European experience of youth work

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

European experience of youth work

Stupak O.

Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences State Higher Educational Institution "Donbas State Pedagogical University"

Summary

The article analyzes the European approaches to the organization of youth work, based on the principles of openness, responsibility and effectiveness. Systematization of literary sources and approaches to solving the problem of underdeveloped innovative approaches in working with young people based on the European youth policy experience has shown that the priority areas that are relevant to youth and are covered within the framework of European youth policy are: education, employment, health, housing, welfare, criminal justice, etc.The urgency of solving this scientific problem lies in the fact that at the level of certain countries, by determining the value orientations of the directions of youth activity, certain directions are identified: opportunities for participation in decision-making at the local and state levels; security and protection; combating social exclusion and promoting inclusion; provision and use of information (including new information technologies); mobility and internationalism; multiculturalism; equality of rights and opportunities; environmental problems and others. The study of the European youth policy experience in the article is carried out in the following logical sequence: European youth policy models (universalist model of Scandinavia countries, community model of Great Britain, protection model of Central European countries, centralized model of the Mediterranean countries) are outlined and characterized; analyzed the EU Youth Strategy approved by the Council of Europe and identified the priorities of youth policy development and conducted a comparative analysis of the strategic documents of different European countries regarding youth, characterized by centralized or decentralized management verticals from the position of the state, the level of involvement of the public in the development of youth work, the degree of influence of youth organizations for youth decision-making.

Keywords: European experience, youth, youth work, youth policy.

Introduction

Driving changes in the development of Ukraine's youth policy are focused on the principled approaches to the work of youth organizations, the expansion of the network of youth centers, international mobility, which necessitates legislative regulation and the introduction of European experience in youth work. The bottom-up change vector in the youth environment shows the active involvement of young people in decision-making processes at the local level and the prospects for statebuilding change. Modern tendencies towards the formation of institutional capacity of youth public associations as active centers of youth policy development require an analysis of innovative approaches and international experience of the youth work system, in particular, the European heritage of youth policy, priorities and development strategies.

Literature Review. The research of the scientific research of the problem shows that the issue of European experience regarding the participation of young people in the processes of development of social, socio-political life remains relevant, attracting the attention of many foreign and domestic statesmen, scholars such as J. Bamber [2], E. Borodin [3], Yu. Borysova [3], F. Chisholm [4], F. Denstad [5], A. Karlinska [7], G. Koval [8], I. Khokhriakova [3], L. Kovacheva [4], Z. Lavchyan [9], N. Litvinova [3], A. Matviichuk [10], L. Mikko [14], S. Retore [9],

L. Romanovskaya [12], R. Storozhuk [16], L. Siurala [15], S. Salasuo [14], G. Williamson [9] and others. However, the question of the generalization of priorities and approaches of European youth work, comparative analysis of the strategies of youth policy development in Europe remains relevant.

Purpose of the article - the study of the European experience of youth work

Theoretical starting points. Youth work in Europe is carried out by numerous institutions and organizations, as well as by many different people, individually and in teams, and its forms are diverse. A number of European countries support traditions of professional youth work, which include skilled staff working with young people based on local and national programs funded by the state. At the same time, some countries support the creation of a volunteer youth work structure, encouraging the organization of civic organizations. Certain countries define youth work as part of their activities to ensure social protection of the population on the basis of practical activity, which is part of the services of employment services, social integration and social assistance. However, in some countries, youth work takes place without existence of the recognized profession of a youth worker, and the people involved in it are leaders on a voluntary basis (Portfolio of the youth work of the Council of Europe, 2017).

“Innovation” is classified in an EU-wide project such as DETERMINE:

1. Innovation in a EU perspective can be seen as identifying a project that brings a new approach that has not been seen across the EU. In this way, something is only innovative if it is innovative in relation to the highest common denominator in the EU;

2. Innovations are seen relative to the country. For example, a standard «traditional» project in Finland might be seen as “innovative” in the UK.

