REVIEW OF NATIONAL YOUTH POLICIES YOUTH POLICY IN THE NETHERLANDS
A report by an international expert group
appointed by the Council of Europe
Carl Nissen (Chairperson)
Annette Scerri
Nikos Gousgounis
Petar-Emil Mitev (Rapporteur)
Catalin Ghenea (Secretary)
August 1998
2
CONTENT
Acknowledgements
1. Introduction
1.1. Objectives of review
1.2. Methods of work
2. Background
2.1. The Netherlands tolerance
2.2. Ethnic minorities
2.3. Historical background
2.4. Political background
3. General features of youth policy in the Netherlands
3.1. The problematic situation
3.2. Strategic orientation
3.3. Dynamism
3.4. Definition of youth policy
3.5. Definition of youth
4. Implementation and balances
4.1. Decentralisation
4.2. Innovations in youth care
4.3. Youth participation
4.4. Young people's need of ideas
4.5. Youth organisations
4.6. Paternalism
4.7. Prevention as basis for all youth policy
4.8. An educational approach to a general youth policy
5. Some specific fields
5.1. Education
5.2. Welfare
5.3. Leisure- participation
5.4. Youth information
5.5. Employment
5.6. Delinquency
5.7. Drugs problem
5.8. Ethnic minorities
6. Conclusions
6.1. Challenges and response
6.2. Positive innovations
6.3. Problem situations
6.4. Summary
Notes
References
Appendix
3
Acknowledgements
The members of the international expert group appointed to
review the youth policy in the Netherlands (Carl Nissen, Annette
Scerri, Petar-Emil Mitev, Nikos Gousgounis and Catalin Ghenea)
wish to express their thanks to all those who made it possible to
accomplish the work reflected throughout the present report.
The international expert group had numerous meetings with
almost all-possible actors involved in the development and
implementation of youth policy and youth care. The range covered
governmental and non-governmental representatives as well as local
authorities and private agencies. We will avoid enumerating all the
personalities who shared with us their experience, but want to thank
them all for their contribution and co-operation.
The fruitful discussions and the enormous information we
received were substantial to forming an idea about the youth policy
in the Netherlands on which the international report was drawn up.
Particularly, we want to thank the personalities in the Ministry
of Health, Welfare and Sport, whose important contribution made
our work possible: Mr. P. Pennekamp – the General Director, deputy
of the Secretary of State, Mr. E.L.Engelsman – the Director in
charge for youth policy, Mr. H. Janssen – the youth department,
Mrs. Flora Gehrkens – the representative for the Netherlands in the
CDEJ, Mrs. Dies Wilbrink–Griffioen – member of the NYRC – who
co-ordinated the activities concerning the youth policy report in the
Netherlands. We want to thank Mrs. Yvonne Scherf Zakelijke
Dienstverlening for the smooth running of our two visits to the
Netherlands. Certainly, we want to mention the researchers who
have drawn up the national report, Mrs. Pauline de Savornin
Lohman, Mr. Peter Kwakkelstein and Mr. Abraham van Dijk.
To all those involved, we express our sincere appreciation.
4
1. Introduction
1.1. Objectives of review
The report on the youth policy of the Netherlands is the second
in turn within the review of national youth policies in European
countries. If the review of the youth policy of Finland was the
breakthrough, entering a new field, then the second step now will
have to clearly outline the possible direction that will ensure quality
and efficiency of the orientation decided upon. On the basis of the
experience of the two countries, we have the opportunity to evaluate
the genre itself and have a better idea about it in the long run.
The present report, to a great extent, has been constructed on
the basis of the Finnish experience. The objectives that are implicit
and embedded in the "starting model" of the initiative, are as
follows: 1) promote the self-assessment of the national youth policy
(by means of the national reports presented also at European level);
2) obtain information about the policy from one more, international,
source; 3) get an idea about the national youth policy in supranational
context. "In other words, our "theoretical framework" for
considering youth policy in Finland was shaped by local, national
and supra-national consideration. The latter is not, in some ways, of
specific concern to Finnish youth policy ... but it is important in
terms of projecting a framework for longer-term international review
process" (Youth Policy in Finland 1997: 4).
These being the objectives of the review of European
countries' youth policy, it can be said that the first of these objectives
has been implemented at a high level in the Netherlands (in so far as
not only national, but also international motives have stimulated the
preparation of the national report).
The report of the international expert group should meet the
second and third of the obvious objectives of the review. In the
Finnish model, this contradictory task has been solved by a nonsystematic
approach due to the individual qualities and efforts of the
expert group members. In prospective, however, the contradiction
virtually exists and it should be overcome at methodological level,
too.
5
In case the emphasis is put on the European dimension, the
report itself will acquire a new appearance and will fit the topic The
youth policy in the Netherlands in the European context. The
international expert group is not likely to undertake making such a
presentation since it requires a different working approach, as well
as another system of sources to be used. Besides, the group consists
of different experts and this presupposes better possibilities for
mutual acquaintance and co-operation.(1) The European dimension
has been taken into consideration within the range of possibilities
granted by the starting model.
Within the same range, also the task of the youth policy in the
Netherlands to present itself has been implemented. However, with
regards to it the expert group is faced by a contradiction, namely the
constraints, which ensue from using predominantly the Netherlands
sources provided.
Therefore, as if a vicious circle occurs. (a) If the emphasis is
put on the European dimension, the report will be obviously too
independent; its preparation requires completely different
methodological and organisational procedure and a different
structure of the final product. The temptation of European loftiness
arises which would eventually turn the experts into something like
Euro-inspectors looking at the national youth policies from above.
On the other hand, (b) if the emphasis is put on the national
presentation, the report of the international group will be dependent
on the national report and will inevitably summarise its contents.
This is a task that is also beneficial and also completely possible for
the Netherlands presenters to implement. Of course, a position of
assessing the national report may also be assumed. However, such a
turn of direction will raise some of the concerns related to the first
scenario. The people that have worked before us have racked their
brains a lot to find a way out of this ambiguous situation, in order to
find the trade-off between the warning: "It is important to emphasise
that it is not an evaluation, nor a critique of the National Report" and
the confession statement: "There will clearly be some evaluative
dimension to our commentary, but we prefer to consider what
follows as one contribution to the different "regimes of truth"..."
(1997: 1).
6
Obviously, it is desirable that the Report of the international
expert group is not to be a repetition of the national one, but that it is
not an abstract of it, either, and further on, not a supra-national
report. The international working group has taken advantage of this
– larger than desired – freedom in order to focus the attention on
some key issues which clarify the strategy of the national youth
policy in the Netherlands, the concrete innovations to it, its
achievements and problems. The task is not to evaluate this policy –
since it is evaluated by the electorate of the Netherlands and the
youth themselves – but to present it at pan-European level. The
assumption is that, on one hand, the problems of European youth are
common to a great extent and the exchange of information about the
way of solving them in the different countries is of substantial
importance. On the other hand, the institutional building up of united
Europe will inevitably include the youth sphere and has found
expression in the notion of “youth policy of the Council of
Europe”.(2)
1.2. Methods of work
The input information source of the international expert group
is the national report of the Netherlands. It is not our task to check
the report, nor to compare it with original sources of information; the
report is interpreted as the complete illustration of the youth policy
of the country. Further on, the members of the expert group use vast
information obtained during their two visits to the Netherlands. This
consisted mainly of meetings and discussions with responsible
politicians and civil servants, with Netherlands researchers, with
practitioners dealing with youth issues and organisations set up by
youths themselves. During the meetings in Amsterdam, The Hague,
Rotterdam, Utrecht, Leiden, Deventer and Goirle not only important
scientific applied information has been obtained, but also unique
personal impressions were gathered. The experts had the opportunity
to personally see how the policy was designed at the different
governing levels, namely central, provincial and local, as well as to
hear the point of view of both the institutions and the youth.
