including si kg tr tr rsand prus as l kdone rk tion, un y un y 7) round, cr ia yo This . ucial s is uth der der the for le by a a e 3 Chapter 2 Introduction to Latvia

The Republic of Latvia is one of the Baltic countries in the north-east of Europe with access to the Baltic Sea. In addition to Estonia in the north and Lithuania in the south, it now borders Russia in the east and Belarus in the south-east. The area of Latvia has been populated for thousands of years by various Baltic tribes. In the 13th century, a confederation of separate lands was established under German domination, including the territory of today’s Latvia and Southern Estonia, with Riga as an important trading centre of the eastern Baltic region. After the confederation dissolved in the 16th century, today’s Latvian territory came under Polish rule. Seventeenth-century Latvia was characterised by struggles between Poland, Sweden and Russia over control of the area. By the end of the 18th century, the Latvian territory was under Russian rule, which lasted for over a century, until 1918 when Latvia proclaimed full independence. The ﬁ rst republic of Latvia lasted for little more than two decades. In 1940, Latvia was occupied by the Soviet Union, then a year later for four years by Nazi Germany and, ﬁ nally, for a further 46 years by the Soviet Union again. During the long Soviet occupation, Latvian people suffered from massive purges and deportations. One way of undermining Latvian culture and language was the organised mass migration to Latvia of labourers and soldiers and then their families from Russia and other Soviet republics. tvia

The “national rebirth” of Latvia, as Dreifelds (1996) calls it, started as recently La as in the late 1980s with the early signs of the crumbling of the Soviet Union. In August 1991, the independence of Latvia was ofﬁcially restored based on the Constitution of 1922. Today, Latvia is a parliamentary democracy with a vivid political landscape. Since the restoration of independence in May 1990, Latvia has had 13 governments; the current one has been in power since 20 December 2007. 4 As in the other Baltic states, the process of nation-building and democratic Introduction to consolidation is ongoing (see, for example, Ehin 2007).

4. www.mk.gov.lv/en/mk/vesture (Last access: 30.12. 2007). 15 16 Youth policy in Latvia elh education, Appendi health, See 5. Latv ne.h/etad(eree:28.12.200 (Retrieved: index.php/Lettland 6. of 07.Atog ac Although 2007). co 0 fLatv of 40% some to Lat the 2005, In ru 400 than Slavic (Ministr (1.4%) Lithuania Nor Sweden, otehg rprino paeso atSlavic East of speakers of co proportion high the to la group ha fnon-citizen of the of one oebaeth embrace to re the and 15 of ages the between population other the of one in live people 000 400 another Riga; of population h popu the ouaina h einn f20 CnrlSaitclBra fLatv of Bureau Statistical (Central 2006 of beginning the at population mirnsfo ful from immigrants Latv independence, regaining After ava “non-citi Latvian pers The 15% bu 0 ftepplto r tncLatv (28%) ethnic are population the of 60% About the among are expectancy Latv nthe in ueuo Latv of Bureau than in nguage la mnct nboth in mmunicate nr CnrlStatisti (Central untry fo t population. its of lf 64 ci En e oiia n oitlten societal and political ted Ev ia ia ties wi 70 0 q m Latv km, sq. 600 s nent https://claroline.uni-klu.ac.at/eeo Internet: Ostens, europäischen des zyklopädie . sa neia uhrnCuc,aot18% about Church, Lutheran angelical la is hteOrthodo the th a its has Be nld epefrom people include 0 epe bu n hr ftettlpplto,lv nthe in live population, total the of third one about people, 000 0 gae oiae(eta ttsia ueuo Latv of Bureau Statistical (Central dominate nguages epro.Chang period. me is is 52 smal a la oeteSecond the fore is etyhg rprino member of proportion high tently co inden tion ma 000 0 ral ia will Lat wa nsi s sha ns sgroup, is ia jo uiiaiisdistributed municipalities ot nteSve ouainplc uigteocpto of occupation the during policy population Soviet the in roots x stil vi vi y, l eal:aottooto he epelv nubnare urban in live people three of out two about derable: 2006). , eaiso h So the of legacies r zens decre ch co o eetdidctr frpoutv behaviour, reproductive of indicators selected for 3 n but an, an youn Fin l ild ce si en eiiu eoiain oe2%are 24% some denomination; religious no ve un ci l mutdt bu 8 o 2 0 epe fteresident the of people) 000 420 (or 18% about to amounted yo yo Lat of ty la i”wt etitdcvcand civic restricted with hip” st citizen to ss x ca la tr as iesi and tizenship ia t ouain ewe h gso 5and 15 of ages the between population, uth dor nd epe Ac people. g Wi Church. gae;i iaadthe and Riga in nguages; y. co re. 5 cal e y is Russi ha vrg f3 naiat e square per inhabitants 36 of average an th Wi es nsis fCide and Children of Wo ma by bu the about ueuo ava 2006). Latvia, of Bureau happlto f23mlinpol n territor a and people million 2.3 of population a th nfriiy irto n h rda exten gradual the and migration fertility, in Russi vi Bela rld igmsl fRsinsekn residents Russian-speaking of mostly ting nre in a bu %bten20 n 00 the 2020; and 2005 between 8% about nremain an 6 sra is Wa ship si rus ,freape The example. for a, as on ia co vi r, hrlwbtstil but low ther ge on 7) oiia ltsdcddt xld So exclude to decided elites political n si (3 s tocpto (Dreifelds, occupation et dn ostatisti to rding was Russi ea lcin.Ised h e ttsof status new the Instead, elections. neral n Graudin and ze s 29 .7 fe h restor the after s fo ov ) Uk %), fthe of years Fa fa qal eeati vrdylf,due life, everyday in relevant equally thi r r2 districts. 26 er an ia wi iyAfis 07 ) h oestate sole The 3). 2007: Affairs, mily cilitate s ns s fnon-Latv of hthe th s ra h ihpooto of proportion high The . eeblw1% Other 10%. below were Re is eas eeomn CnrlStatistical (Central development n (2.5%), ine s oiia rights political la siae odecre to estimated ulco rln but Ireland of public n year). (no ntematm,teshare the meantime, the in d enpro tern l gae.Ms Latv Most nguages. Roma ca ihrta hto Estonia, of that than higher Ho co to findependence of ation l cnrto fresidents of ncentration wever rjcin,teLatv the projections, ia i ma six n vi tncgroup ethnic n ia Ca c fLat of nce Pola 06.Mr than More 2006). , , hlcCuc and Church tholic 199 Lat ass fa jo a intro was d(.% and (2.5%) nd 29 iyformation, mily 6, r i has via ociated ci amounted , as ch ia iso the of ties si ki ga e wi 2006). , Russi as ia pe 5). apter no life of on lometre, na (Kruma, by e East le, honly th ca ns More . duced s tional yo more pital 34% wi and vi an ca uth ia th et is n n s y / The speed with which Latvia transformed into a democracy and market economy was remarkable. Within less than a decade, and after comprehensive economic reforms, Latvia managed to fulﬁl the criteria for being invited to access negotiations with the European Union in 1999; in 2004 it became a member. Furthermore, Latvia has become a participant in many other international organisations and agreements, including the UNO and the OSCE (1991), the World Bank (1992), the Council of Europe (1995), the International Monetary Fund (1996), the World Trade Organisation (1999), NATO (2004), and the Schengen travel area (2007). The socio-economic transformation of Latvia was not an easy one and still demands a lot of patience and resilience from its people. As the social report for 2006 puts it, in a nutshell:

Due to Latvia’s transition to market economy in a comparatively short time and the inability of some population groups to adapt to the radical economic changes, society has had to face the problem of poverty and social exclusion accompanying it though, on the whole, the country experienced economic growth. (Ministry of Welfare of the Republic of Latvia, 2007: 106) According to the GDP development, the economic performance of the country is improving and the average household disposable income is increasing. Yet the capacity of the economy is still weak and the level of social protection is among the lowest in the European Union (Petrasova, 2007). The standard of living is generally low, income levels are polarised, poverty is widespread, and the sensitivity of people to social injustice is high (Aidukaite, 2004; Rajevska, 2005, 2006; Ministry of Economics of the Republic of Latvia, 2007; Eurostat, 2007). The development of Latvian youth policy has to be assessed against these socio- political challenges associated with Latvia’s transformation. Although the IRT was impressed with the overall progress Latvia has made during less then two decades of democracy and open economy, it became equally obvious that the process of reform and development of both Latvian society in general, and youth policy in particular, is ongoing. Against this background, the IRT wants to underline that the recommendations and, at times, criticism, produced in the frame of the review exercise are articulated for entirely constructive purposes: they are intended to support the Latvian partners in assessing the status quo of youth policy and in identifying forward-thinking priorities for youth and youth policy development in a generally difﬁcult societal situation. tvia La Introduction to

Chapter 3 Youth and youth policy in Latvia

“Youth” Youth is a constructed category, and the inconsistency of definitions of youth in the international context underlines this. Unlike childhood, the boundaries of which have become somewhat sharper with the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child coming into force in the year 1990,7 the category of youth suffers from such an international attempt to standardise its delimitation. The variation of defi nitions of youth in policies across countries in Europe and elsewhere, emphasises the fact that youth is fi rst and foremost politically constructed : “youth” needs to be defined for the purpose of making legislation relevant, institutions responsible and budgets available. During their fi rst visit to Latvia, the IRT was told that the prepared Youth Act will include such a policy definition of age boundaries of youth, but the discussion about it was still ongoing. Several suggestions have been put forward, all of them indicating the policy struggle and the “youth lobbying” in the background. Within the draft of the national report, the only definition of youth in terms of age range can be found in the tvia context of the discussion of youth-friendly health care services (Ministry of La Children and Family Affairs 2007: 83). Following a suggestion of the WHO, youth is defined as the age group between 10 and 24 years – those aged between 10 and 19 years are considered adolescents, those between 15 and 24 years are defi ned as young people. uth policy in

Due to this lack of a comprehensive definition of youth in the national report of yo Latvia, the IRT had difficulties understanding the second dimension attached d to the definition of youth, namely its “policy character”: for instance, is youth an primarily considered to be a resource, or a problem (Williamson, 2002: 31)? While uth Yo

7. Article 1 of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child: “For the purposes of the present Convention, a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier.” 19 20 Youth policy in Latvia eoiga incr an becoming en expres instance, epead ehp,teinv pre-militar and the perhaps, and, people Latv for and in atclrpol ihnsociet within profile particular Latv that clear was it the far 07 ) there 3), 2007: Affairs mgainfo the from emigration co the in people tncbac ethnic htdoe What the of beginning the 24 at and (15.7%) 15 of ages the between o policy for on perspective nrlto oageing to relation in ouaino the of population Question the from respect repor Thi fmobility of youn fyugpol in people young of se the in forward put suggestions the (Williamson, with line In Recommendation problem-orient official La “critically a ai,wt h mos the with basis, tiuigt,adbnfiigfo,scea efr?What welfare? societal from, benefiting and to, ntributing vi s last ia omns the ronments, va stebssfryuhplc.Bscdmgahcdt,aalbefrom available data, demographic Basic policy. youth for basis the as tvia, epei evn the leaving in people g shor t the , n,perhaps, and, w eae?What decades? two s tc st s kg ma ieteesol eitrsigntol for only not interesting be should these like mn em opitt more a to point to seems oming na tsis ed ob integr be to needs atistics, h vrdylf fa of life everyday the wi on?Weeand Where round? ke inlrepor tional hnteErpa no?Hware How Union? European the thin ma re y yo ot would youth rs ia 20 e nteemph the in sed ser fl ge neac fLat of intenance aigyva easingly ed oit.There society. n t.Apar uth. co cieaayi ftesocial the of analysis ective co 8,teITtherefore IRT the 08), co ea population? neral vi un 1 co wi re yo ncerned cr bu h o ee of level low the about ncern La ce t un sear tr hnthe thin sltl vdne tlatin least at evidence, little is t oiy– policy uth udmna nomto n nweg bu h life the about knowledge and information fundamental va swl sternesadproblems. and needs their as well as tvia, y. riig ial,there Finally, training. tr is t y ch t is n h do why and rmabifmnino h ubrof number the of mention brief a from ubesca gr social luable co co nodrt pr to order in , o xlctaottecurrent the about explicit not wi its ol y. tnet ean be to ntinue un yo un (3 himpro th eetof vement na asis youn co How 59 vi t eid What period? uth tr e which der inlrepor tional y nscey what society: an na mpo is 0)adtersaei h oa population total the in share their and 000) and nteiprac of importance the on eyteams oa bec faresearch a of absence total almost the mely at esnloo person g a the has nya mlctidcto that indication implicit an only ed si youn vi maki ini em fsca,euainland educational social, of terms in tion gteliving the ng re and youn u n ua resourc human and oup ci ov co epelaeadnot and leave people g cmtne do rcumstances ge important gueo h oercn option recent more the of use ng is t ot ouaindvlpdover developed population youth d oiymkn na on making policy ide mnsthe mmends co co (Ministr epei aroi education patriotic in people g ea weaknes neral omnino h oeof role the of mention no vo mplemented dto fyugpol’in people’ young of ndition youn k is luntar ieadhwde it does how and like h eot htyouth that report, the is h ee fpriiainof participation of level the hi role their epedfeeti thi in different people g co y co ca y fCide and Children of yo creating dsynthesis nd ndition teg atcpto of participation si t rese uth is st gnifi r nindependent in ory youn by re hi hr nthe in share their s sci as ghnn of ngthening nthe in targete s ca youth-friendly epelive? people g youn fthe of .Ti is This e. c of nce co ar tizen eback? me ch re people g yo na re d gular r but ers ch s Fa port uth youn youn youn and tional yo a a has ange both mily for , uth is g g g s s Youth policy – the national context After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Latvian society, like many other European societies with a communist past, had to renegotiate and come to terms with its history in the 20th century. Among the many socio-economic and political challenges that this process involved, the issue of youth policy had little explicit priority in the early years of independence. From the mid-1990s onwards, however, Latvian youth policy, like many other policy areas, started to evolve as a contested policy fi eld at the intersection of traditional interests, originating from the communist and the pre-communist past on the one side and new ideas originating from “the West” on the other. Latvian youth policy at the crossroads was refl ected in institutional, as well as in substantive terms. For instance, on the one hand, and most visibly, structured leisure time activities (that is “hobby and interest education”), similar to those of the former communist structures of youth management, continued to exist as an important element of youth policy. On the other hand, international co-operation and counselling in youth policy development and youth work introduced new concepts to the Latvian context. These included civil society development by facilitating participation, establishing NGOs, promoting autonomy and non-formal methods of education and training. Up to the present day, these two strands in youth policy development are represented by the State Youth Initiative Centre founded in 1996 under the Ministry of Education and Science on the one side, and the National Youth Council of Latvia (founded in 1992), together with associated NGOs on the other (see Table 1, below). Originally competing and subsequently complementary in their orientation, these two parties now share the common goal of involving young people in voluntary and constructive out-of-class activities and other forms of active youth participation. Due to their different histories and status (including funding) within the Latvian landscape of youth policy, both organisations come with distinct approaches and priorities. The State Youth Initiative Centre has its main focus on various forms of hobby education and has, in the meantime, lost

some of its importance as a key player in youth policy development. Yet its funding tvia is secured, as it is subordinate to, and ﬁ nanced by, the Ministry of Education and La Science . 8 The National Youth Council of Latvia, which is described below, together with main youth organisations, has ﬁ rst of all representative, co-ordinating and consultative functions, and it has become an important driving force in the process of reforming youth legislation. Yet, due to its formal independence from

state structures, the Youth Council seems to lack the certainty of ﬁ nancial survival, uth policy in

despite the fact that this formal independence does not release the state from its yo responsibility to create appropriate conditions for NGOs. d an uth Yo

8. The agenda of the State Youth Initiative Centre is discussed in more detail in the context of the youth policy dimension of education. 21 22 Youth policy in Latvia .Thi 9. Ta instan the in mentioned 2005 August 19 19 19 19 1992 1997 19 a 2005 May 20 November 200 Sep 200 2001 2000 19 200 August 200 bl 96 95 94 93 98 99 04 YEAR ieieo landmark of Timeline – 1 e 3 te 4 2 4 ce mber ov s h ainlAec fteEU the of Agency National the , ntenati the on er vi n non-g and Ministr Re yo gemn fex of Agreement Initiative Foun oteMinistr the to Tr by State oii fteie fthe of idea the of (origin 1s on Programme State n Scien and wicue nythose only includes ew nfrof ansfer t t oiyrespon policy uth ze the na Latv kne aino the of dation inlrpr.It report. tional Yo SY y ia uth on co of C(ac IC n Ce ce ov yo frne C-prto ftesae municipalities state, the of “Co-operation nference: Yo llevel al Ed ntr Po National , rmna organi ernmental t oiyagenda policy uth y INSTITUTIONS uth cto n Science and ucation licy ce e fCide and Children of ch (SYIC) td stil pted, Co State Co neof ange 9 si ngres s is Yo cp drafted ncept bility nLatv in Yo o thi for uth Yo Yo uth Yo s va l yo uth uth Po t nAto rgam are programme Action in uth yo RAE N RESUL AND CREATED Co uth sa s lid) ia licy, t oiyinstitution policy uth re Po Fa uncil tion n as iss iyAffairs mily licy yo 199 – nta te impor other that on s e ewe Ministr between ues t oiydevelopment policy uth n h Latv the and osaeadimplement and shape to Co -02(ihu budget) (without 8-2002 oSaeSecretarie State to Submi of Es Co the of Preliminar Af Ministr National the of (drafted Yo -ordination National fa tablis t Act uth Yo -ordination ir uth s Co ssi (founded) y mn fthe of hment un Po uncil fCide and Children of nof on TS ia y Yo e h leadership the der tdn Association Student n licy formation Co OB s uth of ta unci Yo TA Co n vnsta are that events and Yo y tatr such actors nt Yo Co t Act uth missing INED uth -ordination of s l) uth uncil Ed Co yo Co ucation Po unci t policy” uth unci Fa fLatv of licy here. mily l l) as ia for , Table 1 (continued)

2006 (State Youth Initiative Centre) (National Youth Council) January Preparatory visit for the Council 2007 of Europe youth policy review Council of Youth Policy April 2007 Coordination – 1st meeting Council of Europe youth policy July 2007 review – 1st visit Oct./Nov. Council of Europe youth policy 2007 review – 2nd visit Public presentation of the draft January international report 2008 of the Council of Europe at the national hearing in Riga Presentation of the ﬁ nal international report of the Council March of Europe to the Joint Council 2008 of the Directorate of Youth and Sport at the EYCB Budapest

The ﬁ rst State Youth Policy Programme was elaborated by the State Youth Initiative Centre in 1998. Yet, due to the lack of funding, little more than the recognised sub-agenda of interest-education could be implemented – many other key issues already identiﬁed by then, but not followed up, remained relevant. In 2002, the State Youth Policy Concept also drafted by the State Youth Initiative Centre was accepted; it still provides the basis for the current youth policy agenda. Yet, the more recent administrative reform of the institutional framework and initiatives to update the legislation suggest a re-orientation of youth policy. In 2004, the responsibility for co-ordinating and organising state youth policy

was moved from the Ministry of Education and Science to the Ministry of Children tvia and Family Affairs. The current conﬁguration of youth policy development and La administration puts the Ministry of Children and Family Affairs at the core of a vast network of parties and interests involved. The ministry’s responsibilities, those planned for the near future as well as those that are currently relevant, are constantly growing (Ministry of Children and Family Affairs 2007: 19-20). Only

recently the Agency of International Youth Programmes was also moved under its uth policy in

administration and away from the Ministry of Education and Science. yo d Additionally, a separate Council of Youth Policy Co-ordination was established, in an order to link the activities and interests of NGOs, regional bodies and 18 ministries in total, representing more than 300 institutions at different levels, which directly uth and indirectly contribute to the shaping ofyouth policy. The council brings together Yo the eight key ministers involved in youth policy – the ministers for Economics, Interior Affairs, Education and Science, Welfare, Culture, Health, Children and Family Affairs, and Special Assignments for Social Integration – as well as the 23 24 Youth policy in Latvia riaigbd the – body ordinating ou o discus for forum a of idea the supports strongly In thi shaping in interests diverse the al yo expres impro to need the indicates planned Minist te om fpriiain The participation. of forms other Co the thi From transformation. ensure show ef ru fsaeamnsrto”(national administration” state of group okbelong-term workable h recommendation the prepared Lat three of representatives Latv the of Chairman seve of respon be to n it and in As Fu l fi Recommendation re policy youth national the its encourages IRT The tas en pr being it In re youth NGOs, authorities, local and gove basi the t oiydvlpetadamnsrto nthe on administration and development policy uth nding ges r inv are ngress, Yo vi vi nadv an in mlmnaino politi of implementation cient co udny diinlbur additional dundancy, pniiiistgte ihmaual betvsadbudgetar and objectives measurable with together sponsibilities wo h exten the of ew ral ntdn soito n h Latv the and Association anStudent k uth s ma ov s tniynee nayplc area. policy any in needed ntinuity ry si rn facross a of is htsuc that co par ng yother ny et h ouetsol nov all involve should document The ment. fCide and Children of Po rl prah ot oiydvlpetnest oefrhrtowards further move to needs development policy youth approach, erall by o pos not is tniybyn the beyond ntinuity s ed tn co or licy fa identifi an of cross-sect a ominantly r and ers y sibl mtet ntehgetlvl However, level. highest the on mmitments oyadmestieaya ny tde o neces not does it only, year a twice meets and body h Co -s si o ute lbrto,implemen elaboration, further for e ol sibl co coa oyt draf to body ectoral etnso oiia ersnaie r etifre and informed best are representatives political of meetings on odnto.Thi -ordination. e nshaping in ved un 2 si co optprec put to e s s ia Co co co entoko institution of network ve re,Latv tries, n nomto ex information and n udlnsgiven guidelines and oeainbtenterlvn iitisadwould and ministries relevant the between -operation soito of Association n rlgopo eiroffi senior of group oral uncil ca ns s ntent- yo Fa on of point ino retise,wihi hnappr then is which issues, urgent of tion La laieinstitutio ultative stru t Gs(h National (the NGOs uth iyAfist sals “standing a establish to Affairs mily ea va uhrte oavnethe advance to authorities tvian of fl ucratic trsi re opromote to order in ctures ra cuto of uctuation co Yo ia hrta nttto-o actor-driven. or institution- than ther -ordinated ki s n s yo uth ca is fa vi oiyarea. policy re yo e ve t polic uth decisi l tta additional that ct t w h R ecmsteitnino the of intention the welcomes IRT the ew, stru do preparator of nd sear Po a fi t policy uth ia h tutrsof structures the ue nterindividual their on gures re st licy Lo trsand ctures nSchoolStudent ra ch port, ch ca eydcmn n cinpa,on plan, action and document tegy ns r,ec)adsugge and etc.) ers, nmkn in on-making gov Co ange, yo l by y re by ietebena Latv biennial the like , and -ordination ci t oiyand policy uth p. eatatr (national, actors levant s rmnstpclof typical ernments l,wihwudthen would which als, nisiuinlk the like institution an is and 29 mean wi funded co Re Yo ,which ), hahg oiia profile, political high a th ptto.It mpetition. ta uth inlGvrmns and Governments, gional co y s co inadmntrn of monitoring and tion yo as na body unci fwriggroup working of co Co ns Co – t policy, uth by inllvl h IRT the level, tional rcie Experience practice. the tniyadavoid and ntinuity laiebde are bodies ultative unci pro uncil co ls co eea ministries several fi co uld co st vi d htthe that nds ass sldto of nsolidation y l). uld implications. e a des ni is uncil iiinof division a co co vdby oved fLatv of jo co Fu sa ociated co l ethe be uld ntributions. n working int fa rt tiueto ntribute iyensure rily re as ia un hermore, ci co va gional n Co iaea litate re in tries wel ia fi ntinue luable Yo s the s of rst uncil the , wi and as l uth co th - Altogether, the budget for youth policy was continually increased, underlining the growing significance of this policy area. The national report (Ministry of Children and Family Affairs, 2007: 12) even claims that a considerable increase in the overall state budget of Latvia is actually due to youth-related expenses. The report informs the IRT that the total expenses of the Youth Policy State Programme of the Ministry of Children and Family Affairs alone amount to 335 000 LVL 10 for the year 2007; this is 22 times more than in previous years. However, this amount needs to be considered relatively, as the funds are supposed to cover, among many other things, cost-intensive activities like the establishment of youth initiative centres, as well as a youth information system and youth research activities.11 In view of the fact that the Ministry of Defence fi nanced the activities of one single institution, the Centre of Young National Guards ( Jaunsardzes centrs), with more than 1 million LVL in 2006, the IRT needs to raise the question whether the overall budgeting of the youth policy agenda suffers from a certain imbalance in priorities. The near doubling of the means available for hobby education in towns and regional municipalities (including salaries and social insurance of teachers) from 4 million LVL in 2003 to nearly 8 million LVL in 2007, underlines the somewhat disproportional budgeting of youth policies. It could be one of the tasks of a mediating body of expertise to initiate a strategy of both co-ordinated prioritising of activities and co-ordinated budgeting.

Recommendation 3 The IRT has the impression that the current praxis of youth policy budgeting is characterised by the strong individual priorities of various bodies of state administration. In view of the transversal character of youth policy, the IRT encourages the actors involved to re-evaluate and better adjust their priorities to the needs of young people. If co-ordinated budgeting was possible within the overall framework of government funding, it could especially improve the horizontal dimension of youth policy, referring to the quality of socio-

economic youth citizenship in Latvia. tvia La

Legislation The status quo of Latvian state youth policy is characterised by transformation and consolidation. While legislation dedicated to youth policy is rare, there is

a range of legislative instruction, as well as strategy documents, guiding youth uth policy in

policy practice. yo d an

10. 1 LVL is roughly equivalent to 1.42 EURO. uth 11. The significant impact of youth NGO funding provided by various EU programmes needs Yo to be underlined additionally, as the discussion during the national hearing indicated. Many youth NGOs with sustainable influence on policy development in Latvia were founded and sustained mainly by these sources. 25 26 Youth policy in Latvia eeatlegi relevant ha nthe On visi owa xetthe extent what to as as Co n vnsi ovn the (Ministr solving administration’ in events and sti The yo h proces the as yo ke thi gnatruhpersonal through agenda wi the in frustration of h ifiute fteproces the of difficulties the policy edu as gnafor agenda h National the Fa “bes 200 Study de euigtemr sur mere the securing of status the for respon Depa inv parties Some de is co fafisb legal a by affairs of visi th a n profes and deliver policy wi vital is iyAfis20:8 ewe h Ministr the between 8) 2007: Affairs mily en rcse ttetm fterve.The review. the of time the at processed being th hu h eiaino ihymtvtdidvdasrayt dac their advance to ready individuals motivated highly of dedication the thout t oiypractice. policy uth iss y t legi uth ncern, h impres the d cp,ac ncept, fi ma s 2002 wel n“needn peeo tt diitainwihdefine which administration state of sphere “independent an h eorpi ru ewe h gso 5and 15 of ages the between group demographic the sand ts spro ts ca iino h g iiso “youth”. of limits age the of nition Yo particular t ma rt d h otoeeto its of postponement The nd. in The tion. rcie,btwr established were but practice”, as l ta t c,teout the Act, uth tpigsoein stone stepping eto h Ministr the of ment sibl lva ll e include ues ba yo h ate inv parties the of ny as gtgop u othe to due group; rget vi as i of sis wi sl 7) s h eurmnsfor requirements the for e e h IRT the ded a yo lid ce si ation. ffruaigand formulating of h R also IRT The . sl hthe th it Yo ma onali y t oiyadspecif and policy uth pted to nwihit which in ation yo ma is uth Yo nrgoa n local and regional in si u etnswith meetings our jo yo t legi uth nthat on t Act uth yo o utial.I h ogrun, long the In sustainable. not r nguiding in sa t oiyo einllevel, regional a on policy uth Ye ol Yo by co Co ge t oiyinstitution policy uth vo e,epcal h National the especially ved, yo tion lclsto”o h ot policy youth the of “localisation” t t c stil Act uth cr fteNational the of ncern ni fLatvia, of uncil co the ea legi neral vival there wi luntar t oiysee(Laborator scene policy uth y eo a active “an of me sl hteoppor the th yo will yo fCide and Children of Ca ha will ation sa y t oiydvlpet h argument The development. policy uth t policy uth ftealre the of yo s ie fMnsesi ac 02 tdfie “youth” defines It 2002. March in Ministers of binet h oppor the d y is o hlrnand Children for ol lodfietebudre f“ot”i em fa of terms in “youth” of boundaries the define also crifi oarv ta agreemen an at arrive to yo t-eae rbeso al on problems uth-related ok mlyetadlei and employment work, eur indi require ra e.Terpaeeto h uz urn state current fuzzy the of replacement The ved. is ma odutta hs tutrswudntex not would structures these that doubt no sl fi l t oiydocument policy uth ra tif en rcse,i remained it processed, being aca suppor nancial ce ation medd hog oteedo our of end the to Through embedded. g rmidctn t teghnn function strengthening its indicating from nge yadministrative ny gov y yi .TeITosre thi observes IRT The s. ga ng co h respon the ra has tun rmn instit ernment wi ad is tifi txsthat ntexts is tun hu h avail the thout t odiscus to ity y co ihyrgltd huhindirectly, though regulated, highly Yo ca ensbitdt h alaetand parliament the to submitted been s actually Fa Yo weak vi oeain (Ministr -operation” t olanaotsrcue of structures about learn to ity tadblwthe below and at t Act uth tion y iyAfis 07 0.Meanwhile, 10). 2007: Affairs, mily uth dual fCide and Children of Fa si t. Yo yo by Co iiiso h ate inv parties the of bilities iyAffairs, mily h IRT The co fa t Act uth ce co t G tutrs h two The structures. NGO uth y is uncil utions h parliament the iss ci Yo rt nsi s yo fAayia n Strategic and Analytical of mtet supported mmitment, non;i started it ongoing; wi t iaig–or – litating is il eev the deserve ainly the e tahd it attached, ues ab uth t oiydevelopment policy uth e the der gnawas agenda fLatv of h State the hrgr oa to regard th 25 lt of ility a info was is l su iss n agencie and s eeso h public the of levels Co upsdt e the set to supposed e n non-formal and re, n yuhpolicy” “youth and eo the of ue development Fa na unci un as y ia Yo iyAfisand Affairs mily co fCide and Children of inllvl to level, tional A . la oteIRT the to clear go s wel mdta the that rmed t c obe to Act uth s ,the l, mprehen ha Yo fi is in a nal as l prn – mpering uth als, Yo ,teIRT the s, sourc a fa co is co sea as la co rf of draft t Act uth vo mmon n of one mmon ol Po e of bel Yo yo those tasks un rof ur wi ved, si uth uth licy tr is rly by ve by th e y t appropriate institutional back up. Key legislation, like the Youth Act or a similar regulation, could be an important signal underlining the political commitment to youth policy.

Recommendation 4 TheIRThadtheimpressionthatthelargenumberofstrategydocumentsdirectly and indirectly instructing youth policy (for example, the State Youth Policy Concept 2002, Youth Policy State Programme 2005-09, national guidelines on cultural policy for 2006-15, the national programme Culture 2010 and so on), with their implementation and follow-up, posed a great challenge. In the future, it might be advisable to consider the possibility of producing only one strategy document, covering the competencies of different ministries in the youth ﬁ eld. Such a legal tool, or the common action plan suggested above, could serve this purpose. In either case, it would need to determine the links between general legislation and youth policy practice.

Principles The Ministry of Children and Family Affairs is currently elaborating new guidelines for national youth policy that should be drafted by the year 2008; these guidelines will provide the framework of youth policy development and delivery for the next ten years. The objective of youth policy in Latvia –“to improve youth life quality by promoting youth initiatives, partnership and support” (Ministry of Children and Family Affairs 2007: 11) – is framed by seven guiding principles: 1. Partnership principle – to enhance active participation of young people in the processes of the society. 2. Information availability principle – to promote the provision of young people with information according to their needs and interests, especially the information that is necessary for active participation in all the processes of society. tvia La 3. Equal opportunities principle – to provide all young people, without any discrimination, with the potential to take part in all the processes of society and to be equal members of society. 4. Observance of youth interests principle – to take into account the interests, rights, needs and possibilities of young people, while solving uth policy in youth-related issues. yo d

5. Favourable social and economical premises principle – to enhance an developing such social and economical conditions that provide all young people an opportunity to be accepted and integrated members of Latvian uth Yo society. 6. Mobility and international co-operation availability principle – to provide opportunities for youth mobility, allowing young people to learn new 27 28 Youth policy in Latvia Wlimo 2002, (Williamson nohrwrs Latv words, other In ci rnilsaddres principles line In epelvn ndifferent suc in living people dimen a Such h ento fscey h refl The society. of definition the and sharing dimen vertical The policies. specialised oiyemph policy nitrainlbs rcie Thi dimen practice. best international in nodrt nrdc neeeto “internal of element an introduce to order In ee rnilsof principles seven “exter nbrac in rev this in discussion the dimension three these rele so iue1 eo,otie h three-dimen the outlines below, 1, Figure line in suggested ch r ple odsuscross-cutting discuss to applied are do iesi,pe eeac n ac and relevance peer tizenship, legdo the on allenged ci ma ce va o-economic 7. i.t pnup open to iii. .t enon-discriminator be to i. i ob participator be to ii. in ss na c n ac and nce si si ke s wi on n.Tehrzna dimen horizontal The ons. ”plc eiwexerc review policy l” visi noscey nldn h nerto fmnrt rus n oensure to and groups, minority of multi-cul integration the including society, into Yo mlmnain(Ministr implementation ol n t influen its and world the at the promote to and recommendation abode of of place implementation their outside knowledge and skills the ex co of s(that ts of hthe th s ch ndition t nerto aiiainprinciple facilitation integration uth yo nof on yo clearly sssits asises fa sa neadaoto of adoption and ange t oiy nthi In policy. uth t oiydpnsms nthe on most depends policy uth cilitates sa etime me yo ce is wi ma iss s etm pro time me ba tural s yo yo ssi uth di hthe th ia ov yo o oilintegration social for i fits of sis Will nsbet of subjects in t oiyi Lat in policy uth ss t oiyicroae oiotl etcladrefl and vertical horizontal, incorporates policy uth iiy(etcl,adopenne and (vertical), bility n e fsocio-economic of ues erlap uth s. mnto,rsac,profes research, emination, ci yo estvt to sensitivity co ilgea al at dialogue asnCuclo uoe 200 Europe, of iamson/Council co Cr e othe to iew iesi hrzna) political (horizontal), tizenship na t oiyintends: policy uth as srcieyuhinvolvemen youth nstructive y ca oiyeeet that elements policy ucial tiuigt h impro the to ntributing . n ujcieyrlvn to relevant subjectively and inlatoiis w standards. own authorities’ tional ci w rtraand criteria own wel is ce vi wa s rcumstan ,teab the e, igac ding s syo as l y, y (6). xv dimension exive ce y, fCide and Children of ax s ke go n inclus and yo vi ssi h ttsqoo Latv of quo status the si distinction sof is iss y ch u for put a dpatc noLatv into practice od t oiydvlpetisl oteoutside the to itself development policy uth t oiyietfidi rvosre previous in identified policy uth ce n()pooe qaiyamong equality promotes (i) on l iiy n fopennes of and bility, ov ce si ne nyuhpeeecs swl as well as preferences, youth in anges ss tgsof stages (5 -etoe dimen e-mentioned n(ii) on e nthe on ues si yo ;thi s; ); oneces to nlspa onal t oiydvlpetaeincluded are development policy uth osbewy fimprovement of ways possible yo wa iv s uth is s co se3and 3 (see e ass ss to – di the in rd is rmother from ve co tiue odmcai power democratic to ntributes si Fa ii fsuc of (iii) n eeomn (refl development and fi ci smn”it thi into essment” sa yo eto h socio-economic the of ment onali ca ce ba -operation s fal of rst iyAfis 07 11). 2007: Affairs, mily h dimen the iesi,o political of tizenship, fa ry t oiypann and planning policy uth eaddo h ba the on added be n i of sis t youn of ci ndecis in nomto (2); information na yo 7) litate sa ia yo ia these , uth inlrepor tional n tion/training). n epe(1, people g t oiybsdon based policy uth h eiwo the of review the si s l yo h co yo 7, on n development. and analytical, yo a t policy uth ci un wi t policy uth si o-aigand ion-making bv)wieat while above) un s iino youth of vision iesi,peer tizenship, t integration uth nweethe where on th re n the and tries yo eligthe derlying ass s t policy uth t – primarily 4) exive) ociated na . ca as while , ca young yo vi exive i of sis mely be n be n ews ke uth the – y Figure 1 – Principles of youth policy

Political youth citizenship vertical

participation Development of youth policy reflexive international co-operation relevance mobility/exchange(dissemination)

information (research) (professionalisation/training)

Socio-economic youth welfare inclusion non-discrimination citizenship horizontal

Recommendation 5 The IRT welcomes the youth policy principles established in the national report and encourages the Latvian authorities to further orient their youth policy accordingly. However, as the international review indicates, the reﬂ exive dimension of youth policy development and professionalisation in particular will require additional efforts in order to create the basis for a sustainable improvement.

Key institutions and actors of regional and local “youth policy” delivery Youth policy at the regional and local level is ﬁ rst of all a matter of available funds.