This implies an idea in itself is not enough, for something to be innovative; the idea must develop into action (A Rapid Review of Innovation in the Context of Social Determinants).

In the Report to the Youth Working Party from the Expert Group on Peer-Learning proposes innovative approaches to empowering young people [2]:

1. Explaining non-formal learning to employers and educators Recognition of non-formal learning should be a key policy objective and a priority area for attention under Erasmus +.

2. Translating non-formal learning outcomes to the world of work. It is essential to further develop and promote effective ways of validating non-formal and informal learning outcomes gained in non-formal education and youth work.

3. Enhance the capacity of those working directly with young people. There is a need to enhance the ability of those working directly with young people, especially youth workers, to promote innovation and creativity in young people.

4. Develop a focus on entrepreneurship. Youth work connects young people with the local community, including social enterprise and business, thus enhancing their opportunities to find a job, or to start their own project.

5. Improve partnership working and cross-sector innovation. To achieve cooperation and joint action between stakeholders and the social partners, (for example between private sector employers, unions, and formal educators and youth workers) there is a need to galvanize all stakeholders. Particular attention should be given to how to reach disadvantaged and unskilled young adults with a specific focus on local and regional levels.

6. Further extend the evidence base through focused research and impact analysis.

7. Include non-formal education and learning in Youth Guarantee plans. Member States should keep in mind while developing Youth Guarantee schemes that the knowledge, skills, and attitudes acquired through engagement in youth work correspond to those frequently said to be needed in the labour market. These include teamwork, communication, leadership, flexibility and responsiveness, building self-confidence and trust to authority especially among most vulnerable young people.

The young generation as the future of the European continent draws the attention of the Council of Europe, as evidenced by a series of documents adopted by this organization aimed at optimizing child and youth policy. The implementation of the policy on children and young people in Europe deserves the attention of the Recommendation “On the European Strategy for Children” (1996) and the “European Charter on the Participation of Youth in Municipal and Regional Life” (1992). The Directorate for Youth and Sport operates within the framework of the Secretariat of the Council of Europe. Major decisions regarding the content of youth policy in Europe are made at regular European conferences of ministers for youth [12].

It is important to note that on July 14, 2004, the European Parliament and the Council of Europe approved the “Youth in Action for 2007-2013” program (“Youthinaction 2007-2013”). The action of the new program is extended to the countries of the European Union, the countries of the European Economic Area, Turkey, the candidate countries, the states of the Western Balkans. It extends to young people aged 13-30 years. The document referred to the extension of the scope of youth work, outlining the main objectives [3]:

- promotion of “active citizenship” of youth;

- development of youth solidarity;

- education of mutual understanding among peoples through the youth environment;

- support of youth activities and opportunities of civil society organizations in the youth field;

- promoting European co-operation in youth policy.

The named program provides for the implementation of activities in five areas:

1) Youth for Europe (Youth for Europe) - support for youth mobility and projects for participation in democratic life;

2) “European Volunteering Service” (European Volunteer Service) - Participate in volunteering in the European Union and beyond;

3) Youth of the World (Youth of the World) - development of mutual understanding, exchanges of youth and youth workers between partner countries;

4) “Youth workers and Support Systems” - support for the activities of youth organizations in Europe, in particular the Youth Forum (The Youth Forum);

5) Support for Policy Cooperation ("Support for policy cooperation") is the organization of dialogue between different actors in the youth field (youth, youth workers, youth policy makers).

In a CoE study on young people in Europe the researchers F. Chisholm titled their report “Exploring the European Youth Mosaic” [4]. Indeed, European youth constitute a mosaic -like picture, where all colours appear and where differences between the various shades are difficult to set. A recent study on young people and youth cultures in Helsinki metropolitan area describes them as an “atomised generation” [14]. The author says that the atomized generation “forms a particle-like mosaic, constantly moving in the shivering field of cultural phenomena. It is characterized by the freedom and the demand of choice. It does not have a linear direction, in a way it has stopped in constant change.”