Statistical, sociological and socio-psychological sources have been
used, such as monographs and papers on Netherlands youth issues.
7
Last, but not least, the direction set by the "Finnish pioneers" was
applied again; this consisted in the use of available empirical
information from European surveys, which cover the youth in the
Netherlands, too.
2. Background
2.1. The Netherlands tolerance
The Netherlands is a small country in terms of its territory, but
great in terms of its place and importance in the history of Europe.
We cannot imagine what European culture would have been without
Rembrandt and Vincent van Gogh, without Erasmus and Hugo
Grotius, without Huygens and Spinosa; the European way to
modernity – without the Netherlands revolt, without the flourishing
and self-government of towns in the Netherlands; the European
expansion – without the Netherlands fleet. Also we cannot think of
the European civilisation without the Netherlands tolerance. It is
manifested not only in the refining humanism of Erasmus and the
philosophy ethics of Spinosa, but also in that standard of civic
culture which was attained by Netherlands society as a whole,
outstripping almost all other countries on the continent. Having
come into existence as an attitude towards the otherwise-believer,
tolerance expanded its essence to become an attitude towards the
other and the otherness. In the post-war years, it manifested itself in
a number of various aspects (including liberal attitude towards
homosexuality, towards the use of "mild" drugs). Tolerance in the
Netherlands is not a psychological luxury but a vital element, a
cohesion of society which ensures its stability, development and
prosperity. It is particularly in the atmosphere of love for freedom
and tolerance that political extremism, both left and right, is pushing
its way through with still bigger difficulties in the Netherlands. And
it is again for the same reason that the Netherlands used to be and
remains an attractive country to foreigners who, for one or another
reason, are looking for new opportunities.
8
2.2. Ethnic minorities
In the last decades the Netherlands tolerance faced a new
challenge, a new – double – historical test. Most of all, because the
Netherlands is becoming a multi-culture country. In the very first
years after World War II quite a number of Indonesian immigrants
settled in the country. This first wave was absorbed by the
Netherlands society and today they are not discussed as an ethnic
minority. However, this is not the case with the immigrants from
Turkey, Morocco, Surinam and the Antilles/Aruba who came to the
country during the last decades. They are present in the Netherlands
with their sub-cultural specificity, religion and customs. On the other
hand, the ambient conditions also change. Of course, the problems
of European integration are of a completely different nature, but they
also include the issue of cultural interaction, the impact of: say,
language and culture of the big, and especially the Anglo-Saxon
countries. There is a definite link between the internal and external
changes. The new multi-cultural European environment enhances
the internal cultural differentiation. At present Turkish immigrants
can select out of different channels of satellite Turkish TV and
different newspapers in Turkish. The concentration of ethnic
minorities in the bigger cities creates a specific situation for the
young generation (in the capital city, Amsterdam, 50% of the youth
come from them).
2.3. Historical background
What is typical of Netherlands society after World War I was
the so-called pillarisation (“verzuiling”), i.e. the division of the
special structures (political parties, trade unions, business
associations, professional groups, youth organisations, sports clubs,
etc.) into different blocs (“zuilen”) on religious and ideological basis
(Roman Catholic, Protestant, Liberal and Social-democratic). Since
the 1970-ies the pillarisation as a system has started loosing
strength.(3) Its influence upon the overall process of socialisation of
youth used to be of primary significance. Even until nowadays the
education of young generations is entrusted to schools which are
mostly Roman Catholic and Protestant. Only 18% of secondary
9
schools belong to public education. However, the pattern of public
life is vastly changing. The trend towards secularisation of public
mentality is significant, and after the end of the cold war also a trend
of de-ideologisation has occurred.
This development has of course also influenced the
development of the (traditional) youth organisations. Until the 70-
ies they were given - together with other voluntary organisations
and movements - responsibility for the implementation of most of
the (preventive) youth policy and with a considerable general
financial support from central government.
Following the growing demand from central government for
more efficiency and better quality of their preventive work the
voluntary (youth) organisations gradually transformed themselves
into highly effective, professional agencies with hired personnel. At
the same time and because of that they lost their original broad
membership support. They had little interest in keeping it up. Their
influence and their economy was by now more dependant on the
professional and efficient work of their organisation, or now rather
their ‘agency’. They were now competing with other (business)
agencies about a share of the central, earmarked project funding for
their work - and for their existence.
2.4. Political background
The political system in the Netherlands has specific
characteristics. The political forces are minorities, which practically
have no chances of dominating the situation independently. Political
balance is maintained by dialogue and by the co-operation of the
political elite of the basic blocs. The final result for the outside
observer is the “Netherlands paradox”: the country is more divided
(segmented) and more stable at the same time. There is a specific
term in the Netherlands not only about division, but also about
consent: consociationalism(4).
Youth participation in social life is not characterised by any
violent manifestations or by extreme activity. Youth policy is
traditionally formed from the top. Youth problems are discussed
during election campaigns; they are not, however, in the limelight.
The differences between the political parties are differences in the
accents. The governmental policy on children’s and young people’s
10
issues has had no alternative during the last few years. It seems to be
marked by consensus (5), which undoubtedly makes it firmer. (6)
3. General features of youth policy in the Netherlands
3.1. The problematic situation
The Netherlands society of the 1990-ies is gripped by the trend
of technological, social and cultural changes, internationalisation and
globalisation. A key concept of the changes according to
Netherlands researchers is the individualisation of society. The
relationship between the individual and the group (bloc) is changing.
The sphere of choice is widening. This implies a new starting point
also with regards to socialisation and social integration of young
generations. In general, the range of opportunities for them should
be expanded. However, not only from the example of the
Netherlands, but in general it is obvious that this does not happen
automatically and changes can even cause complications in the
youth situation, and especially in the development of a young
personality. The National Report shows that the contradiction has
been clearly seen. On one hand, "Key socio-cultural trends are
ongoing individualisation and the development into a pluriform and
multicultural society". On the other hand, "Today's young people are
increasingly forced into choosing their own direction and identity in
an unclear and rapidly changing '(jobs-led) world'."(RNYP 1998:
1.3.1.) In other words, individualisation of society and the pressure
of society on young individuals are both increasing simultaneously.
In psychological terms an astonishing discrepancy is reached: the
Netherlands’ economy is flourishing, democracy is stable, youth
prosper in a number of aspects, but there are some manifestations of
general dissatisfaction, drifting away from politics, growing
symptoms of psychological instability and deviations in conduct.
3.2. Strategic orientation
A way out of the problematic situation can be sought in two
different directions. One of them is intensifying the control over
11
youth, repressive measures against youth deviations and
ideologisation of youth in view of greater interior compacting of the
normative system. The basis underlying this approach is a negative
or problem-oriented understanding of youth as a risky group. The
alternative is the opposite, namely, to rely on the youth creative
potential, the capacity for self-approbation of young people, of youth
involvement. This approach can be called positive. There are a lot of
synonyms and aspects.