The 26 regions of the country are totally autonomous with regard to youth policy tvia and, apart from issues associated with basic infrastructure provision (for example La schools, health, and transport), youth policy delivery in regions and municipalities is largely in the making. There is no guaranteed minimum provision at the regional level. Although the Ministry of Children and Family Affairs encourages, supervises and supports the development of regional and municipal strategies including

ﬁ nancially, only eight out of 33 municipalities are currently drafting youth affairs uth policy in

strategies. These strategies are among the preconditions of applying for public yo funding. Meanwhile, some 30 Youth Initiative Centres, essentially institutions d providing youth leisure time activities, have been established since 2004, nine of an them in 2007. While they do not get involved with their programme of activities, the Ministry of Children and Family Affairs funds these meeting places for young people uth for a period of up to fi ve years, before the regions have to take over all costs. Yo Regions and municipalities promoting youth policy development can appoint so-called Youth Affairs Co-ordinators as key actors at the interface of national 29 30 Youth policy in Latvia co on guidelines the of problem The region Seven municipalities. the Affairs of one in others the regions, la ntever the in readines trus authorities’ the of areas all in (hob kt par skate nshos– schools in wa Fi despitetheirlimitedresour Both acros network sectoral dedi Tw remain oee,the However, hs etnspro meetings These raiain invo organisations me endemi youth no turn, In h fragilit the co La the of understanding an h vrl yo overall the enthus of to two these establish details Many co Co ch etpracti best yo ser police (including gnao dcto.A early As education. of agenda co nall ck t Gs individual NGOs, uth aracterised mnte suc mmunities ndition mnte to mmunities ns ni as uncil uldy fteprogr the of days full o tt pro to nt co Yo wi t na s ca by ldtdadterpol,i em frespon of terms in profile, their and olidated mnt ieadpoiigspac providing and life mmunity co t Affairs uth y, lrt.Sm fte odadtoa positions, additional hold them of Some clarity. inlrpr.Hwvr the However, report. tional th e oregional to ted Co ia s dcto,which education, ) mmunities la c both s nieydpneto the on dependent entirely mand sm yo k y s -ordinators. to y n ftemncplsrcue respon structures municipal the of one ce in ck raino h position the of creation htaeobviously are that t practitioners, uth vi of wi co Ce co t pr uth eatatv en attractive de in of yo by ce Latvia. htoeo municipal of those th nc tutrsof structures nnect yo mmunities sis uiia yo municipal t rciinr rsn ttemeig were meetings the at present practitioners uth fi rt nRezekne in co co ce t oiyadeeya mlmnain hi status Their implementation. everyday and policy uth na nex an oiyresponsibility policy i institution ain e pi epneto response in up set , co manage vdi einladlclyuhaffair youth local and regional in lved verage ovision mpete ss t vi ca resourc ncial vi mmitment in e h IRT the ded ul ikdmunicipal linked fully Cu ce yo va s youn ce s), rnl,1 out 19 rrently, t policy. uth toal close ptionally medrn h second the during amme youn is ce ostu emnn infr permanent a up set to d wi un n oa pr local and rious nteetwo these in ci tv epet els rjcsidpnety n nthe in and independently, projects realise to people g h only the s: hohrLat other th t oiypr policy uth a fulfi has vi youn yadminist ty esodthe derstood a ot oiypuzz policy youth ian ch yo epeand people g omnsfrte.Thi them. for ronments s20,tecity the 2002, as aracterised s wi uthinitiative ci es wi yo n h loehrlmtdpo limited altogether the and epe uhrte n te niiul and individuals other and authorities people, g ca s yser ty hwihtig are things which th . ci ha ex an th ta t atcpto ietepupil the like – participation uth fprofes of Foll yo aiyt deal to pacity as is different ties, ll x e ed t oiydevelopment. policy uth etof pect sassi is f51 of vso of ovision eeu ftersetv municipalities. respective the of revenue co wn ihl pac tightly a owing vi o ot particip youth for yo ra vi co ovision ce mnte and mmunities si in dctoa ntttos parents, institutions, educational tion, t ntaie,aejs e examples. few a just are initiatives, uth an va oeainbtenlclauthorities local between -operation by ia function milar ce ,like s, yo si co ce u of lue ndt municip to gned ll ci yo uth onal yo co odntr oki n fte26 the of one in work -ordinators n oppor ent ntres,open is or ties, t oiythat policy uth sibl t oiyprofes policy uth nsi of nLti.Frisac,bt are both instance, For Latvia. in iss ot oiyis policy youth ki wi e h IRT The le. yo Ce ii fthe of visit as si derable youn o impor for e ndergar hthe th as e otewell-established the to ues iiisadpaeo work, of place and bilities t affair uth is s i fo sis fi hyare, they rcuefor tructure s fal of rst wi in s epei oit and society in people g tun ma yteprofessio the by to.The ation. by s eetd o instance, for reflected, hters fEurope, of rest the th yo ke ne the unded co fi te t to ity epos de uthclub s Ce ceue h IRT the schedule, d na ns t of sts lte,det the to due alities, a impresse was onot do s R oLti were Latvia to IRT ta raiga inter an creating l is ssi i and sis co ca limitations. ncial co nthe in as nt or well-developed co cre about ncerned iiiso their of bilities odntr,in -ordinators, youn eonsdin recognised si co gov yo sibl xmlsof examples ecoe to closer me yo Co s nl.Both onals. ha ntributions ortheopen t NGOs. uth Ci t policy uth co mmi ernments people, g Rezekne. e, ve ty tx of ntext na is un Yo Yo ssion lism, by d uth uth not der - once young people leave secondary education. Emigration is common and few young people return once they have left, despite the opposite assertions of many young people in face-to-face discussions. Furthermore, there is no doubt that, in practice, youth policy in these two communities is built upon a strong sense of internal organisation and a considerable degree of self sacrifice among individuals involved. The IRT was told that voluntary work beyond regular (part- time) employment often continues to be the only way youth practitioners can respond to their actual workload. When invited to assess the broader picture of regional youth policy, the youth practitioners of these two communities acknowledged their own communities’ exceptional status and the privileged situation that they have slowly built up, over several years. This indication of a rather heterogeneous character of regional youth policy is underlined by a recent study on the social and political activities of young people in Latvia, which includes the voices of youth affairs co-ordinators (Laboratory of Analytical and Strategic Study 2007: 33-37). Altogether, there is no doubt that the development of regional youth policy structures in Latvia is still in its infancy, that the concentration of resources is high and regional disparities in the availability of youth activities significant. There is a bias in the perception of youth policy-making at the centre regarding the actual capacity of municipalities. The following recommendations, regarding youth policy in Latvia, summarise the most urgent issues from a regional perspective. They are the result of an international youth policy seminar in Belgium and were brought to the attention of the IRT during meetings with the town council of Rezekne. Including these recommendations here, as a kind of internal assessment, is a contribution to facilitating communication among those responsible for Latvian youth policy.

Conclusions about youth policy in Latvia from a regional perspective – results of an international youth policy seminar in Flanders, Belgium (15-22/10/2007) It is necessary… tvia 1) … to have framework legislation (law) for youth policy and a steady La fi nancial supporting system for youth issues: – defi nition of responsibilities of local government and the local youth co-ordinator; clear description of the job and role of the local youth co- ordinator and youth worker; clarification of the differences between a local youth co-ordinator (LYC) and a local youth worker (LYW); uth policy in

– ﬁ nancial supporting system for youth organisations, in order to yo improve the development of youth policy in the regions. d an 2) … to have training seminars for local authorities about youth policy, and a

professional training system for youth co-ordinators and youth workers. uth 3) … to promote youth affairs and youth issues on a national level for a better Yo understanding of youth work in society (adapted from handout Youth in Rezekne, p. 13).

31 32 Youth policy in Latvia ntaiei terms in initiative on influence actual its about Po Lat the and Association is,rpeettvso h National the of representatives First, e nyoc so once only met requiremen policy iitr n n ersnaieo regional of representative one and ministers si a establi was it As of representatives 12 Second, impr se high a yo n lobb and Co to co Yo htac that of h inv The re o omlyitgae notestructures the into integrated formally not ma lac development bottom-up a Otherwise, re h situation the en only oiydlvr obs delivery policy r norgdto encouraged are The Recommendation apparentl often and – difficult the of view In Recommendation h R saaeo h atta this that fact the making of aware is IRT The eitr n aaeso rgoa ot oiyhb”nesclarifi needs hubs” policy youth “regional of managers and mediators t oiyand policy uth un rsnainof presentation licy nsultative yo t or uth yo quir ovi t oiydvlpet thi development, policy uth re hc hr a share which tries k t organi uth y ro Co ffnigadteeulopportunitie equal the and funding of co ea iko en undermined being of risk at be ol gisqaiyadipc.TeLatv The impact. and quality its ng ed eand le yi nsi eetof vement -ordination pne n vlae h oiyprocess. policy the evaluates and mpanies co ye ga gfunction ng minimum rg h ainlatoiisto authorities national the urage iiyfrrelevant for tivity t, Co ni nodrt e h appropriate the get to order in mmiss sa st by sa hdol eety there recently, only shed civil tsof atus t fkoldeex knowledge of fa tion tion a allows youn r, 7 6 re st Co st re uigtetovst othe to visits two the during erved wi s oit – society yo o of ion as s tremain it re vised s nad fyuhplc with policy youth of andards unci vi epe– people g ghnispoesoa profile. professional its ngthen co un Yo n h politic the and hrlto oteMinistr the to relation th nSho Student School an yo mns at(Ja past mmunist uth par people g l. Yo t atcpto nsvrllevels. several on participation uth bu iss yo Ye t Organi uth tn Af gtr oiyand policy dgetary un s is t oiydvlpet hl thi While development. policy uth ues, t, s r ntesaigaddvlpeto both of development and shaping the in ers fairs eoiga becoming mle htimpor that implies yo as ch la httersau really status their what clear fi t organi uth is neadyuhplc lo policy youth and ange s fal of rst thi by Co lyn par a playing re is s ca sa odntr sipratyuhpolicy youth important as -ordinators h local the aieynwocpto is occupation new latively Yo ntb xetd u otesevere the to due expected, be nnot is in,akn fyuhplc hn tank think policy youth of kind a tions, fdecisi of al si re ia o h iebig oinformation no being, time the for , uth l gov fi s co kiyeRie,200 ukaityte/Reiter, Co hog h oeo representatives of role the through co co nwrt thi to answer n s falapo a all of rst rnil of principle y tiuet h impr the to ntribute sa ernments. uncil mnsadr nteEuropean the in standard mmon nto,the gnition, pr Co y re tion by fCide and Children of ov nmkn,but on-making, alities. unci t ta ea npolicy in o ins for , Foun soa – isional r ebr fthe of members are ha s teprie together expertise, nt rmark ,teLatv the l, re e nArl200 April in ded La efunction ve in,teIRT the gions, La iia body litical va ot policy youth tvian ed ta bbying s maki va authorities tvian nce, st ai funding. basic impor tso youth of atus is 4) is s Fa g ultimately ng, ov . co a advisory has mn eight among ia st h IR the , iyAffairs. mily Wi mn of ement welcome a Student n l nthe in ill mbining ta s hregard th ca nt hthas that nthe in tion. 7, ca Yo yo has T wi it n uth uth th is its doubts about the “leadership” and independence of this commission, as it is chaired by the director of the Youth Department. The legitimacy of this institution will fi nally depend on the way in which youth NGO representatives are selected onto this body. Moreover, it will depend on the fi nal definition in the Youth Act of the criteria defi ning a youth NGO (in terms of size, activities, leadership and so on). A similar argument can be made concerning a third form of NGO involvement. Youth NGO representatives, or experienced individuals, are invited to participate in working groups, where they have the opportunity to comment on policy documents and put forward recommendations. It remains unclear how these individuals are selected and what their mandate is, in terms of influencing youth policy. A fourth dimension of youth participation is a major youth event, previously called the Latvian Youth Congress but known as the Youth Summit from 2008. Starting in 1999, young people and youth workers from all over Latvia will meet every two years to discuss current issues of youth and youth policy in the country – the last congress in December 2006 attracted some 300 people. The outcome of these summits consists of proposals and policy recommendations that can have far- reaching consequences for youth policy administration. For instance, the Youth Policy Co-ordination Council was one of the outcomes of the event, illustrating its importance. Processes of youth self-government are institutionalised through the Latvian School Student Council and the Latvian Student Association, both of which are members of the Council of Youth Policy Co-ordination. Three additional platforms for participation are currently in preparation – the Municipal Youth Policy Council, the Standing Joint Working Group of State Administration and the Youth Forum. All three aim at providing the youth policy debate and development in Latvia with a broader basis and a tighter network of information exchange and expertise. The IRT welcomes these suggestions and agrees with their necessity. However, the IRT also feels that some related questions need to be clarified, in order to make all these forms of participation (whether existing or planned) actually work. Although the diversity of opportunities to participate in youth policy development appears to be considerable, the IRT was tvia

unable to understand the scope of the practical inﬂuence and power of NGOs in La any of these bodies. Such an assessment may be premature because, so far, the Council of Youth Policy Co-ordination has convened only six times in total since its foundation in 2005 and only once in 2007. Yet in which direction could co-operation develop? Is the process moving towards the best practice of co-management and co-decision, as attempted in Lithuanian uth policy in youth policy following the advice of the Council of Europe but ultimately yo d abandoned (Nurse/Council of Europe, 2003; Jasiukaityte/Reiter 2002)? Or, will an Latvian youth policy authorities only invite youth NGOs to voice their opinions and

utilise their knowledge, without granting them formalised influence in the decision uth process? So far, the experiences of co-operation between youth policy actors are Yo ambivalent and seem to require careful evaluation by all parties involved, in order to identify a productive way ahead (Laboratory of Analytical and Strategic Study 2007, pp. 42-52). 33 34 Youth policy in Latvia ha sponsors. external Latv of atcpto esad liaey ossantefaeokfrtheir for framework the sustain to activities ultimately, and, fees participation deteriorated National the National or (starting bro was that no h drafted the a bec has ial,tetiddimen third the Finally, un ento n rcia dimen practical and definition ohthe both the it pr information Co h National The Ac vo Yo mean ac a education, non-formal of promotion the 2 www.ljp.lv 12. diitaininsti administration the se A proces the including s ot G atcpto nplc eeomn n seulprnr in of partners because equal as and development policy The in decision-making. participation NGO youth hudb a be should s fitrainlbes international of use those encourages IRT The Recommendation potnte o uhparticipation. such for opportunities uth c fsm 50 some of ice co difficultie d uncil derstanding. t oei omltn h forthcoming the formulating in role ha co enetbihdi ie ayNO icniudtermmesi fthe of membership their discontinued NGOs Many time. in established been ma co dn oteifraino t web its on information the to rding edn oalre so done ve unci dpito h gnao h National the of agenda the on point nd Co ia nitrssof interests in s m major a ome r eae othree to related are wi Yo co feducation of unci is oteErpa no n20 ute iiihdteaalblt of availability the diminished further 2004 in Union European the to ’ role l’s hSweden) th Yo uth unci co Yo gtt h teto fteIRT the of attention the to ught Yo co emphasises l t Act uth ov s nsi ovisi ke uth Co uth nsi dealing ’ ebrhpi the in membership l’s rapn inter erlapping y yo ee to dered as uncil ou fatninwti h olwu process. follow-up the within attention of focus Co eal fe the after derably Us n ex on, t organi uth tu Co oiydvlpn gn n atv par “active and agent developing policy a 8 s will ni fLti,fuddi 92 is 1992, in founded Latvia, of uncil dt eyn nfrinsour foreign on relying to ed co yo in”(Ministr tions” flong-term of unci wi si ad ca re and cr fteNational the of ncern wi t organi uth nof on eal oclarif to able be ch th et nedatrapro ftnyas h ac The years. ten of period a after end an to me y. co is hthe th l, t neadmdain is fal the all, of First mediation. and ange ma na ce ma tiuet h problem. the to ntribute h paetrlcac of reluctance apparent The re rcieadeprie with expertise, and practice h disagreement the as sa ma iniercgiin nthi In recognition. tionwide til edt clarif to need a rtainly pnil for sponsible si in es yae in are, ny tion wel on fi nann h represen the intaining fi ts na sa ls nadto otemmesi ser membership the to addition in elds, yo s sma as l s amongs y fnnsadr dcto.It education. non-standard of tion ca burden, ncial t oiyplanning. policy uth n ebro h European the of member a and fi fCide and Children of na Co Yo Cu si y s ca suppor ncial uncil t c.The Act. uth h di the te fa rnl t mati nla,i part in unclear, is impact its rrently per ob suc be to appears co yo t ebrorgani member its of ny t trs fdi of risk at ct, 12 t La dn ointernatio to rding La h ciiiso h National the of activities the co Yo Yo va ot oiyt aegood make to policy youth tvian of sa va ot oiymkr.This makers. policy youth tvian wi ncern uth uth ce reetadrsl nashared a in result and greement Yo hsaeins state th as s y uth Co Co ietee h organi the these, like n impr and the s utial structures sustainable na t uncil h umbrel the uncil ta Fa Po fteNordic the of inlrepor tional iestructures, tive iyAfis 2007: Affairs, mily s re youn licy sa epc,teNational the respect, fi adt ot and youth to gard fLatv of . ce paigaltogether ppearing na tn n rsigissue pressing One ov titutions Co ss rto er epet pay to people g nal ncial re h manifold the e odnto and -ordination ful, rsnainof presentation la ia standards, is Yo and sa va t is co situ oe that hoped recognises uth in.Thi tions. iu state rious eae to related nsi co vo vrthe over co as to of ation ce sa un luntar Fo vi mmon dering Yo such, ssi tion ce rum. tries ha 17 uth on as of ), d s s y Furthermore, the recruitment and involvement of young people into youth interest representation, which could possibly initiate a process of generational renewal within the established structures. has proved to be problematic. Voluntary work is unpopular and, as the national report (Ministry of Children and Family Affairs, 2007: 26-27) emphasises, the motivation of young people to get involved in political activities is low. 13 The bureaucracy of youth activities further contributes to the frustration experienced by youth organisations. While co-operation with the Ministry ofChildren and FamilyAffairs is productive in termsofpolicydevelopment, it is criticised for its rigid character when it comes to project applications and reporting.

A last issue to be raised with the government structures relates, among other things, to the formal criteria for recognising an organisation as a youth NGO. As the defi nition of what constitutes a youth NGO is awaited, together with the Youth Act, the exact number of youth organisations cannot be identified. However, it is estimated that there are about 200 youth NGOs in Latvia at the moment, involving some 10% of the youth population.14 In order to benefit from funding by the Ministry of Children and Family Affairs, recognised youth NGOs need to go through a process of external evaluation of their applications to the Youth Department. Typically, representatives of the National Youth Council or the Ministry of Education and Science are members of the evaluating committee. For reasons of budget planning on the part of the Ministry of Children and Family Affairs, the usual funding period is restricted to one year, which leaves the youth organisations in constant uncertainty about their future. At the moment, only the Secretariat of Special Assignments Minister for Society Integration offers co- fi nancing for EU projects of up to three years.

During their twovisits to Latvia, the IRT could confirm the (financial) precariousness of youth NGOs in Latvia, in discussions with other representatives. Considering the fact that many of these discussions were characterised by frustration, anger tvia and desperation on the side of NGO representatives, the situation appears to La be alarming. The development of “civil society” – a concept and idea that had been new after the breakdown of communism and that evolved together with a programme of extensive “non-governmentalisation” of policy areas, fi nanced by foreign sponsors – is currently at risk of suffering a major setback in Latvia. Also, uth policy in

youth participation and, last but not least, the international standing of Latvian yo youth policy, will depend on the existence of a strong and lively NGO sector in the d youth ﬁ eld. It seems that Latvian authorities need to recognise that the initially an uth

13. Nevertheless, the significance of voluntary work was underlined by one representative Yo of youth organisations during the national hearing. 14. This estimation excludes the quantitatively relevant youth “NGO”, sponsored by the Ministry of Defence. Its “youth work” is discussed later in the report. 35 36 Youth policy in Latvia oiaino h cosinv actors the of motivation Gsadteln-emetbiheto h yuh G etr h automatic The sector. NGO attractivene (youth) “natural” the or of establishment long-term the and NGOs eurmnsfor requirements foeya only year one of rmtemeig n discus and meetings the From fspecialised interventio of the of One 15. NGO-driven pioneering these wonder to needed of years several of sur the and Children of economic mean they where or not were structures There yo has epne tmgtutmtl per ultimately might it response, othe to n ugt mn ntttos and institutions, among budgets and respon of recognition oiyagenda, policy so away do to flegi of howeve would, IRT lonest be to needs also susi de in issues ot Gsadbodnismmesi ae sti would levels. this all as at base, position membership negotiating its broaden and NGOs youth h National The h ot G niomn fthe of environment NGO youth the NGO youth basic of survival the guarantee to order In Recommendation oiyo ao pnos iethe like sponsors, major of policy sugges urgently t G ersnaie,teIRT the representatives, NGO uth ci enamjrpirt o many for priority major a been lraiis hl it While realities. al s co is sl vival ma s fpyn fees paying of to,frispurpose its for ation, nditions. osadr eeyfrdvlpet ietee hr self-sustaining where these, like developments for remedy standard no hte h urn oiatstrateg dominant current the whether npolm dnie bv.TeITare htlegi that agrees IRT The above. identified problems in ha co fteNOsco.Oelso ere rmtedsorgn out discouraging the from learned lesson One sector. NGO the of wi dhp oee,teoinaino h udn oiyo h Ministr the of policy funding the of orientation the However, rdship. ns yo th co yo co fi Fa Yo ldt the olidate t legi uth is igidvda n raiainlperforman organisational and individual ning t Gst eette to entitled be to NGOs uth 15 ma ns l o eetbihdbecause established be not uld iyAffairs, mily uth r, ts fa establi ldt h ttsof status the olidate re co urg 9 yba ny o shor too r h vlaino h practi the of evaluation the si co Co tnosNOfunding NGO ntinuous sl iiisadtemean the and bilities e ssi is ns is nsda n ftediigfor driving the of one as gnised ss yo to,i.e. ation, ni of uncil hs inv those reta it that true sic hdi iewieetra funding external while time in shed uigthe during t oiydevelopment policy uth fteNOsco n h pers the and sector NGO the of ol civil pynta pin ei o re for it be option, an not mply ved iudrtnig and misunderstandings wi is t si o ohteinfr the both for hrgr to regard th oit etr gis thi Against sector. society ma oetbihslcieprpcie on perspectives selective establish to on La ca er,has years, ol Yo vai encour is tvia wi s etyexclude nently ha n e o to not ved Mi t Act, uth na ca ce h impres the d co ityof nistry inlhearing tional ,a et en n tmlt the stimulate and define best, at n, co hteNational the th rt ce fi nr.Teonpeec of omnipresence The untry. il o be not ainly -ordi na rt yo i cos di actors, ain ca support. ncial h status the s wi ov neces co t NGOs, uth na ha th y Ch as ca rsiaeteremedial the erestimate l eta uhmr time more much that be uld age ffnigpoet o period a for projects funding of eadsadriepattern standardise and te rcuedvlpetof development tructure mlctoso h funding the of implications l lrnadFamily and ildren ce si ce will sa ass ca nta the that on d rt ta rt ry i impor ain fa l-nlsv solution all-inclusive an of ntb sustained be nnot oatvl nov more involve actively to ca i clarifi ain cae h pos the ociated ingnes ke Yo ce o mlmnain The implementation. for will st ,in n, o granted. for n uth s is s iuerespon ribute stru fteNOsector. NGO the of ec fteintrin the of tence bac eacritical a be as s a tl available, still was Co fa on ca trs h IRT the ctures, ta kg Yo to ct, st uncil ce ino standard of tion s nt sl on,teIRT the round, t c,which Act, uth re co ation fclueor culture of fa Af ghnits ngthen ma ca sibl ntribute ci fi ar,on fairs, n other and pacities nancial iaethe litate tters. si co ca fa benefi e is bilities trin ctor mplex si pacity un yo co able ngle s uth der me sic by of is y t Chapter 4 Key domains of youth policy

In the two synthesis reports, based on the existing Council of Europe international reviews of youth policy, Howard Williamson (2002, 2008) identiﬁes the following key domains of youth policy of common relevance across different national contexts:education,trainingandemployment;youthworkandinformaleducation; health; housing; family policy and child welfare; values and religion; leisure and culture; youth justice; national defence and military/alternative service. Despite the extensive character of the international review of Latvia, it was not possible to be equally attentive to all of these policy domains, either in the national report or during the two visits to the country.

The nature of youth policy as a cross-cutting issue makes it more difficult to determine a specific angle that is wide enough to embrace the breadth of the matter but can, at the same time, penetrate its surface. Certain priorities had to be established by the national authorities and the IRT: some were identified during the preparatory visit, together with the national partners; some are recommended by the international policy development agenda of the Council of Europe and were put forward by the IRT; others simply suggested themselves in the course of the review process. uth policy

This section starts with a more extensive discussion of issues of education and yo learning that, for several reasons, are crucial for an understanding of the Latvian case. The attached issue of entering the world of work is also key to young people’s life choices in Latvia. Another important policy domain involving, in the Latvian case, strong elements of education, addresses the provision of quality

youth work and opportunities for leisure time activities. Access to, and provision y domains of

of, health services for children and young people are among the major concerns Ke of the national authorities. Other areas, or “domains”, of policy affecting young people on which the IRT feels able to offer a perspective, are dealt with briefly towards the end of this section. 37 38 Youth policy in Latvia respon the education. for of preparation their and people Fu education. informal and non-formal including learning, distingu co institutio traditionally the employment and eeomn,i line in development, report Latvian The life. of quality and obcm fetv,fra dcto need education formal effective, become to fou the establishing in crucial be should the on best, At life. co findi of the population the and new a of introduction the co smal a h nacmn fhuman of enhancement The h so the ch for modern benchmark Thesuc Ed rt peetayu-odt pu up-to-date any mplement tx n,a the at and, ntext un oeoesoccupation one’s oose cto n learning and ucation youn emr,dsiepesrsi h ol fwr,teemploy the work, of world the in pressures despite hermore, ch Fa ga re now tries h greatest The – – people. ances l ch iyAfis 07 5;it 35); 2007: Affairs, mily ci vi e Brya,20)wiheuainssesi former in systems education which 2000) (Berryman, me” si ce co epei Latv in people g ma is o-economic ul,s htthey that so duals, iiisand bilities leg oteeuainsse n otepeaainof preparation the to and system education the to allenge curmn ftersetv dcto prog education respective the of acquirement inte need profes or Ther education degrees. of education documents higher and education formal nally ss e ortpso dcto htaere are that education of types four hes un ca s ktsocieties. rket fultran tr Ed youn re pab co nteles the in y s raie coln (Allmendinger, schooling organised ucation ted st ha nsi ieLatv like and Pe ed le na eto ve people g ca ee ob lsl ikdto linked closely be to dered si snldvlpetadthe and development rsonal ucation feggn nsl-ntae n regu and self-initiated in engaging of tional sa la ba ucation wis tionfromeducationtoemployment pacities. as co ma bour wi etm,t pro to time, me is i fbroad of sis mpetences, co s e,dseadn hi g rfre education; former or age their disregarding hes, hl o hs new these for whole a ia ia n ftemean the of one ntemn fthe of instreaming ha“people-based a th ass n les and fot eurste to them requires nfront, Be a res was oremain to eddt esot;a the at smooth; be to tended ma ha ytmta includ that system a – to Lat of et oethe fore ca reali – r rprdfrteedrn tuge fworking of struggles enduring the for prepared are eof ve nd Fo rket pital bl un mleuainof education rmal ation emphasis s ceuainagenda. education ic rce.Wt h rec the With tricted. derline un eea know general tnadsdlife standardised fi as vi is sa co co dn mlyetatrexten after employment nding a, ce vi s ce ino esnsidvda educational individual person’s a of tion wel pttv na nentoaie economic internationalised an in mpetitive lla s eits de as flfln education lifelong of rt la rt oincre to ite,like ainties, ps s bour il n ftems impor most the of one ainly as l state a stepolitical the es h impor the fteSo the of e co s gr youn si lf kls WO20:3,ne to need 3), 2003: (WHO skills” “life obe to un whmdl (Ministr model” owth as ma nlqualifi onal ci le co wi la human e tr cmtne.Tenw“ue of “rules new The rcumstances. g n dcto,individuals education, and dge ktaentteol purpose only the not are rket g es co y 19 gnised bour hlimited th ch co ci ta co towards tiuet h development the to ntribute 9.I th In 89). co ba un vi lrnand ildren tizen ov mbined c flfln erigand learning lifelong of nce is mncto fsocietal of mmunication ra sa tUin hs tran these Union, et re of urses sic la employment, er ma oneofthemostimpor mmes; ca etm,tefedmto freedom the time, me paigo hi skills their of updating r co by y wi s r state-appro are e ia UD,2006: (UNDP, pital ktout rket ca dcto,secondar education, fidpnec and independence of mtetto mmitment natural ca legi We inta testif that tion is wi hteptnilfor potential the th reers. es,i remain it sense, tr standards, stern sl youn hohrtpsof types other th youn blt of ability ation: si resourc co youn eprosof periods ve y ta Ye epein people g e n to and mes people g co co fChildren of nt ,i order in t, ns mmunist people g ways societal es si tituted youn , 57) tion is y ta ve for . its to nt is d g s s y – non-formal education – educational work which is organised outside formal education and corresponds to the demand; – further education – continuation of the former education and improvement of the professional skills according to vocational demands (Ministry of Children and Family Affairs, 2007: 35). In modern societies, like Latvia, all four types of education are relevant sources of maximising potential. On the basis of the national report and information collected during the two country visits, we will go on to briefly address the major challenges of each of the fi rst three types of education,16 inasmuch as they are relevant to a review of youth policy.

Formal general education The reform and transformation of the Latvian system of formal education, at the intersection of the Soviet legacy on the one side and Western requirements and standards on the other, is an ongoing process which faces many obstacles. The growing and rapidly changing – but still weak – national economy, the concentration of the population in cities, the heterogeneous composition of the population, the poor infrastructure in rural areas, the political preferences with regard to the national character of Latvian education, but also the confrontation with increasing demands to adapt to international standards, are among the factors contributing to the puzzle of education reform in Latvia (OECD, 2001; Ministry of Education and Science, 2007). Compulsory education One key feature of formal education that has been subject to several changes and policy initiatives during recent years is the length, the age limits and the practical implementation of compulsory education. Currently, education is compulsory for 11 years. After two years of compulsory preschool education, children from the age of 7 onwards spend nine years in basic comprehensive education. It should be mentioned that the extension of compulsory education until the end of secondary school was discussed, but abandoned due to the lack of funding. Afterwards, young people can choose between entering the labour market immediately and continuing with general or vocational upper secondary education. Drop-outs uth policy from compulsory education have the opportunity to conclude general education yo through vocational training. Higher education starts from the age of 19 and includes academic and professional tracks. Colleges complement the landscape of tertiary education. While the extension of compulsory education down to the age of 5 years certainly

does have the advantage of introducing children to the world of organised learning y domains of Ke

16. The discussion of the fourth category, “further education” that includes lifelong learning, goes beyond the youth policy domain. It is referred to only in the context of the other types of education. 39 40 Youth policy in Latvia h IRT The respon iharte diff rather a with teacher teaching, the and schools h rbesof problems The lnigaddvlpet eetdi offici in reflected development, and planning authoritie local the While budget. municipal uigtetwo the during otedifficult the to n ece riig Gene training. teacher and h Ministr The graduates and dropouts Ev of number high the include h iko rwn polari growing a of risk the ftngraduate ten of fa Lat the graduates; te pro Other foundation it Should nomto about information al at schools attend not ubr,together numbers, youn qualifi international the stage, early an at ca the Lc,20 (Lace, Another regu respective may lo ba is education l to ils ca er ntb urned ept the despite guaranteed, be nnot sugges of extension The Re re thereb tamean a it sic ea l y lsi rfieo the of profile alistic co epetesle UEC 06 oad ter towards 2006) (UNESCO themselves people g be uhrte n parents. and authorities col h avail the school, dcto ytmpoue a produces system education l trigage starting rly ca sibl mnain10 mmendation co go ha in n oe6 fal of 6% some and tion; y iss 07 fi bl ts mplete s fal of rst is o institution for e dre od egigu h rsand pros the up weighing h impres the d s y ems ). ue s oeicsv clarifi incisive more a o nieysaefne Zgae l,2007: al., et (Zogla state-funded entirely not o netne atcpto,icuigtertiar including participation, extended an for of of iist ava are Latvia, to visits wi fi la as Ed wi s co na tions, hrgr to regard th l ge rn reality erent co on co heuaini Latv in education th cto n cec salse h tnad o education for standards the establishes Science and ucation co from mpen vi ncial h bac the wi ea dcto,ietfidi ohthe both in identified education, neral mpulsor nsystem an tiuet the to ntribute ployshoigma schooling mpulsory s hteincr the th co ab o extending for as co si co l sa mpen situ lt of ility (Ministr nta h ihambitions, high the that on s st wel sa mprehen kg igfrthe for ting ral fhge education. higher of ,bnfisand benefits s, to that ation ini h out the in tion y on fteeyoun these of round as l Co sa education co dcto and education co easing pr is ns efrprobab for te mpulsor y oiyipiain,nest eclear be to needs implications, policy ca l crigeuainpr education ncerning sho dcto eed ntebdesof budgets the on depends education eschool co qety qa ac equal equently, oex no emwsntsu not was team s ea fCide and Children of ch co si ino h netoso uha such of intentions the of tion nsiderabl r paid are co ce eeuaind no do education ve l uligo cdmcpotential, academic of building rly lrnand ildren mpulsor ia co la retto fbt ava dcto and education Latvian both of orientation co mpulsor rt ce ck smore ns htaeietfidi the in identified are that i ubro rpot and drop-outs of number ain is y tne obre h ytm despite system, the burden to ntinues to.Aotoei ever in one About ption. co re education reof free fother of y pniiiiso hs affected. those of sponsibilities e feducation. of mes aeman have le .Sm fte are them of Some e. y s by ga y ch r respon are nqaiisamong inequalities naschool a in youn dcto,btteitninof intention the but education, h tt n h state the and state the ldcmnsare documents al people g ca rce fpecoleducation preschool of aracter ch eaotisult its about re Fa ch re ce ti reand arge wi epeo colaedo age school of people g iyAfis 07 6.No 36). 2007: Affairs, mily ul n salsiga establishing and fully ar is ildcare y ss wi hu profes thout datgsbtteIRT the but advantages y 41 ovision the hrgr oeducation to regard th qualifi hogotthe throughout ha t ) nieprimar Unlike 8). sibl a availa was y na ce fa dcto?Should education? fa eaprofes a ve fi tional o udn the funding for e tta preschool that ct rt ci na ca ifi nteregions. the in mt purpose. imate iis Al lities? na in,indicate tions, cdfo the from nced lal related clearly ca re si y inlrepor tional ch te. Re gulation, nlskills. onal co l.These ble. e pupils ten . lrn Or ildren? layi unskill por ntr Tw co is l gthe ng si as out o t y three un onal fully and and ted tr ed y t the increasing state budget expenditures on education (the IRT was told that it nearly doubled between 2002 and 2006). Altogether, the number of students in general education is decreasing and in rural areas in particular, schools have to be closed because of a lack of students. With funding focused on students rather than institutions (Zogla et al., 2007), the IRT wonders whether this recent trend will succeed in reducing the problem of providing more than basic educational infrastructure outside cities and regional centres. From the perspectives of young people and families, it will remain important that schools are available in the vicinity of their places of residence. Despite the decreasing number of students, the number of teachers remained stable and, consequently, the student/teacher ratio has continuously improved (UNESCO, 2006). However, the average age of teaching staff is increasing dramatically and teachers in general are scarce. The low salaries of teachers make it an unattractive profession for university graduates, which is one reason for the older profile of teaching staff. The infrastructure of schools needs to be updated, in order to meet contemporary requirements; rural areas are additionally disadvantaged with regard to the availability of new technologies. The facilities for young people with special needs are insufficient and need particular attention. As the national report “Education and Training 2010” (Ministry of Education and Science, 2007: 14) notes, only very few of the 1 000 plus schools and educational institutions have been fully or partially adapted to the needs of young people with physical disabilities.