The political, socio-economic differences of European countries increase to different priorities in youth policy at the national level: from employment and education to spiritual and sports development, organization of quality leisure. At the same time, the implementation of the youth policy of the countries is ensured by a competent body or department responsible for youth work and can be combined with sectors such as culture, education, sport, family, children, social protection, media, public health, etc. At the same time, local and regional authorities may include youth councils, committees, and representatives in the process of discussing community development prospects. The rights and responsibilities of youth departments depend on the country, but unite around the protection of the rights of young people, promoting self-realization, the development of social and civic activity.

Among the priority areas and spheres of life related to youth and covered within the framework of European youth policy, the following are singled out: education, employment, health, housing, welfare, criminal justice, etc. At the level of certain countries, certain guidelines are defined by the value guidelines of determining the directions of youth activity: opportunities for participation in decision-making at the local and state levels; security and protection; combating social exclusion and promoting inclusion; provision and use of information (including new information technologies); mobility and internationalism; multiculturalism; equality of rights and opportunities; environmental problems and others [9].

The priority of the youth policy of different countries is determined by the moral and spiritual values of the population, strategic objectives, as well as the model of youth policy of a European country, which in turn is reflected in the methods and forms of youth work.

From the standpoint of researcher Storozhuk, based on an analysis of youth work in Europe, the social security system in Europe is classified as follows:

- Social-Democratic Model of Social Security (Scandinavian Countries);

- liberal model (the minimum social welfare regime, for example, the UK);

- conservative model (focused on employment; Central European countries);

- a sub-institutional model (the Mediterranean countries) [16].

According to the classification, the authors determine the following models of youth policy:

- a universal model of countries of Scandinavia;

- a community model of the UK;

- a protective model of Central European countries;

- a centralized model of the Mediterranean countries.

The universal model of youth policy has emerged as a result of the reorientation of youth policy. The youth policy in Scandinavia has developed as distinct from different sectors, being coordinated by the relevant ministry responsible for state youth policy. It should be noted that the youth sector is not included in the given model, but civil society plays a major role in the formation and implementation of youth policy, and the state and institutions of government together with civil society institutes are developing and implementing youth policies. The essence of the Scandinavian model is that its target group is all the youth, which includes boys and girls under the age of 25 [8].

The central role of the Mediterranean countries is to draw some attention from the third sector and local governments to the state youth policy, which determines its centrality and concentration at the state level. The level of youth participation in civic organizations is also low, although in recent years there has been an increase in the level of participation of young people in public life. However, unlike the Scandinavian model, which has similar goals in youth policy, the Mediterranean model in this dimension is not universal: the basic goals of politics are special youth groups [7].

Since youth policies are mostly implemented through activities involving youth through public organizations, associations, unions and associations A. Matviichuk distinguishes three models of functioning of public organizations. The first model is the AngloSaxon or liberal type of public organizations (England, Switzerland), which perform production and communicative functions independent of state and commercial structures for the implementation of a large share of social work. The second model is a continental-European model (Austria, Belgium, Italy, Germany, France). In these countries, the role of the state involved in stimulating economic growth, the provision of social protection programs and social investment projects is significantly expanding. The third is the Scandinavian type (Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden), where organizations mainly specialize in expressing and lobbying for the interests of social groups, while providing social services and social protection of the population enters into the responsibilities of the state welfare system [10].

Consequently, the innovative approach to the implementation of various models of youth policy of European countries is marked by centralized or decentralized management verticals from the position of the state, the level of involvement of the public in the

development of youth work, the degree of influence of youth organizations on the decision-making process on youth. At the same time, finding effective mechanisms for interaction between youth communities and state structures on the way of solving youth problems and their involvement in social activity is expedient to carry out an analysis of strategic guidelines and tasks of general European youth policy and their comparison in certain European countries.