In trying to understand the youth policy in the Netherlands and
its strategy, the international expert group experienced some
unexpected difficulties, because of an apparent dualism in the
Netherlands’ (governmental?) concept of youth policy.
The National Report presents the youth policy of the
Netherlands - and covers the whole range of policies concerning
youth, from education and leisure to employment etc. But when
looking more into the details and examples of projects presented in
the report and through our visits and meetings the expert team
gradually came to understand that what was most often called youth
policy was in fact rather what we would call a preventive youth
policy - which is normally only a part of (general) youth policy.
It was not always clear to the team whether this rather narrow
concept of youth policy was also behind references to or quotations
from researchers (Winter et al) or behind the governmental memo
’Youth Deserves a Future’ from 1993.
Most of the terminology used refers to the context of
prevention - and when the expert team asked why most of the
statistics in the report referred only to the 15 % ‘problem-youth’ we
were told that the remaining 85 % had no problems and therefore no
need of special youth policy initiatives.
In a country like the Netherlands which is well known for its
welfare-policy and its wish to take good care of its citizens
especially the young citizens, it is understandable that efforts are
concentrated - also within youth policy - on diminishing the
problems which youth (or 15 % of youth) encounter or create.
But it also raises some questions concerning (general) youth policy.
Some of these questions will be taken up at the end of chapter 4 of
this report
12
However, since the task of the expert team has been to
comment on youth policy in the Netherlands as presented, this is
what we have tried to do. Youth policy in the Netherlands seems to
us to be almost exclusively preventive and this is therefore what our
report refers to - unless the question of preventive youth policy as or
versus general youth policy is explicitly raised.
Probably the most essential detail related to the preventive
youth policy in the Netherlands is the clear vision of these
alternatives (the negative and the positive approach) as such and a
declared principal orientation towards understanding youth
positively. This appears in scientific publications, in statements of
institutions, and in the national report. "From ’youth as a problem’ to
’youth as a potential’", proclaims an analytical scientific monograph
(Winter 1997:20). The Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport
(according to Mr. Pennecamp) considers "youth policy = fight
against criminality" and "young people = problems" to be wrong
formulas. It considers young people as a positive source and wanted
to stimulate the positive side.
This turn is a particularly substantial key change in the youth
policy strategy. It will be an idealisation to believe that it will not
clash with the inertia of residual paternalism. As researchers warn,
"the net effect of the processes described here is that in our society
children and young people are looked upon more and more as
constituting a (potential) problem" (1997:20).(7) It is far from an
easy task for the institutions that have to implement a new youth
policy. The reconsideration of institutional policy cannot happen all
of a sudden.
3.3. Dynamism
Suffice it to enumerate the major laws and government
decisions of the 1990-ies which refer to the youth problems in order
to understand the extensive and intensive dimensions of youth policy
in the Netherlands. An asset of the national report is the historical
tradition reviewed in it and the profound attention given to the
legislative level of management decisions.
The document Youth Deserves a Future (1993) is as important
as a program; it contains the philosophy of new youth policy and
13
comprises the basic starting point of the national report on youth.In
the field of youth policy, Netherlands agencies and institutions enter
a real contest with time, understanding that today's youth is the
society of tomorrow.
3.4. Definition of youth policy
Re-directing youth policy from problem-oriented into
opportunity-oriented requires substantial changes in the structure and
functions of socialisation factors. The integral approach implies also
integrative factors to be in place. In the case of the Netherlands, the
view of a transition from "state policy" towards "society policy" has
been formulated. It is not a matter of changing the terminology, but
rather of principal expansion and modification of the socialisation
factors. School, police, family, neighbours become involved in youth
policy in a different way. These are important elements of
innovation projects such as Coach and the Partner School.
The agents of youth policy are: the State (central, regional and
local authorities, state youth work), the civic society (church, youth
research, youth work of voluntary, non-profit agencies, youth
organisations, neighbours, NGOs etc.) and family.
Central government – fulfils core duties (facilitation,
monitoring and innovation) and gives an orienting framework to
lower levels.
The national report defines youth policy exclusively
institutionally and fixes its structure hierarchically. The role of the
NGOs has not been a subject of special analysis. The role of
voluntary sector is only referred to – it is not discussed at least on
equal terms with that of other sectors but even it is not expected that
it can contribute to widening the scope or raising the effectiveness of
youth policy. Drastical change of their relationship with local
authorities – becoming more businesslike and competitive, less
preparedness for co-operation and hence less integral policy.
Focus on young people – not only as recipients of care but also
as agents. This should be stronger, not only stated.
14
3.5. Definition of youth
Youth policy in the Netherlands is based on a very broad
definition of youth comprising the age group of 0 – 25. The
acceptance of this period as the border marks of 'youth' has its
positive and negative consequences for youth policy.
First of all this concept allows an integrated and consistent
youth policy to be devised from the 'coming to Netherlands' of the
newly-born to his/her acceptance in the group of adults. Childcare in
this way is not a closed in itself policy but has schemes and
measures that allow the smooth transition of their objects into
adolescence and youth. Youth policy in the Netherlands applies a
broader approach linking the problems of young first-time parents
and small children and allows a bridging between age groups. On the
other side, however, there is a potential danger that such youth
policy bears strong traces of child policy's focus on care and
protection which is not easily reconcilable with the specifics of
youth stage – with its autonomy and the expected focus on
participation.
The emphasis on the continuity of youth policy to a certain
extent is achieved for the account of laying a shadow on
discontinuity, on the qualitative border between children and youth.
Including the group from 0 to 3 years of age in one and the same
category with persons of 20 – 25 years of age in essence does not
mean that different generations are combined in one and the same
category. According to statistical data of 1997 3/1,000 out of the 15-
19 aged and 45/1,000 of 20 – 24 years olds have children. Out of the
women at the age of 25 (1996 data) 13 % have one child (in 1980 –
23 %), 6 % – two children and 1 % – three children (Statistical
Yearbook 1998: 44, 45). So a more appropriately defined title for the
National Report would be "National Children and Youth Policy". In
the currently defined title, children are officially a part of the youth.
In real fact, however, there occurs the possibility to reduce youth to
a common denominator with children.
The report by the international working group considered
exclusively the issues related to youth in the more precise meaning
of the word, i.e. within the age range 15 – 25 years. Of course,
certain relativity is present here, too, insofar as the Netherlands data
15
itself often define youth as a subgroup of the youth policy targeted at
people of 12 – 25 years of age.
4. Implementation and balances
4.1. Decentralisation
Decentralisation is a new trend in youth policy of the
Netherlands starting with the Welfare Act adopted in 1987, followed
by the Youth Care Act in 1992, the Youth Employment Guarantee
Act in the same year, the Temporary Act on Social Renewal in 1994
and has not yet been completed. De-centralising operations of youth
policy makes it closer and more sensitive to actual local problems of
young people in their micro social context by allowing de-regulation
and de-standardisation of decision-making. Resources, which have
been separated under various schemes, are now being united in the
hands of one governing body thus widening the scope of its policy.
However, transferring duties and responsibilities to authorities in the
provinces (regional level) and the municipalities (local level) has
been accompanied by cuts in financing which limited instead of
increasing the opportunities of local governments to intervene in
youth problems. As the authors of the national report critically
observed: 'In some cases this has caused general youth and
community services nearly fully to disappear from the social map in
municipalities (RNYP May-1998: 1.2.2.). Another problem is the
legal approval of the increased formal power of the local authorities.