Recommendation 11 The scope of the reform of general compulsory education in Latvia makes it vulnerable in many ways and the IRT recommends the Latvian authorities continue to reform the general education system with great accuracy. The following challenges to general education reform are among those that the IRT could verify during its visits to Latvia: the considerable non-attendance and drop-out rates; the polarisation of educational outcomes; the decreasing local availability of education due to necessary infrastructure reforms; the low attractiveness of the teaching profession and the unsatisfactory policy and equipment for integrating disabled students. uth policy

Minority education and the status of the Russian language17 yo One particularly important issue in general education, brought to the attention of the IRT during their ﬁ rst visit to the country, refers to the ethnic composition of the population of Latvia. The status of minorities in Latvia and the introduction of the concept of the “non-citizenship” have triggered much international pressure and y domains of criticism, especially of the political elite of the country (Galbreath, 2006; Kruma, Ke 2007; Hughes, 2005; Council of Europe, 2004 and 2007). Ever since the country

17. For a response by the national authorities to this issue see Appendix 4. 41 42 Youth policy in Latvia ecigrqieet nsuc in requirements teaching the paigteacher speaking between fl odee their and schools deepen minority to in education bilingual of reform the of details general of 22% n Scien and meeting our at minorities ethnic for education about by uigour During iefrtetann fteacher of training the the for from time suffer to resourc appears human reform the society, in Apar languag and culture uhrte fciia etrso thi of features critical of authorities 8 h eal fteemodel these of Ed details The 18. neces re has it and ethnic of population state only the the independence, regained La Co ioiyshoshv a hi qa lc eieLtinsc Latvian beside place equal their had have schools minority articu Russi h pndiscrimi open the subjects schoo la now edu minority has language hsrfr was reform This curren The nmnrt col.Fo h er20/8on 2007/08 year the From schools. minority in rmgae1 on 10 grade from exami state curriculum; minority xblt ndealing in exibility gaei secondar in nguage cto n cec but Science and ucation tv uncil fa fi a oenet the Government, ian t h otprevalent most the r ch npplto,wihfrssm 0 ftepplto n repeatedly and population the of 30% some forms which population, an s n sec and rst la sa from l eomo 04itoue exten introduced 2004 of reform ne n Latv and anged ch e t list qaiy h nrdcinof introduction The equality. to claims its tes dcto ntttos During institutions. education fErp 20,20;Oois 03.I hi In 2003). Ozolins, 2007; (2004, Europe of ry la ha va lrni r-coleuainadthe and education pre-school in ildren ce teaching t gae nmnrt schools minority in nguages fi havi obe to d iu oeso iiga education. bilingual of models rious Ac . s ii oLat to visit rst etdybeen peatedly ttsof status ca la endsusd but discussed, been es gbe implemented been ng tion. gaeadisknowledge its and nguage co un ac n visit ond wa s na wi dn otestatistic the to rding esadn frel of derstanding co nmnrt col,wowr o ed oaatt h new the to adapt to ready not were who schools, minority in has e wi ma ta inaantehi ioiisi Latv in minorities ethnic against tion rds, hnmnrt col:teauthoritie the schools: minority thin avaso tms 60%, most at of Latvians mpanied Fo gti Latv in ught y htetasomto ftahn requirements, teaching of transformation the th Russi terial. col.Satn rmteaaei year academic the from Starting schools. ia oeta e year ten than more r na ca as enrifre.Aoeal h nrdcinof introduction the all, Above reinforced. been i,teITlsee oahgl in highly a to listened IRT the via, n ioiylnug – language minority Co ntb icse ee e loHgnBu (2006). Hogan-Brun also See here. discussed be nnot co tion rtcsdby criticised wel is nmnrte nLatv in minorities an mmissi fimdteaoemninddfclyof difficulty above-mentioned the nfirmed s shor a h co s urnl en introduced being currently yplrsn ulcdebates public polarising by as l s eeicue ntepeetto tteMinistr the at presentation the in included were r nLatv in are mtett h atclrte fteLatv the of particularities the to mmitment nLatv in ia s a untena was ihreducation, higher ,ee nmnrt col.Temr recent more The schools. minority in even n, nrfrHuman for oner dctoa eom(oni fErp,200 Europe, of (Council reform educational at wi this t ed s si eid Thi period. ia nentoa organi international hu loigfrteneces the for allowing thout pro e(60%) ve is ch n o rprn n rnltn the translating and preparing for and n etn,teIRT the meeting, as ia urnedfr tms,4%o the of 40% most, at for, guaranteed vi legs ioiyschools Minority allenges. ny pe secondar Upper only. n a e,i h er2006/07 year the in ded, a h lang the was l ntecretpltclclimate. political current the in ble has ci s wa la iesi eurmn,dsiea despite requirement, tizenship 18 fe eann independence, regaining after ia co gaeo ntuto n1%of 15% in instruction of nguage un s ntae etddbt about debate heated initiated unava d,isrcini n fthe of one in instruction rds, Howeve wi s is mpulsor ihsrmnsteLatvian the reminds Rights is eetMmrnu othe to Memorandum recent hteMinistr the th Russi eetdi h eomof reform the in reflected elnsdut regarding doubts derlines availab ia s lblt fterequired the of ilability i o lo suffi allow not did seilyaantthe against especially , fo a also was as aeo in of uage sa r, an rmative HgnBu,2006), (Hogan-Brun, y tion discus the ecigi Lat in teaching as le ol.Ti has This hools. ,icuigthe including s, 199 nLatv in ha eodstate second a ma y rvddwith provided sa pr si the d of tuto for struction y by /6 few a 5/96, nteaching in ry on esentation ha education Ed ava as Latvian Russi ch dialogue ia Russi s egre ve ucation ch oosing only. n during ci ance n– an vi y ent an- ia 7) an at of n . the quality of curriculum delivery. Consequently, the IRT wishes to highlight the need for great care in advancing such reforms, in such circumstances, without jeopardising other political objectives, such as social integration and the crucial formation of language skills.

The IRT wants to stress the position taken by the Commissioner for Human Rights: “Children belonging to minorities must enjoy the same quality of education as Latvian children” (Council of Europe, 2007; paragraph 56). This suggestion is in line with the Latvian understanding of youth policy and in particular its equal opportunities principle. The introduction of compulsory bilingual teaching in minority schools will certainly contribute to abolishing one of the main legacies of the Soviet occupation for Latvian society, namely the segregation of Latvians and Russians in separate schools. Research among Russian-speaking adolescents in Riga indicates that there is indeed a high level of readiness to integrate (Pisarenko, 2006), and the IRT’s discussions with young people of Russian origin in the ethnically diverse community of Rezekne conﬁrm these ﬁ ndings.

Furthermore, the IRT emphasises the fact that there is a major issue concerning the exclusion of the Russian language from further and higher education, as it corresponds to a politically imposed barrier to equal opportunities at all levels of education. Representatives of the Latvian Student Union complained to the IRT about the marginalisation of the Russian language at universities. It was disturbing to learn that – unlike other European languages occasionally used for teaching alongside Latvian, the ofﬁcial language of instruction – Russian is practically banned from classrooms of public higher education.

After the two visits to Latvia, the IRT has the impression that the (in)signiﬁcance granted to the Russian language in political terms, does not match either its everyday relevance or its application with regard to employment in present-day Latvia. This impression is substantiated by the testimony of both employers and employees.

The Latvian Employers Association underlined the unbroken value of advanced skills in Russian for employment in Latvia to the IRT. Due to its geographical and strategic position within the European Union, the Latvian labour market is a bridge to the economically important area at the eastern borders of the EU. While the signiﬁcance of the cultivation of the Latvian language remains uncontested, uth policy

the negative consequences of neglecting to equip the Latvian labour force with yo advanced Russian skills are obvious. The lack of opportunities and encouragement to study Russian beyond the level of everyday communication means that Latvian people are gradually losing Russian language skills; growing up bilingual and beneﬁting from its advantages will soon become an exclusive privilege for the Russian population of Latvia. y domains of

A recent study of the compliance of education with the requirements of the labour Ke market (Sloka, 2007), which was commissioned by the Ministry of Welfare and provided by the Latvian authorities, conﬁrms this opinion. The study measures the assessment of the necessity of certain skills among employees in various 43 44 Youth policy in Latvia iue2– 2 Figure ex In profes iue2 eo,sosta,fo h esetv fepoes the employees, of perspective the from that, shows below, 2, Figure nweg of knowledge Sour nLat in youn so few the of one la hu of Individual ser gaesrglsi the in struggles nguage vi ce ci -0 0, 1, 2, 3,

ce Drivers of vehicles wo hs pnos h IRT the opinions, these of ew ,5 te ieLxmor rSizrad Thi Switzerland. or Luxembourg like eties 5 5 5 5 0 1 2 3 4 d htof that eds g : ma vi vi Sl si ci Co ce a Co s k (2 oka

mputing technolog on tizens.

resourc n ns

a was may tructionCa profes

re workers Neces Ev ntecurren the in s 00 nafu on cl rm1(o neces (not 1 from scale point four a on Qualified workers of industry/con al Russi :Apni ) own 4), Appendix 7: uation Pe Mec si y si co ge rson ha specialistson of knowledge of ty s s wi nics, loc eoeo the of one te ptrskills. mputer es unl utlnulsceisi uoe lnsd pri alongside Europe, in societies multilingual nuinely th low qualification an

irgrigtepiflhistor painful the Disregarding . ks miths by sun is t Employee mlye fneces of employees profes st co

ruction co Simple profess of security un tse among ntested Russi ca si tr co lculations is Employees on y, si un an

co on

Latv s Specialists of Doctors try’s cre htill- that ncerned of agriculture

ia Co mputer

ma civil Architects Neces is security, defence etc. sp si jo bu ols its lose to about

ecialists al s Specialists of humanities, creative profes yo skills of ty r si l co co yof ty Co group l eatruly a be uld ns pttv datgsi terms in advantages mpetitive Agronomi truction speciali Te co

co acher sa ptrskills mputer

un y Offic s

nsi st s ia

s, other agricultural specialists ry Employees of science, academi even it them of most for – Legal ls, legislators st o4(ver 4 to ) dered

eligtepers the derlying s profes Economists, ac si on

ch si s on un (e.g. judges, prosecutors) la s net become to ance gaepolicies nguage qeofrt its to offer ique co Man unta cs ager y nts, other seniorin higher specialists education

s neces Differen va u fa of lue vi is sa leged ce tent ry ). Recommendation 12 The IRT is not convinced that the recent reform of minority education created ideal conditions for the integration of the large Russian population in the country. The IRT has the impression that the reform was implemented without the necessary societal dialogue and without providing sufficient time for the teaching staff to adapt to the new requirements. In line with observers of the international community, the IRT must urge the Latvian authorities to advance the reform with great care and to cautiously monitor its impact in terms of affecting language training, equal opportunities in education, and social integration. Furthermore, the IRT invites the Latvian authorities to listen to the constructive suggestions of the many impartial voices within the country, concerning the secondary status of the Russian language. Failing to refl ect the strength of the specific geographical position and economic orientation of the country in language policy is equal to wasting a chance for all Latvian citizens to benefit from one of the country’s major competitive advantages.

Formal professional education and labour market matching One of the main problems currently troubling the policy perspective on youth transitions to professional education is the low participation in forms of professional education after compulsory and/or secondary school. The reasons behind this development are manifold. The IRT’s meetings with ministry representatives, as well with representatives of employers and practitioners of the employment service, leave little doubt that the main reasons behind this development are related to problems of prestige, quality and weak links into the labour market. The reluctance of young people to engage in manual labour in current Latvia appears to be one of the legacies of the Soviet past, where vocational education and manual labour were common, but least valued, in the status hierarchy of society. Curricula were ideologically burdened, and training was predominantly oriented towards industrial, technical and agricultural professions (Matthews, 1982; Reiter 2006). Attempts to construct a positive image of vocational education after the collapse of the formerly Soviet industry were largely undermined by the

breakdown of the bridges between training and employment, which used to be uth policy

one of the main pillars and qualities of vocational training under communism. yo Although efforts are undertaken to enhance both image and quality and move away from the primarily school-based character of vocational education, there is little prospect that the situation will improve in the near future. The share of enterprises organising vocational training is decreasing.19 The IRT was informed y domains of

19. The Latvian Central Statistical Bureau reports a survey among enterprises indicating Ke that the proportion of enterprises organising vocational training decreased from 53% in 1999 to 36% in 2005. www.csb.gov.lv/csp/events/csp/events/?lng=en&mode=arh&perio d=09.2007&cc_cat=471&id=2948# (Retrieved 05.11.2007). 45 46 Youth policy in Latvia oaddres to n de and industria an becoming of option realistic the problem fLatv of attract to able be si edu some of produce promise to order in socialism, guidan “vocational Biased in or respon nthi In vo the be for education vo profes one a acquire to employers of representatives wi Min the of The h neces the si abou ou by wi dcto,wr identified were education, respon shared poor the and employers one Ju until wasn’t it told, was IRT the salse tteMinistr insuffici the at established Lat h or the ce aormar labour Fu training, gnifica mply hu n profes any thout hschools. th rt rt ca ca havi tc vi h Employers’ the ainly emr,tekoldebs neces base knowledge the hermore, la co un m of ome si fa inlporme–etisahg iko iigu uuelife future up giving of risk high a entails – programme tional inladprofes and tional fl are a youn t bour ga s uencing e n h ii dcto ytmo h te.The other. the on system education rigid the and de, un tthat ct ia esadberesponse. derstandable our. sibl ma ca ent ni oit oad Europe towards society n ntne h IRT the instance, tyadeulyrecognised equally and ntly was tr un is nnot si s nds. sa is y. o h rmwr of framework the for e ma ha , ke yt eri hmo the on them retrain to ty epeslwdge femployabilit of degree low people’s g oua pyo-ri”plc,together policy, “pay-or-train” popular the Fo tr fi co inof tion The vo identified dyrayo even or ready rdly y t s fal nisiuinloe that one, institutional an all, of rst ma rket. h iebig h lentv neigit low-quality a into entering – alternative the being, time the r as Ye si youn co mncto ewe and between mmunication acigpoesswa processes matching of ca ca iiyfrteetbiheto a of establishment the for bility fa t ny pe ge long youn infral for tion inleducation tional tthat, ct Ed there si vo epespriorities, people’s g eal smal nerally Fe wi youn ucation nlqualifi onal ca eainta hr r niiulmdl fpar of models individual are there that deration epe oevr fthi if Moreover, people. g hthe th as si as co inleducation. tional is nleuainatgte n eann in remaining and altogether education onal epeetrthe enter people g pos un oeainbtendfeetministries, different between -operation oetal en bet rge proces a trigger to able being potentially oidcto htteesol erpiae acro replicated be should these that indication no ce y as ca l ha ra les sibl n h rqieet fscey,wihinv which society”, of “requirements the and and ” fEoois which Economics, of nyaddres only n Ye i eeomn fra-iesil eurmnsin requirements skills real-life of development pid niiigprogres inhibiting oamtta h curren the that admit to d s y20 htaLabour a that 2007 ly l ca nta per obe to appears instead e ,fo h esetv of perspective the from t, ca enterprise is h ytmof system the tion, pab vo ieyt amplif to likely ca suns is by jo ca ki reer b le ohepoesadepoes it employees, and employers both lac s is dof nd inladprofes and tional la wi oivs ntann.Ol titand strict a Only training. in invest to a sa e Soa 200 (Sloka, ter atisfactor co s hre th wi ca ki ry la la l (that s unsellin matc gutlrec until ng hnocptoa etr nthe on sectors occupational thin s for use bour situ s co o any for hi ruet oad those towards arguments their ga si orr Latv bourer. vo s odntdsse of system -ordinated nbfr entering before on ca y wi dt profes to rd is y, Zgae al et (Zogla igbtenthe between hing ca h maac fsil needs skills of imbalance the ntb solved be nnot y ma to pers ation co th les hi a klspol and profile skills bad their inltraining tional was g co n employers and l ept impro to help uld co ktatryaso study, of years after rket Ma ki s cr.Teavc fthe of advice The ncern. t dof nd nsi youn 7) ra nl nLatvia in ently hn5 mlye)in employees) 50 than si colbsdtraining school-based ktObser rket ma h representatives The . inladlegitimate and tional nleuain The education. onal ia co derable uhrte need authorities n si ., is epe avoiding people, g gnliflec of influence rginal mnpatc in practice mmon nlorientation. onal s h opennes the ts, ma 20 ch as s 07 iuainof nipulation ances. frethinking of by is un ta wel co : vator vo x 43 impro iversity co ch mmunist as l eiffor relief tn sthe As . ca ge will ) The 2). mplain anging ve ership y tional ol neral their was ved ve not the ss is d s Recommendation 13 The IRT shares the concerns expressed by the Latvian authorities with regard to the low prestige, quality and efficiency of professional education and recognises the urgency of the situation. However, quick solutions are unlikely and should not be expected, as the transformation of either the labour market or the system of vocational education and training will take time. Closer co-operation and an informed dialogue between all parties involved will be necessary. If an agreement on the importance of a professional training system can be reached, monetary concessions and sacrifices on both sides, in terms of tax reductions as well as investments, seem indispensable for its establishment. Nevertheless, the IRT recommends the Latvian authorities fi nd a preliminary but urgent solution for those young people who depend on professional education, because they do not have the capacity or the means to pursue an extended educational career. Young people leaving education unqualified do not have appropriate opportunities, either in Latvia or in Europe as a whole.

Formal higher education The popularity of education is reflected in the increasing numbers of young people participating in higher education. In the frame of an ad hoc survey among some 30 young people, whom the IRT had the chance to meet during the two visits to Cesis and Rezekne, all but one expressed the intention to study after completing secondary education. This survey is certainly not representative and by no means able to grasp the heterogeneity of youth in Latvia. Yet it is indicative of the strong desire among young people for qualifications. “ Learn or go away” was the student representative’s comment when the IRT investigated this common trend in the discussion. In other words, in order to succeed in the competitive Latvian labour market and to get a quality job and the payment that matches the needs and ambitions of today’s young people, they have to acquire skills, knowledge and educational credentials. At least this is the underlying attitude. Going abroad, studying and/or staying there are relevant alternatives – mass emigration and the “brain drain” are among the major challenges facing societies like Latvia (UNDEP, 2006).20 uth policy yo Over the last few years, the popularity of higher education has reached a level that has started to cause policy concern. Within about a decade up until 2004, the number of students has more than tripled. The national report (Ministry of Children and Family Affairs, 2007: 38) mentions that only the policy of reducing the number of state-funded places, together with raising the fees, fi nally managed to slow y domains of down the trend. In the academic year 2006-07, less than one in four students Ke

20. www.workpermit.com/news – click on 30 November 2007, under Immigration news. Retrieved: 01.12.2007 47 48 Youth policy in Latvia htterfr of reform the that tteearl the at ujcs nte esnfrpa the to for related reason Another for subjects. probabilities higher much the of o h o atcpto fsuet in students of participation low the for noteaen bod ageing the into otrladps-otrlresearch, post-doctoral and doctoral housing, hngnieand genuine than h a euaino technolog of reputation bad The dialogue the for base co Ministr the at academic Universities 95-99). 2007: al., et to ch the thi ideally, ra par and studying as – but affordable and Whiletheavailabilityof“commerc mone fth of fterlvn tutrsof structures relevant the of profes teaching rcia okexperience work practical was lcs h uhrte edt eaaeo the of aware policy be to need authorities the places, the despite is profes administered Cu the in As n tdnssae thi shared students and dev curriculum of terms in employers of involvement the academic While toeo h pu the of one at h Ministr the ha Soa 200 (Sloka, e nhge dcto vrg bu 6.Ol a Only 16%. about average education higher in tes wa ntribute ie r in are oices urnl ntransformation: in currently rmoni tr,teprofes the lture, jo fi d h,which PhD, a rds sea is y- nohge dcto.TenwyetbihdLbu aktObser Market Labour established newly The education. higher into b na si co nlgiac tsho.In school. at guidance onal nced n elhidcdeuainlsca nqaiis h urn policy current The inequalities. social educational wealth-induced and sa e tthe at mes ca l threshold rly fi y la ino cdmccriuaadsil eurdi the in required skills and curricula academic of tion s y si l of eld 7) g f16 of age partially n bour of co co gnifi lhuhtesse fhge education higher of system the Although . y by fa fa by l euti nehne nerto feeet flann on learning of elements of integration enhanced an in result uld Ed nsi fEoois operating Economics, of si ct vo as bl h tt;teothers the state; the ca onals. t- cto n cec ln,bu alone, Science and ucation vo eaino cdmcmeri academic of deration ma h iitiso Agricult of Ministries the lasting that si co rvt institution private or ic ro uhinequalities. such of ur iework time sa tyt such to ntly wel ca nloinaino tertiar of orientation onal y hs dec These . la ktmr trciefranew a for attractive more rket . co co fprofessor of is inltann,the training, tional as l iso cdmcsaf in staff, academic of ries fa h IRT the to reac free of st by mpen s atydet ndqaefnigo h tde (Streh studies PhD of funding inadequate to due partly -ecigdcsosi em fspeciali of terms in decisions r-reaching neet n h IR the and interest, sun is opinion tdn organi student profe is sa a info was derdeveloped. co si co a sosaepr are isions ssi efrthe for te c etme 2007 September nce ha y- ia odnto and -ordination rt co oeainin -operation s ae disciplines based l nleducation onal yill-advis ly wi edifficultie ve studyplaces”, mnadneces and mmon ce n ihreuaintahr.It teachers. education higher and fa ge hteITadpooe h impro the proposed and IRT the th ha ss t h Latv the ct, will natural md–rte orand poor rather – rmed tn tt-uddsuypaei these in place study state-funded a tting to d si oeuainadultimately and education to s sa un co c uy200 July nce impro fhge dcto.I rcie and practice, In education. higher of dmnnl ae ngra on based edominantly tion r,Dfne Interior, Defence, ure, t feuain the education, of sts has T co vriissfe rma insuffi ci an from suffer iversities t y deuainlde educational ed Re n ehia cecs regardles sciences, technical and o trbtn tt-uddstudy state-funded attributing for fa education e h e fthey if fee the ver te t s s rsnaie fbt employers both of presentatives tta uhasrnl regulative strongly a such that ct co ve nldsseilsdacademie specialised includes m fpro of rms eriigaaei suc academic recruiting co as ia been co is mbination ytmof system n the pann bu the about mplaining wel fee nhge education, higher in offered oeain rcial,and Practically, -operation. ge may sa ca ma 7, lpetadpr and elopment eaino eerhand research of neration is ry las co situ erguidance reer will is not gnlgroup rginal eoeo h re the of one be nfronted ecin h drop-out The reaction. vi studentloanschemes o alway not to and ation igteknowledge the ding ce un wi un rt e the der hEU-supported th ca sa wa popular iin a be may cisions il eal to able be ainly co la erguidance reer inaetaken are tion wi tdt study to nted bnto of mbination bour We s hcriticism th e,rather des, adequate. co fa ma vso of ovision fr and lfare co is is ci student ce ntinues ve to of ntrol ma la par ke hoped litates va as ss ment ck tor rket on t the ent ors of of s s s y l the agenda of the State Employment Agency. While this may contribute to the introduction of a more “realistic” perspective on labour market opportunities, it remains to be seen whether the counselling services will also be able to establish a balance between giving advice to the unemployed and job-seekers on the one hand, and students on the other. Both groups arguably require a different counselling profile. As in education in general, the status of the Russian language in higher education is problematic. Latvian is the only official language in public institutions of higher education. Although there are, in fact, a few courses offered in the most relevant minority language (for example the Academic Programme Agency, 2007), Russian is, as the IRT was informed by student representatives, marginalised as a language of higher education, even when compared to foreign languages without local relevance. For young people growing up in a Russian family context, this constitutes a serious practical problem of the interaction of opportunity, choice and capacity. The vast majority of young people met by the IRT wanted to study in Riga; a few, however, all from the city of Rezekne in the eastern part of the country, considered attending one of the Russian universities in St. Petersburg or Moscow. In view of the standardisation of certificates in the frame of the “Bologna process” towards a European higher education area, pursuing education in Russia might involve problems in getting the certificates recognised outside Russia.

Recommendation 14 The IRT understands that the ever-increasing participation of young people in higher education, which is observed with concern by the Latvian authorities, reﬂ ects the high value of education in society, as well as the low status and quality of non-academic professional education. This development constitutes a challenge to the system that can only be solved by means of a comprehensive reform, involving the whole range of educational opportunities. A quality system is characterised by a minimum of educational dead ends. At the same time, it will remain both permeable towards tertiary education for graduates from vocational tracks and open for revising one’s orientation. The current necessity to narrow down one’s professional horizon considerably by the age of 16 also makes effective professional counselling at school or specialised

institutions services very difﬁcult. The caution indicated with regard to the uth policy

marginalisation of the Russian language in general education applies also to yo higher education.

Non-formal and out-of-school education

Like Estonia (Stafseng, Council of Europe, 2001), Latvia has a long and successful y domains of tradition of out-of-school education, called interest or hobby education. Under Ke the umbrella of the State Youth Initiative Centre at the Ministry of Education and Science, institutions of hobby education offer free or low-cost out-of-school, leisure and summer activities to children and young people between the ages 49 50 Youth policy in Latvia hudntbe not should higher At ex an of follow the ov Thus, education. out-of-school of example practice IR the of perspective older sa htte migh they that sa na in of that moderni of was well as among interest ha espe 200 co n fteITssug IRT’s the of One re second A supervis hr h oino nnfra dcto” promoted education”, “non-formal of notion the where rl n,i h bes the in cult The and, it. truly extend and preserve to authorities is or sense, education” “non-formal interpreting in far 07 0.Many 40). 2007: Affairs asleisur mass Re La avail IRT The institutio inv and 3 of o hs ciiist eoine oad a towards oriented the be to activities these for followed folklore) theatre, music, acti the of co co h Latv the tv y, ke mprehen nsci eral ze dcatfor ndicraft ra fi ol y )is 7) s lne some glance, rst aadlandaotismto foeaindrn their during operation of method its about learned and ia wi ns its gnise i-o acn ofl acn.Nvrhls,teITsug IRT the Nevertheless, dancing. folk to dancing hip-hop is hrold-f ther n.TeITflyspot thi supports fully IRT The kne. ab inv ci e nteaaei er20-7adsupported and 2006-07 year academic the in ved fqaiylei quality of youn l hrwlo h tt from state the of thdrawal uns,and ousness, al par co prah–that – approach lt fsrcue lei structured of ility ce ol ly o u lotedvriyof diversity the also but ion used 25 ns t htever that sts iss vo a impresse was ve ia ll t epe nterrsos oth to response their In people. g ntmswe biased a when times in vi sa n fe alre offer ent -ieatvte o on people young for activities e-time si the ; ftedvlpeto hobb of development the of eso fnnfra dcto.TeLatv The education. non-formal of version n luntar fhobb of eta h IRT the that ue isfunded ties etoe,but mentioned, co ov eshosadrel and schools ve ino hobb of tion as as t pttv features. mpetitive ch eral un paeteatvte avail activities the update youn hioned co mean a lrn However, ildren. su y derstood si l eaegroup age re work, ge etm and time re y T, t epei erigforeign learning in people g un y fwa a on was what of gnifi stion education, es,“conser sense, e rgam n ciiywudentail. would activity and programme new is h Latv the yo esadn h cp fteapoc,teIRT the approach, the of scope the derstanding ad yteex the by d co s a , by as t rciinr oktfrgatdta hobb that granted for tookit practitioners uth y frfehn o nytemethodolog the only not refreshing of ca wa y mplementar s dcto ol entail would education co su sun as nthe in availab h state the c nteLatv the in nce ol hrfr eta h “edu the that be therefore would ca t oatclt drse h Latv the addresses articulate to nts ns etm ciiis rhobb or activities, re-time ia nnot tructive co at is ma oe fhobb of model n by yo emnn critic dermining na dt “cult to ed mnt erig there learning, mmunity 0t 5yasod oe2000ppl were pupils 000 200 Some old. years 15 to 10 s un co le yo it of ny uth sp h offer the praht low- to approach aiybe easily inlrepor tional esadn fliberali of derstanding va nsi fe shbyeduc hobby as offer to ce as rsadtcncleuain It education. technical and orts y y as co ie bac tive” ce ln inst llent youn eigteLatv the dering feno coln nneedlewor in schooling afternoon dcto (State education we able is tiuint h potentia the to ntribution te n hobb and ntres ia s ihritrs dcto nteabove the in education interest either oitlshrs rmteoutsider’s the From spheres. societal rpsl h ecespitdt the to pointed teachers the proposal, n la by as ll . n h eemnto fteLa the of determination the and na people. g ur yo r fhobb of ure ac loi re oatatmr fthe of more attract to order in also dcto”(o xml,arts, example, (for education” e inlo einlfsia,o that or festival, regional or tional t policy uth t co ki is (Ministr la y itutional co ng mdtdbcuethi because mmodated but m education gae and nguages nsi municipalities co yyo by ia by t o-hehl,quality low-threshold, st, eal additional derable n by ia y y y oe210tahr in teachers 100 2 some to eiddteIRT the reminded ation y ca as la Yo utrlhistor cultural n dcto,throughout education, fCide and Children of is the dcto eevsa deserves education t oiystructures, policy uth sa ce embeddedne dcp.Ad o the for And, ndscape. se t Initiative uth ca ore no co inuulyresults usually tion te.The ntres. ce iisto visits ge is ino educators” of tion Co ia fimto fthe of nfirmation y Fo rt in o h nyone only the not tdt h staff the to sted ftahn and teaching of co stubbornnes n uncil ainly as suggestion g l ntne the instance, r impro ptrskills mputer is nt prefer, to on y is education fee at offered Ce fEurope of is co ma sand ss ve i and sis Ce best a ha Fa mmon kind s co y k ment jo tv ntre, to d mily and and sts. ian rity s s - in co-operation with the European Commission, is subject to national, or even individual, interpretation. Cyprus, for instance, is another example (Williamson/ Council of Europe, 2007, pp. 41-43). International co-operation on youth work training has produced a few reports which help to deepen our understanding of non-formal education (Bowyer, 2005; García López, 2005; Chisholm, 2006). They share the understanding that they do not want to impose a set definition, yet highlight a set of commonalities and essential features. Manuela du Bois- Reymond (2003), reflecting upon the relationship between non-formal and formal education in general, identifies specific challenges of providing and organising non-formal education in post-communist countries. They are related to the sudden “openness” of young lives, the devaluation of youth work and the collapse of state-organised voluntary work, and the need to establish a concept of non-formal education that manages to be equally attractive to young people from very different socio-economic backgrounds. Finally, as it does not seem to directly contribute to employability – one of the most urgent requirements of today – non- formal education needs to compete with other more conventional and formalised ways of learning. The IRT found that the State Youth Initiative Centre and the National Youth Council of Latvia promote two distinct interpretations of non-formal education that do not seem to be compatible. On the basis of many discussions and meetings where this issue was addressed, the IRT concludes that both parties need to try to meet each other half way. On the one hand, it is true that the methodology of non-formal education was specifically developed to deal with youth and societal phenomena that would otherwise be difficult to address. In this sense, traditional forms of out- of-school education need to be complemented by open youth activities, following the principles of non-formality. On the other hand, through its traditional hobby education approach, Latvian youth policy has a powerful tool for providing a huge number of young people with an important and comprehensive baseline offer of leisure-time activities that many western European countries can only dream of. 21 Thus, the IRT encourages the progressive forces in youth policy to consider some of the possible consequences of an excessively radical modernisation. Destroying established structures is by far easier than building alternatives from scratch; the ideal approach will combine the consolidation of the present structures with internal, as well as complementary, modernisation of youth work. uth policy yo y domains of Ke

21. According to the recent study on youth activities in Latvia (Laboratory of Analytical and Strategic Study 2007: 73) more than 70% of young people participate in interest or hobby education. 51 52 Youth policy in Latvia example of ilha will Yo yteMinistr the by staff h in The di prtstruhu the throughout operates ur xeddtesaeo non-militar of share the extended Guard impo abou IRT the wi Originally as excur wel ob etoe nthi in mentioned be to has Ca le fteqatttvl otrlvn lei relevant most quantitatively the of Lat the like NGOs ht in that, ra being use gun arms for of use the to relation in organi evc,the service, The Defence. of ur n administered and Guard is sa hthe th fyuhou youth of discus should partie all that proposes IRT The Re throughou of non-formal and work youth Fu on focus clear a with mission, advisory ac to expertise international inviting st available of ins t Guard uth yo mp non-g a as l r activities ure nad fnnfra youth non-formal of andards -sch dvantaged bu 0 aeadfml ebr,btenteae f1 n 8and 18 and 12 of ages the between members, female and male 000 7 about temr,teITis IRT the rthermore, t atcpto r lwybigintroduced, being slowly are participation uth co rt co ta si s vo sa eteoppor the ve ant n,exhibition ons, mnain15 mmendation c,b oei h rm fa of frame the in done be nce, nsistin r par are rdtoa supplementar traditional vi ool vmn of lvement ini Latv in tion is Yo wo h o profes now the of ew ga co ov a t Guard uth Yo ed cre primarily ncerned nLatv in p vi Eu t is t rmna n it – one ernmental y t- fslir n iiin and civilians and soldiers of g t Guar uth rt the youn t ifiut u oteressentia their to due difficult, ucation of fDef of a self-g ual stru s ro Yo fapplrstrateg popular a of vi -sch ov ohthe both pe. nSot n Guides, and Scouts an va t Guard uth tun ia rtesme.TeState The summer. the er youn sdt 8years 18 to ised gpeoplefrom“thestreet”or trsadtencsayitouto finternational of introduction necessary the and ctures u fthe of lue ia ne–there – ence o ciiisin activities ool (Ministr ” s t to ity s Ce n has d co co n iig The hiking. and yteMinistr the by ebr nteamnsrto n edrhpo the of leadership and administration the in members g co yo ov te hl hr eedut n discus and doubts were there While ntre. l epromote be uld co ntext t policy uth un rmn initiative, ernment st co nv hfe its shifted by re tr ( tiuet ifrn eeatdebates. relevant different to ntribute y Jaunsar inc vi y gh n the and ngths wi si Yo sass is s iossm er g,ldt h g threshold age the to led ago, years some minors fDfneo the of Defence of y nlam n h n of end the and army onal novdi ot oiydvlpetin development policy youth in involved is ed hptitc pre-militar patriotic, th ed t ur,both Guard, uth a no was ewr fsome of network a a rhobb or raadnn taltog it abandoning or operated cto.Additional ucation. su hta enhanc an that . Co y La ociated y dz of etm organi re-time fpro of gnatowards agenda va nodrt piieteinterpla the optimise to order in tvia, ni of uncil co y e Yo ta Defence, activitie ,establi ), ob that doubt mpan y d t ur xlctyseek explicitly Guard uth ke dcto ciiislike activities education lly sa xml fbes of example an as vi s wi laun by sincreasingly is Yo ekesso h curr the of weaknesses ding edn oei thi in role leading a hierar wi Eu y h and th, t Initiative uth profes a s Re h rcs.This process. the thadifficult by ro ch a bec has hdin shed to as ulco Latv of public esottr ot policy youth short-term pe ed youn di 08 hr members where 2008, in ed mean the sa ch as a 70 ly tion La clsrcue,btforms but structures, ical fi citizenship much Yo yo na y they , people g va eso fout of version tvian si te.TeIR The ether. col npar in schools m h “larg the ome s uth dcto,the education, t organi uth 92by 1992 s nced nladpermanent and onal fpltpoet.One projects. pilot of co nLatv in eeosyfunded generously fa Ce s70 as mpulsor ur is Guard co milybac ntre, by ia uld s 2004: , h Ministr the , wi ia education ed epc.One respect. .Problems %. h National the si co s t co sa houtdoor th co on en htneeds that ucation. as oengage to a told was T practice l,for uld, y s youth est mputing, kg fi inand tion nsider tn t wi s La militar ll wel offer round. ership n an ing tvia 63 Yo thin as l uth .It ). y - as y y The civic status of youth policy in organisations with a military orientation which involve young people is always questionable. This is true for the Latvian Youth Guard as well as, for instance, their Estonian partner organisations, the “Young Eagles” for men and the “Home Daughters” for women (Stafseng/Council of Europe, 2001: 25; Jasiukaityte/Reiter, 2004). The reservation and mixed feelings with which Latvian youth NGOs, as well as some individual young people whom the IRT were able to question, observe and respond to the Youth Guard and its growing importance is therefore understandable and legitimate. However, during the meeting of the IRT with leaders of the Youth Guard at the Ministry of Defence, the IRT was able to inform itself aboutits multi-dimensional approach and purpose. Given the fact that the Youth Guard covers, amongst other things, traditional areas of youth work and is open to the modernisation of its methodologies, the IRT encourages Latvian youth NGOs – especially those with a partially overlapping agenda – to rethink their prejudices and open up to establishing a well-balanced co-operation. The Youth Guard itself is encouraged to further develop the non- military elements of its activities, such as civic education and volunteering, and to reach out by actively inviting youth NGOs to get involved and contribute their knowledge and expertise. Ideally, such co-operation could benefit young people, as well as help to develop the organisations involved.22

Recommendation 16 The IRT appreciates the non-military share of the activities of the Youth Guard (Jaunsardze) and in particular its contribution to the integration of disadvantaged young people who would otherwise fall through the net of conventional youth activity offers. The IRT encourages Latvian youth NGOs to recognise the value of this work and to seek co-operation where it seems to be appropriate, due to overlapping agendas and principles.