L. Siurala pointed out that on European level the youth sector of the CoE links 46 countries, youth NGOs and researchers and has profiled itself as an expert on youth affairs, as an educational actor in human rights and youth participation and as a focal point for research co-operation. EU youth structures have linked 27 member countries through the method of open coordination and the youth programmers. Youth organizations are important vectors in European youth policy-making. On a national level they act through national organizations and national youth councils and on an international level through European Youth Forum, the Brussels based umbrella organization advocating the interests of international youth organizations and national youth councils. Specific to Europe is that national ministries often have a special department and legislative basis for youth work and youth policy. On the regional and municipal level youth policies are implemented and carried out through a variety of actors; youth organizations, municipal youth work, the churches or voluntary workers - and often through various combinations between them [15].

It is important that the modern strategic system of youth work in Ukraine resonates with a European one, based on the principles of openness, responsibility, efficiency, where the level of involvement of young people in the process of development and adoption of managerial decisions and participation in the activities of civil society institutions are important criteria for the effectiveness of youth work. youth policy state

In the context of the study of innovative approaches, priorities and strategies for the development of European youth work, we note that the development of youth policy in Europe has become the concept of the development of Western European countries at the end of the twentieth century in order to respond to the needs of young people. The development of a special long-term strategy was intended to address the problems of youth as a social group and to consider them as an important resource for the development of civil society.

At the European level, the national youth policy is defined as a commitment by the government to ensure proper living conditions and opportunities for the development of the young population. Youth policy allows young people to actively participate in solving issues related to youth, to defend active positions regarding the development of civil society, while maintaining their own autonomy, finding their place in society as individuals and professionals. The reflection of youth activity in the overwhelming majority takes place through youth public organizations, associations, advisory bodies.

Youth policy in Europe was recognized not only as an important aspect of government policy by national governments, but also by international organizations such as the Council of Europe, the European Union. The Lisbon Treaty provided for the consolidation of the legal framework for youth policy in article 165, which stated that the EU's actions should be aimed at “encouraging the development of youth, youth exchanges, and their involvement in the establishment of a democratic life in Europe” [7]. Following the Treaty, the main institutions of the EU, in particular the European Commission, stated that “Europe's future depends on its youth”. This means that young people should be one of the priorities of the EU vision, which has a stronger significance during the economic crisis: the EU seeks to create favorable conditions for the development of youth, the realization of their potential and the achievement of autonomy.

The rapid development of European youth policy required a strategic vision of promising value-based landmarks, far-reaching goals on the way to solving urgent youth problems, taking into account changing tendencies in the youth environment. To this end, a general Youth Policy Development Strategy was drafted and recommended to be brought to the attention of European countries, which in turn did not impose strict adherence to them, but promoted effective cooperation and additional benefits for young people in the EU, the establishment of solidarity between society and young people.

For a clear understanding of the trends and perspectives of youth European work, it is expedient to study in more detail the content of the EU Youth Strategy and to conduct a comparative analysis of the strategic documents of different European countries in relation to young people.

It is important to note that the EU Youth Strategy approved by the Council of Europe on November 27, 2009 as a strategic document is acceptable to nearly 50 European countries with general orientations for youth policy development till 2020, in particular: ensuring equal opportunities for young people in education and labor market, encouraging them to active participation in community life, social integration and equality. At the same time, the Council of Europe is directly involved in encouraging its member states to develop a youth policy based on internationally recognized principles and standards through support for seminars and informal learning events, international youth exchanges, independent expertise or assessments, study visits and advisory missions, etc.

The nine-year strategy is divided into three cycles. After the end of each cycle, a report on the evaluation of the results and proposals for new priorities for the next three years will be presented and discussed. The strategy offers initiatives in 8 areas of activity: education and training; employment and entrepreneurship; health and well-being; participation in public life; volunteer activity; social inclusion; youth and the world; creativity and culture. This work is carried out through the implementation of youth programs, the development of political cooperation, support for youth and youth organizations. The main tools for implementing the strategy are: EU cooperation; structured dialogue; reports on the status of youth in the EU; youth work; grounded youth policy; mutual learning of young people.