The local authorities need extra resources to conduct their new
functions.
Greatest effect of this decentralisation is the integrated
approach – cross sector co-operation and links between social
problems. Youth problems are seen as interrelated among
themselves, as well as with other problems of the communities they
live in and the society at large.
Innovative aspects: preventive youth policy based on the
creation of appropriate networks of local, provincial and central
governments, voluntary agencies and young people, and making use
of co-ordinated information. A priority of the project is involving
16
youth realised through four modules: youth information,
communication with young people, young administrators and
structured implementation. The project ‘Development of Local
Preventive Youth Policy’ (OLPJ) includes 'Youth Participation
Scenario' for spotting, promoting and supporting initiatives of young
people.
Successes in developing youth policy by the local authorities
in the field of preventive policy, although only a minority have
adopted its true innovative approach – emphasising the creation and
promotion of opportunities and development and not as early
addressing the problems held or caused by young people.
The simultaneous requirements for management
decentralisation and a meaningful change in youth policy create a
problem. The problem approach is easier to realise and implement
on the lower levels of power.
4.2. Innovations in youth care
Preventive youth care services locally based. This includes an
impressive array of measures: reducing the number of school
dropouts, preventive youth health and mental health services,
employment services, crime prevention. There are efforts to shift the
policy from curative and repressive to preventive. For many local
governments youth policy is to combat inconvenience caused by
youth. Their preventive activities lack coherence. Unlike the
preventive youth services, the curative youth care does not aspire to
be an entirely new policy.
Curative youth care is the more traditional strand of youth
policy as contents and as an approach. It is concerned with provision
of major youth services such as educational and health services and
has a curative and repressive orientation, saving society from youth
and youth from its problems. It is the responsibility of the middle
(meso) level of the structure of youth policy – that of regional
authorities – in provinces and metropolitan areas. It includes field,
day and residential youth care, judicial youth protection, family
supervision (including fostering) and health services.
Yet, since the early 1990s curative youth care is also
undergoing changes to address current problems of social change in
17
Netherlands society. First of all the agencies responsible for youth
provision are radically reorganised as regionally based alliances
which bring about greater coherence and co-operation between
youth care agencies. It is realised through regional networking,
which involves even wider institutions such as schools. Second, an
attempt is made to change the approach of youth care from a
provision oriented one to a function oriented approach. On the basis
of the report, it is clear that the latter change has not been
implemented and it is still in the phase of 'advocating' the idea.
Currently (since 1992) the reorganisation of curative youth care is
realised in four aspects: decentralisation – in the way preventive
policy is; growth in scale (which remains rather dubious when the
'major' (RNYP 1998: 2.6.3.) cuts in resources are taken into
consideration); reallocation of provision for a more even spread over
the country; and standardisation meaning that standard amounts
should be developed for the cost price of care. The fourth facet of
reorganisation remains rather dubious – if the objective is to address
the individual needs of the clients this tendency toward
standardisation is in contradiction.
Positive – maybe puts an end to the former fragmentation of
youth provision and makes it more efficient. The centre for this
effective care is the Youth Centre Frontoffice – the single door
through which youth care is channelled per region and to which all
young people in need can turn to.
Goals of the changes: higher accessibility of curative youth
care, improved youth care quality, the development of regional
visions and improvement of policy information.
From traditional curative youth care system characterised by a
wide variety of separately operating bodies (institutional autonomy)
to standardise procedures and criteria.
This standardisation puts an end to the fragmentation – in the
Youth Care Frontoffice.
Mounting pressure upon youth care system as a result of the
fact that provision development did not parallel developments in
client needs. A contradiction – between the change in care targeting
the reduction of the number of residential placements and the further
expansion of heavy care due to the increasing number of youngsters
with serious psychological trouble. Two-track policy – allocating
18
more funds to residential care and the promotion of a shift from
heavy to lighter forms of intervention.
4.3. Youth participation
This is a new approach in central preventive youth policy
which is directed toward increasing the opportunities of young
people to develop and manifest their positive abilities. It represents a
break with the negative image of youth focusing on social problems
held and caused by youth. This opportunities approach is directed
toward developing of young people's 'social capital' – to enhance
young people's social ties with society and activate them to
challenge their own strengths.
This concept seems to characterise Netherlands sociology of
youth since the early post-World War II period – 1945 although with
different interpretations: from enlightening the young about what
proper citizenship is, through young people's insistence to participate
in political decision making, through encouragement of individual
development and self-expression.
The report remarks that this turn of youth policy toward a
focus on youth participation in the 1990s is a top-down approach.
The memorandum Youth deserves a future' makes empowerment of
youth the key objective of the innovations in youth policy – the
youth policy should create conditions for youth to practice their
roles, skills and attitudes that are relevant for their participation in
society.
Youth participation is seen as active and passive. The active
participation encompasses involvement in youth organisations, in
planning and administering youth services and political participation
aiming at influencing government policy. Passive participation –
consuming youth services, mostly in leisure. This seems a very
'adult' view – view from above on youth participation; young people
are no less creative in leisure than in other spheres. This top-down
approach is manifested in the national projects such as the National
Youth Debate which end with annual reports which are then
circulated 'amongst Members of Parliament, the participants, youth
organisations and youth workers all over the country' (RNYP 1998:
2.1.3.2.).
19
The National Youth Debate is also an illustrative example in
the on-going debate about participation of different ‘youth bodies’
and of their representativity.
It is evident from the National Report that the youth
organisations - especially the political youth organisations - are not
considered representative of all Netherlands youth
In order to establish a more representative youth body the
National Youth Debate between a youth panel and ministers from
the government has been introduced. The youth panel (100 - 200
young people) is duly selected by researchers each year in order to
create a real (sociologically) representative youth body - containing
typical specimens of all (youth) classes/categories
In a representative democracy - like European countries - the
parliament (or the local municipal council) is normally supposed to
represent the electorate (the population/the people) as such. Few
have seriously questioned its representativity - even though it may
not at all live up to the sociological definition of representativity.
They are of course expected to represent also those ‘classes’ or
categories, which might not have won a seat in parliament or
council.
It has of course always been a challenge for any representative
democracy to make sure that also underprivileged groups make use
of their constitutional rights to vote.
But it is hardly a solution to solve this problem by replacing an
elected, representative body by a (sociologically) representative
group or panel, selected by researchers, - to replace, so to say, the
“voice of the people/youth” by the “voice of the researchers”.
The law on students’ participation in the management of
universities was changed a year ago. Students got full voting rights
and had one third of the seats on the University Council. After the
change they have voting rights on certain matters and advisory votes
on others. The councils have been also changed. Now the following
model exists: a council of the employers and a students’ council; this
is a model of co-partnership. These two models gave students fewer
rights, according to some students’ opinions.
The report considers young people's participation in youth
organisations and remarks that their social relevance has declined as
20
their members belong to the middle class while youth policy is
focusing predominantly on underprivileged youth. This apparent
contradiction is largely due to the focus on national youth
organisations only. Why not local as well. Some researches in East
European countries show that there are many local organisations
very active in the youth field but who remain invisible to the centre
and to surveys designed from the centre. While the report is
discussing youth participation at local level it mentions young
people's joining in discussion of policy, in control of facilities, in
implementing measures and in relapsing projects. Here the partners
seems to be local government and organisations working with youth
but young people are seen as individuals and not as organisations.