The IRT learned that Latvia – through the State Initiative Centre – has recently introduced an “Award” programme designed to recognise the learning and development of young people within the non-formal arena (that is, out of school). The programme derives from the International Award, which now operates in over 100 countries throughout the world and comprises the accreditation of different levels of achievement in areas such as skills, physical activity, service to others and teamwork through expeditions. The IRT supports this as a framework for uth policy supporting and validating young people’s learning, so long as it builds from the yo personal interests of young people and does not become another “imposition” on their leisure time. The IRT feels that the lessons from the establishment of this award programme should be a focus for discussion during the follow-up to the review in around two years’ time. y domains of

22. During the national hearing, uncertainty concerning the increasing power of military Ke organisations in the youth fi eld was expressed. Furthermore, differences in methods and philosophy between the Youth Guard and youth NGOs with overlapping agendas were highlighted as being the main reasons for persistent reservations concerning co-operation. 53 54 Youth policy in Latvia h IRT The jo h gnyadisrgoa offi regional its and agency the di leave ma of 23 impro the above, discussed As Employment rvosepomn.TeITin IRT The employment. previous the quit to encouraged are additional of months in The 24. h erftr,i re odecre to order in future, near the training the and aspirations their decre Fu for two IRT’s in differen dramatic eas oitindustr Soviet Co inf bad to due restrictions, Mobility nLat in education, poor a to addition In un rainadteeoe npicpe uprsteacti the supports principle, in therefore, and creation b sa Fe . oe’ qa ac equal women’s of availability The with iavnaei term in disadvantage h R ssthe asks IRT The Re rt dtos 200 nditions, ieyi hs are these in likely ge ce We tradto and tter enpar tern Fo emr,teIRT the hermore, bruar ma vnaei the in dvantage co youn s ea.Nvrhls,tepolmof problem the Nevertheless, neral. jo as response a r ce lfare vi re mmendation euiyadsipn into slipping and security b ent ev euain,wihrslsi thousand in results which regulations, leave ternity ha ce (European a in e as is gardtotheir y un as co du eevda h meeting the at received ndout s 200 st ean be to es ohr odo u fepomn and employment of out drop to mothers g t n fthe of one ca esad htteSaeEpomn Agency Employment State the that derstands un in fthe of tue ob e er ago. years few a be to used it yo oltl nodrt nunethe influence to order in little do n 7, y, tr un uth co 23 7 dctoa de educational visi y 7) co by 74 nsi mlyet however employment, n re One . co tnet ufrdsrprintl from disproportionately suffer to ntinue person 3 un the as ce 17 la e lsn thi closing der un La re s cnmcgot n emigration. and growth economic ts: ch Foun un mlyet (and employment, a puzzled was bour st employmen to ss . ma etynoemploymen -entryinto na ma va uhrte oesr htwmnaenta a at not are women that ensure to authorities tvian tr s lcr n rsho aiiisi pr a is facilities preschool and ildcare mlyetta n nadtoa ntneo women’s of instance additional an and trap employment y, fepomn n aorpr labour and employment of inlatoiist thi to authorities tional ent ev,o o fteusua the of top on leave, ternity as in ainfrteImpro the for dation s hc eems affected most were which ma jo were on tasks n,tu,aadnagaate eunt their to return guaranteed a abandon thus, and, b ve rket. cisions, ge is eto h ytmof system the of ment ce un nder vi the as s ras fteLatv the of mlydafter employed s e h Latv the tes un olanaota obv an about learn to for h iceac between discrepancy the e wi oei h euain,s that so regulations, the in hole tructure, employment. la is n h requirements the and hteSaeEpomn gnyindi Agency Employment State the th t youn ck pers , n ed ute impr further needs and nimpor an yo un fsuffi of Tw uth mlyetin employment t epe Sub people. g iss s femtriyev nparticular. in aftermaternityleave o is ia ma un .Terural The t. ia ma uhrte n mlyr in employers and authorities n ve ma ta e e Appendi see ue, uhrte olo nothi into look to authorities n ci ke employment eto iigand Living of ment nre in 24 tpeitrof predictor nt ent la ass ent leave. ternity by busines vo nodrt benefi to order In bour ot ume the as ch ca cini eea,and general, in ection inladprofes and tional on ildcare ossystemic ious Co asun mass co ma si l ca ge co s s fthe of 2mnh,women months, 12 un ie employment, dised s nsi lla vi erespon re ktand rket eegvnfrthe for given were fmteslosing mothers of ea) uigthe during neral), mnte nthe in mmunities eeomn ver development ov ispro ties e- as e h Ministr the der ps x eal regional derable youn co 5. ement. fa un fteformer the of e such la ci employment. dto for ndition employment ormarket bour iiswhich lities people’s g ma t si vi ca fa is Wo from bilities. ded fl ci e that tes ternity not si win aw litate rking onal six by as s y y paid temporary work and other remedial schemes of training and retraining, are common measures offered by public employment agencies. However, the second most important measure of the agency, in terms of numbers, stands out and requires some reconsideration and criticism: the State Employment Agency organises summer employment for children and pupils between the ages of 13 and 18 in general, specialist or professional education. In the year 2006, some 11 500 pupils participated in the period between 1 June and 31 August. The number of both pupils and employers involved is increasing, due to the popularity of the measure. With the aim of offering the opportunity to work during school holidays and to acquire basic job skills and work experience, summer employment engages pupils for a maximum of two months in “real life” employment of four hours a day, or more, depending on age; certain sectors of the economy and types of employment are excluded. The wage of half the minimum salary is subsidised by the State Employment Agency. While the IRT sympathises with some features of this scheme of summer employment for pupils, it is critical especially of the low threshold of 13 years, which is exceptional compared to regulations in other countries (European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, 2007, Annex 3). On the one hand, such a form of summer work, with the permission of the legal guardian avoids involvement in illegal work and provides young people with a fair chance to earn pocket money and gain work experience, while becoming familiar with an everyday work routine and working relationships. The IRT was informed that the overall internal evaluation of this measure by pupils and employers was positive. On the other hand, however, the IRT wonders whether the main purpose of providing school holidays is to make pupils available for work, instead of allowing them an extended period of recreational leisure time and family activities. As the impressive eagerness of young people to earn money in this way can be indicative of the family’s difficult economic situation – indeed, the IRT was told that children from large families are given priority – the Latvian authorities need to make sure this system of pre-employment does not actually turn into a significant contribution to poverty management in families and households. Finally, subsidised summer employment consumes a lot of the State Employment Agency’s funds for “unproblematic” pupils who are in education anyway, while these funds would otherwise be available to problematic groups like unemployed young people. uth policy yo y domains of Ke

55 56 Youth policy in Latvia UIE,2000, (UNICEF, r ver are Fo (EUR h usino rwn phealth up growing of question The He Latv re as post-communism, ae fyugpol,the people, young of rates funding Co ser health ht– that are disparities regional the in efforts related health La la ge Fu visits. two ck ga ntne ept retmna health mental urgent despite instance, r tv re rmeooial ekfmle n oshls the advise households; and families weak economically from fognsn lentv om fwr,o outr ai n withou and basis voluntary a on work, direct of forms alternative organising of to them umrempl summer h rtcinof protection The Re saciia civmn fmdr oite.I sfrthis of for is employment It summer societies. tha modern thinks of IRT achievement critical a is ed Fu public in people aet snta appropriate an not is parents ch directly families eal re ult ser quality free, nerally ngres al ia ia ursatoog investigation. thorough a quires dt the to rd ffnsadspecialists. and funds of temr,gvntefc htmr n oeyugpeople young more and more that fact the given rthermore, legn n sometimes and allenging OST cto ni hyae1 or 18 are they until ucation co th 2003). , (a y iss mnain18 mmendation as s co fi AT, s omk uetha sure make to d ifiut and difficult, co aca netv,sol eexplor be should incentive, nancial e nLatv in ues 06 oee,the However, 2006. vi n fteoffici the of one ecnaeo h GDP) the of percentage a odntdhealth -ordinated st cr bu h lac the about ncern ce 200 La r ann okeprec as experience work gaining art uns rt as s vawhen tvia Co emr,teIR the hermore, ch 7, t atisfactor oy ns pe n NCF 2001, UNICEF, and 2 apter h underlying the . tabl ment n ftetppirte dnie uigteLatv the during identified priorities top the of one qety h R ecmstepoietsau rne to granted status prominent the welcomes IRT the equently, h R sugges IRT The ch ia fi hyaentrosfrterlwlvlo health of level low their for notorious are they lrnadyugpol rmhrflwr experiences work harmful from people young and ildren .)nest be to needs 3.2) e l fhat ser health of eld n ps co yo co ch vi ychotherap ge y nsiderab R was IRT ce t oiy cr policy, uth l hnbenefi then uld oigt atcpt nsme employment. summer in participate to oosing als t ch ca s oet so no of is poverty neralhealth was T ra lrnin ildren stil e–“the – re k co fa re hreoieissues. emotive ther fsme ciiisfor activities summer of mne,pitn oteprecarious the to pointing mmented, tta the that ct l 19 re nomdthat informed snfrteetbiheto uhasys a such of establishment the for ason re e nth In le. ts sn o h ouaiyo adpart-time paid of popularity the for asons is y y Ch quire yea nomdta,although that, informed is a rcial impos practically vi l aortraditional labour ild mn h oeti the in lowest the among ro la ystallisi sod hr sn obvious no is there old, rs a La ce bus situ gs enemy rgest co sres is co cr t va rmteaeof age the from tvia, ,wihwr ihihe uigIRT’s during highlighted were which s, ch early ed iss disadvantage tcloefor one itical nsi nsi t to JitIcuinMemorandum, Inclusion (Joint ation ov pe ) Latv 3). apter re h fund The . eae“nthe “in debate e,rflce ntehg sui high the in reflected ues, ee hnrveigthe reviewing when dered et it pect, gi h oinof notion the in ng eal private derable iist ment to visits eac to levance eral as l 13 health is Ins . spriual unfortunate particularly is sibl s La h Ministr the ch curr d co ia va uhrte are authorities tvian te ch oac to e lrnwt working with ildren ly on epeand people young is d h possibility the ad, un ca lhealth al lrnadyoung and ildren re elhservic health en ro oex no re eepniuein expenditure re co re dutn to adjusting tries ris“victims” cruits n”o these on und” l subsidising tly snta the that ason 25 ntribution 13 ce ca yo y ce EU re ss re fFinance”. of re uth-friendly onwards, specialists ption, snfor ason u oa to due , anin main ia co pr iss n ovision Al un te yo es Yo s eof ue so, t m. tries wi ci uth- and a uth are de th As a recent study indicates (Laboratory of Analytical and Strategic Study 2007: 69-71), one of the main reasons for young people’s discontent with health care results from restrictions when choosing a medical doctor for free treatment. The primary access point to health care is the institution of the assigned “family- doctor”, a general practitioner who can then refer for further treatment.

For young people from the countryside, the most signiﬁcant aspect mentioned is the lack of conﬁdentiality in the health care system. Quite often they don’t visit doctor because they are afraid that doctor will tell someone else about the visit and afterwards their friends and acquaintances will know about it.

The researchers point at the problem that for young people, a doctor’s visit is free only through a family doctor, but if they don’t want to go to a family doctor in their parish or city, then they need to pay themselves for the medical examination, that again prohibits health care due to fi nancial inaccessibility (Laboratory of Analytical and Strategic Study 2007: 71). On the basis of the discussions in Latvia and the visit to one of the few recently established Children and Youth Health Centres, the IRT is keen to share some of this concern. On the one hand, institutions like this could play an important role in providing information about health issues and promoting healthy life styles. While young people mentioned to us that they would initially address questions about (sexual) health, as well as problems in general, to friends and parents, there certainly remains a significant need for specialised professional counselling and guidance. On the other hand, however, the IRT was not convinced that the institution visited could guarantee the confidentiality and expertise that the particularly sensitive area of youth counselling would require. Also, it was not clear whether the target group would consist of children or of young people – each group requires different counselling methods and expertise. Although the staff were highly committed to the agenda and open to dealing with issues, ranging from teenage pregnancy to drug abuse or human trafficking, there was an obvious lack of experience in handling more delicate scenarios like these. For instance, the IRT was surprised to learn that, from the perspective of health counselling, there were still doubts whether people seeking advice for drug addiction faced a primarily medical or criminal condition. In view of the complex but open questions of choice, quality, coverage and uth policy

conﬁdentiality involved in youth health counselling – issues that are equally yo relevant for the overall health system – the IRT found that some key questions with regard to youth-friendly health services still need to be answered thoroughly in order to locate this approach appropriately, within the wider institutional frame of general health services:

– Is the movement towards youth-friendly health services a response to y domains of

the generally problematic situation concerning health services in Latvia, Ke thus a form of remedy that should benefit especially young people at the beginning of their lives? The general lack of qualified professionals is relevant here, as well as the fact that more than 30% of all currently 57 58 Youth policy in Latvia o udn.The funding. for ac health additional the the despite discretion, teachers’ the ac in education health that nte difficult Another is pu extended there that co la epefo h g f9yasowrs–aepartly are – onwards years 9 of age the from people activities, prevention of Issue dise transmitted critic wi t suppor its h AI The Po la nwr oteeqetos nodrt ebt prpit n effective and appropriate both be to order in questions, these to answers clear ck hthe th h only the ce co h IRT The 19 Recommendation elhsrie ihnthe within services health pr health of level and experience International co services. additional the by co ne h mlmnaino t rmss o ins For promises. its of implementation the sy the fo ntemporar iystr licy bl 17 na r ssi ctlrneo ooeul n eulmnrte nscey Meanwhile, society. in minorities sexual and homosexuals of tolerance ic neln swl saoyoshat evcsa ntttosfrequent institutions at services health anonymous as well as unselling neln hudb ae sexamples. as taken be should unselling dnl.Sxeducation Sex rdingly. eds is fkoldeaoteffective about knowledge of Or, – s er (in years on epeo neveryda an on people young DS co inlrepor tional dfor ed of no Latv of on fietaiyadtefedmto freedom the and nfidentiality st ov repo phy employed dlsta tjsie eaaetreatment separate justifies it that adults co and ntedvlpeto ot-redyhat evcs Th services. health youth-friendly of development the in at t mt impr to em as gov eral egies o h rmto of promotion the for re is nfidentialit yo y syoun is ge co ST twere, it rt retne o cin h respon the action: for need urgent rmn nttto dealing institution ernment l fa nerally mnsa mmends nstr on Prevention I oiia praht etittesra fHIV/AID of spread the restrict to approach political ce as y t.Teeprec fteAI the of experience The uth. t thi ct, ia ta co teitself ntre t neeti h rvninwr tschool at work prevention the in inherent samong es ov gtdtowards rgeted oteErpa no hysfe rmahigher a from suffer they Union European the to neln activ unselling (Ministr epeshat eaiu over so behaviour health people’s g at ov so ead clarifi demands ision ov wi y s fa sici ge o oilpoeto n so and protection social for egies its e and erlap hrgr oHIV/AID to regard th vrg age average ge ln opro to iling an ea,ada coli atclr ed ob adapted be to needs particular, in school at and neral, y is st Ce co ca ov fl youn s fCide and Children of ro xblt n viaiiy swl sdsrto in discretion as well as availability, and exibility o par not nfiden wi tei Riga in ntre suppor n rl framework. erall r ntepertrmn rpe or pre-retirement the in are yo nger hteaeaeaefrsatn eulrelatio sexual starting for age average the th t-redyhat ser health uth-friendly epe Offi people. g te fNO ar NGOs of ities youn vi ways ce eteaporaeser appropriate the de y un t co fa ftecriuu u nieydpnson depends entirely but curriculum the of eeaogtoeaddressed.The those among were t tta h eerheiec nlddin included evidence research the that ct ai,lk schools, like basis, sdrto fyugpol’ actual people’s young of nsideration elnsta a that derlines epewudne ob informed be to need would people g hs Gsol ehdlgclyadit and methodologically only NGOs these is frsodn otehtrgniyof heterogeneity the to responding of wi ch ca n fteinsti the of one hthese th oeone’ oose ino the of tion DS S Fa Fu – ci ta iyAfis 07 8 indicates 78) 2007: Affairs, mily and linstitution al temr,tegnrlylow generally the rthermore, decreasi e ta ? c,atv gender active nce, si gtdat rgeted iiiso ulceducation, public of bilities co ST iss rrupted s Prevention I la st vi ues. ci preferr y g rprinof proportion rge tso youth-friendly of atus ce licuin 200 inclusion, al tu st ifrn rmta of that from different g eas ic the since because ng, vi ,frit for s, tion nad nyouth in andards co ce nsi ch s s by l eamong be uld fhealth of ed lrnand ildren to s nae(National age on eut rmthe from results h low the htarticulated that ei S youn otrasks doctor co Ce r n sexually and co -s rresponded demands teshows ntre ensitive mpetition people. g ca ce ge youn youn 7) eare re ntre’s neral ed . ns by . g g people actually become sexually active well before they reach 17). The fact that almost half of young people between the ages of 15 and 24 do not know how to protect themselves against sexually transmitted diseases strongly indicates that the private context is not sufficient as a source of information even if, as young people affirmed in several discussions, parents and friends are the fi rst to be approached for advice. Some of the fi ndings of a recent study launched by the National Youth Council collecting, amongst other things, young people’s thoughts for improving the health fi eld, underline the need for more active, more visible counselling as well as practical support for young people’s needs. Two of the suggestions are indicative: – “free consultations for young people on topics such as family planning, sexual health and all kinds of addictions”, – “condom vending machines in Latvian towns – for free” (National Youth Council of Latvia, 2007).

Recommendation 20 In view of the continuously decreasing age for starting sexual activities in Latvia and elsewhere, and the persistent threat of sexually transmitted infections, the IRT believes that sex education for young people both within and outside schools needs to be improved considerably. Responsible sex education will provide up-to-date information, expertise and counselling, while at the same time promoting responsibility, competence, and tolerance towards sexual orientations.

In the course of a meeting dedicated to youth research in Latvia, the IRT was informed that the issue of drug and substance abuse is one of the Ministry of Health’s priorities, in terms of research funding. Since 1995, Latvia has participated in the European School Survey Project on Alcohol and Other Drugs (ESPAD), which investigates and monitors trends in alcohol and drug habits among students in European countries. The latest available results indicate that, especially with regard to alcohol consumption and smoking, Latvian youth is above average, compared to the other participating countries, while other

forms of substance abuse seem to be less widespread (Hibell et al., 2004; uth policy

Stirna, 2006). The IRT was informed by youth researchers that, according to yo the latest yet unpublished results of the ESPAD survey in 2007, the problem of alcohol abuse has got worse. Evidence provided in the national report (Ministry of Children and Family Affairs, 2007: 79) dramatically underlines the related policy concern.

The IRT’s discussions with youth policy actors, as well as young people, indicated y domains of an additional, social dimension to mass drinking: the pervasiveness of alcohol- Ke related images of social marginalisation in society. The responses to the IRT’s astonishment at meeting the many civically committed, communicative and well-educated young people included the common reference to the metaphor of 59 60 Youth policy in Latvia co The r ute indi further are by the h health suggestion the of list long a includes general a Apar schools. at implemented IR be ietyrlvn ee–hat nqaiisi Latv in inequalities health – here relevant directly quantitatively a ma segmen despite health promote to order 200 is co redyShosInitiative, Schools Friendly Ca programmes far,20:7)together 78) 2007: Affairs, among 200 UNICEF, 2006; expectanc life they women; nuts, R wonder IRT that Health they extent; higher much a to T. h R ul hrsthe shares fully IRT The Recommendation on epesvleaiiyt rgadsbtnemss.I particular, In misuse. mas substance of and problem drug the to vulnerability people’s young Both po in everyd abuse the alcohol and drinking of traditions behaviou measures The re uns un pro ie fMnsesit Ministers of binet yo the jo 7, youn n ciiyta h IRT the that activity One pne,wihaeal oadestegne n oet susattac issues poverty and gender the address to able are which sponses, na dtelvlo the of level the nd re r strongly are tries r co vi l pupils all elling. ch ma inlrepor tional e reof free ded co youn t ordjlyset n weee drinks. sweetened and sweets jelly loured by legsfrasceylk Latv like society a for allenges g nthe in l ept riea possible at arrive to help uld yofr o ntttoa nerto.O h other the On integration. institutional for offers ny ba o ntne h otdikindustr drink soft the instance, for , ma s r situ ge oe eo h g f1 year 18 of age the below women g hte thi whether nuhatyfo tschoo at food unhealthy on n ngnrl to general, in ay ta ta rnigbe ln ntepr.Thi park. the in alone beer drinking n y drdfeecsi ieepcac are expectancy life in differences nder gtdspecifi rgeted to of ation ntereception the in ke ca fsm e er rmr (Cent more or years ten some of ntaino on epet ritual to people young of initiation ma uns co oso h edfratv and active for need the of tors oedus r affected are drugs, more 7) t ch uld ktof rket 21 eie ru of group pecified ept the Despite . (Ministr rea h ee fprimar of level the at arge ge s is ra y ma s drd Yug e drin men (Young) ndered. youn rnigsesto seems drinking ge ietlsa an at lifestyles rhbtdt se to prohibited g rmmr cieyen actively more from nge co re wi ea rciinr(aiydoctor) (family practitioner neral youn laun cr of ncern sear ca y trde not does tter wa epe al people, g ha hthe th t fCide and Children of rmprogramme from lly ls e lunc get class t ohighlight to nts eahge ucd ik n a and risk, suicide higher a ve ch g ch tbt boy both at s ass ed co notespecifi the into fatvte n oiystr policy and activities of fa ns La by ertion tta epcieprofes respective that ct ro youn mr.Ac umers. va ot oiyatr with actors policy youth tvian ia ea t fadsltost h problem. the to solutions and of ots h WHO, the ll nteone the On . l ca l g n prevent and age rly swas ls fwihaeflysupported fully are which of o xml cri – example for – by call usdr who outsiders g by o re utemr,teNutrition- the Furthermore, free. for h s ll la y n il.Tehg abortion high The girls. and et rmijre n poisoning and injuries from death o lsrinvestigation, closer for s s ersnaie fteMinistr the of representatives Fa o retadefciepolicy effective and urgent for is y etn h los the menting (Ministr rmtn phy promoting st ral ia co k c colad rm1September 1 from and, school iyAfis 200 Affairs, mily ge nrdcdadimplemented, and introduced h exemplar the -S n mk oeta (young) than more smoke and oi-itrcloiisand origins socio-historical s is dn oaregulation a to rding n nohrpost-communist other in and s co ttsia ueuo Latv of Bureau Statistical nder-sen ov fex of fi en u nopatc.In practice. into put being image s fal of rst rgn oiiehealth positive uraging e oite,a elas well as societies, iet ha y d hr em obe to seems there nd, fCide and Children of ce sv loo use. alcohol ssive is sha is ca si at ha co l si ch sp si tive okrltd the work-related, y ntb reached be nnot niaieo two of indicative ge oimpro to egies s onal nsi d–adthi and – nd ca lho obesity ildhood s, fa impor an of urto policy nutrition dyavailab rdly l eal lower derably 7, ch yo ciiy milk activity, co re p 82-85) pp. t health uth ips, as adto gard uns wel fi he by by Fa sa gures elling mily d. ta lted y is s as l the the ia le ve nt of , , Sports policy Latvian sports policy is based on the sports law, adopted in 2002, sports policy guidelines for 2005-09 and the National Sport Development Programme (NSDP) for 2006-12. The sports policy guidelines 2005-09 and the NSDP 2006-12 focus on sport for all, physical education, competitive sports and sport for disabled persons. Both the national report and the meeting with representatives of the Sports Department of the Ministry of Education gave the impression that the sports policy is well organised and sport, as such, is greatly valued in Latvia. The number of young people engaged in educational training groups (Professionally Orientated Sports Education Programme) amounts to 35 687; the corresponding fi gure in informal education (Education of Interests) is 35 453. There are 2 983 sports facilities, 27 national sports centres and 17 051 registered young athletes, 80 sports federations and 435 sports clubs in Latvia. According to the Study of Youth, Social and Political Activity (2007) 34.9% of young people are engaged in sports in their leisure time. Sport seems to play a significant role in young people’s lives in Latvia. However, the role and tasks of the consultative body – the Youth Sports Council, subordinate to the ministry’s Sports Department – were not clearly defined in relation to other bodies and NGOs active in the fi eld of sport. An open question is how the new trends in practising sport are taken into account in Latvia. The growing tendency to practise sport individually, rather than collectively in sports clubs or organisations, poses a challenge to the authorities. The IRT welcomes the use of sport as an instrument for social inclusion, integration and equal opportunities, and for combating discrimination (for example, the Children’s and Youth Festival of Minority Nationalities of Latvia). Efforts to make sports activities environmentally sustainable (such as the Footprints project) are also very positive. There are many innovative projects going on, or already carried out, including the Volunteer Programme, Dreams and Teams, Be Active, and Posture Teaching. These projects could be used as examples of best practice in the European context. Implementing the NSDP 2006-12 (financial resources and concrete action plans for the implementation of the programme), drafting and adopting a new physical education law, as well as strengthening co-operation with other bodies active in the sports fi eld and intensifying co-operation with the Ministry of Health, were uth policy identifi ed as the future challenges of the sports fi eld. yo

Recommendation 22 The IRT welcomes the Latvian initiative to strengthen co-operation between the sport and health sectors, in order to reduce overweight, obesity and y domains of other health risks. It might also be useful to intensify the co-operation with other ministries (for example the Ministry of Children and Family Affairs) in Ke order to make full use of the possibilities provided by the EU Youth in Action programme and other EU funds.

61 62 Youth policy in Latvia n atclrpolmi h raof area the in problem particular One Ce rnprns or grandparents’ wi independentl IRT the of attention for for ept the Despite on epelv ihu aetlsuper parental without live people young orp iteaottepatclitrcinof interaction As practical the about IR little the Affairs, Family and Children Fa the n rsho dcto,o h shif the or education, preschool and ob syste to seems bod Thi abroad. ava uhrte,lk in like authorities, Latvian ol loepanwyteaoeetoe study aforementioned the why explain also would fa nwsensocieties western in the h Ministr the (National Ko emn) Statistic differen Germany). a or in UK work and live they because holidays, only usually who people iss schoo ndiscu in Plan: Development in the of status The of impact and relevance h “impro The both in policy, tta the that ct hteMinistr the th ta ttsia ueuo Latv of Bureau Statistical ntral vi iypolicy, mily eo eal defining legally of ue ma hans fa Will si co eas ous (Min fa the and society The 2006: fi milies geprn oshls be households, ngle-parent l yplc ouet such documents policy ny rsodn oiyme policy rresponding rst iisaentol hmevstebenefit the themselves only not are milies asn(08 indicates, (2008) iamson oa mt oe eas hi aet r okn.TeITmet IRT The working. are parents their because home, empty an to tern ssi si fa is and vi ma Yo gnifi on mily tr 41 y s wo h elnn birth declining the of ew ve wi y uth yo ci fa raeand rriage fChildren, of co ) wi s eto h demographic the of ment of yof ty ch hmr hntwo than more th tta h respon the that ct ca t agenda uth ma is l eanew, a be uld Re y Co ildren c.It nce. th h ba the fa ch wi fHat,adoc uigdiscus during once and Health, of ial saeteatninof attention the escape tically inlDvlpetand Development gional uncil mily pa Re youn hrltvs eas hi parent their because relatives, th as l efr,socia welfare, ild ssing ze hto “lat of that i un sic wi fi may is fLatv of ass n.I per hta that appears It kne. ha s epe h IRT The people. g rst yo Fa creasing hu parental thout ntesaeo thi of scale the on tthe at is eteoppor the ve no moral of on t,i em fage, of terms in uth, iyand mily cae policies. ociated ch as to oit;it society; of it wel oercn respon recent more a eas l rn th trend a – ild rsta r u for put are that ures ia l ia ch 200 , co enErpa eso fapeoeo known phenomenon a of version European tern si eta,i the in that, be ch y ca as has T co ch 2006b: lrn(Min ildren iiyfor bility eo Latv of re ntooc two on ke s fterhge oet risk, poverty higher their of use ra , mnigon mmenting l eet,extending benefits, ild Yo 7) y ausare values fo ch eadthe and te t tun ch t Affairs. uth fa ntne h currently the instance, r towards h mrsino aiglandrather learned having of impression the ca situ ildc Lo l ca mily, lrn that – ildren” is ca 43 protection lls vision t ome hi aet uigschool during parents their meet to ity ca e diinlsuppor Additional re. s yo ar ia h lc hr h phy the where place the ation” nyagree only n -4 twsas un also was at l ca hnmnnaentavailab not are phenomenon o h eaigo h ministr the of renaming the for is oilpltc.Thi politics. social n and e oeneto the of Government t policy uth eevr u lotewoesociety. whole the also but receivers 4) ch tr si co nue.Benefi ensured. ca yo . y ma on co fa t l efr and welfare ild and si nsi eo Latv of se wa t oiyrves ept its despite reviews, policy uth co of by mily-based iiyo h ministr the of bility ea is tnigtedo postponing of trend ntinuing Fu s ke fa si un eal ubro Latv of number derable We dadimplemented and rd nedrn h meeting the during once – h National the le eiw,thi reviews, rlier rt a s ca s on iiswsbr was milies emr,the hermore, tr is ma etthe left tdiffi it fr,20;Lc,2007; Lace, 2007; lfare, e rte iea their at live they or re, wi s y swi is ch wi gnrlyIead the Ireland, (generally jo fa animously hteimpor the th lrnrtrigfrom returning ildren ia th r ci thi , ci utto cult hteMinistr the th co iisfor lities ca re fsuppor of aries Re youn co cr of ncern essesfor systems re yo is t is s ulco Latv of public va is s si Yo un ca t policies. uth uh othe to ought i National lid epein people g uth un tr ass l as u othe to due y. expressed co neces s y eea of renewal ch resolved n thi And ta nfi owork to domain es Co wel ildc le by c of nce fa youn rmed s uncil mily sa as y y and as l the the ar ia t ia of ry to n e g s , the IRT is of the opinion that the problem deserves further investigation and, if indicated, specific and concerted policy responses. There are several family policy and social protection topics that are usually of general relevance in youth policies, which had not been addressed during the tight schedule of the IRT’s visit to Latvia, nor in the national report. The IRT feels unable to comment on these issues, but wants to remind the Latvian authorities not to disregard them in their future policy development. The status of orphans and young people in residential care remained largely unexplored. The problem of human trafficking was mentioned several times, especially during our visits to the cities of Cesis and Rezekne. Yet, apart from articulating the general concern and pointing to the obvious links to the “life-worlds” of young women in particular, there was hardly any reference to policy responses, or even specific expertise. Domestic violence is an issue which seems to have a similarly “low profile”. Finally, and connected to the unexplored question of youth housing, issues like that of street children (especially in big cities) and young people out of education have not been discussed at all during the two visits, or mentioned in the national report, although research indicates that they seem to be among the rather disturbing side effects of the transformation (Lukasinska, 2002). All these issues call for closer investigation in the future.

Recommendation 23 The IRT suggests underlining the additional youth agenda at the Ministry of Children and Family Affairs symbolically by, for instance, adapting the Ministry’s name. The IRT also believes that, in view of critical policy issues like lone parenthood among young people, lacking childcare facilities, or young people living without parental supervision due to emigration, the youth agenda needs to be embedded more ﬁ rmly into the established structures of family policy.

Youth justice New directions in criminal justice policy in Latvia are only just beginning to take root, but they already reﬂect a progressive and impressive vision. The extent to uth policy which they have been implemented, however, is more questionable. The IRT was yo told that, with regard to youth custody, “not much has really changed since Soviet times”, despite warm words and good intentions. Nevertheless, some of those good intentions are already taking shape and, as

with most countries, there is particular focus on young offenders: preventing y domains of

further offending and preventing youth crimes in the fi rst place. This emphasis is Ke to be welcomed. For those offenders who have already found their way into the prison system, the broad objective is now less to do with elementary punishment and more to do with remotivation and resocialisation, through the provision of 63 64 Youth policy in Latvia ov those and, schools, in training seilythose especially the in work juveniles, for prison one fo only not ch eeomna st developmental h g fciia respon criminal of age The introduced. been 18. oofnesi the in offenders to n h pr the and pre-tria of insuffici eetees there Nevertheless, who ser probation state The “socia more development the and education ca suppor rbto n oilser social and probation rsca worker social or htteITwitne IRT the what impro be “so h uhrte were authorities The such – eiul cur seriously muni lo nthe in wi There rciefo oa xeine Thi experience. local from practice the (or ex-pr hc udssbeun eeso nevnin Thi intervention. and of levels subsequent guides which norgmn opriiaein participate to encouragement preven ca heuainadepomn.Ntby there Notably, employment. and education th eptit rcie h ulcorder public The practice. into put be n legs utbeepomn oppo employment suitable allenges: eral sa ci Wi l ha is ci al cindframnsrtv transgres administrative for nctioned ps ee ac level ve hnthe thin l ov is co nr r roiygroup priority are oners a parents’ pal ta t as ebe mrsndadtheir and imprisoned been ve co e rgamsfrreh for programmes new – la cooia upr,pr support, ychological n specifi c ent h ult of quality the ftepoainser probation the of r1 and 18 er iewr starts work tive mnt tog summer (though mmunity togble that belief strong a ck rrection l rnigi ulcplaces. public in drinking h super the r eot,the reports, vso of ovision lly fi)are it) of co ta co yo l what ils mmunity positive”. dn oresourc to rding t rsn–i line in – prison uth co as g fprovis of age ce co sdbt in both ssed mtigbece of breaches mmitting co co ntre” is they la o only not clear iinof vision mpulsor rgams n ver and programmes, ce otcsoysuppor post-custody ea mnt,including mmunity, unci ca serious a un vi ca ta to ntral is vi l nevnin ept the despite intervention, rly wi edn,fo h pr the from done, be n si ce un der go ce c 2005, nce te ls. si oelikely more a han th salse n2003, in established , e h uhrt fteMinistr the of authority the der s, bility igfor ring taki vi bu hi uis oeso practice of Models duties. their about y fedr nthe in offenders Pa fa co ce o,btthere but ion, s oilwr o hs ewe h gso 1and 11 of ages the between those for work social e fsil,wihwill which skills, of mily rents youn co ovi co ass gof ng o Latv for Ce tiuet preven to ntribute osupporting to ) avai is is s bu their about ab mtett preven to mmitment srcieliuetm activity leisure-time nstructive i n Rez and sis ded youn wi smn fa of essment ca 4 u rmteaeo 11 of age the from but 14, a over has ilitation, fa epesrelationship people’s g ci la obe to hnwdvlpet ntepio system prison the in developments new th mp ma ea milies. cmtne n aetlrespon parental and rcumstances iiy profes bility, ia epeae rm1 to 14 from aged people g by l rele rly co civil y, ha s si rt sso ’s youn t. ns iiinof division on co un ned ac indeed, y h local the tdlvr ag fprogrammes of range a delivers It enfre labour forced seen qec o oe ee offenders, level lower for equence iinbtal but vision rules sastrong a is enwbe established been now ve mne.Both mmended. co s vso of ovision te,lmtdhmnresourc human limited ities, co limited ke there ekne, fedr,ofr eiasand seminars offers offenders, g ci as and mnt,btfrtepreparation the for but mmunity, rcinaddevelopment and rrection is licuinstr inclusion al co youn ca fo custody), (from e assist ta fe close often ra tc between ntact may may s si re a rries fa ieand tive hrta h criminal the than ther nlrelationship onal tta there that ct person’s g fi co h oie lnsd the alongside police, the ta gov pu na esn oasemi-secure a to sent be niiul nbecoming in individuals iepatc,we thi when practice, tive pn oieoffi police a mpany es fbidn best building of sense oaotthe about so y nld oilwelfare social include psflinter rposeful ca resourc ncial ce rmn,mentoring, ernment, of sasrn eieto desire strong a is ta respon ntral ca wi Ed youn youn co hthe th pinn work. mpaigning at cto.There ucation. rgamsfor programmes -operation 21 ci and eg is youn rcumstances, epeand people g ass people g . y Co oseparate no va assista n,from and, persis la s essments mpulsor people g ry ventions es wi w. n the and si si tthe at hthe th Thi . bility, Most bility co ha wi ting ca nce ce es de ve th is n s s y r , department dedicated to youth crime prevention and consequently no formal budget line. Nor, to date, has there been much co-operation or involvement of civil society organisations, which might support both prevention and rehabilitation work in the fi eld of youth offending.

Recommendation 24 The IRT was impressed by the work of the criminal justice agencies working with young people: probation, prison service and police. Their practice is at an early stage of development and their resources are limited, but their stated position is worthy of strong political support: a commitment to prevention, the improvement of interventions and programmes, both in the community and in custody, and the need to work collaboratively with social services, schools and parents’ organisations. A more explicit youth crime prevention strategy, supported by a budget line and seeking to engage expertise within civil society, could conceivably be the next step in what is already a commendable process. uth policy yo y domains of Ke

Chapter 5 Cross-cutting key issues for youth policy

The above discussion of separate and substantive key domains of youth policy needs to be complemented by key issues that cut across these domains; they are relevant in more than one policy ﬁ eld and can constitute independent policy tasks. In his synthesis reports of the previous international youth policy reviews of the Council of Europe, Howard Williamson (2002, 2008) suggests the distinction of the following key issues: youth participation and citizenship, social inclusion, youth information, multiculturalism and minorities, mobility and internationalism, equal opportunities, radicalisation/reaction versus conformity, local versus global pressures, the use of new technologies, centre/periphery, urban/rural polarisation, elites and outsiders, environmental issues, and the role of diaspora. With the diversity of contexts of youth policy reviewed by the Council of Europe, this list of key issues keeps growing. Some of them have universal signiﬁcance,

some emerge with the progress of social change, and some refer to important uth policy

commonalities of certain national “containers” of youth policy. For the Latvian yo case, the discussion focuses on the key issues of youth participation and r fo citizenship, youth information, elites and outsiders, the polarisation of urban and rural contexts, and, ﬁ nally, social inclusion, which embraces issues of equal opportunities and minorities.