F. Denstad in Manuals of Youth Policy emphasized that a high-quality national youth policy is not about which country allocates more budget funds to youth organizations or young people, but in the formulated clear strategy that best analyzes and addresses the real needs of its youth, it manages specific goals. Although the strategy must include the long-term goal, objectives and activities, as well as the analysis of the results, a separate action plan should identify the short-term and medium-term goals (for example, up to four years), indicators and proposed measures for which the government is funding. At the same time, the construction of the components of the strategy requires external expertise and the involvement of external experts in the methodology of strategy development [5].

For example, such a methodology is the LFA (Logical Structural Approach), which is widely used internationally as a tool for strategy development, monitoring and evaluation. It serves as a way of structuring key elements of the project, highlighting the logical communications between predicted entries, planned activities and expected results. It is a management tool that is often used in the design, monitoring, and evaluation of projects. LFA was developed for USAID in the late 1960s, and has since been widely used by international development agencies, as well as by national governments and international organizations.

The development of an effective monitoring and evaluation system is also important in developing a specific strategy with all its various components. The plan for monitoring and evaluating youth policy should be made public, as transparency is seen as an important part of the implementation of youth policy. This means that the Youth Policy Strategy should be clearly defined, discussed and approved by the competent body responsible for youth work and coordinating its implementation with the involvement of youth representatives as actors of the strategy as well as the general public. Policy transparency is reflected in public access to documents, openness to a structured dialogue with the youth on the country's political challenges. It is important that support for transparency is an important means of a strong consensus between youth and the government [5].

The EU Youth Strategy contributes to the development of specific youth activities (sectoral approach), but also includes an inter-sectoral approach. To achieve the objectives of the Strategy, Member States can use different tools, such as: organizing educational events for non-formal education to raise awareness about youth policy, regularly presenting the results of monitoring the implementation of the Strategy Action Plan in the form of reports (in particular, the report of the European Commission “Youth in the European Union” developed in cooperation with member states), a European training course for youth, a dialogue between young people from different youth organizations of the EU countries and EU programs.

The priority of the issues of the EU Youth Strategy is not sustainable, but may change due to the needs and needs of the youth community, the actual problems identified by the survey, and the assessment of the level of implementation of the strategy plan. So, in the years 2016-2018, the fight against radicalization of youth and marginalization, promoting youth inclusion in social, cultural and civic life, as well as solving the problems and opportunities of the young age, comes to the change of the priorities for youth employment in 20162018 (The future of youth policy cooperation in Europe post, 2018).

An important aspect of the strategy is its interdisciplinary nature, the achievement of which is possible only with the cooperation of many stakeholders - central, regional and local authorities and other government agencies, as well as civil society organizations. Finally, the strategy has put young people at a central position by providing them with concrete tools for implementing their projects, attending informal educational events and advising on specific policy decisions.

An example of democratic participation of young people in public policy is a structured dialogue that creates a platform for young people and politicians who discuss EU youth policies at both the national and European levels, as well as an instrument to ensure that youth policy is consistent with the needs and expectations of young people throughout Europe. It takes the form of national consultations in specific EU member states and young people.

At the European level, there are a lot of conferences uniting the European Commission, member states, national youth councils and the European Youth Forum. At the national level, there are working groups that include youth representatives, government officials and experts. They consult with young people at the state level, focusing on one topic of choice, such as youth employment or young people's participation in democratic life. In addition, each EU member country agrees on specific issues of national priority consultations.