The effectiveness of this policy according to a study of local
authorities (DSP, 1996) – a third do not focus on youth participation,
half do so occasionally and only 10% – systematically. From the
experiments in eight pilot municipalities it is seen that the ways of
thinking and the skills of administrators and officials have not
changed accordingly and they insist to hold the lead rather than
allowing 'too much' power to the young fearing that this might create
'order taking' situations. On the side of the young people there is
disillusionment with this strand of youth policy – joining discussions
is of no use.
The problem however is not only in the 'thinking' of local
administrators and of their 'natural' dislike to take orders from lower
standing clients (young people). It is on the central level where
debates remain a goal in itself. Even when the report is enlisting the
forms of youth participation, it is considering such important sphere
for the young as leisure as only consumptive but not creative and is
not mentioning such important, at least to youth in East Europe,
form of participation as participation in the labour market and in
work. The report itself suggests that if youth is taken into account
seriously, other issues will be raised into youth policy debate such as
environmental health, combating racism, etc. Cross-border
participation, evaluated positively by young people, does not reach
genuinely disadvantaged groups.
The opportunity led approach to youth participation is still
underrated.
21
Opportunity approach is a needs led approach in contrast with
the problem oriented one and with an instrumental nature. It is
expected that it will have a catalysing role in changing the
compartmentalisation of local authorities and the gap between
citizen and local authorities.
Problematic young people are perceived as clients and not as
prospective partners. Involvement of non-problematic youth - as
opposed to inclusion of youth at risk - in the processes of
preparation, administration and implementation was seen to function
and to be beneficial (the children’s town council in the city of
Goirle, where children are given the space, resources, support and
responsibility to pinpoint, assess and improve certain problems of
their municipality, as well as suggest and plan cultural, sports and
leisure activities for children). If this has been such a success with
children, why cannot adolescents and « older » young persons be
equally involved in improving their local environment? Active
participation cannot be limited to involvement or inclusion; it should
also imply awareness to responsibilities and the actual transfer of
these responsibilities. Of course, this would be inconceivable if the
other « party » is not considered to be a partner in the decisionmaking
process.
4.4. Young peoples’ need of ideas
Today’s young people in the Netherlands have impressive
physical dimensions (average height 183 cm for young boys and 170
cm for young girls): the young people are more educated and receive
more money compared to the young people of the previous
generation. They are also offered a wider range of entertainment. At
the same time young people today do not have higher selfconfidence;
the manifestations of psychological instability and
deviating behaviour are on the increase. In order to understand such
a situation it is necessary to take into consideration the interrelations
between the material and ideal aspects of life. Certain dissatisfaction
with the present forms of ideological commitment can be perceived
in some trends: young people distance themselves from traditional
religions, from modern ideologies, from the ideological content of
youth subcultures. On the reverse side of de-pillarisation are the
symptoms of a vacuum of ideas. Naturally, it is not characteristic for
22
a liberal state to determine the ideology of its young people.
However, without paying sufficient attention to the necessity of
social and personal ideas, typical for a young age, the counteraction
of their substitutes, such as consumerism, alcohol, and drugs, could
hardly be successful.
4.5. Youth organisations
Numerous youth organisations seem to be led and managed by
adults. This raises the basic question of why young people follow
and continue to allow adults to « do things for them » rather than
preferring to « decide and do things for themselves ». Are they so
used to this state of affairs that they have no choice other than
accepting what is offered in order to feel accepted; are they simply
indifferent to what is happening around them; do they feel helpless
in influencing « adults »; are they just waiting until the overnight
change when they can join the « adults » group, that is when they
turn eighteen years of age?
The system and approaches that are implemented in the
Netherlands as regards to formal academic education is definitely of
a very high standard. However, on the contrary, the importance of
youth organisations as basic elements of civil society, in terms of
non-formal education is hardly recognised and they are not,
therefore, considered and supported in similar, professional methods
and standards. In fact the notion of non-formal education in
character-forming of children and young adults is absent from the
national report and was hardly encountered with during our visits.
Of course, from contacts with leaders and representatives of youth
organisations, it remains evident that the whole concept of nonformal
education, which is indirectly the result of voluntary youth
work, irrespective of whether it is accomplished by political,
environmental, educational, religious, leisure or exchange
organisations, remains their top priority. Our considerations are
therefore aimed at youth policy makers in the sense that non-formal
education should first and foremost be seen as an invaluable asset
and as a complement to formal education. Furthermore, decisionmakers
need to recognise that youth organisations are essential in the
development of active citizenship in a civil and democratic society.
23
4.6. Paternalism
Paternalism that has been characterised by the typical
hierarchy-based understanding of the relations between people of
different ages and sex was severely undermined by the overall
progress of development of modernity. However, it cannot be said
that it is only a part of past history. Paternalism is coded in the basic
postulates of various religious beliefs, and it is particularly
characteristic of Islam. Paternalism resorts to political umbrellas of
various extreme movements – openly in the extreme right and
concealed in the extreme left. The administrative socialism in
Eastern Europe prolonged, in a modified form though, the historical
life duration of paternalism. (There are researchers (8) who find a
parallel between the post-revolutionary paternalism in the East and
the non-revolutionary paternalism in the West). Paternalism,
however, exists also at the social psychological level. We can call it
residual paternalism. The key terms of patronage, paternalist youth
policy, are care and prevention. Of course, care and prevention may
be spoken about not only in terms of paternalistic position. What
matters is the understanding about both in the general context and in
their relationship with the subjective position of youth. The youth
policy in the Netherlands throws an obvious challenge to the residual
paternalism and at the same time shows how difficult it is to
overcome it. Youth participation is interpreted as an active role of
the youth. Projects like the Partner School demonstrate the
exclusively fruitful attempt to solve certain problems of the
extremely vulnerable youth through its active involvement.
4.7. Prevention as basis for all youth policy
As already pointed out (chapter 3.2.) youth policy in the
National Report is normally referred to as ‘Preventive youth policy’.
According to the report, youth policy is part of the welfare policy,
which also encompasses nurseries, childcare and other social work.
The term ‘youth policy’ is often replaced by ‘ youth care’. (9)
Naturally, an important part of every national youth policy
must be how to deal with that part of youth, which is at risk in one,
or another way. For this part of the youth policy, a preventive
24
approach has doubtless advantages compared to the process of
taking measures post factum. At the same time, prevention, as a
point of departure for all youth policy sets as a premise youth as a
problem, thus influencing the overall understanding of youth policy.
Psychologically the preventive approach may suggest that the
main task is to preserve the citizens’ peace and quiet from the
deviations on the part of the ‘troublesome young’, i.e. from those
young people who do not successfully and smoothly integrate into
the present, adult society. Youth at risk of exclusion therefore has to
be taken special care of - to be ‘cured’ for their lack of ability to
become integrated.
In this way society - so to say - puts the blame on the
individual young person at risk - in stead of considering possible
shortcomings or failures of the educational, social or employment
systems and policies of society.