Youth participation and citizenship Participation and citizenship are two categories in youth policy that address

the vertical dimension of including young people into processes of decision s-cutting key issues

making and power sharing, as well as their access to rights and entitlements os that are legally or normatively relevant for their every day life experience (Hall/ Cr Williamson, 1999). In combination, these two aspects can, ideally, involve young people in powerful and active forms of citizenship, that benefit both individuals and their communities. In practice, activities can range from participation in 67 68 Youth policy in Latvia hs om of forms those on study The dec of forms to 200 Study, Pu immediate n httheir what and le pa in and al nearly that indicate detail, in cult here in participate repeated people be to multifaceted too are in netgt the investigate wi gov ha ab the to addition In before. discussed a repo Gymnasium ewe col ntedistrict the in schools between ntergoa n oa ee (Ministr level local and regional the on schools, co St limits their are es do How youth through people young of representation political The yo numbers, school etns eiasadpatclwor practical and seminars meetings, hi function Their htte r ersne nthe in represented are they that ersnaiesrcue tshosadhg col (Laborator schools high and schools at structures representative atcpto r rmtdadencouraged and promoted are participation student ex worker un al ast ov l ra ra e tutrsof structures der is t atcpto nLatv in participation uth nis which uncils, dimpres nd pil e h Ministr the der va co rmn structures ernment isi g foppor of nge .Ac t. ei td,20:8) hyact They 85). 2007: Study, tegic 63 rt iu oil utrladpltclatvte.Terslso h td,which study, the of results The activities. political and cultural social, rious ntrso quantity of terms in peettepicture the mplement rt gov rLatv er on stil , s npltclactivities. political in % clr ob o low too be to icular, co gov co co 74 rmnspa netbihdrl nthe in role established an play ernments maki unci vo ta odnt n suppo and -ordinate l dn orcn rese recent to rding nitrs n hobb and interest in % 7) tablis co rmns losometimes also ernments, ke luntar in co ia si tx forigin. of ntext rw a draws ls, s ng. n ntoemncplte hr hyaeavailab are they where municipalities those In . yo Ce n h IRT The on. nsi way ch yo wi r rmrl nenl ser internal, primarily are as co tun e om flocal of forms hed t ciiisi Latv in activities uth as sis y ne r fbighadadbcmn eeat eodtheir beyond relevant, becoming and heard being of are ances t atcpto in participation uth der hnterlclstig?Adhwaethey are how And settings? local their thin y ss fu to up of nsist yo eibemro fraiy indi reality, of mirror reliable a of nwih(local) which in te opriiaeaeatal avail actually are participate to ities wel okt respon to work n eodr colN.5o Re of 5 No. School Secondary and t policy uth Ed yo as co as l cto n cec.Smlrsrcue ex structures Similar Science. and ucation t atcpto,adengagemen and participation, uth ural . pe and mplex neape h follow the example, an ia ha h iitr fteschool the of ministers the utemr,it furthermore, ; . ev by h IR The h oppor the d Ye . rt nsadenter and ents maki ar co yo t hs pupil these w uisfo eac from pupils two ch y h uhr ftestudy, the of authors the mnigo h ult n h hw of “how” the and quality the on mmenting uth yo dcto,7%i oiladpbi activities, public and social in 73% education, some , sibl gi Lat in ng T, as yo co t neet r articu are interests uth ge ia y co t atcpto oki rcie What practice? in work participation uth however ca ntradictor uis ersnaie,ete nstudent in either representatives, pupils’ fCide and Children of ks e ea,o hc h IRT the which of neral, (Laborator unci ll vi yo os n encouraging and hops, tun dprimns hs om of forms These parliaments. ed gterrsetv col;beyond schools; respective their ng 13 ov t ersnaina al at representation uth is vi gov by so hi raor area their of ls ta t ome h rsdnso the of presidents the meet to ity of % discus e ?I te od,teequestion these words, other In a? biu rmteenmesthat numbers these from obvious , net 7 natvte t(high) at activities in 77% inment, h State the in ernments a the has y ma ca question g itr of picture y youn earmral ihlvlof level high remarkably a te of p fAayia n Strategic and Analytical of ze h si Fa kne. ls,o smnsesin ministers as or class, ab gov yo epepriiaein participate people g n thi on, mrsinta these that impression iyAfis 07 22). 2007: Affairs, mily Yo by as le t oiyinstitution policy uth la rmnsa the at ernments t t Initiative uth ytkn hs self- these taking By s to wel organi e n processed, and ted yo in ca y co ci youn co NGOs t inv uth fAayia and Analytical of le s as l ediscussed. be n y hr these where ty, vo nce othe to nnected , uld eto aims section ist si yo luntar co epe at people, g the gmonthly ng l t affairs uth -operation nschools in get has ol eesof levels na vement youn l y a Ce tional yo been work fi ntre Ci uth rst ty g s s - According to its self-description, the school parliament of Secondary School No. 5 in Rezekne has the task of mediating between the interests of students and the school administration (School parliament of Rezekne Secondary School No. 5, handout). Practically, this includes responsibilities like the organisation of events and the maintenance of the school tradition, by preparing celebrations for special days; the approval of important decisions together with the school administration and the school council; the negotiation of problems between students and the school, as well as the support of the school administration in securing the observation of school rules. Additional and more specific tasks are fulfi lled by a variety of “ministries” in these two example schools. For instance, the ministry of culture typically tries to involve students in cultural and school events in general; it organises special school celebrations, or welcomes fi rst year students. The foreign affairs ministry mainly co-ordinates exchange with other schools and with NGOs in the region or city. Finally, the interior ministry helps the school administration to supervise relations between teachers and students, as well as their rights and duties, and solves related problems, provides “order” at school events and may even co-operate with the police. The production of the school newspaper and the organisation of sport events or events like the Christmas party are other typical tasks fulfi lled by the pupils’ government.

The IRT welcomes these structures of participation and was impressed by the sophistication and enthusiasm inherent in the students’ involvement. The IRT also recognised the friendly atmosphere of exchange and co-operation that obviously characterised the relationship between the students and the representatives of the school administration involved. Nevertheless, the case of school governments can be used as an example to point to some critical issues that are perhaps indicative of youth participation in Latvia in general and that can be suggested for improvement in the context of an international review. While reﬂecting their own situation, the Latvian parties are invited to recall the well-known “ladder of uth policy yo

participation’, introduced by Hart (1992) to distinguish various steps towards fully r

ﬂ edged children’s participation and citizenship (Figure 3, overleaf). fo

Pupil governments at Latvian schools are undoubtedly an internal service ﬁ rst of all, supplementing a school’s regular offer. They strengthen the ﬂ ow of information and communication between teachers and pupils, as well as across the institutional levels; their educational added value consists in the fact that they provide a platform of leadership and citizenship training for a few active young people. However, self-governments are certainly adult-initiated forms of participation, following a standardised logic and regulations provided by the s-cutting key issues os

State Youth Initiative Centre. In terms of scope and orientation, the activities, Cr tasks, possibilities and limits of self-governments seem to be very similar in different schools. Their autonomy hardly seems to go beyond a certain bounded independence. 69 70 Youth policy in Latvia the nboth In 8) (1992: Hart from Adapted of ladder The – 3 Figure min it tradition, pnos The opinions. bey goes pupil hardly schoo both issues, the on of inﬂuence “ministers” their that the indicated and met budget; of terms in eitn ucin,testudents’ the functions, mediating Wi fsho diitain It administration. school of hsm fthe of some th is ch re,o hte hr ex there whether or tries, rce of aracter 6 7Y 2D 3T 1M 8 4A 5C ca e,teself-g the ses, is utto difﬁcult Yo dl-ntae,sh Adult-initiated, ma t-ntae,sae de shared uth-initiated, ma uhiiitdaddirected and outh-initiated jo nutdadinformed and onsulted jo iyo ciiislisted activities of rity tasks ssi wi oileet nteschools’ the in events social r ndbtinformed but gned th ov n h rte rverb or written the ond yo wi sa anipulation youn ernments ecoration okenism hadults th fteself-g the of t participation uth y hte hs ciiiswere activities these whether co people g is rddecisions ared l eage htit that argued be uld sa ts la gov ge gl eedo the on depend rgely cisions un neeti organi in interest nuine ernments ov rmnsmnindaoe iethe like above, mentioned ernments by l h w pupil two the lsubmissi al diitain ro sub on or administration, ass m eua respon regular ume ca is gov edr u oterlong their to Due lendar. go nyasmal a only assi rmnsta h IRT the that ernments nadexpre and on odwil si gov ndt h pupils’ the to gned pa participation gthem. ng ere of Degrees l rt ernments fteteachers, the of icipation Non- l tpfrom step si so of ssion st bilities antive ha ve such assistance to forms of peer supervision of “problematic” students as well as, perhaps, teachers. At this point, the idea of “participation” would be misunderstood.

Recommendation 2525 The IRT encourages all parties involved in this particular form of youth involvement to come to a sound and honest assessment of the underlying key questions: What is the intended main direction in terms of learning? Is it actual participation, or leadership, or assistance, or merely “activity”? All four of these educational goals are legitimate but probably require different approaches and opportunities.

Finally, the IRT has the impression that the structures of youth involvement established with school governments throughout Latvia could be modiﬁed and better integrated into a comprehensive framework of democratic youth participation in Latvia. Currently, school governments establish co-operations between schools in the same region and they are represented in youth councils of the city (or region). However, local youth participation as a whole appears to be covered and restrained by a glass ceiling that cannot be penetrated. Ministers and presidents of school governments could not point the IRT to any umbrella structure that would systematically collect opinions and decisions from young people at schools and feed them into nationwide processes or institutions for negotiating youth policy issues.

opinions and democratic decisions should have the chance to enter “channels yo

to the top” and be perceived by policy makers as a means to facilitate political r participation and democratisation and promote the youth-driven character of fo policy development. A national youth parliament, given the required public attention, could be such a platform. Alternatively, structures like the Latvian Youth Summit or the planned youth forums could be used. To summarise, the IRT believes that Latvian youth policy would beneﬁt from such structures in the sense of improving its youth-driven character. s-cutting key issues

25. Following the national hearing, the national authorities requested the addition of the os following footnote: “During the national hearing there was strong opinion from persons Cr directly involved in youth work that the true value of “school parliaments” lies in engaging youth in active participation, although it is not always so, this essential form which gives fi rst experience of participation for youngsters is still developing.” 71 72 Youth policy in Latvia fAayia n taei td 200 Study Strategic and Analytical of espe oeaeo h ministr the of homepage and 2007 November impor an As yuhinformation”. “youth has – methodological Ministr ot oiysti policy youth o municipa for by it again that true is It (Ministr the among been already transmittedinaway hte h nomto avai information the whether to reluctance their and people rfrt eyo nomto pro information on rely to prefer co rele of par Qualit Yo h otmline bottom The mos are activities and – representatives NGO or workers, social impo UN the example, (for h td indi study the European un repo discus the of Some (2006) doe 2007: Study, Strategic and Latv The on Re and a sun is la o ntne organi instance, for , rsod to rresponds rsnaie fteGvrmnso h ebrSae fteErpa Union European the of States Member the of Governments the of presentatives elndadrpael appro repeatedly and derlined t information uth tn Co s ck rt ci Co rt r,requires ers, o reach not mnOjcie for Objectives mmon yo y as la what clear va n to ant al . (Ministr fifrain n/rta hyd o nwweeadhwto how and where know not do they that and/or information, of y enestabli been uns y ia ly fCide and Children of tifrain eea nentoa ouet n resolution and documents international Several information. nt n ftepirte nteState the in priorities the of one fCide and Children of t atcpto,bsdo h rnil feult fprpcie and perspectives of equality of principle the on based participation, uth Yo n h eetsuyinto study recent the ligAec RIAi 2004; in ERYICA Agency elling yo t nomto Charter Information uth yo l youn ta ca t td nosca n oiia ciiy(Laborator activity political and social into study uth h omto fayuhifrainand information youth a of formation the y tse a step nt youn lhsa has ll is ma e htmc fteifrainavailab information the of much that tes youn fCide and Children of t work uth ha epe nteother the On people. g htteeaedut bu whether about doubts are there that youn si eiltasae noLatv into translated terial pndi the in ppened thatis“y epe hr r seve are There people. g on hdver shed epesnes h above The needs. people’s g t si s Co co co relevant. epet eable, be to people g ginformation ng ewe h R and IRT the between Fa assi y. ns peet the mplements vnino h ihso h Child the of Rights the of nvention yo Fa co iyAffairs mily ntrso ministr of terms In 74 drbewyt o wi go, to way iderable iyAfis 07 0;it 10); 2007: Affairs, mily t nomto web information uth outh-friendly”.TheIRT Pa labl odntr,etbihn oln,or hotline, a establishing -ordinators, net fteState the of gnments -7 y rt vi 7) get recently. e yo icipation Fa ded fi is ve fi t oiladpltclatvte (Laborator activities political and social uth eyasi ewe,there between, in years ve iyAfis20:3) eeldta there that revealed 32), 2007: Affairs mily d htinformation that nds nomd The informed. suffi h impor the d ad by opted is ca 7) red nomto bu oa events local about information – friends ci ha Yo it , cieytr actively pin,pbihn otl bulletin monthly a publishing mpaigns, co twslaunc was It by nl relevant, ently yo uth d ifrn xet like – experts different nd, ral ia mpl ca Re youn t nomto availab information uth is n nomto for Information and by n. y pab ouino the of solution re Po i bu the about ain ciiis ugtadresearch, and budget activities, included h European the ta as people, g si hrgr to regard th iyPormefr200 for Programme licy hasthe le ma c fac of nce Yo on yi e–www.jau – te fi n oiae to motivated and gt impro to ng t Policy uth is s jo ndings yo e nyat only hed o hs nteone the On this. for iyof rity lotu hti appears it that true also t nomto nLatv in information uth as le is impressionthatLatvian co un as osntse obe to seem not does in wel nsultin ce e h edn of heading the der is rais wel ot information. youth youn fa pa Yo ss as l odutta the that doubt no 1990, Co Co tavailab ct ve svt fyoung of ssivity t Information uth as l h question the e natn oinformation to uncil cp f2002 of ncept y Yo syst g rprdand prepared epestil people g the by fAnalytical of the un h n of end the esliet Article le yo ma pro g situ n the and na 7. t and uth mhas em nthe on Pe ha s fi ke le vi ha tional While dit. nd ation as but , ding ople use nd, 13 .lv ve ia is y ; l The IRT understands that youth information does not, perhaps, have high priority status in a situation where many urgent youth issues have to be addressed at the same time and with very tight budgets. Yet the IRT has to remind Latvian youth policy that, if it wants to meet its own principles in terms of the vertical youth policy dimension of facilitating constructive youth involvement in decision-making and civic participation, it needs to recognise youth information as a critical building block. The greatest advantage of a having a “late start” in terms of establishing a youth information system consists perhaps in the many experiences and examples of best practice that are already available. 26

Recommendation 27 The IRT invites the Latvian youth policy protagonists to make the most of their “late start” advantage, in terms of youth information, to learn fast, absorb good and creative ideas, and catch up quickly with the European midﬁeld. Youth information centres in all regional centres, perhaps attached to established structures, could function as low-threshold youth information hubs and complement the online offer that is currently being established and extended.

Elites and outsiders A nation that is transforming at the speed of Latvia is inevitably producing new sorts of positions and possibilities at the top and at the bottom of society. Some of the youth policy trends reviewed in this report contribute more than others to the moderation of the ongoing sorting and segregation of young people. Yet some policies that are projected to promote horizontal or vertical integration are at risk of being undermined by self-induced, unintended consequences. This danger is particularly visible with regard to the domain of education and the issue of participation. uth policy yo

One of the reasons for the extensive discussion of educational issues in this r report is the fact that the formation and maintenance of human resources is both fo a top priority and a strength of Latvian youth policy. Yet, the system of formal education in particular, is at risk of contributing to a polarisation of society in the future. The trend towards higher education that is further stimulated by policies of international accreditation and recognition of certiﬁcates (such as the Bologna process), on the one hand, and the unsatisfactory quality of vocational and

26. Inquiry through ERYICA – www.eryica.org – would probably be the best starting point, s-cutting key issues but particular attention might be paid to the youth information systems in Finland, Norway os and the United Kingdom (England, Scotland and Wales). Another important source is the Cr EC document Analysis of Member States – replies to the Commission questionnaires on youth participation and information: http://ec.europa.eu/youth/whitepaper/download/ sec_2003_465_en.pdf (Retrieved: 25.12.2007). 73 74 Youth policy in Latvia o too not 01.Adsm priorities some And 2001). atv)suet ntediscu the in students (active) wi is co ed to needs o surpri not so- people, A ftesaeue ob tnad thu standard, a be to used state the of actually yug people (young) to tran active re The “invisibl will politi The ov un development yteLatvi the by psieyo “passive way among trend a be to seems to visits the it pa profes taei td 200 Study Strategic municipal into youn of by position ra wa hthe th yo tiue oa to ntributes reuae group er-educated si o atcptn tal Thi all. at participating not rt dctdgopthat group educated h local the ther rbbyatc nadtoa rtcldimen critical additional an attach probably si cpto.I tral bet reach to able really it Is icipation. ia argument milar htsegregates that t tdnsmsl inv – mostly students – uth d position rds epeavailab people g in from tion” si ce yo fa nltann for training onal co s ”t ulclf be life public to e” manages trsac into research nt t”(7) Thi (17%). uth” co ca co wyi post a in away r si npupil in ns gin ng nsi uth” ca l ns neprstesle r rdcn an producing are – themselves experts an yo Ce ca rcigapriiaineieamong elite participation a tructing ld“olfr”–atr that term a – “no-lifers” lled iuino an of titution may e httescaitps hn“voluntar when past socialist the that der t initiative uth yo mpaign i n Rez and sis ha (3 vi s t ciiiso eea ees The levels. several on activities uth yo ge to 4% fhg dctoa tts tthe At status. educational high of wo h multiple the of ew gov ds that rdest euti nopsto ewe smal a between opposition an in result t oadulthood to uth ea eauto feuainlceetasta isthose hits that credentials educational of devaluation neral yo 7, matc wi ca le ) rmnswr ieyt einv be to likely were ernments s t.Needles uth. ca hu suffi thout ch s be n ca o discus for rudtesau ftetwo the of status the around ma polari daogieasmal a alongside identified be n -S yo pe 6) apter nnot t educational its h ke h IRT the ekne, ca ovi si nual youn t ciiisi Latv in activities uth ce ass mply ha s they use ssi ma s et teor ntre sa ke ol etelws qualifi lowest the ve ca cae opposite ociated on co de epet cuuaeparticipation accumulate to people g jo inof tion e in ved pup ep ci si tegor ha bs un wi n profes ent co no ifrn oc different on on s youn wi ch nteohr–bt observed both – other the on , ea ve to hteITrfrigto referring IRT the th tr nfirm yo “dis wi s hrgr oteLatv the to regard th y legsthey allenges y va sa wi youn qua t club uth a uze to puzzled was hnasceyi tran in society a thin ieLatv like epeacros people g nlds apar includes, ma iu ciiisa the at activities rious hteri the th y, ap s ca a ugsieyue by used suggestively was si thi epe ntrso participation, of terms in people, g pear” eilbac terial thi si -obligator pital s nlqualifi onal s si youn s phenomenon ia ia nt thi to on si impres ca nthe in nterstudies. their in wi (Ja geuainlrequirements. educational ng (Laborator sa ca sa ma tegor ol ha ca epe smal a people, g happropriate th si kg etm,thi time, me e natvte organised activities in ved in.I h ogrn thi run, long the In tions. me y si y in eto ve s kiyeRie,200 ukaityte/Reiter, t er that learn ciiis o h benefit the for activities” round. fi l si lmn feducation, of element al on rmdi from y increasing lse f“pluril of cluster la s l feuain there education; of eld ca youn n a on: la l youn of development s gae neducation in nguages l in,and, tions, fa ia eeatal drawn actually were eso oit?Or society? of yers oitlgopthat group societal y youn si go ce sa oiyof policy n epeta held that people g Fu epewoare who people g fAayia and Analytical of in(K tion sa es etm?During time? me la nter“double their in rt s oeo those of some g lse of cluster rge epethat people g ffected emr,one hermore, ha development wi jo co l ca din nd proportion bs th n fthe of one ova mpetition fi ia na in pital nall . a , co at ch youn yo ncern er 4) ha la y, eva, ally uth . rge nd an is is is g s Recommendation 28 The IRT recommends that Latvian authorities investigate the polarising features of policies targeted at young people. The policy process would benefit from a continuous assessment and evaluation of outcomes with regard to their (dis-)integrative capacities. In the fi eld of participation in particular, as a prime concern of youth policy, the state responsibility to ensure conditions for youth associations and NGOs to develop and survive needs to be fulfilled. The continuation of the civil society agenda introduced with the restoration of independence of the country will largely depend on the availability of baseline funding framework.

Social inclusion27 The category of youth participation as such, discussed above, mainly represents the vertical dimension of youth policy. Questions of equal access to participation, on the other hand, and the availability of practical opportunities according to, for instance, social and ethnic background, or sexual and religious orientation, address fi rst of all the horizontal axis of youth policy. More concretely, they refer directly to the Latvian youth policy principles of equal opportunities, favourable social and economic conditions and youth integration in general. Economic growth and employment have long been the two hegemonic remedies for poverty and social exclusion of our time. These two dimensions, together with the priority of economic policy over other policy areas, do not lose their prominent status in current strategies to fi ght for social inclusion; yet additional aspects of social exclusion, and with them other policy areas, start to become recognised as significant (European Commission, 2007; Colley et al. , 2007). While youth policy is one of these additional policy areas, one needs to be realistic about its influence.

In other words, youth policy in a narrow sense, together with single institutions uth policy yo

responsible for it, can do little to directly improve the socio-economic or material r situation of young people (that is the horizontal dimension of youth policy). fo More than other policy issues, the realisation of comprehensive social inclusion depends on the contribution and commitment of policy agents outside the youth policy domain. However, youth policy can play a critical role within a concerted “realpolitik” (Williamson, 2007) that is pragmatically oriented towards problem solving. The strength of the youth policy perspective consists exactly in the fact that it underlines the transversal character of social exclusion, while at the same time focusing the attention on one speciﬁc social group. The youth policy s-cutting key issues

27. Following the national hearing, the national authorities requested the inclusion of the os following comment: “During the national hearing there was strong opinion that, regarding Cr social inclusion, there must be stronger emphasis and focus on children and youngsters with fewer opportunities, especially children and youngsters with mental and physical disabilities.” 75 76 Youth policy in Latvia o nertn di integrating for mos edn f“spe of heading egahcllocation Geographical wi surgent identifies Gender them. about knowledge and would vis two the during discussions rdcsieulte among inequalities produces thi in the of some summarise, nthe On domains. policy nLatv in ignored. the the esetv demonstr perspective h shor the ver is suc the on depend Thi represen NGO researchers, between hrgr to regard th neces s yo y sa iss t Fa re xuso nosm fthe of some into excursion brief Employmen poverty – of risk and Income – – Children – – – Ac – environment Safe – – – Hous – – Health – s co etm sen time me iyAfis 07 6;other 36); 2007: Affairs, mily e fsca xlso n oet r ver are poverty and exclusion social of ues ia t oiy–i thi in – policy uth go ba eot tesaenot are others report, mprehen sa tc is ecie nthe in described , Us Vi Cu Pa Cr Ed Re i of sis mnsta it that omings ry eodthi beyond lneagainst olence ime otimpor most a ce rt ucation fadciesub addictive of e tr,sot n recreation and sports lture, rdcn al producing cpto nsociety in icipation to ss in ch un g ci h nomto prov information the to ildren: edfrato n policy and action for need si sa lneseuain nthe in education” needs al wi esadtelmtdrl that role limited the derstand eadrcn discus recent and ve ce ca si bl hseilneeds special th t ietopic tive su novmn fadtoa oiyar policy additional of involvement ssful eadser and re ed s at fprnsadrcniito fwr and work of reconciliation and parents of is sta suc that es ch ca s youn eeatfral for relevant l ta ch pe.The apter. iss ca nthl oreduce, to help nnot h problems the tcross-cutting nt lrnaddiscrimination and ildren na ei Latv in se e itdabove listed ues st on epe with people, young people g s t othe to its inlrepor tional co ances vi . htaentraiydsusd oeie even sometimes discussed, readily not are that ce ee be vered ce s ta wis ddb h ava par Latvian the by ided ss co iss ie n practitioners. and tives ia l fa u oiiso oilinclusion social of policies ful peiiso h oilicuinagenda inclusion social the of mplexities di e si is these co e u acros cut ues – ci nof on co ca eerdto referred untr lities is t sa epnei l ftefollow the of all in response crigsca xlso of exclusion social ncerning as n te eot n documents, and reports other and s h R i not did IRT the use na eiwdadcritic and reviewed bility as y, eto oilicuin Gender inclusion. social of pect ha inlrepor tional wi ch yo et.The pects. eadt susa ismlras dissimilar as issues to regard the ebe drse elsewhere addressed been ve hu h atcpto fother of participation the thout l pover ild t policy uth y sha is eeatadciia,btat but critical, and relevant R has IRT as s dydsusda al at discussed rdly al problematic ma l t ty la tn (Ministr h mrsinthat impression the a in eas iss ca ck r,a ela the as well as ers, ndmis na in domains: in fa lywe thi when play n is e ae(200 Lace ues finfr of iylife mily dfrsm of some for ed ga co y nsuffi in fChildren of illa will -operation as un in tructure e the der areas g yo ci rgely l. uth ent To 7) s employment participation and protection, human trade and sexual exploitation, criminality, substance abuse, mortality, or education and dropping out of school. 28 Yet although gender inequalities are recognised, for instance, by the Ministry of Welfare, the corresponding activities indicated – such as seminars for students, documentary fi lms, computer games, information material, articles in youth journals, and teacher training programmes (Ministry of Welfare, 2007b) – appear to be rather “soft”. At the same time, the application of somewhat faster ways of introducing some kind of equalisation, like the introduction of quota systems, is rejected. Special target programmes for young men are altogether absent.

Recommendation 29 The IRT believes that Latvian youth policy could beneﬁt considerably from stronger gender sensitivity in all key domains. The situation of (young) women and mothers in Latvia in particular needs to be further improved, be it for women in employment, single mothers or working parents. Policies should draw on the considerable work done elsewhere in Europe and through the European institutions, on gender equality in schooling and education and on gender mainstreaming in the workplace/society.

Despite meetings with two state agencies directly involved in issues of social inclusion, the Ministry of Welfare and the Secretariat of Special Assignments for the Minister of Social Integration, the IRT has learned little about what is actually being done in terms of practical social (inclusion) work in the municipalities and at the doorsteps of disadvantaged young people and their families. Following Ziverte/Laiveniece (2005: 109) one could assume that “the profession of social work is not sufﬁciently accepted by the government and public administration”. Indeed, the IRT left the meeting with the Ministry of Social Affairs to discuss poverty and social exclusion in Latvia, with doubts about the overall status of uth policy the profession and the availability of social work services in the regions and yo r

municipalities. fo One of the reasons for this public silence over issues of social exclusion may be that the political reluctance to address new societal problems that characterised the beginning of the 1990s has never been overcome. For instance, Tana Lace (2007) intently observes in a recent report on child poverty and social inclusion of children in Latvia to the European Commission the political discomfort with poverty problems: The government declarations, which set its main goals and objectives, since s-cutting key issues restoration of independence of Latvia in 1991, were characterised by unwillingness os Cr

28. During the national hearing, the particular focus on gender as a dimension of inequality was challenged by pointing to the noticeable predominance of women in youth policy matters. 77 78 Youth policy in Latvia ca no rights Latv in the “Roma Plan Action National The Tw the highlight n fteraoswyLat why reasons the of one 29 it The identif to racis ca h R odr hte th whether wonders IRT The a h ttso a of status the has oiini Latv in position ethnic fLatv of situ oaddres to 2007; the against re also was Russi fo the in reflected eodan beyond (a) wi pin doaigdvriy hu diversity, advocating mpaign, mpaign The . re hori Fu the that so Ed ewe,a leas at between, ch ol ewel be would orde povert aspect IRT The 30 Recommendation t oitlgroup societal o Be to frexample, (for ation Roma upr,a tt ee,the level, state at support, gov (Latv m ha th sear temr,i re osnhoieterefrswith efforts their synchronise to order in rthermore, legs roiisne ob salse ntebssof basis the on established be to need priorities allenges, cto n cec,adRgoa Developmen Regional and Science, and ucation . n,teIRT the ans, ca Putn ia r Russi Roma rmnshsttdt eto the mention to hesitated ernments s oe3%o h Latv the of 30% some use to niaigta appro that indicating , ch y s co ta y s ouaini h three the in population s re n oilecuinadtheir and exclusion social and fsca inclusion. social of ia n,200 ina, fi cp fwlae nyi 04dddeclaration did 2004 in Only welfare. of ncept the egop and groups se un n udn available funding and etdycriticis peatedly rmtn qaiyadtlrneadwih(sti which and tolerance and equality promoting co n n,o h one the on ans, ll ck minority fi Ce co asi nweg n data and knowledge in gaps mnsteipeetto ftargeted of implementation the mmends h gis poverty against ght igtepvrypolmaogtepirte fthe of priorities the among problem poverty the ling l- iss ia tefrHmnRgt n tncSuis 2003; Studies, Ethnic and Rights Human for ntre mmented die oebaeinte embrace to advised is oit r tncmnrte,adespe and minorities, ethnic are society n ll eo tncmnrte nthe in minorities ethnic of ue ow o-iie that – non-citizen 7) s upie htthe that surprised zo t, is The . that in ntal h iitisof ministries the nte oilgopta suffer that group social another Co g. co situ uncil ov ch a put was i was via dby ed uld spolitical is er rce fti policy this of aracter ha to f()ehi n b eulminorities sexual (b) and ethnic (a) of ation Co xima vi fErp,20,20;Mines 06 Kruma, 2006; Muiznieks, 2007; 2004, Europe, of d n eulmnrte,o h other the on minorities, sexual and nd, ma ha wo h ethnic the of ew uncil as international usd the outside nshrso dcto,epomn n human and employment education, of spheres in ebe h tthe at the been ve ma mn hs few those among ia ia eyoeotof out one tely un rm20 o20 rmtsteitgainof integration the promotes 2009 to 2007 from ” ouainbln otegopo ethnic of group the to belong population n sta hi that is n ftepriority the of one na ihsadparticipation. and rights n der fErp’ 06“Al 2006 Europe’s of eutneto reluctance inlrepor tional rn Ch re ational co co lrnadFamily and ildren eac o rwn pin up growing for levance co sdrbepesr oipoethe improve to pressure nsiderable cp fpvryadtidt replace to tried and poverty of ncept /e oiia rights, political s/her ll co cin nve ftemanifold the of view In ection. co organisations nr,the untry, ca co six un s t pin promoting mpaigns co psto ftepopulation the of mposition on fi co tr t address ebr ftepopulation the of members l sduly is eld nsi y. n oa governments, local and ce nre nEu in untries yo tasks re There eal iciiainand discrimination derable teo related of ntre t oiyi Latv in policy uth sear s re Co ci l fboth of La lated ifrn al – different lytebggopof group big the ally . uncil va authorities tvian ch ce ll Af o discrimination for is ) fairs, rt noise of issues into ha oinformation, no fErp,200 Europe, of i issu ain co stru co opportunities eadiffi a ve oeta did that rope gov -operation gov nsider La trsof ctures We ernments ce va in tvia, ernment. . is 29 na l lfare, swas es rtain equal” ia briefl Latv tional ed fa cult . ils 7) ia y . to travel and work are restricted.30 The report does not discuss the implications for young people. It is only through secondary sources that the IRT has learnt about the inconsistent minority policy of the country, the ongoing liberalisation of the naturalisation law, due to international pressure and the fact that still more than 13 000 children are non-citizens (Council of Europe, 2007, paragraph 38). Children born to non-citizens of Latvia are not automatically Latvian citizens, but need to be registered by their parents. During the two country visits, the IRT received fi rst-hand information about the education of minorities and related problems (see above), about the procedures and requirements of naturalisation, the political struggle in the background, and about the opinion of Russian youth NGOs. The IRT was even confronted with the story of one young man of Russian origin who actually registered for Latvian citizenship only after one of his teachers found out about his situation by accident. AllparticipantsindiscussionswiththeIRT, includingminorityNGOrepresentatives, have maintained that they were not aware of direct and active discrimination towards the Russian minority. The members of the multi-ethnic community of Rezekne in the eastern province of Latgale in particular, emphasised that living together in mixed settings is unproblematic. Yet, the politically heated debate, particularly about the status of the Russian language in Latvian society is ongoing as was, for instance, confirmed by representatives of a Russian youth NGO. While they emphasised that young people with different ethnic backgrounds do get along well with each other, the general impression is that they do pursue different lifestyles.YoungRussianspeakers–including ethnicRussians,Ukrainians,Tartars, Jews and Byelorussians – are less involved in the traditional Latvian culture, in civil society activities and youth policy issues in particular. “The government doesn’t need us” was the expression that was used by one of the NGOs’ representatives to illustrate the general attitude of young Russians with reference to the denial of the right to become a civil servant, or to take other high public positions, of mostly Russian non-citizens. Certain disadvantages with regard to applying for uth policy yo

state funding because of the Latvian language requirement are obvious – the fact r

that, as the IRT was informed, no Russian has yet participated in the international fo exchange programme of the European Voluntary Service is indicative.31 In fact, this greater distance to civil society involvement was one of the explanations for why only one Russian youth NGO actually took the opportunity to meet the IRT, although many had been invited well in advance to do so.32

30. An overview of differences between rights of Latvian citizens and non-citizens can be found in Mitrofanovs et al., 2006, Appendix 1.

31. The full name of the programme is EU YOUTH Programme 2000-2006; Action European s-cutting key issues

Voluntary Service. The follow-up programme: EU Youth in Action Programme 2007-2013. os 32. The greater “distance” of members of the Russian population in Latvia from organised Cr civil society was confirmed by a police officer attending the national hearing, who also suggested that problematic and criminal young people come disproportionately from within the population of Russian speakers. 79 80 Youth policy in Latvia and 4 The 34. on 10.12.200 “severe co news/articles/1 33 Apar tncminoritie Ethnic that emigration 35. 31.12.20 Russi di a ieyreact likely eino Lat of region h lived who n inc and ha b h ttso eulminorities sexual of status The (b) rposition or of group minority The sourc primary of hold ftole of resour ma mostly bisexuals gays, o pca As Special for htteIRT the What fsxa ioiisi Latv in minorities sexual of xrse t(oni fErp,20:prgah8;also 86; paragraph 2007: Europe, of (Council it the expressed as disturbing”, “very be ioiis hc r currentl are which minorities, u discrimi but Cu nldn h rm Min Prime the including all. at forbidden permitted are they if protection al on rejection of co purposes, tmltdte“e in “new the ntemplated n7Dcme 200 December 7 On . un h neto oflo hi xml tsm on.In point. some at example their follow to intention the d rnl,tetlrnet n lentvst eeoeult nLat in heterosexuality to alternatives any to tolerance the rrently, gay tter Fo sa Russi na t tr an h eae rudteGyPride Gay the around debates the r epehligpbi offi public holding people vnaeo h tnclyLatv ethnically the of dvantage ra rmtesmwa idiosyncratic somewhat the from ce y. inlrepor tional is la re 07 Ca ma c fascey ept eetdiqiisit the into inquiries repeated Despite society. a of nce may s la 7) n’t the to ans’ orshor bour sn la asing par h eua utili regular The ). dnlo the of rdinal wi . gaeaymr seaoe,teIRT the above), (see more any nguage by by iettesle in themselves nifest by co na ga hu hi aet,who parents, their thout t religious fi Riga fisdrc respon direct its of 79 si l be uld e npriua,teITmtseveral met IRT the particular, in le, inaantsxa minorities sexual against tion al manage nally evn thi leaving onbcm neooi rbe too. problem economic an become soon swi is net o oit nerto far,dsiethe despite Affairs, Integration Society for gnments s n transg and 17 orsotg nteBli tts th States, Baltic the in shortage bour l tage r atclrysen particularly are t levels. Rtivd 10.10.200 (Retrieved: youn ci Ba osntaddres not does epedaogteehi ioiisi Latv in minorities ethnic the among despread yatoiisadpbil opposed publicly and authorities ty nteae (www.baltictimes area the in ” ga tcSae n h dseaeme “desperate the and States ltic Ca es as 7, hlcChurch tholic nda h meeting the at ined epei society. in people g ain f“kanas eauin Bulgarians, Belarusian, “Ukrainians, of vasion” is n nomto nthe in information and 34 wel s natcei the in article an e h event the – ter sa Tw ne epe(GT,it (LGBT), people ender co ia olearn to d as l ce inadepotto fthi of exploitation and tion Co examples: o tx fdsrmnto.In discrimination. of ntext y n h iciiainaantthem against discrimination the and www.baltictimes. : uncil po oesclrlaes ul the fuels leaders, secular some si yo bility ssibl is s is uth, Para ver a h topi the si fEurope of 7) ha ia 35 atclryotpkn vndmnigaban a demanding even outspoken, particularly is iet n omo discrimi of form any to tive nyi the in only e . . ouainntsuyn h impor the studying not population n lef d n20,teGyPride Gay the 2005, In ei iai 07se www.baltictimes. see: 2007 in Riga in de o norgn.I hr,the short, In encouraging. not la co y co fi atcTimes, Baltic gaeplc,wihmgtrsl in result might which policy, nguage sen l eventually uld s,pbi demonstration public rst, ns t wi c Fu owr bod n oeo them of some And abroad. work to is tal lhuhsxa orientation sexual although all, at iuigapriual vulnerable particularly a tituting hrpeettvso h Ministr the of representatives th si co .c rt Co co ieidctro the of indicator tive o ac not om/news/articles/194 emr,n offi no hermore, /esatce/96 (Retrieved: m/news/articles/19468 youn wa mmissi reo h two the of urse a diffi was as sdrain is ca t opitt the to point to nts rs fepoesdet the to due employers of ures” epeof people g 33 ia fRg,ne police need Riga, of pital ce ulse nteInternet, the on published Re tbei democratic a in ptable nrfrHmnRights Human for oner by ta ze iss s utfrteITto IRT the for cult situ vi ke niprathuman important on edn politicians, leading n,i the in kne, wo h dramatic the of ew lc nyatra after only place to flesbians, of ation parade co ia efrpolitical for ue Putn na vi mnattitude mmon ci Russi co Ilv,200 (Ivlevs, a Ce lstatement al co inand tion fa ov untry 63 sma is n,200 ina, by s ta Asians ntral tta the that ct tne to ntinues eral a even was Re situ norigin an iss eas trieved: sexual rginal, visits. l eof ue ation level co tern ta will get m/ 7) 7) nt s y . . favourable court decision.36 Second, the responses of young people to questions from the IRT concerning sexual minorities were extremely reserved. They would not openly reject the issue, but suggested it was best to keep alternative sexual orientations private and “invisible”. In any case, the young people expressed the opinion that “divisive” events like LGBT demonstrations were not necessary and would only worsen the attitudes that already exist in Latvian society. The spokesperson from one of the NGOs, which represents the interests of sexual minorities in Latvia, described their work as very difficult and reduced mainly to targeting media and policy makers. The overall situation of the NGO is precarious; like many other NGOs in Latvia it keeps struggling for survival and can only operate on the basis of unpaid voluntary work by committed individual members. The frustration about intolerance of Latvian society to sexual minorities is considerable. Progress is slow, but can be identified due to the fact that, as the IRT was told, a (civil) partnership law for homosexuals is at least under discussion and supported by four political parties.