Thus, during the Report on the Future of the European Youth Strategy in Brussels in 2017, it was noted that young people in Europe appreciate international mobility and volunteering, seeing the prospect of continuing and expanding the Erasmus + program. Common areas of interest for young people in Europe in which they see further development include education, mobility, civic participation, employment, human rights and social integration. In the field of education, delegates emphasized the need to include elements of non-formal training in the educational process, as well as the importance of informal education.

The youth from different countries focused on the need to accelerate democratic processes at the national level and the EU, to deepen the role of the European Parliament and to raise awareness of such mechanisms as the “European Citizen” or “Structured Dialogue” initiative. Young people also highlighted links with other policy areas, such as human rights, environmental issues and social inclusion. An important prerequisite for the inclusion and participation of young people is their economic independence, which in turn requires a stable working environment and decent housing that is not available to many representatives of European youth (European Conference on the future EU Youth Strategy Report, 2017).

Taking into account the commonality of priorities in the strategic tasks of European youth work, distinctive features remain the fundamental features of each individual country, covering the fields of activity and content, expected results and issues. The analysis of the legislative and regulatory framework of a number of European countries in relation to the national youth policy, strategies for its development, priority goals and tasks made it possible to distinguish certain common and distinctive features.

So, in Bulgaria, the National Strategy for Youth (2010-2020), the key areas of work are the creation of favorable conditions for school and university education; informal education; professional, social and personal realization of youth; their participation in social, economic life and management at the local, regional and national levels, as well as state support for young people studying abroad and planning to return to Bulgaria. The mentioned guidelines of the national youth policy help to improve the demographic situation and act as an important factor not only to overcome the crisis, but also to improve the quality of life and achieve the goals of the European Union.

At the same time, the National Youth Strategy of Hungary for 2009-2024 aims to be neutral in relation to values and ideologies, without representing the interests of any of the political parties, but a number of values (family, prevention, security) occupy a central role in the document. Different basic principles of strategy can be defined:

- Integration and participation:members,

communities and youth group organizations represent the cohesive power at the local, regional and national levels, as well as participate in decision-making affecting them;

- solidarity and responsibility: in a viable society, independence is crucial, however, members of society not only bear responsibility for themselves, but also for their fellow citizens with fewer opportunities;

- success and value creation: youth as a significant social resource demonstrates and promotes values that contribute to success in self-realization and professional activity;

- subsidiarity and transparency: in youth policy, decisions must be transparent and public, accessible to everyone concerned;

- independence and development: promoting the development of the environment necessary for the successful social integration of youth groups, the maintenance and upbringing of children, raising the level of employment and providing housing for youth, and increasing opportunities for social mobility.

The Estonian Youth Development Plan 20142020 focuses on supporting creative potential and selfdevelopment of youth, participation of young people in the decision-making process, and empowerment of the youth environment. Sufficient attention in youth work is devoted to supporting health, as well as values and promoting healthy lifestyles through non-formal education activities for young people and those working in the youth field. One of the differences in the Plan is that it does not describe concrete measures in all areas of youth work and youth policy, while the goal is that young people will have a wide range of opportunities for self-development and self-realization, while the youth environment will contribute to the development of social cohesion and creativity in society as a whole.

As youth work is a part of effective cooperation between different spheres of youth life, youth strategy Estonia as well as many countries of Europe supports the advisability of systematic cross-sectoral cooperation on the way of solving youth problems. In this aspect, the Strategy of the Youth of Spain, developed by 2020, which celebrates the promotion of youth cooperation between different ministries and administrations of regional, local and provincial governments, is solidarity. The youth strategy also involves the cooperation of all subjects related to youth issues, including public associations, youth association.

The key areas of the Strategy in Spain laid down by the Ministry of Health, Social Services and Equity, are as follows:

- improvement of the quality of the Spanish educational system in order to increase the level of employment and entrepreneurship, to promote the system of non-formal education;

- encouraging young people to enter the labor market, increasing the number of self-employed young people, as well as the number of companies created by people under the age of 30, promoting entrepreneurship culture;

- dissemination of a network of activities aimed at promoting healthy lifestyles, combating drug addiction, any form of violence or discrimination;

- support for vulnerable groups of young people.