The preventive approach may be considerably improved by
active participation or involvement of youth in the process. The
inclusion of youth in the processes of preparation, implementation
and administration - “allows for improving the quality of policies
and respond to a client-centred and needs-led approach” (RNYP
1998: 2.1.4., 1.2.2. et al). Such terminology - at least - leads one to
understand participation of youth/clients as a means of improving
the necessary treatment of the clients - a well known approach from
the spheres of curative institutions etc. - i.e. - to include the clients
and stakeholders in the processes of quality-improvements of social
institutions.
The young people at risk become the clients of a preventive
system whether ‘caring’ or ‘curative’. What remains to be done is
to analyse the clients’ needs with the help of professional experts
and researchers.
This new ‘involvement-of-youth approach’ in preventive
youth policy may very well be ‘client centred’ and ‘needs led’. The
youth at risk, with their problems nevertheless remains clients, i.e.
dependent on the preventive or curative system.
Previous experiments in several European countries have
shown that quite often young people are categorised as ‘youth at
risk’, because they do not feel that they belong to society: Society
does not seem to need them; they are not valued and not given any
25
opportunity to commit themselves and take responsibility. If on the
other hand these young people are met with an appeal to their
positive potentials - and an honest wish to make use of it - they may
very well develop into active resource persons, both in their group
and in their neighbourhood. The positive approach re-establishes
their self-esteem and self-reliance, (See Council of Europe reports
“Participation as a means of integrating young people at risk into
society” 1990, - and “ The development of an integrated approach to
youth policy at local level”, 1993).
4.8. An educational approach to a general youth policy
Emphasising the preventive approach for an overall or general
youth policy may solve some of the problems of (the 15 %) of youth
who are supposed to be disadvantaged or at risk. On the other hand
it may as well prevent - or at least make it more difficult - to pursue
other important aims of a general youth policy.
In the necessary renewal of society for the next century -
“youth is society’s capital; - the innovative drive of society, its hope
for the future, the powerhouse of change that shows society the way
to the future”, (R. Mönchmeyer, CSO, ‘Youth at risk’ - conference
1996.).
One overall aim of a youth policy might be to create the
openings and possibilities within all policy-areas for youth to learn
to develop and prepare themselves for their ( ! ) future society. To
pursue such an aim may necessitate a renewed consideration of the
concept of participation. To be given responsibility for running a
local playground may be a - modest - beginning. But to be given
influence and responsibility for one's own life sphere means to be
acknowledged and accepted as an equal partner - also in the
necessary decision-making processes.
Experiences from the few local pilot-projects where this has
been tried out in earnest - also in the Netherlands - show that the
most difficult part of such experiments seems to be to persuade
adults from the administrative and educational sector that giving
more influence and responsibility to youth also means to give away
part of one’s own power. The challenge to such local pilot projects
seems to be educational - for both young and for adults.
26
Another important aim of a general youth policy might be to
take up the challenge from the new generation - and try to answer
their open or implicit questions about the value-systems upon which
our democratic welfare society has been built.
This should, of course, not be a matter of indoctrination or
mere ‘teaching’, but rather an invitation to an open dialogue
between equal partners about common values, common
responsibilities.
The ‘de-pillarisation’ of the Netherlands society seems to
have left some symptoms of a vacuum of ideas and ideologies.
Young people are said to distance themselves from traditional
religious belief, from modern ideologies, from the ideological
context of different youth sub-cultures etc. This is probably not
because they reject all values. But rather because they find the
traditional frameworks or fora for such value discussions outdated
and not corresponding to the challenges they see today.
To familiarise the young generation with democratic values
and practices and with the humanistic philosophy which lies behind
our ideas about welfare and solidarity - and thus prepare them for
their active participation as citizens - is important in every
democratic society.
Sharing influence and responsibility is not only a way for
young people to learn democratic ways of living together. It is also
a way to give them a more meaningful life.
It may be necessary to re-create or restore important elements
of civil society such as democratic (youth) organisations, grassroots
movements and other fora for the open dialogue about the common
values of our future society. But such a revitalisation of our
representative democracy requires an educational approach to the
overall youth policy.
The new generation must learn how to function in a
democracy and how to establish their own voice in society whether it
be based on the present model of our representative democracy - or
on their own innovative, improved, but democratic, models.
Such a learning process may be supported by introducing civic
education in the curricula of the formal school-systems. But
learning the practice of such a process has always been one of the
most important functions of the free, independent organisations and
27
movements of civil society - including youth organisations. The
personal competencies - like creativity, ability to work together in
teams and take decisions etc - gained here are now also highly
valued new competencies in the business world.
Some of these movements and organisations - the more
traditional ones - may not now be able to fully live up to this
educational challenge and may need help to re-juvenate their work.
But it is hardly a sustainable solution to abolish these important
elements of civil society and replace them by top-steered bodies or
‘panels’ selected by researchers and/or authorities in power.
The re-juvenation of the learning and practical training for
democracy is a non-formal educational challenge for any youth
policy - the concept of which seems to be almost totally absent from
the National Report.
5. Some specific fields
5.1. Education
It is no wonder that in a country where over 90% of 15-19-
year-olds are in education, education constitutes an important part of
Netherlands preventive youth policy and especially for its innovative
strand – youth participation. Educational policy with its three major
goals: to enhance young people's personality development, to
prepare them for democratic citizenship, and for participation in the
labour market, bears a direct relationship to youth welfare,
prevention and care. Since the 1960s, educational reform is aiming
at combating inequality in opportunities with special provision
available for young people of immigrant backgrounds. A specific
feature of Netherlands educational system is its high degree of
compartmentalisation based on both religious (denomination)
affiliations and philosophical and teaching principles.
Changes in the field of educational policy comprise shifts in its
institutional structure and policy approach. Preserving the freedom
of denomination and organisation, a process of secularisation and
de-compartmentalisation is underway. This tendency has yet a minor
effect on the educational infrastructure. Perhaps a more significant
28
feature of administrative reform in the field of education is the drive
toward restoration of autonomy of schools and the widening of the
scope of liberties, responsibilities of school management, especially
the role of headmasters. Schools are made to account to the public at
large, primarily to parents for their policy and educational results.
Large-scale merger operations such as the regional platforms serve
to concentrate educational resources and operate within budgets that
have been converted from provision-led to needs-led.
The new approach of educational policy or the new 'vision' as
the authors of the report put it is to raise the importance of noncognitive
skills that the educational system should develop – such as
independence, sense of responsibility, flexibility and immunity to
stress. These new social and emotional skills of young people should
enable them to adapt to the new information environment of the
computer age.
However, individualistic independence combined with
financial facilities may not necessarily lead to responsibility and
immunity to stress, - the high percentage of suicide attempts among
Netherlands youth might be the negative outcome of exaggerated,
premature independence. The existential problem of all young
individuals is that personal freedom and autonomy presupposes a
minimum of self-esteem, self-knowledge or self-reliance, - qualities
that are related to real, innerdirected freedom and independence - as
opposed to independence acquired only by financial facilities.
Immunity to stress could be sort of chameleon-type adaptability with
no moral restrictions on the axis of personal interest and profit or
pure egotism.
Such a call for caution may of course easily be misused by the
open or hidden ‘paternalists’ of education. But it is a challenge for
the educational system - also in view of the new computer- and
media-age - to make sure that youth are given sufficient possibilities
for learning to analyse, evaluate, select and reflect about the huge
amount of information. In short: they must learn to distinguish
between good and bad.