Recommendation 31 The IRT urges Latvian policy makers and youth policy professionals at all levels to take responsibility for creating the conditions for young people to be able to go through the difﬁ cult process of ﬁ nding their sexual identities on the basis of impartiality. They are recommended to combat all forms of intolerance and work actively towards an attitude shift in society, with regard to sexual minorities and their marginalisation.

Urban-rural polarisation Do rural areas of Latvia enjoy equal access to youth services and facilities, education, employment and life chances compared with the capital and other cities? Do young people growing up in isolated houses along the road, which the uth policy yo

IRT has seen only through the windows of the minibus leaving Riga for Cesis and r

Rezekne, have a chance to get the same quality and scope of services as young fo people going out in downtown Riga at night? The dimension of space is an often neglected category in policy making. And we know from research that inequalities have a strong spatial dimension – Latvia is no exception (UNDP, 2006). About one in three people in Latvia live in one of the 400-plus rural municipalities. With regard to youth policy, the spatial dimension is one of the most crucial in terms of social inclusion and the horizontal dimension of socio-economic youth citizenship. As discussed above, the availability of certain youth provisions in municipalities and rural communities depends entirely on the tax revenue s-cutting key issues of the respective community, as well as on the commitment of individuals and os Cr their willingness to co-operate. The national report addresses this issue only

36. www.baltictimes.com/news/articles/13120 (Retrieved: 10.10.2007). 81 82 Youth policy in Latvia fsecondar of regional n r no are and los ch impres no the rgl regional fragile are as well cieinv active Yo edu for up grew they where place the leave not did IRT The youth Latvian there fl that hudba ri n2 er ie ed ob tre o.I ie of times In now. started be to needs time, years 20 social in fruit bear should are rural in ma h discus The regional Formally finsuffici of (Ede Ce ch oc vrreach ever Additionally municipalities. h einfo eoiga epysae nteftr u nta lively a instead but future the in yo space” “empty att an and becoming from region the co wa cuto f(on)people (young) of uctuation h IRT The 32 Recommendation of identi be to need process. citizenship youth the in dramatically people broade ca t oiisalone. policies uth ne nRg rara.Municipalities abroad. or Riga in ances rce fsocietal of aracter nsi t oiyatr in actors policy uth i and sis t to nts t ke as y oeo t attraction. its of some r, sional re ca un eaino h pta n eprldime temporal and spatial the of deration rs n tsesver seems it And . a the was ch 200 sear er rmsrtge which strategies from learn n mlyetadters fsca xlso in exclusion social of risk the and employment ra mgain h IRT the emigration, is h respo the , yo co ange co tv lc fhg ult.Aan thi Again, quality. high of place ctive re r ol si eae oemigration. to related Rezekne 4) n uis htteaalblt fsports of availability the that pupils; ent y tmentio it ly: t oiysesto seems policy uth ch odntr–btsvrlregio several but – -ordinator si re villages as t on tiuet oiiere positive to ntribute eetof vement y nta h IRT the that on inl(cnmc development (economic) gional co co they nodrt eatduo ntrso oiymeasures. policy of terms in upon acted be to order in , coln,we ciiislk hobb like activities when schooling, rbeso looim ua rd n eaetraffi female and trade human alcoholism, of Problems . potnt oob to opportunity a t platf its has wi co mnsthe mmends pttv ntrso ihredu higher of terms in mpetitive co ha hna thin l be uld mmunities. eteoppor the ve un sblt for nsibility co n smal and ch esodthat derstood Yo fimdsm fteab the of some nfirmed sta col in schools that ns co un y neand ange youn ga Re t oiisi h dy the in policies uth un r fper of orm ined ze ieyta h dcto n atcpto lt among elite participation and education the that likely a told, was there , tr people g n epne othi to responded kne ha l y co will co ha n naErp mo Europe a in and tun ev ot oiypracti policy youth serve wi d ua areas rural ncino h ot oiyaed iha with agenda policy youth the of nnection Yo mnte.Oeo the of One mmunities. co eltl oofrto offer to little ve hrgr oterrldimen rural the to regard th inldvlpet dal,the Ideally, development. gional ce wi t oivsiaethi investigate to ity un a the was yo ebac me rt th fo ca fi r mn h addition the among are epe evn their leaving people, g il edadifferent a need ainly t oiynest recal to needs policy uth mnei rur in rmance ed as eul aac pc n iei h more the in time and space balance refully youn Sp ns quantified , ua areas rural par ta nqaiisi socio-economic in inequalities atial ca k onot do ntrso ot oiyle ihthe with lies policy youth of terms in ca epeand people g pno htEu that opinion otikn nlne iesas fit if spans, time longer in thinking to ntofrhuigfor housing offer nnot t ov st na in higher tion, nsi faln-emstrateg long-term a of ra will s di e mic ca eyta ol assis would that tegy ni policy in on ha y vi s lareas. al youn ino mlyet In employment. or tion education sa gaeda ifrn speeds different at ahead ng fa ca esc a such ve n qualified and ke problem vnae flvn nrural in living of dvantages o eedo suc on depend not ma s ci ia fRiga of pital pdis ep ce lities epebyn h age the beyond people g ma ge sa ntemu the on yo trsuffi tter neral ov in oenfnshardly funds ropean la fa t oiyatr in actors policy uth si lpolm frural of problems al is maki ap eral isadbte life better and ries co milies will co nof on by l ihyrestricted; highly pe the ncern -ordinator is l eciigthe perceiving ng ntebasis the on probably rn because aring prah but approach, youn si ci wi uhhigher much yo iia level, nicipal ge multaneous ea nl.While ently. will y hahigher a th s t policy. uth nerational t le,also rlier, ht fit if that, ck people g fpolicy of young prevent ce ing, . ra ha ss fa pid ful ct, as ve Chapter 6 Supporting youth policy

In order to remain relevant, effective and up to date with societal processes, youth policy needs to incorporate an element of permanent self-evaluation and development. This reﬂexive dimension of youth policy, which supplements the more substantive key issues and domains includes professionalisation at all levels of youth policy, including training and working conditions and processes, youth research and international co-operation, as well as identiﬁcation, consolidation and dissemination of good practice.

Youth research Youth research has, alongside policy practitioners and NGO representatives, an important role in the Council of Europe’s tripartite approach to youth policy development (Lauritzen, 2004). Research has also been recognised as a signiﬁcant source for an improved “understanding of youth” as part of the knowledge base for effective youth policy in the EC’s White Paper on youth policy (European Commission, 2002: 25). Corresponding programmes and recommendations for evidence-based youth policies and independent research were formulated and distributed to member countries. Beyond that, youth research exists as an original and independent ﬁ eld of applied and academic knowledge production, concerning an important life stage. Findings from comparative research in uth policy

Europe, in particular, as well as established youth research networks committed yo to high-quality research into the major issues of youth transitions and inequality due to gender, class and ethnicity, can be informative sources also of national youth policy development (for example. Bradley/van Hoof, 2005; Milmeister/

Williamson, 2006; Bendit, 2007; Yndigegn, 2007). Latvian youth research has Supporting a long tradition and is well-established in international networks. Academic youth researchers regularly participate in, and contribute to, both European and international research conferences. 83 84 Youth policy in Latvia nodrt impro to order In society in people was lives maki res wel a pr was nweg base knowledge Latv The programmes the represent politicalacti fi htteac the that wa co the co Fu internatio the repo n ihain it Lithuanian, and production to get identi co co impor the to regard oiyprog policy wel research s fal of rst wa rt prtv eerh te secondar other research, mparative prtv eiwo availab of review mparative sudrsiae n hudbe should and underestimated the is that believes IRT The Recommendation ae ot oiy h IRT the La policy, youth based eeoiga cieand active an developing datg fkoldeand knowledge of advantage epei the in people youth st ns l einv be uld y. ea as l as l emr,sur hermore, co itr fthe of picture a Co ra rt va youth tvian laiebd in body ultative d specialised rds gta tdsre.I remain It deserves. it that ng h inv The c-ae nomto ntelvsof lives the on information rch-based fy ey ttesm ie the time, same the At tegy. un nteoc the on oduced uncil its rese n the ing ia re tr ca youn l nal co n ch y sear tu ra wi eoepar become n ar ( na vi ns ol of netruhu h eido rnfrain hl oeadditional some While transformation. of period the throughout ange al St it mmes. a primarily was hnamnsrtv tutrs– structures administrative thin ch public ty. dt pro to ed eetof vement co inlrepor tional drdi a htwudsugg would that way a in idered tsio Departamentas atistikos ythe by ch situ Yo ma epespriiaini,adattdst,frso oiland social of forms to, attitudes and in, participation people’s g ca co co Ye re dto of ndition ve co . uth co si nr,aalbefo othe from available untry, ve nplc ed.A needs. policy in is sear to of ation t mmi y l eoepar become uld no the of on ta there l lobcm ato a of part become also uld iss Fu 33 yo co loamdlfrsaigth sharing for model a also by ree rgnlrsac,lk htwhich that like research, original even or Yo nt yo Po rt hby ch ues, ssi t policy, uth dto of ndition t eatetuo eus,teIThdteimpression the had IRT the request, upon Department uth vi t xets,tedvlpetand development the expertise, uth licy emr,tedocumen the hermore, iss eal.Fo there, From default. t yo isha ethe de oned fa of t youn vdnedie n eae ospecifi to related and evidence-driven eo rgueadabuse, and use drug of ue yo t eerhr nteplanned the in researchers uth osrfrt oeoriginal some to refer does as ca Co re Yo niigte opriiaein participate to them inviting le t n impor and uth rdlyanyevidencepro co ua youth gular aiyof pacity wel -ordination. uth ea vdnefo offi from evidence epei Latv in people g re mprehen co re le freapeoffi example (for rlier as l youn co is Ye t ni wi uncil un s sour st fteaed finter-ministeria of agenda the of nimpor an mnsmkn s fteeprieof expertise the of use making mmends r20,produced 2000, ar go y La vlainrese evaluation re epei ie oit.Asystematic A society. given a in people g data), 20 va uhrte r die otake to advised are authorities tvian deapefo Lithuania from example od ce la o nweg of knowledge how clear re ngthen si 00 sear s youn re ve hrese th Yo ta co r as .Thi ). sear iitisadpbi institutions public and ministries co co ta yo t eerhfrm n network and forums research uth tsubgroup nt yo ch crigtestaino young of situation the ncerning s that est the ta ed ia epeadtheir and people g tse nthi in step nt peesv ot information youth mprehensive l eused be uld t nomto strateg information uth is t research uth ch inaddi and tion ci is s o ot oiydevelopment policy youth for i not did sa As . vi ar tabl knowledge lrprigadmonitoring, and reporting al udn oiy nti wa this In policy. funding dedthatwouldsystematically ch ar oe for model a swr rdcdi English in produced were es yo ci is h eeomn of development the ch fi st by lsaitc,international statistics, al t eerh illustrating research, uth dnsi nac an in ndings ha o alway not ptwrsevidenc towards ep ac s yo h ttsia Offi Statistical the etesau npolicy in status the ve co nLatv in ss as co s t forum, uth direction. mtesand mmittees mnto of emination wi mpany ca ma trigpitfor point starting a is hteinterested the th c edeveloped be n jo youn neac fa of intenance ed of needs fa ia s availab n knowledg int is mily society, n neces l in oislike bodies h special the people’s g y. g as co co ce le sa ncrete ntexts youn policy new a ssibl yo ce by ry wi e- y, uth . as as th to of e e g s Youth work, training and working conditions Professional youth workers, social workers with a specialised profile, and other “youth practitioners” are important links in the chain of youth policy delivery, starting from the design of policy strategies at the top, all the way down to the face-to-face contacts with young people at the bottom. “Youth worker” does not have the status of a recognised profession in Latvia (Laboratory of Analytical and Strategic Study, 2007: 23) and social work is a very recent professional fi eld altogether, still struggling with the typical teething troubles of a young discipline that involves, for instance, the clarification of the status of professional versus academic orientation, implementation of practical elements, acceptance by public authorities, or the mere availability of sufficient professionals (Ziverte/ Laiveniece, 2005). The establishment of an education and training system for youth workers is one of the proposals that can already be found in the Latvian State Youth Policy Concept of 2002 (Ministry of Children and Family Affairs, 2007: 10). However, up to the present day, a professional training structure to prepare for youth work, in all parts of Latvia, seems to be largely missing. The IRT had the opportunity to meet various types of youth practitioners – ranging from municipal youth affairs co-ordinators with (additional) administrative tasks to individuals working with children and young people on a professional or voluntary basis – all of which qualified for the label of “youth worker”, according to their expertise and their approach. Yet they seem to have built and keep developing their admirable capabilities above all on the basis of everyday practice. While this is certainly an indispensable and necessary source of providing competent youth work, professionalised and sustainable youth work structures require more. For that, common sense and learning on the job needs to be complemented with certain common standards, with regard to the understanding of youth work and the relevant training, working conditions and tasks. In order to guide the professional preparation of youth practitioners on various levels, the notion of youth work, as well as its status within the overall framework of youth education and development, needs to be clarified. Having listened to many parties involved and trying to distil from numerous conversations and presentations the Latvian understanding of youth work, the IRT has the impression that this clarification is yet to be made – there does not seem to be sufficient uth policy agreement about the main features of youth work. yo Peter Lauritzen (2006) describes youth work in the following way:

Youth work is a summary expression for activities with and for young people of a

social, cultural, educational or political nature. Increasingly, youth work activities also Supporting include sports and services for young people. Youth work belongs to the domain of “out of school” education, most commonly referred to as either non-formal or informal learning. 85 86 Youth policy in Latvia o h international the for un Th edfcl opro to difficult be fschoo of Ce Initiative 01 – 2001) Lat in of institutio gis hsbackg this Against The rm rvninwork prevention crime activities ha finv of It society. in ca si fa educatio the from Apart exploitation. and dependency from people be one di (potentially) of is pyntte“ih”faeokfor framework “right” the not mply ci ll rsrcig ag hrso ot retm ntebsso voluntary of basis the on time Ty free youth prevention”). of (“restrictive participation shares large “restricting” is ri diint raie u fsho ciiis It activities. school of out organised to addition in or is dimension preventive “eeomna prevention”) (“developmental formalis omlinvolvemen formal out-of organised of Ty is co ntres d also nd, elnn h positive the derlining yo ca ed iaeintegration/inclusion litate ge ha e2yuhwor youth 2 pe e1yuhwor youth 1 pe mplementar omo rsrcieprevention”, “restrictive of form t okbe work uth vi ch ll Ty ea isof aims neral ol ed d be nd, ,adi soi to Estonia in and a, aracterised fa l vi e2 pe co ns Ce dcto Tp ) Ac 1). (Type education ta lls Ty gnnfra n nomlout-of-schoo informal and non-formal ng ed l eteexemplar the be uld ha gtdat rgeted fhobb of te hc r tahdt col rlctda hlrnand Children at located or schools to attached are which ntre, e1 pe may nothe into yo ot okand work youth eimpor ve co t ok nisoinainadmtosit methods and orientation its in work; uth nsi loamtwrsteproa n oileacpto of emancipation social and personal the towards aim also y yo sa vi un to y on,how round, ee rmwr of framework a dered t ok u,in But, work. uth epattoestpclyinv typically practitioners de dvantaged yo k n neeteducation interest and by co esod nteone the On derstood? k t un fi co . t okaeteitgainadicuinof inclusion and integration the are work uth -sch eeilyuhwr sdeliver is work youth Remedial – rst f(iavnae,ciia)yugpol in people young criminal) (disadvantaged, of ta mnt olanfo.I em ftann,i hudnot should it training, of terms In from. learn to mmunity – epiiee individuals. derprivileged vninleducation. nventional na h setof aspect the trmda ucin,fri yial nldsoutreach includes typically it for functions, remedial nt as Co ca o ciiisi diinto addition in activities ool dimension, l et of pects na tegor peetr ot oki deliver is work youth mplementary ch ed eaohreape(Stafseng, example another me youn co aracterise as y . ca cto ntebsso outr participation voluntary of basis the on ucation y dn oteIR the to rding etpatc faba a of practice best the n wel of epe nthi In people. g “r ce yo ca as l estricting” as rt eisiuinleducation institutional se t work, uth ain yo urn Latvian current d co yo h IRT the h mniainadempowerment and emancipation the t work uth un pnaigfrsotoig of shortcomings for mpensating by t eeomn n omto that formation and development uth yo ha e h arng ftheState of patronage the der uths, Co d the nd, T, h seto cuyn and occupying of aspect the ol mplementar thi yo co ca Re e in ved a yo way s t retime, free uth s yo peetn h curriculum the mplementing ll medial a h add the has tutr – structure di nitra meetings, internal in it ed t work uth eiei youth in seline vast s l re dby ed rvniedimension preventive Ty co xeine that experiences gular ca e1 pe t work uth cp and ncept ewr fex of network yo n yo y ov Co t work uth en fnon- of means ca yo ed erlap dby ed as uncil toa fe itional t work uth ,o h other the on n, is is t ok like work, uth cto.Its ucation. youn it nexample an defi ca is stea wi fEurope, of provisi provisi ,o the on n, availab means co people g th ci ce l be uld of d atures youn n or ent Yo Yo yo co ll ca uth uth uth on. uld ent on le n g teachers and pedagogues, with the necessary additional skills to competently accompany such youth activities.37 On the other hand, the IRT had the impression that genuine Type 2 youth work, emphasising non-formal activities targeted atdisadvantaged and “non-organised” young people – the IRT called it “developmental prevention” – needs some further consideration in Latvia. It requires specialised professional preparation, or additional training of professionals close to social work. A respective methodology of training was rarely articulated. Most importantly, this type of youth work – as it is new in a country like Latvia dealing with societal problems that have not been recognised before (Ziverte/Laiveniece, 2005) – needs extensive political trust in its capacity. And it requires more degrees of freedom, together with unconventional infrastructure solutions for “open” youth work. Currently, it appears that, in the perspective of both concept and training, genuine Type 2 youth work in Latvia is at risk of being absorbed by the domination of extended institutional forms of out-of-school Type 1 youth activities. While the IRT considers the preservation of this offer for young people of utmost value and importance, it could be one of the medium-term goals of youth policy to profile, promote and establish Type 2 youth work vis-à-vis forms of interest education and structured leisure time activities, including competitive sports programmes. In this way, youth policy would have tool for reaching out and touching those non- organised youths who are not otherwise attracted into Type 1 youth work; it could provide them with attention, support and the opportunity to participate. Inclusive features of the profile of youth work in Latvia in general would be strengthened. In the long run, one positive secondary effect could consists in the feedback of experiences of active learning into more conventional forms of education, ultimately stimulating innovation and their modernisation (Bentley, 1998).

by a strong orientation towards social integration, preventing unfavourable uth policy

youth development. A diversity of approaches to youth work would ultimately yo enhance the involvement of young people in Latvia, in terms of both quantity and quality.

37. During the national hearing the Latvian emphasis on out-of-school education through Supporting interest education was criticised for being based on adult, rather than youth, decisions and direction. The absence of more strongly youth-driven forms of youth work was, for many, a significant source of concern. 87 88 Youth policy in Latvia osm ftere the of some to investi report, the ordinators o hlrnand Children for rfie of profiles A sub seilyi regional in especially yo ot oiyin policy youth affair esne.Feunl there Frequently personnel. 8 nodrto order In 38. li Almost respon exten and longevity sustainability, The will co wholeheartedly, fterresour their of ha erudite, clever, healthy, active, sa the for drafted are that vrtig (YAC). everything” te rciinr of enthus practitioners other the exhaust to inv currently not order in policy, to expected person the this if Especially affairs. and uhindication Such retpirt to priority urgent eto ve lar riaospitot–it – out point ordinators riig swl steworking the as well as training, methodolog the urges IRT The 35 Recommendation h eesr etrso rfsinlyuhwr sys work youth professional the a of features necessary the qualit and supervision, co t oiysadrst impro to standards policy uth la st sa loutmtl eedo h blt fthe of ability the on depend ultimately also g ubrof number rge ca esall vers y s antiated La etm raiedifferent organise time me Lbrtr fAayia n Strate and Analytical of (Laboratory erdevelopment, reer co si fa va uhrte ilas edt aesr htyuhwr pr work youth that sure make to need also will authorities tvian iiisada xeto rcieta osnot does that practice of extent an and bilities ce ke odnto YC,who (YAC), -ordination e the see , yo ol rsdn.H nw everything, knows He president. a co ca get t rciinr.TeIRT The practitioners. uth e.I h ogrn h profes the run, long the In ved. y, mmunities. by rr h elwrddpnso the on depends world real the ce s y nimpres an un as ca Fa fdsotn edt be to need discontent of co the ,o vnteremployment their even or s, u too out Besi na derstand on re iyAffairs. mily La nsi yo inlrepor tional rdvlpetadfurthe and development er fi yo co s va uhrte oavnetepoesoaiaino the of professionalisation the advance to authorities tvian t affairs uth dnsfo recent a from ndings e hmi the in them der e it des o rsrto among frustration for yo t policy uth txs niiulpattoesare practitioners individual ntexts, si st y swl sac as well as ma t affairs uth is no the of on is o enough not yo nad involving andards ga yfunction ny sun is nyoepro ntedsrc respon district the in person one only t,b bet oeeyhn”(YAC). everything” do to able be uth, igdfeetprpcie on perspectives different ting ve t co a to has Wi ca p.24- (pp. yo elndthat derlined co and will ns co ntwr ln nal in alone work nnot ch hrgr otegopo the of group the to regard th t vns The events. uth dtos fyuhpattoes A practitioners. youth of nditions, lat philosophe ultant, -ordinator legsta municipal that allenges co lorqiestandard require also ce co co oio n raieyuhafisadat and affairs youth organise and monitor odntr–h’ edt easuperman. a be to need he’d – -ordinator ha 25 s wi si st pr to ss ns i td,20:3;original 35; 2007: Study, gic reo h profes the of urse ). tthe at h impres the d nof on ta hjs n esnto person one just th ldt h working the olidate si re ke ia co yo nlpolso the of profiles onal port madddcto ftepeople the of dedication and sm s eiul.I em ob a be to seems It seriously. n -ordinator. fi yo t practitioners: uth ofessional ca sa na aca urnesaeamong are guarantees nancial yo on u htte are they that out point r co t okr r adaver a paid are workers uth oeeyhn.He everything. do n riigo a on training etm.“hs requirements “Those time. me co t oksrcue nLat in structures work uth inladregional/municipal and tional yo ntracts. mm t affairs uth si r, l co nta,a h moment, the at that, on issi fi and “One yo te ls h reali The elds. fa rsodt h scope the to rrespond super 38 si s t affairs uth .I h long the In m. oned ce onali ffrhreducation further of yo Thi ps co d a to has ta t oiy points policy, uth yo co cooit He ychologist. vision. yo wi re s ndition ke sa yteMinistr the by t okrand worker uth odntr are -ordinators ua basis, gular haworkload, a th sibl t affairs uth impres inof tion ca Yo emphasis co einvolved be co for e eof re t affairs uth -ordinators is ov s sa mmon and si ision la strong, inof tion ru ra yo yo yo on ck y n, ther low uth uth uth jo ing co vi ). is is b a y - The dissemination of good practice The distribution of practical and methodological knowledge and experience, with regard to youth policy, youth work and non-formal education is an often underestimated aspect of policy development and advancement. Unlike other forms of professional learning, it can become an easily available but powerful element of self-reproductive enhancement. A recent study in Latvia indicates that the distribution of information about youth policy among people involved needs to be facilitated (Laboratory of Analytical and Strategic Study, 2007). Youth affairs co-ordinators, as well as representatives of youth NGOs and youth workers, equally lament the communication between the central structures of youth policy (that is, “the ministry”) and those parties actually implementing it on the ground. Though information is available, there does not seem to be an active strategy of organising its distribution and allowing for feedback processes. The IRT was unable to further investigate or verify these claims, but suggests taking these issues of communication seriously, in order to maintain and strengthen the commitment and cohesion of the Latvian youth policy community. Various frameworks of exchange could be set up. They do not necessarily need the direct moderation and involvement of the Ministry of Children and Family Affairs, but could become established in co-operation with associations of professional representation, or institutions of education and training. A moderated web-based platform of exchange and discussion could be the fi rst step towards a more comprehensive information system and interface between top-down and bottom- up elements of youth policy. In this way, good practice and solutions to common challenges would be snowballed throughout the country. Specialised face-to-face workshops could be organised on demand, in order to deepen certain issues and could strengthen the links between youth policy delivery in regions and cities. A second, equally important aspect of dissemination connects the Latvian experience to the outside world. For instance, the review has identified the Latvian provision of hobby and interest education as an excellent model for a baseline delivery of out of school activities to a large proportion of young people. In other words, there is something to be learned from Latvian youth policy that deserves to be noticed by the interested international community. In any case, the identification of forms of good or best practice for national or international dissemination needs strategies for assessing activities and uth policy

programmes. Yet the IRT has not become aware of any structures of systematic yo evaluation of methodologies and outcomes of policy programmes, or isolated activities and events. Supporting

89 90 Youth policy in Latvia The oebr20 November rbnhakdcmns iethe like documents, benchmark or hl Lat while yo prog two integr oeo hmteITmtdrn h two the during met IRT the whom of some oiyagenda, policy of establishment ex the in that participated or seminars, training ntrsof terms In si institutio the European expe policy has far Sdeik,20:5.TeIRT The 5). 2007: (Sedlenieks, Affairs Er incorporating al in impor Lat were cinporme200 programme Action the of member a As Internatio omrEU former ia administration. milar incr rciein practice Final inter whole. the of a invitation as agenda policy youth the youth as effect side well positive as A professionals. makers, associated and policy and practitioners order youth In involve activities. and programmes policy ta to youth of outcomes and methods co h R eivsthat believes IRT The Re t work uth vi l visi co iss ra ll nAec fInternational of Agency an rt co h sa uoenmblt acti mobility European usual the un at cig vlaigand evaluating ecting, ta ea is mso h urn hp,method shape, current the on mmes ke nsta mnain36 mmendation is eo o-omleuain icse above, discussed education, non-formal of ue st Latv to ts dit iitra respon ministerial into ed e h uidcino h Ministr the of jurisdiction the der tsau fteNational the of status nt .Many e. ei wrns of awareness in se vi ulavnaeo vial nweg,sc a such knowledge, available of advantage full a Vo an tyicesdadaot1 0 on epewr novdi the in involved were people young 000 18 about and increased ntly Yo is nal prime luntar La nal yo yo 1(Europe 01 t rgam 20-6 ln.Utl20,bt programmes both 2006, Until alone. (2000-06) Programme uth o oovos nshort, In obvious. so not is va ot policy youth tvian t oiydvlpettruhinternatio through development policy uth t policy uth as co ia respon yo fi y u,o the or mus, s faltak oNOiniti NGO to thanks all of rst h ietiflec fitrainlguidelines, international of influence direct the ex oeainadex and -operation t edr,NOrepresen NGO leaders, uth Co Ser amp uncil este 7-13 vi si an La ce ce le iiyfrteetoE programm EU two these for bility va ot policy youth tvian inte d yo vrteps e er,tenme fparticipants of number the years, few past the Over . Co fErp n h uoenUin Latv Union, European the and Europe of rt a oe to moved was co fthe of t oiy ntrso eaaeadtransversal and separate a of terms in policy, uth ainly co mmi mnise n na in and issues mmon Yo mnctn nomto bu experiences, about information mmunicating rn Yo . Yo t Prog uth toa ulct bev n er rmbes from learn and observe to public ational ssion, si EC is t nAto rgam noprtn the incorporating programme Action in uth si bilities. uth eeoig nentoa recommendation international developing, is vi sWhite ’s gnifica is ieteLifelong the like ties, as o ueaottebnfiso separating of benefits the about sure not ch co y Co ch 02,aenot are 2002), n fthe of one of neporme.In programmes. ange untr ra uncil h Ministr the ly ange s c fitrainliflec and influence international of nce ms respon mmes, Ed Ye this , co Pa and tvsand atives iis etthr went visits, y t, cto n cec.I 200 In Science. and ucation ta l benefi uld e on per ntehistor the in as ie and tives co st co co ra h R ere uigthe during learned IRT the tnsof ntents fi y eysol nld the include should tegy mnaosepesdit, expressed mmentators uld is st yo mretbihetof establishment rmer lasfully always o hlrnand Children for ra a nymore only was n xml fwhere of example one t policy, uth t co eysol equal should tegy sibl rma from Lea yo es nsis nal y uhintern ough t practitioners, uth o the for e , yo nn Programme rning fLatv of as t fa t oiyand policy uth ex nagrowing a in re t tappears it ct, co ia st ch hyrequire they sear co laun ra cpsand ncepts is ne the ange, ia nsidered. eyof tegy included Yo recently n ch ch ational Family t in uth yo 7, ers din ed ly uth the t s international youth policy concepts are subject to considerable re-interpretation in the process of being appropriated by different national youth policy agents. The IRT’s exploration of the possible reasons for this situation arrived at several answers that could all be relevant in order to understand the weak links of Latvian youth policy to its international context. First of all, the IRT was told that Latvian society on the whole is characterised by a somewhat undifferentiated general perception of organisations and institutions representing “Europe”. Those who are aware of the differences, for professional reasons, tend to be subject to a selective perception of the role of the Council of Europe and the European Commission, as the two most relevant European bodies of youth policy development. While the Council of Europe is perceived as the major source of values and methodological know-how concerning the youth agenda, its status as a funding body is weak. This role is rather attributed to the European Commission and its programmes. Despite the independence of national institutions informing the Latvian population about Europe and the European Union they do remain accountable to superordinate ministerial structures with which they are associated. Programme managers and NGO representatives equally emphasised that project application procedures and communication with ministries in general can be very tiring and discouraging, due to the time and effort that needs to be invested for bureaucratic reasons alone. Finally, the IRT was told that, from an international perspective, youth policy in Latvia is a rather “slow” agenda in terms of development and recognition. Despite dramatic demographic developments concerning reproduction and emigration that are transforming Latvian society, policy seems to be reluctant to notice the crucial role of youth in this process. However, the notion of youth as a resource is starting to become relevant in the public discourse and youth policy is fi nally starting to become more established as a policy fi eld. The IRT is glad to have the opportunity to contribute to the internationalisation of Latvian youth policy and understands the invitation by the Latvian authorities to review its national policy as an important sign and an effort in precisely this direction. One of the questions that emerged during the review, which did not become sufficiently clear, is related to the way in which EU affairs, including youth affairs, are co-ordinated across governmental bodies. The national report does not include any information on this and the discussions in Latvia were not able to fi ll this knowledge gap. With regard to already established forms of international co-operation, the IRT was wondering whether the strong orientation ofLatvianyouth policytowardsthe Baltic uth policy

Sea area, as a matter of course, does not in fact suppress more substantive youth yo policy issues from guiding international co-operation. For instance, the emergence of considerable Latvian communities in countries like the UK, Ireland or Spain seems to justify inter-governmental exchange with these countries. Russia could be another important partner in youth policy for many reasons. Isolated activities, like a pilot project involving young Latvians living abroad, which was mentioned Supporting at the meeting of the IRT with the Ministry of Welfare, or a fi ve-year project for street children in the community of Cesis, realised with Canadian support, are indicative of what can be done. Finally, the Latvian best practice of organised out- 91 92 Youth policy in Latvia ever be h IRT The al par in participate to population by – different “All and Children nanational a on 9 e:http://a See: 39. were jo was organi used and suc the and activities of-school eutdi only in resulted absen shor its of critical were and it of supportive cur udn elsewhere. funding acquire to wi Wi oeac n iest nasceyweeteitrgnrtoa erdcinof reproduction inter-generational the where atti society hostile a in diversity and tolerance ca municipal in active h icsin hr hsisewsaddres was issue this where discussions the IRT The especial National h European the ca invisi near hnthe thin pinprobably mpaign pin which mpaign, atcadNordic and Baltic time same the at of basis co hi and IRT The Recommendation hrfrnet h eayo h So the of legacy the to reference th h n f200 of end the co tn nr like untry six radexper and er tiuet thi to ntribute t sa y ined suppor wa is eeatfor relevant ly ex tion st Ca re as t oexpres to nts iiyo h recent the of bility rtclo the of critical tu re rclpirte ntrso ot policy youth of terms in priorities orical ce fa of yo yms 4 nto in (42 most by mpaign co s eattopics levant e omnrt group minority to des tos nldn Latv including ptions, ecm oppor welcome a t oiyfaeok npriua h IRT the particular In framework. policy uth ee n ac and level Co Fa mnsteetnino h no the of extension the mmends n Gst doaedvriy ua ihsadparticipation, and rights human diversity, advocate to NGOs and t La all ll fthe of fi different-al iyAfisado oilItgainddntaporaethe appropriate not did Integration Social of and Affairs mily mm va xlrn diinlpossibilitie additional exploring tvia, a launched was na 7. equal” t ma for Also, co ncial Co co 37 s ission, a lost a was yo gnlatnint the to attention rginal yo ca ntext. co tiuet h enhancemen the to ntribute mte,teoffi the mmittee, nentoa agenda international t n oit nLatv in society and uth s t tutrsmnindta h nifrnet thi to indifference the that mentioned structures uth pino h tt ee forced level state the on mpaign un fa ca t di its yo natu co le ce tta impor that ct pino the of mpaign re sear tries t organi uth qual.info/ h European the l benefit uld spitfrpa for point ss a)mme states member tal) sa ca e together re, ce tun l n20 ythe by 2006 in pp om feuainshould education of forms mpaign ch ss t orflc h ttso h topi the of status the reflect to ity is s ia net as wrns fcritical of awareness raise to ance itett er rmsm ftepar the of some from learn to ointment u oiainof motivation ful ch . vi sa stil n o impro for ing tmnaiyi Latv in mentality et ainlyuhplc eeomn and development policy youth national ce ta tion Aldiffer “All l Co tinternational nt ongoing. Yo in wi rt ni fErp,whic Europe, of uncil s e htisiuinlcircumstan institutional that sed t ou n sev and Forum uth Co icipation, by ha th ch hmevswr not were themselves ca t- ia w ni of uncil term reo organi of arge pin h w iitisof ministries two The mpaign. organi anygorpia,cultural geographical, mainly fthe of r o appropriately not are n,al ent, la t la ve fapoce usd the outside approaches of ck co ch g proportion rge s eti hs domains. these in ment uoei par in Europe si oeain o small a For -operation. a o est not was for fpolitical of aracter. Co si grel ng l geNO that NGOs ngle ia qa”i Latvia. in equal” ca uncil wa co some , ma mpaign oeaino the on -operation t opitt the to point to nts si at ke rlint eral gthe ng fErp.There Europe. of was h Co datvte to activities ed ta essential an it ns un bihd The ablished. youn co s tn s cs fthe of qety a equently, equivocally mmitment, rhpwith ership htwould that co ernation ca promoted susof issues ta people g ncluded mpaign tn wa ke 39 yo r in ers up n nted ce The uth al s, s Recommendation 38 The IRT believes that the Latvian authorities would be well advised to be open and committed to topics raised by international campaigns. These campaigns are well-considered policy instruments; they are launched with a clear purpose and are sensitive indicators of sometimes alarming or persistent trends in European societies. In the long run, non-participation in established programmes and indifference to European trends will not only be harmful to the quality of Latvian youth policy and its international standing, it will also deprive Latvian society as a whole from participating in important processes of modernisation. The IRT is confident that the Latvian authorities will understand this concern and continue to honour their generally strong commitment to the agenda of building a European area of tolerance, diversity and equality. uth policy yo Supporting

Epilogue

The international youth policy review of Latvia took one year from the fi rst preparatory meeting in January 2007 until the national hearing in January 2008. The 12 months in between were characterised by intensive work, both by the Latvian team preparing the national report and organising the country visits and by the members of the IRT, fi rst familiarising themselves with the Latvian situation and then synthesising all the information and impressions into a written review. In the end, it seems fair to say that it has been a co-operation that worked extremely well and was highly constructive and extraordinarily fruitful for both sides. The general assessment of youth policy practice and development can be approached in different ways. The present report chose to refer to principles of youth policy suggested by the Latvian authorities themselves, distinguishing vertical, horizontal, and reflexive dimensions of youth policy. This reference to internal criteria enjoying a high level of acceptance within the given context, may have the desired side effect of further promoting and elaborating these self-imposed benchmarks. Another strategy that was, for instance, used in the context of the international review of Cyprus (Williamson, Council of Europe, 2007, chapter 6), outlines possibilities for youth policy development along established “external” criteria. Here, the benchmarking framework consists of criteria resulting from a long experience of reviewing youth policies within the Council of Europe: fi ve Cs – coverage, capacity, competence, co-ordination and cost – and eight Ds – (political) drive, decentralisation, delivery, difficulties, debate, dissent, development and direction (Williamson 2008: 47). Both strategies of assessment will lead to valuable starting points for further development and useful criteria for cross-national youth policy evaluation. Interested readers, as well as the Latvian partners in the review process, are invited to try and apply different criteria and perspectives of internal and external assessment to various contexts, in order to explore strengths, weaknesses and the potential of certain national settings. The fi nal outcome of the review exercise cannot be without gaps and some of the discussions during the national hearing underlined this, as can be seen from footnotes and comments added afterwards. Furthermore, reports from four working groups during the national hearing, on education and educational systems, youth work and training, social inclusion and youth policy structures, fed additional perspectives into the process of further development. The national hearing itself was a significant platform for appropriating the fi ndings of the review and initiating a national discussion. The event also indicated that the dialogue is not concluded, but needs to involve further partners actively, in order to become sustainable and effective. It will be up to the national actors to make good use of this exercise to perpetuate its effects towards, ideally, a follow-up review of how Epilogue things develop from the current position. This would be an important moment of feedback for the current format of the international youth policy review process. Finally, and self-critically, the IRT needs to acknowledge that, after all the intensive 95 96 Youth policy in Latvia edn nodrt be to order in reading oeo h tegh n ekesso Latv of weaknesses and strengths the of Some further need identi of actors individual speak to not decided or able, discus the of one reader will ok uhremain much work, easy edthi read n meit ouin.TeIRT The solutions. immediate and fi di h repor the in ed will eal odisc to able be s co review nsi si eaini h eeiedvlpeto h pro the of development reflexive the in deration n:“eddnot did “We ons: un s wi yo t co happropriate th t oiyit h eiwpro review the into policy uth ntrso eomnain;others recommendations; of terms in disc emr biu.Adi ewe h ie the lines the between in And obvious. more me ov ov er .” ered; raeigtesoeo nlso fsbet and subjects of inclusion of scope the Broadening ma ny as ha ca ch eac ve n ebro h R xrse tduring it expressed IRT the of member one re. legsta ontln hmevsto themselves lend not do that allenges is co ce nfiden ss ia otoewod o,ddntfeel not did not, do who those to n yo t ce t policy uth htteLatv the that sis ss a may ch ha leg that allenge ebe clearly been ve ce ia edasecond a need authorities n ueitself dure ca reful will . Recommendations

Recommendation 1 In line with the suggestions put forward in the second synthesis report (Williamson, 2008), the IRT therefore recommends the strengthening of a “critically reﬂective analysis of the social condition of young people’ in Latvia, as the basis for youth policy. Basic demographic data, available from ofﬁcial statistics, needs to be integrated and complemented by targeted and problem-oriented research, in order to provide policy making on a regular basis, with the most fundamental information and knowledge about the life of young people in Latvia, as well as their needs and problems.