A significant emphasis on the educational component of youth policy demonstrates the Youth Priority Plan as a Youth Strategy of France (20132017), as the Ministry of Education is the responsible body and coordinator of youth policy. It serves as an official roadmap that covers youth issues and planned activities to be implemented by the government to improve the living conditions of young people by encouraging the ministries, local authorities, public associations, as well as young people to work together. The main objectives of the Strategy include improving the quality of education and training through reforms of primary, secondary and higher schools, the development of autonomy of youth, and the involvement of young people in the activities of public services.

Distinctive features of the German youth policy are linked to the state system and include the regional and national youth strategies developed by the Federal Ministry of Family, Retirement, Women and Youth, which provide the basis for ensuring a space of cooperation between federal, regional and local authorities. An effective mechanism for promoting the development of youth work can be noted an innovative fund for the support of youth activities in the field of political, cultural education, youth affairs (associations), international youth work or youth social work. The regional level includes youth strategies, programs in the regions that promote the strengthening of non-formal and informal education, the expansion of the network of creative spaces for youth, the promotion of social integration and support for intercultural openness.

One of the countries that does not have a valid Youth Strategy is Poland. The State Strategy for Youth for 2003-2012 has ceased to exist, but no new national strategy was set up to regulate the issue of Polish youth policy. However, the Strategy highlighted the links that exist between youth policy and legal norms on education, social security, national defense, employment and combating unemployment, living conditions for children in the family, health care, and the prevention of crime, drug addiction and alcohol abuse. The authors of the Polish “State Program for Youth Social Participation for 2015-2016 Active Youth” (Rz^dowy Program Aktiwosci Spolecznej Mlodziezynalata 2015-2016, Aktywna Mlodziez) stressed the importance of preparing a government document defining youth policy. The Children's and Youth Council of the Republic of Poland, founded in 2016 and acting under the authority of the Minister of National Education, is working on a draft law on the Youth Council of the Republic of Poland, which will contribute to the preparation of a new youth strategy. At the same time, it should be noted that, despite the lack of a youth act, youth policy is increasingly regulated at the regional and local levels.

Conclusions

The conducted analysis of European youth work has made it possible to identify the peculiarities of youth policy in Europe, supported by a number of documents adopted by the Council of Europe and allows young people to actively participate in solving issues concerning youth, to defend active positions regarding the development of civil society, while maintaining their own autonomous position. At the level of certain countries, the value guideline defines the directions of youth activity: education, including informal, employment; health; dwelling; opportunities for participation in decision making at the local and state levels; security and protection; combating social exclusion and promoting inclusion; provision and use of information (including new information technologies); mobility and internationalism, etc. Different models of youth policy of European countries (universalist model of Scandinavia countries, community model of Great Britain, protection model of Central European countries, centralized model of the Mediterranean countries) differ centrally or decentralized management verticals from the position of the state, the level of public involvement in the development of youth work, the degree of influence of youth organizations for youth decision-making. At the same time, the priority of the issues of the EU Youth Strategy is not sustainable, but may change due to the needs and needs of the youth community, the actual problems of certain countries, placing young people at a central position, providing them with concrete tools for realizing their projects, visiting non-formal educational events and advising on specific policy decisions, this is the priority of further research. Article has theoretical character which it is necessary in the following development of experimental work, has applied character, namely: development of the system of formation of social activity of youth at institutes of civil society with use of the European experience of youth work.

References

1. A Rapid Review of Innovation in the Context of

Social Determinants: Lessons from Europe. (n.d.). eurohealthnet.eu.Retrievedfrom

https://eurohealthnet.eu/sites/eurohealthnet.eu/files/publications/Working-Document-2-%28Innovative-Approaches%29.pdf.