With the view of the goal – to enhance equality of
opportunities – it remains unclear how young people choose
between the four types of secondary education or its three pathways
(theory, practical and educational) that are currently being
introduced. Boys and ethnic minority children are over-represented
29
among students in special primary and secondary education. In the
sphere of higher education women predominate among social
professions, child education and health care while men outnumber
women in sciences and technology and the differences between their
shares is two, three and even more times. Such complementary
forms of education that are encouraged by the Adult and Vocational
Act (1996) and the Employment Service Act (1997) could play a
greater role but statistical data on their effects were not provided in
the report – to be able to judge their effectiveness.
Statistical data show an increase of the number of pupils in
secondary education paralleled by a decrease in the numbers in
mainstream education. This has been addressed by measures to
reduce the gap between the two types of education such as the
project Back to School Together Again, pupil-based financing and
co-operation between the special and the four-year mainstream
forms of pre-vocational and junior general secondary education.
Also, parents are encouraged to send their children to regular schools
and use additional help provided by experts from specialised schools
or by teachers from regular schools paying them with vouchers
received from a Regional Education Centre. To address the needs of
those young people who remain incapable of obtaining mainstream
qualifications despite the extra support, there is a labour market
oriented pathway of education. However, the report does not give
more concrete information about it.
On the school achievements – school failure scale, attention is
focused on the negative spectrum. Educational disadvantage remains
a problem for youth policy in the Netherlands although it concerns
only about 10 per cent of young people. Surveys reveal its
correlation with the family – the educational, vocational and ethnic
backgrounds of the parents. It is usually associated with early school
leaving and non-attendance at school. These problems are addressed
by the following measures: Educational Priority Policy Act (1998)
and Educational Disadvantaged Policy Act (1998) which delegate a
lot of power to local government. Their key target groups are
immigrant pupils and pupils with poorly educated parents. Also, a
Regional Report and Co-ordination Centre on Early School Leaving
is planned to be set up to register the early leavers and guide them
either back toward education or the labour market.
30
Another big problem is violence at school in which young
people - fellow pupils and teachers are both victimised. Surveys
estimate that between a tenth and a fourth of young people are
regular victims of bullying. In 1995, a 4-year campaign to promote
safety in schools was launched by the central government but the
report does not give details about its contents and methods nor about
its effectiveness.
5.2. Welfare
The health status of young people in the Netherlands is
relevant to the advanced countries in the world, although it is
questionable if the fact that 5% have made one or more attempts of
suicide and a further 10% have considered suicide (sometimes or
often) is a 'normal element of this life stage'.(10)
This strand of youth policy seems to have a very good
information base with a national representative survey conducted
every four years. Alcohol consumption and drug use is on the
increase, which is closely linked to the preferred types of youth
leisure – associating with friends and going out. Survey results
reveal a positive relationship between drug use and the drug use of
family members and friends, outgoing behaviour, committing petty
crime and truancy.
It is worth noting the existence of an extensive system of
youth health care service – with general preventive orientation as
well as with specific focus on particular groups as to reduce socioeconomic
health inequalities. The latter is tackled within a special
programme (SEGV) and a committee. Also, there are specialised
programmes for people with disabilities, which are directed toward
supporting people with disabilities to be active in mainstream
society rather than isolating them in specialised residential
institutions. The country has a developed network of specialised
agencies supporting young addicts. These provide counselling, outpatient
services and in-patient treatment for young people with
addiction problems. We do not have enough information to judge
about the specificity of its activities (in comparison with other
European countries) and the effectiveness of this system.
31
5.3. Leisure- participation
Leisure is assuming a growing importance in young people's
life whilst, at the same time youth policy is paying a declining
attention to it.
Several trends can be discerned in youth leisure in the Netherlands.
While younger children are less likely to be left to play in the
streets unattended and are taken by their parents to and from for
practising sports or visiting clubs, older pupils participate less often
in organised sports whereby girls switch off at a younger age than
boys do. Associating with friends, visiting pubs and discos in small
groups are on the increase as are enjoying computer games and the
new media. Watching TV and video is very popular while reading,
especially from libraries, and going to theatres, cinemas and concerts
is not, young people preferring to make music themselves or at least
choosing their own style.
It is probably so that no youth policy initiative can do away
with or substitute the expanding private commercialisation of
leisure-time and related activities. This is a general trend in all
developed societies. Young people tend to register as potential
customers much more easily, influenced uncritically by mediatic
advertising - and having difficulties in escaping the
commercialisation process of every aspect of social life. Today the
trend is to persuade everybody to adopt a new life-style, so that the
rest of the process will be automatic. Since young people are more
keen to experiment with new social fashions and life-styles they are
also more easily manipulated: “A good customer is an un-critical,
passive and automatic customer”.
Also here - within the area of leisure-time activities - there is
a challenge for non-formal educational initiatives: to counteract this
development towards passive consumerism, which could also be a
danger for civil society.
Formal politics, the church and ideological movements do not
appeal enough to new generations so that we can note some trends to
youth de-ideologisation and de-politicisation. However, there are
two important stands, which should not be overlooked by those
dealing with youth policy. The characteristics of another type of
policy and ideology are emerging in youth expectations. Issues such
as human rights, poverty, third world, peace, discrimination,
32
environment are of great interest to young people and they are ready
and willing to comment upon them. Also, while young people
dislike joining organisations they remain prone to enthusiastically
join spontaneous activities such as manifestations, protest actions,
etc. A reason for this attitude of spontaneity might be that mediatic
and electronic (visual) messages are too fast to wait for analyses,
and people forget very quickly whatever is important today under
the social pressure of temporarity. Fragmented and simulated
information do not formulate ideologies and solid political interests.
They produce temporary mimetic fashions and spontaneous
enthusiasm for some noble causes such as environmental issues or
protection of disappearing animal species.
This is a global trend as influenced by post-modern media +
internet styles and can be found also in Eastern European countries
where these influences are expanding to youth even faster than free
market’s effects. ( Kovacheva 1995 ).
Perhaps the most marked tendency in the field of youth leisure
is the proliferation of youth subcultures. While they are not a new
youth phenomenon, there are unique characteristics of the presentday
youth subcultures in the Netherlands. In the enormous diversity
of styles and liquidity of youth cultures, the former idealistic notions
or critical messages to societies, typical in the previous decades,
seem to have been lost and young people find themselves engaged in
the so-called 'style surfing'. As the authors of the report put it – style
has become a pure form without contents.
One (cynical) explanation could be that the market forces and
the establishment noticed the critical messages of the former subcultures
(the ‘Provo’s etc.) as being potentially dangerous, because
they ridiculed some basic trends of modern market philosophy and
values of society. Such sub-cultures could be ‘dis-armed’ by
transforming them into a matter of fashion and style. As a result today’s
sub-cultures are less polarising and more conformist than
during the previous decades. The same mechanism could be behind
the tendency to ‘de-politicisation’: If protest actions and
manifestations for human rights, poverty or environment etc. can be
referred to as temporary fashions and ‘style-surfing’, then society
(the market-forces) does not need to take the protests seriously.
33
In this diversified and anarchic milieu of highly individualised
youth leisure pursuits, the traditional preventive youth policy is
definitely out of place with its patronising and enlightening
approach. Is there a new approach in youth policy in the
Netherlands, more relevant to the youth interests described above?