Recommendation 2 The IRT encourages the Latvian authorities to advance the consolidation of its national youth policy structures in order to promote continuity and avoid redundancy, additional bureaucratic structures and competition. It could be the task of a cross-sectoral body to draft a strategy document and action plan, on the basis of an identiﬁcation of urgent issues, which is then approved by the government. The document should involve all relevant actors (national, regional and local authorities, NGOs, youth researchers and so on), suggest a division of responsibilities together with measurable objectives and budgetary implications. In its overall approach, youth policy development needs to move further towards being predominantly content- rather than institution- or actor-driven.

Recommendation 4

The IRT had the impression that the large number of strategy documents directly Recommendations and indirectly instructing youth policy (for example, the State Youth Policy Concept 2002, Youth Policy State Programme 2005-09, national guidelines on cultural policy for 2006-15, the national programme Culture 2010 and so on), with their 97 98 Youth policy in Latvia fitrainlbs rcieadexpertise, and practice best international of There development policy in participation respon those encourages IRT The uhparticipation. such Re profes its strengthen to to order in attention interest IRT mediator mlmnainadflo-p oeagreat a pose follow-up, and implementation h oeadsau of status and role The Re either co adv h R ecmsthe welcomes IRT The the or tool, Re yo by rev norgsteLatv the encourages oppo development tnad of standards Howeve delive In Re to order in efforts profes and development policy the eigthe vering t oiypractice. policy uth vi h oa realities. local the is co co co co is is na ut–adotnaprnl pr apparently often and – difficult the of ew dbudgetar ed rt beto able wr fthe of aware mmendation mmendation mmendation mnain6 mmendation ry ca is inlatoiisto authorities tional un s r, bevddrn h tw the during observed e twudne odtrietelink the determine to need would it se, ce s te rnil fLatv of principle ities mns Lat amongst wi as get and rt hnteflo-pprocess. follow-up the thin co il edt clarif to need a ainly h nentoa eiwidcts h eeiedimen reflexive the indicates, review international the co yo co ca h prpit rec appropriate the mnato lnsgetdabove, suggested plan action mmon manage ptniso ifrn iitisi the in ministries different of mpetencies t policy uth nsi ntb xetd u otesevere the to due expected, be nnot y raethe create fa e h pos the der Cu oiyand policy ia tta thi that ct yo uhrte ofrhroin their orient further to authorities n rnl t impact its rrently 8 7 5 vi so “regi of rs si t oiypicpe salse nthe in established principles policy uth an Yo nlprofi onal wi t Affairs uth yo co th ai for basis s t policy uth ia tiuet h impro the to ntribute si ea eaieynwoccupation new relatively iisto visits o n si by iiyo rdcn nyoestrateg one only producing of bility onal giin h Latv the ognition, sibl mre ba rmarked onali yo o instance, for , y le. t policy uth n impro and o Lat for e n seulpar equal as and sustainable a yo sa Co sun is t oiyhb”nesclarifica needs hubs” policy uth ini pa in tion ma h ein,teIRT the regions, the -ordinators ke la,i par in clear, wi sic vi ch may s Thi rs. ve an hrgr to regard th s leg.I h uue tmgtbe might it future, the In allenge. vsoa ttsof status – ovisional udn.Other funding. between the yo co ia ea iko being of risk at be rt ve improvement la icular t oiyto policy uth uhrte r encouraged are authorities n bnn eurdminimum required mbining co s as ck eto the of ment ma l ev thi serve uld hudb a be should tn t yo yo ffnigadteequal the and funding of is r ndecis in ers iodoppor nifold impor eas of because ge t oiyac policy uth will uth stil yo ea legi neral ca t and uth na l wis eur additional require fi ta nthe in nyencourage only n l.Suc eld. inlrepor tional . nt ma ,abottom-up a e, situ s si yo y ke ke ot policy youth un ion-making. ov ups.In purpose. nof on maki sl tun yo document, t policy uth ation y co dermined to and ation erlapping go in The tion. h t NGO uth ou of focus te for ities rdingly. duse od legal a gyet, ng yo t by and uth a Recommendation 9 In order to guarantee the survival of basic youth NGO structures, the IRT urgently suggests the evaluation of the practical implications of the funding policy of major sponsors, like the Ministry of Children and Family Affairs, on the youth NGO environment of the country. The omnipresence of fi nancial issues in defining individual and organisational performance capacities also needs to be recognised as one of the driving forces of the NGO sector. The National Youth Council of Latvia is encouraged to actively involve more youth NGOs and broaden its membership base, as this would strengthen its negotiating position at all levels.

Recommendation 10 The extension of compulsory schooling may have many advantages but the IRT suggests a more incisive clarification of the intentions of such a regulation, thereby weighing up the pros and cons more carefully and establishing a realistic profile of the costs, benefits and responsibilities of those affected.

Recommendation 11 ThescopeofthereformofgeneralcompulsoryeducationinLatviamakesitvulnerable in many ways and the IRT recommends the Latvian authorities continue to reform the general education system with great accuracy. The following challenges to general education reform are among those that the IRT could verify during its visits to Latvia: the considerable non-attendance and drop-out rates; the polarisation of educational outcomes; the decreasing local availability of education due to necessary infrastructure reforms; the low attractiveness of the teaching profession and the unsatisfactory policy and equipment for integrating disabled students.

Recommendation 12 The IRT is not convinced that the recent reform of minority education created ideal conditions for the integration of the large Russian population in the country. The IRT has the impression that the reform was implemented without the necessary societal dialogue and without providing sufficient time for the teaching staff to adapt to the new requirements. In line with observers of the international community, the IRT must urge the Latvian authorities to advance the reform with great care and to cautiously monitor its impact in terms of affecting language training, equal opportunities in education, and social integration. Furthermore, the IRT invites the Latvian authorities to listen to the constructive suggestions of the many impartial voices within the country, concerning the secondary status of the Russian language. Failing to reflect the strength of the specific geographical Recommendations position and economic orientation of the country in language policy is equal to wasting a chance for all Latvian citizens to benefit from one of the country’s major competitive advantages. 99 10

0 Youth policy in Latvia to ch profes non-academic of quality nomddaou ewe al between dialogue informed nacdLat enhanced Co tr vocational will is inv reform, refl the ma ever-i the that understands IRT The Re Latv in either education leaving people ha those co impo the on of h R hrsthe shares IRT The Re yo neces the and structures yo ac to xml fbs practi best of example ser which education, higher recommend indispen seem investments, o eexpected, be not the of urgency the effi and quality prestige, low the huddiscus should out-of-schoo h R rpssta al that proposes IRT The Re t dcto.Adtoal,they Additionally, education. uth t okadnnfra education. non-formal and work uth leg otesse that system the to allenge nces ch ethe ve ni fErp hr-emyuhplc dioymission, advisory policy youth short-term Europe of uncil vo na ke vi co co co cstehigh the ects Russi eanbt emal oad ter towards permeable both remain ce aracterised ca co rwdw n’ profes one’s down rrow s mnain14 mmendation mmendation mmendation youn si s inleuainadtraining and education tional pn h rcs.Thi process. the mpany fetv profes effective on ver an ca ol epewodpn nprofes on depend who people g s aiyo h mean the or pacity y s la rt acks l vi ia and ifiut The difficult. vi s h Latv the ciiisi Latv in activities neo profes a of ance gaein nguage gtewhole the ng ohtesrntsadteweaknes the and strengths the both ri Europe in or nvrino u-fsho education out-of-school of version an by as sa va n pnfrre for open and co situ crifi iiu feuainlda ns tthe At ends. dead educational of minimum a u feuaini society, in education of lue h rnfraino ihrthe either of transformation the ncern ce ia 13 15 to.Hwvr quic However, ation. si ce authorities n sa ge l hogotEurope. throughout onal ate in parties s is ca ry ea dcto ple lot ihreducation. higher to also applies education neral s un nboth on as ra to indicated ution nrdcino nentoa tnad fnon-formal of standards international of introduction observed expressed sa si l ulfidd not do qualified ca g feducatio of nge s co ia si ate inv parties whole. a nlhorizon onal si s bl opru netne educational extended an pursue to nyb solved be only n ci nltann system training onal nodrt piieteinterpl the optimise to order in , nleuain Thi education. onal uns co o t salsmn.Nvrhls,teIRT the Nevertheless, establishment. its for e vising nyo profes of ency co vo l,frinstan for uld, cesn pa ncreasing liga colo pcaie institution specialised or school at elling si uld vdin lved ilta will fi e,i em of terms in des, wi Fu dapreliminar a nd by n’ retto.Tecretne current The orientation. one’s ti co ol th rt ar si emr,teIRT the hermore, h Latv the ved nsi y ke co k nleuain eas hyd not do they because education, onal wi co yo nal dcto lofrgautsfrom graduates for also education solution e niigitrainlexpertise international inviting der hrgr othe to regard th ncern nsi time. will t oiydvlpeti Latv in development policy uth ha si oppor as rt nleuainadrecognises and education onal derably by ce eaporaeoppo appropriate ve se eneces be ia cpto fyugpol in people young of icipation s edn ntefaeo a of frame the in done be , la s wel Cl authorities n mean by development ca ftecretofrof offer current the of bour s co oser tun y ta as l erahd monetar reached, be n are h Latv the l epromoted be uld u retslto for solution urgent but x by te.Aqaiysystem quality A ities. s reduction ma sa co ihacerfcson focus clear a with is un fa of h o ttsand status low the h g f1,also 16, of age the ry oeainadan and -operation ma co kto h system the or rket ieyadshould and likely fa agreement an If . ia vne htan that nvinced co rginali ay wi authorities, n sa ca mprehen co as s hrgr to regard th favailab of etm,it time, me reer. ns rt sa iue a titutes un wel ce inof tion Yo yo as ities, ssity si un as l uth an ve ia le g s y Recommendation 16 The IRT appreciates the non-military share of the activities of the Youth Guard ( Jaunsardze ) and in particular its contribution to the integration of disadvantaged young people who would otherwise fall through the net of conventional youth activity offers. The IRT encourages Latvian youth NGOs to recognise the value of this work and to seek co-operation where it seems to be appropriate, due to overlapping agendas and principles.

Recommendation 17 The IRT asks the Latvian authorities to ensure that women are not at a disadvantage in terms of employment and labour protection in general, and with regard to their re-entry into employment after maternity leave in particular. The availability of childcare and pre-school facilities is a pre-condition for women’s equal access to employment and needs further improvement.

Recommendation 18 The protection of children and young people from harmful work experiences is a critical achievement of modern societies. It is for this reason that the IRT thinks that the underlying reasons for the popularity of paid part-time summer employment of children in Latvia, from the age of 13 onwards, requires a thorough investigation. Child labour traditionally recruits “victims” from economically weak families and households; the Latvian authorities are advised to make sure that poverty is of no relevance to children and young people in Latvia when choosing to participate in summer employment. Also, public concern about the lack of summer activities for children with working parents is not an appropriate reason for the establishment of such a system. Furthermore, given the fact that more and more young people remain in education until they are 18 or 19 years old, there is no obvious reason for them to start gaining work experience as early as 13. Instead, the possibility of organising alternative forms of work, on a voluntary basis and without a direct ﬁ nancial incentive, should be explored. The funds currently subsidising summer employment could then beneﬁt disadvantaged young people and families directly. The IRT suggests a robust debate “in the round” on these challenging and sometimes rather emotive issues.

Recommendation 19 The IRT recommendsa stronger consideration ofyoung people’sactualneedsin the development of youth-friendly health services. Their demands for conﬁdentiality and the freedom to choose one’s preferred doctor asks the system to improve Recommendations its ﬂ exibility and availability, as well as discretion in the implementation of its promises. For instance, active gender-sensitive counselling as well as anonymous health services at institutions frequented by young people on an everyday basis, 101 10

2 Youth policy in Latvia TheIRTsuggests Re funds. pos the of and R eivsta e dcto for education sex that believes IRT pers the and elsewhere, and the of view In Re yo genera the fi youn ex of rituals to people R loblee ht in that, believes also IRT ik.I ih lob sflt inten Minist to the useful example (for be also might It risks. spor odt nomto,expe information, to-date ed ob impro be to needs standard and schools, like supervis ot fadsolution and of roots al h R ecmsteLatv the welcomes IRT The Re addres to able are mass sub of and drug to vulnerability people’s h R ul share fully IRT The Re respon eerhit h specifi the into research ra myit h salse tutrsof structures established the into rmly co g rmmr cieyecuaigpo encouraging actively more from nge t-redyhat ser health uth-friendly co co co co o bs npost in abuse hol Fa t people, g n elhscos nodrto order in sectors, health and mnain22 mmendation mmendation mnain20 mmendation mnain21 mmendation iyAfissymbolically Affairs mily si o u oeirto,the emigration, to due ion bility, rnigsesto seems drinking si ll iiispro bilities o ee fhe of level low y s co co la co in l eaogteadtoa se additional the among be uld un tnosydecr ntinuously ck ptneadtlrnetwrssxa orientations. sexual towards tolerance and mpetence s yo s ve ing derliningtheadditional the the uth s d -S 23 ce oteproblem. the to ch vi co co ry ovi ge co ded vi ssi vi c ildcare cr fLatv of ncern rt nsi fCide and Children of dradpover and nder ce wo rtclpolicy critical of ew tsocieties, et oi-itrclorigin socio-historical uns is ia eachlue Both use. alcohol ve ca derably. lhpr alth wi s and e ntaiet strengthen to initiative n by is lfrurgent for ll ligsol be should elling ettra fsxal rnmte infectio transmitted sexually of threat tent by h EU the fa easing hnthe thin o ntne dpigteMinistry’s the adapting instance, for , ci youn co ovision iis or lities, ot gnaneeds agenda youth re uns Re ia si duce st as Yo g o trigsxa ciiisi Latvia in activities sexual starting for age epeboth people g spon fy n fa lig hl tthe at while elling, nemss.I atclr h problem the particular, In misuse. ance ov ty yo Fa t nAto rgam n te EU other and programme Action in uth iypolicy mily wel yo the si n fetv oiyrsoss which responses, policy effective and ead clarifi demands eral iss t oiyactors policy uth iyAfis nodrto order in Affairs) mily ov iehat eaiu in behaviour health tive youn uthagendaattheMinistr sibl as l iss co regt bst n te health other and obesity erweight, e tahd h me The attached. ues l ta framework. e education sex e s e ieln aetodamong parenthood lone like ues -operation rv co epeliving people g h vrdyiiito of initiation everyday the ke n tradition and ic l ept riea pos at arrive to help uld n es . as wi nentoa experience International . co hnadotieschools outside and thin examples. oeainbtenthe between -operation ob meddmore embedded be to ca sa wi wi ino h ttsof status the of tion etm promoting time me hohrministries other th hrgr to regard th s wi will fdikn and drinking of hu parental thout ma Fu as y pro ge ofChildren rt ures ke na hermore, ea,to neral, vi e The me. ful ns eup- de youn youn co sibl l the , use uld e g g Recommendation 24 The IRT was impressed by the work of the criminal justice agencies working with young people: probation, prison service and police. Their practice is at an early stage of development and their resources are limited, but their stated position is worthy of strong political support: a commitment to prevention, the improvement of interventions and programmes, both in the community and in custody, and the need to work collaboratively with social services, schools and parents’ organisations. A more explicit youth crime prevention strategy supported by a budget line and seeking to engage expertise within civil society, could conceivably be the next step in what is already a commendable process.

Recommendation 25 The IRT encourages all parties involved in this particular form of youth involvement to come to a sound and honest assessment of the underlying key questions: What is the intended main direction in terms of learning? Is it actual participation, or leadership, or assistance, or merely “activity”? All four of these educational goals are legitimate but probably require different approaches and opportunities.

Recommendation 26 The IRT recommends the establishment of an ofﬁcial platform for feeding the resolutions of pupil parliaments and governments into a nationwide process of collecting and considering young voices. Young people’s initiatives, opinions and democratic decisions should have the chance to enter “channels to the top” and be perceived by policy makers as a means to facilitate political participation and democratisation and promote the youth-driven character of policy development. A national youth parliament, given the required public attention, could be such a platform. Alternatively, structures like the Latvian Youth Summit or the planned youth forums could be used. To summarise, the IRT believes that Latvian youth policy would beneﬁ t from such structures in the sense of improving its youth- driven character.

Recommendation 27 The IRT invites the Latvian youth policy protagonists to make the most of their “late start” advantage, in terms of youth information, to learn fast, absorb good and

creative ideas, and catch up quickly with the European midﬁeld. Youth information Recommendations centres in all regional centres, perhaps attached to established structures, could function as low-threshold youth information hubs and complement the online offer that is currently being established and extended. 103 10

4 Youth policy in Latvia co re IRT The Re fpolicies of integrative n mother and nemployment, in sur and develop to NGOs and of ma mataiy hyaercmeddto recommended are They impartiality. cieytwrsa tiuesiti society, their in shift attitude an towards actively to h R eivsta Latv that stronger believes IRT The h R re IRT The Re on institutions, the Re la will introduced agenda society fthi of co go urg IRT The Re oet n oilecuinadterrlvnefrgoigu nLatv in up growing for to relevance their and exclusion social and poverty Re and Children of ministries the establi be to need priorities effo ca mpaign yo ntinuous un inlDvlpetadlocal and Development gional fi ta ntemn nteworkplace/society the in instreaming co co co co utproces difficult the through rt lga ll co t oiy h tt respon state the policy, uth ke tr ma s wi s gl eedo h viaiiyo aeiefnigframework. funding baseline of availability the on depend rgely mnain28 mmendation mnain30 mmendation mmendation mnain31 mmendation y. nsi policy respon ps rginali h Latv The ge eal okdn lehr nErp n hog h European the through and Europe in elsewhere done work derable hrltdsrcue frsac n udn availab funding and research of structures related th s co co ca nkoldeaddata and knowledge in es promoting drsen nder ta s ass mnsta Lat that mmends mnsteipeetto of implementation the mmends nLatv in aiis nthe In pacities. gtdat rgeted fi Latv sa si eld smn n vlaino out of evaluation and essment iiyfrcetn the creating for bility tion. ge ia si ia is uhrte ol ewell-adv be would authorities n gemteso okn parents. working or mothers ngle dreult nshoigadeuainadon and education and schooling in equality nder ia policy n si duly npriua ed ob ute impro further be to needs particular in iiyi al in tivity 29 ce youn rt co ain wi hdo h ba the on shed ia nsi epe h oiyproces policy The people. g fi vi ma vi l fpriiaini particular, in participation of eld asp Fa hteresto the th n enest efulfi be to needs ve s natoiisivsiaetepolari the investigate authorities an si dered. ke iyAf mily l of yo iiyt ensure to bility cso oilinclusion. social of ects ke gov sand rs co t policy uth fi y dn hi euliette nteba the on identities sexual their nding ll rmns ota h horizontal the that so ernments, oan.The domains. cin In ection. co Fu fa co . ndition irs, rt yo btal mbat ra emr,i re osnhoietheir synchronise to order in hermore, i of sis ino needneo the of independence of tion uth We wi hrgr osxa ioiisand minorities sexual to regard th co ta co lfare, s co oiyprofes policy vi ll l benefi uld gtdrsac into research rgeted co l mes for wo the of ew d The ed. ndition om fitlrneadwork and intolerance of forms is oeainbten at between, -operation situ dt mrc international embrace to ed Ed youn wi Po cto n cec,and Science, and ucation to f(on)women (young) of ation hrgr oter(dis-) their to regard th s s co iissol rwon draw should licies epet eal to able be to people g for ol benefi would ma tnaino the of ntinuation t ve si co yo as ,b tfrwomen for it be d, nl tal at onals nifold nsi uth prime a le eal from derably si ass usd the outside ch gfeatures ng ia iss ch ociation allenges, norder in , t co co l ge aracter rma from e of ues levels ncern least, i of sis un nder civil tr s y Recommendation 32 The IRT recommends the connection of the youth policy agenda with a broader regional (economic) development strategy that would assist young people dramatically in the process. Spatial inequalities in socio-economic youth citizenship need to be identified, quantifi ed and qualified on the basis of research, in order to be acted upon in terms of policy measures.

Recommendation 33 The IRT believes that the capacity of research for youth policy development is underestimated and should be strengthened. As a step towards evidence-based youth policy, the IRT recommends making use of the expertise of Latvian youth research by inviting them to participate in committees and by developing an active and regular youth research funding policy. In this way, youth research could also become part of a comprehensive youth information strategy. At the same time, the Latvian authorities are advised to take advantage of knowledge and resources concerning the situation of young people in the country, available from other ministries and public institutions.

Recommendation 34 The IRT feels that the excellent structures of youth out-of-school activities already in place in Latvia need to be complemented by an alternative approach to youth work with stronger non-formal features. With the additional dimension of targeting disadvantaged young people, who are otherwise outside the reach of public support, this approach should be characterised by a strong orientation towards social integration, preventing unfavourable youth development. A diversity of approaches to youth work would ultimately enhance the involvement of young people in Latvia, in terms of both quantity and quality.

Recommendation 35 The IRT urges the Latvian authorities to advance the professionalisation of the training, as well as the working conditions, of youth practitioners. A common methodology, career development and further training on a regular basis, supervision, and quality standards involving ﬁ nancial guarantees are among the necessary features of a professional youth work system. In the long run, the Latvian authorities will also need to make sure that youth work provision covers all communities.

Recommendation 36 Recommendations The IRT believesthatLatvianyouth policycould beneﬁt from a strategy ofcollecting, evaluating and communicating information about experiences, methods and outcomes ofyouth policy programmes and activities. In order to take full advantage 105 10

6 Youth policy in Latvia topic po additional exploring Latvia, bev n er rmbs practi best from learn and observe itrclpirte ntrsof terms in priorities historical exten the recommends IRT The co Re thi iss r sen are well-con Latv the and that believes IRT The Re co positive availab of yo rao oeac,dvriyadequality and diversity tolerance, of area their honour to so policy and indifferen hl rmpriiaigi impor in co participating from whole a t oiyadisitrainlsadn,it standing, international its and policy uth ntext tiuet h nacmn fapoce usd the outside approaches of enhancement the to ntribute fietta h Latv the that nfident ci s e n na in and ues co co te.I h ogrn o-atcpto netbihdporme and programmes established in non-participation run, long the In eties. strate co s mmendation mnain38 mmendation mte otopic to mmitted co . si si si ieidctr fsmtmsaamn rpers or alarming sometimes of indicators tive na benefit uld le ce gy ee oiyisrmns hyare they instruments; policy dered eeffect de ma nweg,sc str a such knowledge, oErpa trends European to hudicueteinvi the include should ke fi ge mretbiheto the of establishment rmer rs, eal strong nerally as co uld 37 wel ia rais s tional authorities n co syo as l ss na in nsist ed ia sblte for ssibilities yo yo si co by uhrte ol ewel be would authorities n t rese uth will no h now the of on t oiydvlpetada the at and development policy uth t policy uth at mtett h gnao uligaEuropean a building of agenda the to mmitment international ce eg ta ta o nybe only not nLatv in ino h neetditrainlpbi to public international interested the of tion y rwn nraein increase growing ilun will tpoesso modern of processes nt hudeulyinv equally should . ar yo ch co ia co t oiyagenda policy uth esadthi derstand r and ers laun n will -operation. oeaino the on -operation ma yo ca ha t policy uth lodpieLatv deprive also ch pin.These mpaigns. inly mu oteqaiyo Latv of quality the to rmful ed ass ge is wi cae profes ociated gahcl utrland cultural ographical, te s ol Fo hacerproeand purpose clear a th awareness tted nEuropean in trends nt co ve l . smal a r adv cr and ncern yo as Ba is ba t practitioners uth to.TeIRT The ation. is hl.Finally, whole. a tcadNordic and ltic ca dt eopen be to ed i frelevant of sis ia l mpaign society n co of sa si un co co etime me nl.A onals. tr ntinue mmon y s like are ia as is n Sources

References Academic Programme Agency, Higher Education in Latvia, Study programmes in Latvia offered in foreign languages, APA, Riga, 2007. Aidukaite, Jolanta, The emergence of the post-socialist welfare state – the case of the Baltic States: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, Södertörns Högskola, Stockholm, 2004. Allmendinger, Jutta, “Educational Systems and Labour Market Outcomes”, European Sociological Review, 5, 1989, pp. 231-250. Bendit, René, “What can European comparative youth research do for youth policy? The role of science in youth policy consultation”, Forum 21, European Journal on Youth Policy, No. 9, June 2007. Bentley, Tom, Learning beyond the classroom. Education for a changing world, Routledge, London, 1998. Berryman, Sue E., Hidden challenges to education systems in transition countries, The World Bank, Washington, 2000. Bowyer, Jonathan, Bridges for recognition. Promoting recognition of youth work across Europe, SALTO-YOUTH Inclusion Resource Centre, Brussels, 2005. Bradley, Harriet; van Hoof, Jacques (eds), Young people in Europe. Labour markets and citizenship. The Policy Press, Bristol, 2005. Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia, “Demography 2006”, Collection of statistical data, Riga, 2006. Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia, Children in Latvia, Riga, 2006. Chisholm, Lynne, “Advanced Training for Trainers in Europe (ATTE)”, Pilot course under the Council of Europe and the European Commission Youth Worker Training Partnership Programme 2001-03 , Volume 2, External evaluation, Final report. Together with Bryony Hoskins, Marianne Søgaard Sorensen, Lejf Moos, Ib Jensen, Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg, 2006. Colley, Helen; Boetzelen, Philip; Hoskins, Bryony; Parveva, Teodora (eds), Social inclusion and young people: breaking down the barriers, Council of Europe Publishing Strasbourg, 2007. es

Council of Europe, Memorandum to the Latvian Government. Assessment of the rc progress made in implementing the 2003 recommendations of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights. For the attention of the Committee of Sou Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly, CommDH(2007)9. Dreifelds, Juris, Latvia in transition, Cambridge University Press, 1996. 107 10

8 Youth policy in Latvia nent www Internet: in values La Gil- 1, Hart, Ar Raimonds, Graudins, Pa García gny Leic Agency, Balaki Ha iel jr;Andersson, Björn; Hibell, Development Child International St Co Drugs, Other and Alcohol on Information EURO ef0 te rgueamong use drug other Publ European 2002. Luxembourg, European St Yo European abet,DvdJ,“uoenitgaintruhdemocratic through integration “European Lat J., David Galbreath, White Ed 2003. Offi suppor “Political Piret, Ehin, ed Manuela, Bois-Reymond, du va udies udies Pa t Cu va - October 5-8 tvia, ry t and uth rl ietrt of Directorate ucation, r lu,“h two “The Klaus, er, btDu bs n Illicit and Abuse Drug mbat ll vi 61 Robl ce aetr Assembly. iamentary , n speeds”, ing ication nthe in a rclmdescription, rriculum ST 00en.pdf To rt Roge ea Ol reva, o Offi for Ló Pa , 8 ,200 1, 38, , AT, s Alvaro, es, . Latv B.4 m; Vo e,Mge ne (ed.), Angel Miguel pez, e,Offi per, Eu Co Foun Co Wo r .1,N.1 06 pp. 2006, 1, No. 14, l. s Erp in “Europe Will ester ro mmi A. fteEuropean the of mmi ci .w rk ga pe: co , al ainfrteImpro the for dation asn Howard, iamson, nent www Internet: . ia vpoetogotu/tt fteAr the of aveproject.org/output/State Ch ; ssi tx fmnrt rights”, minority of ntext , Publ ie&Societ & Time ssi .pdf Ko Tr 1999. ce 7, UNICEF citizenship, to tokenism from participation: ildren’s 20 on, ansitions on, Co kv,An;Mra,Mark, Morgan, Anna; kkevi, p 1-20 pp. fa ication o Offici for 03 st La mmi ce e impetu new A fi dnsi 35 in udents Joint o h teto fthe of attention the for , va vriwo h ainlsituation. national the of Overview tvia: gures”, Co s Yo Co fEuropeanization. of ssi uncil t n pr fthe of Sport and uth s Ba uncil . t Co St re Tr fteEuropean the of re nrfrHmnRights, Human for oner nthe in y, bo Bjarn rbro; .e al d ntelnsbtenfra n non-formal and formal between links the on udy affi mnte,Lxmor,200 Luxembourg, mmunities, lat oto oilpoeto n oilinclusion social and protection social on port Advanc 69 Ce urofound.europa.eu/pubdo 13 fEurope, of Eu fEurope, of Publ ed Ci ck 04 p 89-10 pp. 2004, , te Florence, ntre, -8 ro iesi and tizenship Eu ve s Ba n nDrugs, in ing 7. to st for ication eto iigand Living of ment ro at tcStates, ltic ed Co re pean Eu iin ioiisadgender and minorities ligion, yearb as Tr uncil Co ro Jou iigfor aining Strasb n hrdu;Altö,Salme; Ahlström, Thoroddur; on, s European youth, pean mH(200 mmDH Co co Sy rn fteEuropean the of fEurope, of ook untries mnte,Lxmor,200 Luxembourg, mmunities, Co crnzn uoemo Europe a nchronizing The Co lof al 1992. Po ug 2005. ourg, 199 mte of mmittee co ni fErp,Strasbourg, Europe, of uncil 7. 20 pduGop 2004. Group, mpidou Re t ESP mmunity Tr 3-2004”, 06-0 Co h Swedish The . iesin ainers ot/aESaeo the of State ports/WaVE eoto hi on Report AD 4) ntemporary Co Wo 7 cs ,2004. 3, re 7. oeainGopto Group -operation Office , /2006/100/en/1/ port: Mi rking National , ora fBaltic of Journal Eu itr n the and nisters co Co ro We Co ns Al Co mmunities, pe o Offici for Co co mmi s olidation: Eu fr and lfare nditions, , uncil o and hol (WaVE). Vo ii to visit ro vi Yo ssi lume pean gat ng uth for on 7. al , Hogan-Brun, Gabrielle, “At the interface of language ideology and practice: the public discourse surrounding the 2004 education reform in Latvia”, Language Policy, 5, 2006, pp. 313-333. Hughes, James, “‘Exit’ in deeply divided societies: regimes of discrimination in Estonia and Latvia and the potential for Russophone migration”, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 43, No. 4, 2005, pp. 739-762. Ivlevs, Tom, The role of ethnic discrimination in migration from Eastern Europe, Leverhulme Centre for Research on Globalisation and Economic Policy, Internet: www.gep.org.uk/shared/shared_levpublications/research_media_briefings/ RPMB_071105_ethnic_discrimination.pdf Retrieved: 4.12.20072007. Jasiukaityte, Vaida; Reiter, Herwig, “Youth policy in transformation”, Lithuanian youth policy review, State Council for Youth Affairs, Vilnius, 2002. Jasiukaityte, Vaida; Reiter, Herwig, “Jugendpolitik in Ländern des Übergangs – welchen Beitrag kann sie zur Zivilgesellschaft in Europa leisten?”, Jugendarbeit und Jugendpolitik in Europa, Otten, Hendrik; Lauritzen, Peter (eds), Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, 2004. Kovacheva, Siyka, “Flexibilisation of youth transitions in Central and Eastern Europe”, Young,9, 2001, pp. 41-60. Kruma, Kristine, “Checks and balances in Latvian nationality policies: National agendas and international frameworks”, Citizenship policies in the New Europe, Bauböck, Rainer; Perchinig, Bernhard; Sievers, Wiebke (eds), Amsterdam University Press, 2007, pp. 63-88. Laboratory of Analytical and Strategic Study, Study on youth social and political activities in Latvia, Final report, Riga, 2007. Lace, Tana, Tackling child poverty and promoting social inclusion of children. A study of national policies, Internet: http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/ social_inclusion/docs/experts_reports/latvia_1_2007_en.pdf, 2007. Latvian Centre for Human Rights and Ethnic Studies, The situation of Roma in Latvia, Internet: www.humanrights.org.lv/upload_file/situation_of_roma.pdf, Riga, 2003. Lauritzen, Peter, “Jugendforschung und Jugendpolitik – zum Beratungsbedarf auf europäischer Ebene”, Jugendarbeit und Jugendpolitik in Europa, Otten, Hendrik; Lauritzen, Peter (eds), Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, 2004, pp. 151-162. es

Lauritzen, Peter, Deﬁning youth work, Internet: www.nonformality.org/index. rc php/2006/06/deﬁning-youth-work, Retrieved: 22.11.20072006. Sou Lukasinska, Inga, Street children in Latvia: problems and solutions, The Soros Foundation Latvia, Nordik Publishing House, Internet: www.policy.lv/index. php?id=102467&lang=en. Retrieved: 28. 11. 2007, 2002. 109 11

0 Youth policy in Latvia eodtepn curtain: pink the Beyond Roman; Putn Pi Rajevska, Baltic OECD, Eu Latv in Fa Re ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-0 social and populations focus: zln,Uldis, Ozolins, Nurse, Latvijas Pe Muiznieks,Nils, of people International La Ministr training and Mitrofano Ministr Ri Ministr arm Min Ministr La Ministr 200 ates Mervyn, Matthews, 19 Milmeister raiigex Organising sa ga fo-repor va ainldvlpetplan development national tvian tvia 82 tr ro ree:30.12.200 trieved: is asova ed 6. ek,Ol renko, 200 , pe n,Avt,“Sexuality, Aivita, ina, . tr St 20 La for -A y y y y y y ia Ly ates nvriae 2006. Universitate, Ta of of fEconomic of fCide and Children of fDfneo the of Defence of of ecie iciiainadkoldeo h Latv the of knowledge and discrimination perceived : va eiw fntoa oiisfor policies national of Reviews tvia. 07 sia udmila 7. vs ce Alexandra, , La 49 t Fe ás ui es,MrviInstit Mirovni (eds), Judit kács, , Re We 200 , Ed s Miroslav , vai hi w words own their in tvia Language , liciana, St Marianne; 20 ga inlDvlpetand Development gional Te development cto n cec fthe of Science and ucation 8, fr fthe of lfare ch udies 10 mo Experts, of am h matof impact The 20)“h accult “The (2006) La 7. Fa ne ewe youth between anges A. tvian-Russian re o so 2005. Oslo, fo, ; Ed , ia 200 Riga, port, oilplc in policy Social 72 Co s Vo ereAln&Unwin, & Allen George Union, Soviet the in ucation s fthe of 00 uncil oilpoeto nthe in protection Social .5,N.5 uy2006, July 5, No. 58, l. Po ta.Telas The al. et Will Fa Re Ev 7. iy2 03 pp. 2003, 2, licy Ri , Re iyAfis rf of draft Affairs, mily eryda ulco Latv of public asn oad(eds), Howard iamson, Re fEurope, of mas ulco Latv of public ga Co co Eu ulco Latv of public 2004. , re dtos99/2 nditions ni fErp Pu Europe of uncil ro uiiyadhmpoi:teLat the homophobia: and culinity y ur lations:domesticandinte vriR,Rg,2006 Riga, Averti-R., , 20 7. enac pean ieof life to oe of modes ation La 07 t Lo tvia: rsnr fthe of prisoners -20 ﬁ Yo ca t Ljub ut, ia l actors, eld LG Re uth l 21 ia , ce 13 We oeneto the of Government BT Social ulco Latv of public , ia ed 7-23 Jelga , so pnlnug oiyi the in policy language upon ssion 7- eoton Report 00 751 lfare , Po National epein people 099 ucation, Ec ljana, 7 8. iyi Lithuania: in licy -7 nent http://epp Internet: . Eu nmcdvlpetof development onomic lsig St blishing, Russi re 73. vas st /EN/KS-SF-0 ro otfor port t ne obepressur double under ate Ed Dialogue 200 enUnion. pean tipograﬁja ition ED 2001 OECD, . nspe an re st co East t eec oiyand policy defence ate oto ot oiyin policy youth on port ia 7. rn dwr The war. ld , s 20 ationaldimensions National ern rasbourg, Re h,Luxembourg, Phi, akin s 06 ulco Latv of public 7- n Networks: and ia ia 2006 Riga, , Eu ia 200 Riga, , Report adolescents g 099 n . ro St vi la pe, tsisin atistics an Ed .e nguage”, -EN.PDF st 2003. Lo urostat ucation ateless La Ku by ca ndon, tvia se”, 7. ha the . ia e r, , , , . . , Rajevska, Feliciana (ed.) Insiders’ views about social inclusion and social security in Latvia. Fafo-report 527, Fafo, Oslo, 2006. Reiter, Herwig, The missing link - the transition from education to labour in the Soviet Union revisited , EUI working paper SPS No. 2006/07, European University Institute, Florence, 2006. Sedlenieks, Klavs National report on the implementation and impact of the YOUTH Community action programme, Ministry for Children and Family Affairs, Latvia, 2007. Sloka, Biruta, Compliance of professional and higher education programmes with the requirements of labour market, University of Latvia, Riga, 2007. Stafseng, Ola; Council of Europe, Youth policy in Estonia, report by an international group of experts appointed by the Council of Europe, Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg, 2001. Statistikos Departamentas, Jaunimas Lietuoje, The youth of Lithuania, Statistikos Departramentas, Vilnius, 2000. Stirna, Astrida, The prevalence and the consequences of alcohol abuse, drug abuse and smoking in Latvia, The State Addiction Agency, Riga, 2006. Strehl, Franz; Reisinger, Sabine; Kalatschan, Michael, Funding systems and their effects on higher education systems, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 6, OECD Publishing, 2007. UNDP Human Development Report Latvia 2004-2005, Human capability in the regions, Advanced Social and Political Research Institute of the University of Latvia, Latvia, 2006. UNESCO, Strong foundations: Early childhood care and education, Education for All global monitoring report 2007, 2nd revised edition, Unesco, Paris, 2006. UNICEF, Young people in changing societies, Regional monitoring report, No. 7, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence, 2000. UNICEF, A decade of transition, Regional monitoring report, No. 8, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence, 2001. UNICEF. Data and analysis on the lives of children in CEE/CIS and Baltic States, TransMonee 2007 Features, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence, 2007. WHO, Skills-Based Health Education Including Life Skills: An Important Component of a Child-Friendly/Health-Promoting School, Skills for Health, Information Series on School Health, 9, World Health Organisation, Geneva, 2003.