2. Bamber, J. (2013) A Report to the Youth Working Party from the Expert Group on PeerLearning. www.msmt.cz. Retrieved from http://www.msmt.cz/mezinarodni-vztahy/promoting- the-creativity-and-innovative-capacity-of-young.

3. Borodin, S.Ye., Borysova, Yu.V., Litvinova N.M., Khokhriakova I.V. (2008). Suchasnyi yevropeiskyi dosvid formuvannia ta realizatsii molodizhnoi polityky [Contemporary European experience in the formation and implementation of youth policy]. Dniprpetrovsk: Porohy [in Ukrainian].

4. Chisholm, F., Kovacheva, L. (2002). Exploring the European Youth Mosaic. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.

5. Denstad, F. (2009). Youth Policy Manual How to develop a national youth strategy. Layout: Jouve, Paris, Council of Europe Publishing.

6. European Conference on the future EU Youth

Strategy Report (Brussels, 3-4 May 2017). (n.d.). ec.europa.eu.Retrievedfrom

https://ec.europa.eu/youth/sites/youth/files/youth-strategy-report_en.pdf

7. Karlinska, A. (2013) European Youth Policy: How Does It Work? (n.d.). auca.kg. Retrieved from https://auca.kg/uploads/Article%20%201%20Europea n%20Youth%20Policy_graphic.pdf.

8. Koval, H.V. (2013). Rozvytok derzhavnoi

molodizhnoi polityky:teoriia, metodolohiia,

mekhanizmy realizatsii [Development of state youth policy:theory, methodology, mechanisms of

implementation]. Mykolaiv :Vyd-voChDUim [in Ukrainian].

9. Lavchyan, Z., Williamson H., Retore, S. (2017). Youth policy. Prague. Retrieved from https://pjp-

eu.coe.int/documents/1017981/9907025/Essentials/9e7

efd7b-483d-fb92-1e04-31d5024e8f20.

10. Matviichuk, A.V (2008). Hromadski orhanizatsii yak chynnyk stanovlennia hromadianskoho suspilstva [Civic organizations as a factor in the formation of civil society]. Extended abstract of candidate's thesis. Kiev: KNU imeni Tarasa Shevchenka [in Ukrainian].

11. Portfolio molodizhnoi roboty Rady Yevropy [Portfolio of the youth work of the Council of Europe]. (n.d.). dsmsu.gov.ua. Retrieved from http://www.dsmsu.gov.ua/media/2017/03/20/1/PDF_Ukr_text_Portfolio.pdf. [in Ukrainian].

12. Romanovska, L.I. (2012). Sotsialno- pedahohichna pidtrymka diialnosti dytiachykh hromadskykh obiednan Ukrainy : istoriiai suchasnist [Socio-pedagogical support of activity of children's public associations of Ukraine: history and modern times]. Vinnytsia: Merkiuri-Podillia [in Ukrainian].

13. Report of Policy Action Team 2 : Yong People (2000). London.

14. Salasuo, S., Mikko, L. (2006). Atomised generation [in Finnish with English summary. Helsinki: City of Helsinki Urban Facts.

15. Siurala, L. (2007). A European framework for youth policy: What is necessary and what has already been done? Diskurs Kindheits und Jugendforschung Heft 4-2007.

16. Storozhuk, R.P.(1999). Zarubizhnyi dosvid realizatsii molodizhnoi polityky [Foreign experience in implementing youth policy]. Kyiv: Akadempres [in Ukrainian].

17. The future of youth policy cooperation in

Europe post-2018. Prerequisites for a successful European youth policy Policy paper by the Child and Youth Welfare Association (AGJ (2016)). Berlin. (n.d.).agj.de.Retrievedfrom

https://www.agj.de/fileadmin/user_upload/FA/nMGJ- Positionspapier_FortfuhrungJugendpolitische_Zusam menarbeit_in_Europa_ab_2019_final_EN.pdf

Размещено на Allbest.ru