Williamson, Howard, Supporting young people in Europe: Principles, policy and es practice, Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg, 2002. rc

Williamson, Howard, “Social exclusion and young people: some introductory Sou remarks”, Social inclusion and young people: breaking down the barriers, Colley, Helen; Boetzelen, Philip; Hoskins, Bryony; Parveva, Teodora (eds), Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg, 2007, pp. 23-30. 111 11

2 Youth policy in Latvia Ministr La Ministr Minist Minist Minist minorities Ministr 19.0 Ministr Min Latv Memorandum, Inclusion Joint 19.0 Will Dordre Depa Wo Zo 98-111 pp. Will Co AID document Other in Berufe soziale für Zi Co seven” “second Ce ha Ce Günther; policy”, Ce Yn 20 ver tvia, l,Irena/Andersone, gla, digegn, i Childr sis sis i Childr sis ni of uncil ndout. ni fErp Pu Europe of uncil 07 lf S asn Howard, iamson, asn Howard; iamson, is 7. 7. ga . te rt tr Ci 200 200 and ry ry ry etof ment ch gDbr,Hans/von ng/Döbert, id;Lieic,Eia Sca okeuaini Latv in education work “Social Elina, Laiveniece, Linda; , y y y y y ha ty Fo fDefence, of of of of of of of :Srne,200 Springer, t: Wö of ndout. 7. 7. Yo , . Eu ru Ca ST We We Ed Ed ha nand en nand en Ed Ed uth bc m Ed ro se,“ot & “Youth rsten, Prevention I cto n Science, and ucation cto n Science, and ucation ndout. lfare, lfare, cto n cec,Sot Department, Sports Science, and ucation cto n Science, and ucation ke einternational pe 21 cto n Science, and ucation Co Co afe es,ISS-Eig (eds), Manfred , , Vo Eu uncil, ni of uncil Yo Yo Po edrequality Gender s ca Jaunsa lsig St blishing, ro Co uths’ t dcto n Health and Education uth co Su et n oilecuinin exclusion social and verty tional enJunlon Journal pean Eu uncil 7, prigyugpol in people young pporting ns Po ro Ru pp. Eu Ce Ce rd iieexperienc sitive le hnot,etc.) (handouts, ulted pa Ko ieCrea mlj (200 Emilija dite/Cerneva, fEurope, of ze ro ntre, te handout ntre, ge Ed Hambur , 41 p oh (eds) Botho pp, , re einternational pe abug 2008 rasbourg, eain–rsac ae nweg for knowledge based research – neration ha 8- cto and ucation view, ia 43 Higher iue on Figures du,30.10.200 ndout, I rvninfryugpol in people young for prevention HIV , 03(oato,n lc fpublication). of place no author, (no 2003 , ha 6. The Co Ed du,20 ndout, Yo Yo ge en ni fErp Publishing, Europe of uncil uth cto o all, for ucation t oiyin policy uth ed ed e r, verlag, . , cto sys ucation cto sys ucation ha Fa Po ed . The Ce ndout. n;Hirsc rnz; licy Co re cto in ucation .0 te handout ntre, iw fntoa ot policy youth national of views Ba ntinuing La 7. No. . ed Eu 7. 200 tvia d2 rnfr/an 2005, Frankfurt/Main, 2, nd cto sys ucation ro Cy te te 7) 7. , 9, eII: pe prus. ha in m hl Yo of m La 6/200 ed “Latv r ada Sander, Sandra; er, du,20 ndout, t prsplc in policy sports uth Tr tvia cto o ethnic for ucation Co aining, La Le . La ia , ia tvia, cuin fthe of nclusions te sn rmthe from ssons 7, ha tvia .I:Hörner, In: ”. ”, sof ms 200 ndout. Strasb Ausbildung ha , .0 7. ha ha 7. ndout. Eu 200 ndout, ndout, La yo ro ourg, tvia uth 7. pe , , , National report on strategies for social protection and social inclusion 2007 (no author, no year, no place of publication). National Youth Council of Latvia, The national youth policy in Latvia, handout. National Youth Council of Latvia, Next 10 years through the eyes of Latvian youngsters , handout. Open Youth Centre JACis, Rezekne, handout. Professional Career Counselling State Agency, Career guidance policy in Latvia, handout. Rezekne City Council, handout. Rezekne Regional Branch of the Naturalisation Board, Activities for youth to promote citizenship and integration on society, handout. Rezekne Town Youth Council, handout. Riga City Council’s Department of Education, Youth and Sports, handout. School Parliament of Rezekne Secondary School No. 5, handout. Secretariat of the Special Assignment Minister for Social Integration, State policy for strengthening of civil society, handout. Secretariat of the Special Assignment Minister for Social Integration, Support of national minorities of Latvia, handout. State Employment Agency, Youth unemployment in Latvia, handout, 20.07.2007. State Employment Agency, Local Ofﬁce, Rezekne, Youth employment, handout. State Probation Service, handout, 18.07.2007, State Youth Initiative Centre, handout, 18.07.2007. Youth in Rezekne, handout, Latvia, 01.11.2007. es rc Sou

113 11

4 Youth policy in Latvia

Appendix 1 – Programme of the ﬁ rst visit to Latvia Council of Europe International Review Team’s ﬁ rst visit to Latvia OFFICIAL MEETING programme – 17-20 July 2007

Time 17 July Tuesday 18 July Wednesday 19 July Thursday 20 July Friday 9:00-11:00 09:30 Meeting with representatives Meeting with representatives of Meeting with representatives Opening of ﬁ rst visit of Ministry of Health Ministry of Education and Science of Ministry of Welfare With Youth Policy Co-ordinating Meeting with representatives Meeting with representatives of Council and Youth Organisation of State Probation Service and Council of Higher Education Consultative Commission, prison administration delegates of ministers

11:30-13:00 Meeting with representatives Meeting with representatives Meeting with representatives of Meeting with representatives of Ministry of Children and of Ministry of the Interior and Ministry of Education and Science of State Employment Agency Family Affairs the state police and Professional Career Meeting with representatives Counselling State Agency of Secretariat of Special Assignments Minister for Society Integration

14:30-16:00 Meeting with representatives Meeting with representatives Meeting with representatives of Riga International Review Team of Ministry of Children and of State Youth Initiative Centre City Education, Youth and Sports discussions Family Affairs Department (local youth co-ordinators) Meeting with representatives of Riga Addiction Prevention Centre and Public Health Care Agency

16:30-18:00 Meeting with representatives Meeting with representatives Meeting with youth researchers Meeting with representatives of Ministry of Children and of National Youth Council of of Ministry of Children and Family Affairs Latvia and youth organisations Family Affairs uth yo uth , and mily Affairs Yo ia Fa s Friday of Children and th the Minister of th representatives th representatives th representatives ry wi wi wi wi tion n Student Union and of Latv ia sa ni uncil mily Affairs ga ade Union, LDDK Meeting Children and Meeting of Latv or Co Meeting of The National Tr Meeting of Minist Fa wn To tvia uth kne offi ce Latvia yo ze La Re ntre, fé lunteer Ce . kne University ca vo (cancelled) JACIS S ze uth kne, local and regional Thursday in hall Re Yo ond visit to l, ze s kne secondary school and 7 uncil ty th EV th school parliament th th representatives of local th representatives of th representatives of th representatives of State Re tion Agency, ze ci co unci wi wi wi wi wi wi wi -ordinator of sa Open li Co co kne education administration, nization am’s sec tura uncil ze uth uth ga inner in Te Meeting Re Visit to Re Yo meeting and representatives from or meeting Meeting yo Visit to Co Meeting Na Meeting students Meeting employment offi ce iew ildren uncil mnasium ch l Saules Co gy eD uth Education sis ub th unci uth nc ntre Yo Cl October to 3 November 200 Ce wi ernational Rev vi ntre experts dnesday Co Yo Ce th representatives th representatives OFFICIAL MEETING programme ce sis sis city sis Art School ty ty 29 uth We wi wi Ci Ce Ce Ce Yo uth sis Ci sis yo Ce Ce otropi and Health Visiting Visiting and meeting representatives of school parliament Dinner at Pro Visiting Meeting with and Zo Meeting Visit to of Meeting of uncil of Europe Int s Co of Europe e tion ogramme of the second visit to sa uncil Pr of European esday Co s dus, and others Tu of Defenc of Children and th representatives th representatives th representatives th representatives vi on, ry ry wi wi wi wi es ssi Pro n offi ce ic ia ia mmi mily Affairs ansparency International of Minist Meeting Meeting of Minist Fa of minority organi Meeting etc. Tr Latv Co of “independent institutions”: Latv Meeting pend 0 Ap pendix 2 – Time 11:30-13:00 9:00-11:00 14:30-16:0 16:30-18:00 Ap 115 11

6 Youth policy in Latvia

Appendix 3 – Selected data for Latvia

Indicators of reproductive behaviour, family formation, health, education, childcare

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002200320042005 Reproductive behaviour Total fertility rate (births per woman) 2.04 2.00 1.85 1.74 1.52 1.411.271.18 1.131.11 1.18 1.24 1.211.231.291.24 1.31 Average age of mothers at fi rst birth (years) 23.4 23.2 23.1 23.0 23.0 23.4 23.5 23.6 24.024.1 24.2 24.4 24.624.824.925.025.2 Adolescent birth rate (live births per 1 000 women aged 15-19) 44.749.950.8 48.6 44.1 34.029.925.821.519.019.018.317.216.0 16.6 16.1 15.9 Share of non-marital births (% of total live births) 15.916.918.419.623.026.429.933.1 34.837.139.1 40.3 42.1 43.1 44.2 45.344.6 Abortion rate (abortions per 100 live births) –93.4 112.1 108.7 117.1110.5 120.1 122.5115.6108.4 93.0 85.1 79.6 73.369.1 67.5 59.5 Abortion rate among women under age 20 (per births) (abortions per 100 live births) ––70.281.522.687.5106.1 123.2 143.5128.0 109.1 99.8 96.7 104.7101.0103.4 100.6 Marriages and divorces Average age of women at fi rst marriage (in years) 22.722.722.722.923.023.023.323.724.1 24.524.724.924.925.4 25.4 25.6 – Average age of men at fi rst marriage (in years) 24.8 24.5 24.4 24.5 24.8 25.0 25.4 25.7 26.2 26.5 26.7 26.9 27.0 27.5 27.5 27.8 – General divorce rate (per 100 marriages) 45.9 45.7 49.6 77.0 70.472.770.6 62.8 63.0 64.4 63.9 66.6 62.0 61.1 48.3 50.8 50.6 Health Suicide rate for population aged 15-19 (per 100 000 relevant population) 14.113.614.020.518.517.015.915.913.315.310.8 13.4 9.98.1 7.07.5 9.8 8 5 5 6 4 3 9 – – – 7. 8. 5. 2. 6.0 8. 16 .1 102. 71 79 97 27 .6 .2 7. 7. 7. 3. 2. 03 2.2 3. 80.1 63 71 69 77 51 96 97 39 .3 3. 3. 5.4 0. 2. 8.0 01. 3.4 3.1 01 59 37 71 87 77 61 33 .6 7. 7. 9. 2. 3. 70. 38 56 67 01 .4 101. 63 .3 .6 2. 0. 5. 3. 9.2 9. 67 14. 65.2 65.4 65. 99 . 06 59 56 .5 .9 65 .9 .7 3. 3. 3.2 6.0 76.6 76.8 76. 4. 8.8 96 64 111. re only ca 16 89 06 27 .3 .9 73 .8 21 .7 .9 4. 2. 6. 3. 87.6 93 64 ) 81 09 76 57 .1 .1 16 .4 77 24 .7 5. 6. 9. 0.6 56. 7. 7. 23 64 92 7) 305. 00 3-97 refer to guardian 35 98 95 97 .0 .2 .2 33 .2 5. 3. 2. 199 13 3. 75. 92 64 ucation Ed ild protection 74 38 35 64 26 .9 .2 20.2 .3 .8 6.6 Ch 1.4 1. 7. 6. 6. ,% of population aged 15-18 63 25 (Retrieved: 28.12.2 es s 13 39 68 55 .8 55 93 ntre, Florence. .2 years. d. Data for 7. 6. 5.2 -24) 5. 2. 96.1 551. 73.1 75.6 89. Ce 60 19 -23 ; gross rat 15-19 ch al 19 75 14 72 02 ansMONEE.xl .7 .9 96 levant population) 6. .3 .6 0. 8. Tr 2.2 82. 8.8 4. levant population) re 72 60 22. 69 fers to re Re (in 1 000s) 38 64 98 .7 82 s 02 34 levant population) .9 7/Tables_ 9. 2. 2. 37 3. 2. 31. 61.6 re 00 s,% of population aged es in population aged 37 43 78 88 .7 .3 te 64 .0 21.6 .8 73.8 and vocational/technic as .8 8. or guardian 14. 3. 81. 36 74 63 23 s (deaths per 100 000 s ra (deaths per 100 000 s,% of population aged 3-6) te 34 (gros 15-19 12 ra .9 .9 fers to 16-18 years. c. .8 61 7. .5 s Database, UNICEF Innocenti Resear 15-19 7. 5.1 (in 1 000s) 4.2 91. 1. s (gross rates,% of 87.0 74 23 63 29 es 07 ster parent (net b. Re ic care s ments (general fo 20 l transmitted dise es aged of es aged 83 92 59 .2 .9 .6 .2 93 15. lly .7 7. ––– 4. 7. 7- 18 87 74 45. 64 femal mal pend care dentia r r si fo fo enrolment re Ap ansMONEE y ation enrolment te te 72 79 Tr .3 .9 91 .8 –– ra ra 5. 4. 2.2 0. 17 10.1 53 75.2 65 e life expectancy at birth (in years) Children in URCE: mal c2 a9 b9 d– Suicide Suicide Upper secondary enrol Incidence of sexua Basic educ Higher education enrolment Children in Fe Male life expectancy at birth (in years) Pre-primar SO www.unicef-irc.org/databases/transmonee/2 a. Children aged 117 11

8 Youth policy in Latvia h dcto reform education The schools. ta fi rmSpebr20,tenme fsubjects of number the 2004, September From the rmtreto three from eemn independentl determine reform Latv ca of knowledge the As ma suppor state the smal co and state of students 10 grade state-fi Ac fLat of utrliett of identity cultural Ministr Lat Re language education nerto of integration preser the are: ihst s their use to rights noneigayaatto rbes There problems. adaptation any encountering examin of n eorpi rcse ntergo,Latv region, the in co processes demographic and an o the for Ed httequalit the that Ap hr Latv where esbet nLatv in subjects ve gti minority in ught er ohi h tt n rvt etr,teamo ioiyeducation minority of aim the sectors, private and state the in both reer, tnesuyn iigal.Students bilingually. studying ntinue nsis co ce cto in ucation vi yohrEuropean other ny la an dn osaitcldat statistical to rding vd 6Januar 16 ived: l d edx4–National – 4 pendix vi oradeducation and bour ubrof number etipeetto fre of implementation tent na y a ocreate to was n200 in a ma is re of cdeuaini eight in education nced h nyoffici only the to.The ation. neac fthe of intenance ia Ed pnet eto on section to sponse n na cto n cec fLatv of Science and ucation fi la na y va e h reform The ve. 7, inlminority tional nguage ch feducation of t inlmnrte ntesceyo Latv of society the in minorities tional in rtcinaddvlpeto h Latv the of development and protection tion, 61 na o dcto nminority in education for na lrnaeseigisrcini a in instruction seeking are ildren y gov fmnrt col pupils schools minority of % ia la ieo n other any or tive an neuainsse bet rvd equa provide to able system education an 2008 inlmnrte nLatv in minorities tional co nguage. n20 n rd 2i 06 0 fcriuaremain curricula of 40% 2006, in 12 grade and 2005 in n lstate al has rmn remain ernment un ca y the d hc ujcste ec nLatv in teach they subjects which ia ma eeo n fulfi and develop n tries. a enitoue rdal and gradually introduced been n la prep kt o rdae rmbt Latv both from graduates for rkets gae h upsso h tt Langua State the of purposes The nguage. is la is is uiia se municipal Ev la as gaeadLatv and nguage nindispen an ph onrdn.Saitcldata Statistical downgrading. nguages na ared er onable y as inlminority tional st la dctoa establishment educational din, ed by nguage. nae to engaged s at ca h Ministr the la ia is n gaeplc principles policy nguage co la ia wi lal hw htteexamination the that shows clearly us sa op ch l rcniinfor precondition a ng dr schools ndary h Latv The . t functions. its is hgae1 hfigfo he to three from shifting 11 grade th ta bl oeteexamination the oose ia ae nLatv in uages boueyn re no absolutely gti Latv in ught prerequi e ch inion ia fthe of is la s Latv ose ce render gae,ee hr nya only where even nguages, h only the y is mi rt of ia among ain ia Ed n no hl obser while gov la si assistanc cto n Science and ucation ia Co ia ia fl has co efrasuc a for te gae In nguage. .Primar n. exibly ia n n nsi ia rmn pro ernment l ri un Ru ia co co la as ma potnte in opportunities n ex as enincreased been eigpolitical dering n minority and n tr gaefrthe for nguage ty un ll is la ce the nt believe to on y ected nann the intaining gae the nguage, ssia si re where tries nteworld the in is in e d htof that eds nildto entitled nce la vi y la essential ge nguage. gtheir ng schools nguage ge ca ce by neral, 199 vi eof se ss n Law des the ful 5. results in minority schools do not differ substantially from the results observed in previous years. Examination results in some subjects are even better than before. In 2005, the National Agency for Latvian Language Training developed a two-year (2006-08)trainingprogrammeforsecondaryschoolteachers.Theaimistoraisethe teacher professional mobility in secondary education; to provide methodological support for minority secondary school teachers, as well as teachers who work with minority students in Latvian schools; to allow non-Latvian teachers to perfect their knowledge of Latvian, help them organise a tutorial system for pupils in difficulty, provide support in preparing for examinations, and last, but not least, to help them establish co-operation processes between minority and Latvian schools. The OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities, Rolf Ekeus, welcomed the reform. Mr Ekeus affirmed during his visits to Latvia that the reform was in line with international minority rights standards and expressed the belief that increasing the use of Latvian in the classroom is necessary, as Latvian is the official state language. The Commissioner emphasised that not only has Latvia right to introduce the reform, indeed it is its duty to do so. es ic pend Ap

119 12

0 Youth policy in Latvia evaluation. co further uigtemnindpeetto n nwiigafte writing in and presentation mentioned the during nLatv avai in the While 40). (p. employment” previous their the quit to encouraged are six loos directly systemic u remark Our curren Re eeauto fteabove- the of re-evaluation a ruet osuppor to arguments expre to like person 392 than Ministr The Interg fage, of (that leave Re an ytm h follow The system. youn Po Co n ttestar the at and There mutof amount sy protection social the ha Ap repor the of some in policies n1 Januar 18 On Yo a par was ptnefrteexperts’ the for mpetence uth co ce iyin licy mnsof mments ebe addrn 2mnh,btntles not but months, 12 during paid been ve otso additional of months n hi rtcinand protection their ing vd 8 ived: mmendation d oe n ohr nLatv in mothers and women g edx5–National – 5 pendix t ov ha Po t nthe on s ia was co t demand, wi ernmental re ebeen ve fa of received licy La fl LV o the for mnsadifrainprepared information and mments hteeprsadt rsn our present to and experts the th awinthe ch tvia: s y is L defined Fe pnet eto nEmployme on section to sponse We Co by y sisappreci its ss r npriua drse orecommendation to addressed particular in are of e ot) rm2Mrh20 o1Mrh200 March 1 to 2006 March 2 From month). per they , Mi l benefi ild situ 08 rsnainto lc nRg neauto fteLatv the of evaluation on Riga in place took presentation a 2008, bruar E t We a ityof nistry Co ietrt of Directorate f20.A par As 2008. of r atclryple particularly are si Co s as younge to nLatv in ation ch fr fthe of lfare in cuin fthe of nclusions gnifi Co ma co 17 y uncil s70 as l benefi t ild nomto hudb sflfrthi for useful be should information g loepesdi the in expressed also t 2008 oeaini the in -operation tnet ok,adwoare who and work), to ntinue thi ternityleaveregulation and Co ca t tmhas stem We o person for s taegroup age st ma fErp (hereinafter Europe of tpltcladlegi and political nt E fteaeaegros average the of % recommendation ation ebrsae.A etoe ttepeetto,the presentation, the at mentioned As states. member fr fteRpbi of Republic the of lfare jo 29 ent ev,o o fteusua the of top on leave, ternity lpiginto slipping co n thu and b Re mn te hns tt htthe that state things, other among , Yo ia ci f5%fo the from 50% of nsi e ruetabou argument ted ulco Latv of public t nSotiiitv oevaluate to initiative andSport uth co t will enspecifica been fthese of ia eaini rprn the preparing in deration s Co crigtewythe way the ncerning co h r mlyd u r o on not are but employed, are who epeetdt h Steering the to presented be as ni of uncil s Yo l efrhrimpro further be uld ed s of t il nMrh2008 March in Field uth bno hi urnest re-entr to guarantees their abandon un by ch ch Co is mlyet nodrt bene to order In employment. sl s s co op Eu by ang ildren than ia ative thatresultsinthousandsofmothers htteesest ea “obvious an be to seems there that E h oppor the mnso h rf repor draft the on mments wage s Co l rais lly ro hriatrtemnsr)should ministry) the (hereinafter rf eot ewudwelcome would we report, draft ca h ministr the es La einternational pe )ta feprs Thi experts. of team E) inion la cltdbenefit lculated LV ch the , vao h draf the on tvia iiyof bility t raisi is L ang h Latv the d so ac 200 March 1 of As ed. pnwhich upon , 56 insuffi rw ng ge tun e ot n o more not and month per es Co rs ec,blware below Hence, ards. s ve 7, exerc nder-sen y ch ch a org has E s nLatv in t to ity l fi .Oeo h crucial the of One d. h aforementioned the on ci 17 2mnh,women months, 12 ildren ia ildc nal n to ent , oilsecurity social n iss is 29 . ar repor re e. t ia Co na amount ues co co re n 30 and institution e si view” un uig2007 during situ tional mte for mmittee anised ot“Youth port mmunicate tivenes ntribution sa e year 1 der t wi ch s tisf to of ation version. fi activity hnits thin nt t ildc . t youth orally 7, (5 y from s this y 0% the the ar ia to of n e s s from 70% of the average gross wage upon which contributions have been paid during 12 months, but not less than LVL 56 per month). Therefore child benefit was provided in full to persons who are employed, but are not on childcare leave (that is, continue to work). Previously the caring parent had to make a choice between receiving the benefi t or a salary. Before the mentioned legal change, parents had to choose to forgo their pay to receive the benefit, or vice versa, which is not the case any more. In order to further gender-mainstream the social protection system of parents and also to improve possibilities for private and work-life balance, as of 1 January 2008 a new social insurance benefit – Parent’s Benefit – has been introduced to replace child benefit for socially insured persons who are raising children under age of 1 year. The amount of benefi t is 70% of the average gross wages upon which contributions have been based during 12 months, but not less than LVL 63 per month. In contradistinction to child benefit for socially insured persons who are raising children under 1 year of age, which was paid to a maximum amount of 392 LVL per month, the maximum amount of Parent’s Benefit is not restricted. With the introduction of the Parent’s Benefit, socially insured persons who are raising children under the age of 1 year, are in reality given the equivalent of the previous net working wage. Additionally, persons who are granted the status of an unemployed person by the State Employment Agency (hereinafter SEA) as well as job seekers, inter alia persons after child care leave, have the right to participate in active labour market measures – professional training, paid temporary public works and other active labour market measures. Special measures are in place for persons after childcare leave in order to involve them in the labour market. At the end of 2006, SEA started to implement new measures for persons after childcare leave. In order to reconcile professional training and family life, unemployed persons after childcare leave can be involved in extramural courses by distance training and e-courses. Also, from July 2007, SEA offers childcare facilities for training participants – unemployed persons after childcare leave. As a result of all these measures, there has been a significant decrease of persons after childcare leave in the total registered unemployment – from 11.6% or 7 968 persons in 2006 to 7% or 3 662 persons in 2007. Additionally, it should be noted that a number of these individuals have not been employed and, hence, socially insured before their maternity and childcare leave. This means that while these persons’ legal status changes, it is not related to previous employment and employment-related social security provisions. In line with the Lisbon strategy, the Latvian employment and social security

policies put an emphasis on retaining current workers in the labour market and es on attracting previously economically inactive persons to employment. There ic is clear evidence in Latvia, and elsewhere in the EU, that the longer a person remains outside the labour market the harder it is to return to work and economic pend independence. Hence, work is seen by society and the policy makers as the Ap main instrument for securing individual and family welfare. At the same time, the experience of state socialism has left a signiﬁcant demand for high levels of social security in society. As an example, these circumstances have led to some 121 12

2 Youth policy in Latvia ewe hs often these between satran a As ftehgetsadrso socia ma of standards highest the of parent example, be pos the infrin rmt oeatv atcpto of participation active more a promote thoroughne o oe oei n eetrthe re-enter and exit to women for wr htahge qualifi higher a that aware eerhinto research t uprigarguments. supporting its ac into thi the pi Latv in up brief A repo In co alre are indicators Latv data at-risk-of-poverty of in array poverty broad and a exclusion review, social on knowledge and data Lat i/e mlyet in employment, his/her nomto on information t oa noeadhueodmta i.Thi aid. mutual household and income total its h iei household, hou a in live who ti eorpi nomto that – information demographic ntain s co vi ent eidadfrbt sex both for and period ternity co la si eomnain efudit found we recommendation, rt an cuin eagain we nclusion, ge fimd htterecent the that nfirmed) ng bour tthe At . s co co los d si yo r ret eocl hi okand work their reconcile to free are si co unt ia mn on mment iiisfrreconc for bilities wi t oiyadnt h ra ieadeffo and time great the note and policy uth insceyadeooy Latv economy, and society tion ma dtos osn xedtr,tehueodseconomic household’s the expenditure, housing nditions, nodrto order in ss hrgr oprnho and parenthood to regard th s httemnhyworking monthly the that iss sa rket and nteaon of amount the in ea e fpover of ues etm,w oeta our that hope we time, me ch is will Re shorter co sur fi co co flcigraiis bu realities, nflicting lga ll co ve tiuet fu to ntribute mnain3 bu h ipeetto of “implementation the about 30 mmendation co e dcto n health, and education me, ca We as e oshl ebr(gd1 and 16 (aged member household yed ps il . ty ngrat inadmr skills more and tion n okadpiaelf.It life. private and work ing nkoldeaddata and knowledge in wel ch ol lowloemore welcome also would ad n oilecuinadterrlvnefrgrowing for relevance their and exclusion social and ch ang y ul as l es l ca la ildc euiyadpoeto o oe uigthe during women for protection and security co t h wor the ate is es during bour cltd ae nhueodsur household on based lculated, piae oln h recommendation the link to mplicated perso availab ar rt aeis wage nteso the in fa e impro her -eae eet.Thi benefits. e-related wo hr in thers ma ia is ch co is t ns information , k it rk, is kt oee,tepolicy the however, rket; le lcr ev nLatv in leave ildcare fa mments ihrfrmn.It men). for higher stil however who k iyobligation mily ci nthese on ca ca oeo h vlaino the of evaluation the on done fa lpoeto system protection al ve l tr iylf and life mily s be n ertie fasnefrom absence if retained be n et ftetext. the of ments ha yi co ge rt data gto ng elf t nhuigand housing on it, left ve will ll dradage. and nder netdi rprn the preparing in invested havi cin.We evaluating When ection”. co ealabout detail iss wi is eexamined be cue htcurrently that ncluded is fi hrgr operson to regard th gsm suc some ng nedd(u e to yet (but intended e.A nexample, an As ues. dtebs balance best the nd ia co s wi s Ac . ch ral improves greatly is mplemented ia ov lcr (taking ildcare co relatively hu state- a thout . r regarding er) dn oour to rding h mi the ma ve co situ wi ce ys ta l also uld ke hdue th rgeted ss which ation, sare rs ssing easy wi . Fo by th s r Sales agents for publications of the Council of Europe Agents de vente des publications du Conseil de l’Europe

BELGIUM/BELGIQUE Librairie Kléber POLAND/POLOGNE La Librairie Européenne - 1 rue des Francs Bourgeois Ars Polona JSC The European Bookshop F-67000 STRASBOURG 25 Obroncow Street Rue de l’Orme, 1 Tel.: +33 (0)3 88 15 78 88 PL-03-933 WARSZAWA B-1040 BRUXELLES Fax: +33 (0)3 88 15 78 80 Tel.: +48 (0)22 509 86 00 Tel.: +32 (0)2 231 04 35 E-mail: [email protected] Fax: +48 (0)22 509 86 10 Fax: +32 (0)2 735 08 60 http://www.librairie-kleber.com E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] http://www.arspolona.com.pl http://www.libeurop.be GERMANY/ALLEMAGNE AUSTRIA/AUTRICHE UNO Verlag GmbH PORTUGAL Jean De Lannoy August-Bebel-Allee 6 Livraria Portugal Avenue du Roi 202 Koningslaan D-53175 BONN (Dias & Andrade, Lda.) B-1190 BRUXELLES Tel.: +49 (0)228 94 90 20 Rua do Carmo, 70 Tel.: +32 (0)2 538 43 08 Fax: +49 (0)228 94 90 222 P-1200-094 LISBOA Fax: +32 (0)2 538 08 41 E-mail: [email protected] Tel.: +351 21 347 42 82 / 85 E-mail: [email protected] http://www.uno-verlag.de Fax: +351 21 347 02 64 http://www.jean-de-lannoy.be E-mail: [email protected] GREECE/GRÈCE http://www.livrariaportugal.pt Librairie Kauffmann s.a. CANADA Stadiou 28 Renouf Publishing Co. Ltd. GR-105 64 ATHINAI RUSSIAN FEDERATION/ 1-5369 Canotek Road Tel.: +30 210 32 55 321 FÉDÉRATION DE RUSSIE OTTAWA, Ontario K1J 9J3, Canada Fax.: +30 210 32 30 320 Ves Mir Tel.: +1 613 745 2665 E-mail: [email protected] 9a, Kolpacnhyi per. Fax: +1 613 745 7660 http://www.kauffmann.gr RU-101000 MOSCOW Toll-Free Tel.: (866) 767-6766 Tel.: +7 (8)495 623 6839 E-mail: [email protected] HUNGARY/HONGRIE Fax: +7 (8)495 625 4269 http://www.renoufbooks.com Euro Info Service kft. E-mail: [email protected] 1137 Bp. Szent István krt. 12. http://www.vesmirbooks.ru H-1137 BUDAPEST CZECH REPUBLIC/ Tel.: +36 (06)1 329 2170 RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE Fax: +36 (06)1 349 2053 SPAIN/ESPAGNE Suweco CZ, s.r.o. E-mail: [email protected] Mundi-Prensa Libros, s.a. Klecakova 347 http://www.euroinfo.hu Castelló, 37 CZ-180 21 PRAHA 9 E-28001 MADRID Tel.: +420 2 424 59 204 ITALY/ITALIE Tel.: +34 914 36 37 00 Fax: +420 2 848 21 646 Licosa SpA Fax: +34 915 75 39 98 E-mail: [email protected] Via Duca di Calabria, 1/1 E-mail: [email protected] http://www.suweco.cz I-50125 FIRENZE http://www.mundiprensa.com Tel.: +39 0556 483215 DENMARK/DANEMARK Fax: +39 0556 41257 GAD E-mail: [email protected] SWITZERLAND/SUISSE Vimmelskaftet 32 http://www.licosa.com Van Diermen Editions – ADECO DK-1161 KØBENHAVN K Chemin du Lacuez 41 MEXICO/MEXIQUE Tel.: +45 77 66 60 00 CH-1807 BLONAY Mundi-Prensa México, S.A. De C.V. Fax: +45 77 66 60 01 Tel.: +41 (0)21 943 26 73 Río Pánuco, 141 Delegacíon Cuauhtémoc E-mail: [email protected] Fax: +41 (0)21 943 36 05 06500 MÉXICO, D.F. http://www.gad.dk E-mail: [email protected] Tel.: +52 (01)55 55 33 56 58 http://www.adeco.org Fax: +52 (01)55 55 14 67 99 FINLAND/FINLANDE E-mail: [email protected] Akateeminen Kirjakauppa http://www.mundiprensa.com.mx UNITED KINGDOM/ROYAUME-UNI PO Box 128 The Stationery Ofﬁce Ltd Keskuskatu 1 NETHERLANDS/PAYS-BAS PO Box 29 FIN-00100 HELSINKI De Lindeboom Internationale Publicaties b.v. GB-NORWICH NR3 1GN Tel.: +358 (0)9 121 4430 M.A. de Ruyterstraat 20 A Tel.: +44 (0)870 600 5522 Fax: +358 (0)9 121 4242 NL-7482 BZ HAAKSBERGEN Fax: +44 (0)870 600 5533 E-mail: [email protected] Tel.: +31 (0)53 5740004 E-mail: [email protected] http://www.akateeminen.com Fax: +31 (0)53 5729296 http://www.tsoshop.co.uk E-mail: [email protected] http://www.delindeboom.com FRANCE UNITED STATES and CANADA/ La Documentation française NORWAY/NORVÈGE ÉTATS-UNIS et CANADA (diffusion/distribution France entière) Akademika Manhattan Publishing Company 124, rue Henri Barbusse Postboks 84 Blindern 468 Albany Post Road F-93308 AUBERVILLIERS CEDEX N-0314 OSLO CROTTON-ON-HUDSON, NY 10520, USA Tél.: +33 (0)1 40 15 70 00 Tel.: +47 2 218 8100 Tel.: +1 914 271 5194 Fax: +33 (0)1 40 15 68 00 Fax: +47 2 218 8103 Fax: +1 914 271 5856 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] http://www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr http://www.akademika.no http://www.manhattanpublishing.com

Council of Europe Publishing/Editions du Conseil de l’Europe F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex Tel.: +33 (0)3 88 41 25 81 – Fax: +33 (0)3 88 41 39 10 – E-mail: [email protected] – Website: http://book.coe.int 6448 ID 6617 Couv youth policy latvia 29/09/08 16:36 Page 1

challenges for the future of youth policy in Latvia. Youth policy in Latvia

COUNCIL CONSEIL War, the Council of Europe has symbolised reconciliation. OF EUROPE DE L'EUROPE

ISBN 978-92-871-6448-3 PublishingCouncil of Europe -:HSTCSH=V[EE]D:

€15/US$30

http://book.coe.int Council of Europe Publishing Editions du Conseil de l’Europe