In our judgement, the new decisions are highly inadequate. The
report puts in the first place the policy attempt to regulate TV and
the new media to diminish young people's access to 'violent material'
and 'unsuitable or unpleasant information'; in the second place –
Youth in Motion Task Force – to put young people back in
organised sports. It is not clear, why sports have been allocated such
a small space.. It is probably here that a serious resource for youth
policy in the Netherlands could be found – as an obvious instrument
or a ‘gateway’ for young people and a potentially powerful resource
in civil society and in non-formal education.
5.4. Youth information
This term entered debates in youth policy since 1985 – the
International Year of Young People. It was expected that it could
serve as a basis for a modern youth approach enhancing youth
participation and having preventive effects. Above all, youth
information offers young people new possibilities for independent
decisions and the right of choice; at the same time students have to
assume higher responsibility for their own choice. In the Netherlands
youth information was developed within the infrastructure of
existing youth services unlike the change in other countries where
new services for youth information were created. This might have a
positive effect of developing youth information close to the services
as a new instrument in their own practice. On the other side, this
could be a hindrance for the system of youth information not
allowing it to develop in an all-encompassing way and keeping it
fragmented.
If the State did not create new structures to deal with youth
information although it funded many projects in the field, the local
authorities and youth workers set up Youth Information Points
providing information and advice. Their activities are facilitated by
the communication of various agents such as libraries, schools, and
34
social consultancies. An independent non-government organisation –
The Netherlands' Youth Information Foundation is another active
agent in the field which collects, processes and disseminates youth
information.
Youth information is developed in close relationship with the
other strands of youth policy – preventive youth policy and youth
participation.
5.5. Employment
Young people's labour market positions and prospects have
significantly improved over the past 10 years due to Netherlands'
economic growth, educational expansion and the effective labour
market policy. Youth unemployment rate is 12-13% (7% for the
whole labour force) but this is mainly a short-term phenomenon. At
the same time, young people in education have side jobs seeking
economic independence and working experiences.
There are some negative developments as well, which cause
anxiety. The proliferation of employment for youth has been mainly
in temporary, low-skilled and low-paid jobs. Young people in the
Netherlands do not stay unemployed for long periods not because of
the good opportunities in the labour market for them but because
they are not very demanding and accept jobs for which they are
overqualified. Youth wages are kept low with growth of the
minimum youth wage lagging far behind that of adult workers.
Young workers are more vulnerable to economic fluctuations by
having short-term contracts and being most likely to become
redundant through cutbacks. On the other hand, those without
qualifications and with low qualifications as well as migrantdescended
youth have very poor prospects in the labour market and
might enter the group of the long-term unemployed. The low skilled
jobs for which they qualify are taken by young people with higher
education or by those still in education.
Youth labour market policy in the Netherlands follows a
comprehensive approach channelling school-leavers and young
unemployed towards a job or training. It is pursued within the
nation-wide network of employment services. These are regionally
based and governed by tripartite administration of government,
35
employers' organisations and trade unions. The youth related
facilities within them are the Incentive Policy on Youth Employment
and the Youth Employment Guarantee Act. These schemes offer
‘choice of career’ tests, job interview training and vocational
training courses and most importantly encouragement of employers
for youth placements (under the Youth Employment Guarantee Act).
They seem very effective as 80% of young people involved in the
first scheme find paid work or a placement in mainstream education
and about 25% is the gross effect of transfers of the second scheme.
The Unemployed's Participation Act, launched by the government
on 1 January 1998, provides subsidised employment under the scene
'social activation' targeting the most prospectless in the labour
market. This act allocates more power and resources to the local
authorities for active labour market policy and they receive
additional budgets for the benefit of long-term unemployed and
young people. There are also measures for some special groups in
the labour market – young people with physical or mental
disabilities, the latest act on this issue since April 1998. A new act
TOGETHER is encouraging immigrants labour market participation.
Not specifically targeting young people from ethnic minorities, this
act improves their chances by obliging business companies and other
organisations with more than 35 employees to have a proportional
representation of employees of non-Netherlands backgrounds. The
report does not make it clear what is the proportion, which the
companies should stick to, and what definition of migrants this act
has accepted.
In general, the new development in employment policy of the
Netherlands – the deployment of social benefit funds for job
creation and the reinforcement of the role of municipalities – have
raised the effectiveness of this policy. There still remains the need
for more measures directed toward the underprivileged group of
early school leavers and ethnic minorities’ young people. It should
be noted as a positive development that this second report shows a
growing awareness of the significance of unemployment in young
people's lives since it has a special chapter on this issue unlike the
first report where it is only mentioned. It seems that even greater
attention to this problem is advisable as young people rank
36
unemployment second as a matter of concern, after pollution and
before unsafety (NIBUD, 1994).
In perspective: a greater policy attention to young people's
working careers and support for their career growth. Highly
qualified young people should be assisted to transfer quickly from
low-skilled unfulfilling jobs into more demanding jobs allowing the
realisation of youth creative potential.
5.6. Delinquency
The Netherlands’ policy on youth delinquency is under the
contrasting pressures of two tendencies. On the one side, there is a
strive to curtail crime and secure public safety, which seems to
require tougher measures and on the other there is an aspiration to
humanise this policy so that repressive measures do not lead to the
isolation and social exclusion of young people.
Crime rate is on the rise in most countries on the continent and
Netherlands society is no exception. There is a sharp growth of
police figures on youth crime in the Netherlands since 1995 although
crime rate is not particularly high – the hard core group of young
offenders is estimated to be from 2 to 7% of the age group. There are
two negative tendencies, which draw particular attention to
Netherlands policy combating youth crime. One of them is the
increase of violent youth crime which mirrors the increase of violent
crime among adult population. Another problem is the concentration
of delinquent behaviour among ethnic minority youth – they have
1.5 to 3 times higher crime rate than those of Netherlands origin and
three times more police encounters.
The Netherlands’ policy on juvenile delinquency is
indisputably well highlighted. It also seems well funded and
elaborated. It concentrates on three key strands underlined in the
report: prevention and prospects offered to young people; early
detection of problems and rapid intervention; stricter enforcement.
Although the need of close co-operation with social services,
education and other forms of youth provision are stated, the most
important agents dealing with youth delinquency remain the police
and justice departments. Basic characteristics of this policy are still
its 'assertive' or even repressive attitude.
37
New tendencies in youth crime policy, which should be
supported, are the socialisation of the law, as the report puts it,
meaning the involvement of other non-judicial actors in lawmaintaining
tasks – such as local government, voluntary sector,
young people themselves. Recent measures include Youth Crime
Policy Scheme (1995), Memorandum 'Delinquency in Relation to
Ethnic Minority Integration' (1997), Metropolitan Policy Covenant
(1995-1999), etc. They start from the assumption that school is a key
facility that can play a central role in promoting social cohesion.
Parenting support and crime prevention at schools are new foci of
Netherlands policy on youth crime. These measures also rely on
effective actions of the police and judicial system and in this aspect
there are concerns about the loss of youth expertise in regional
police forces due to the reorganisation of the police apparatus and
the limited expansion of the judicial apparatus lagging behind the
upsurge in youth crime. Another problem which awaits its solution
is the development of a uniform and nation-wide system of services
to young convicts (youth probation).
As in other strands of youth policy, here we see efforts toward
a local integrated approach to youth crime. It is aiming to provide a
rapid, early and consistent response to youth crime, as well as an
appropriate response – development of alternatives to traditional
punishment (detention, fines), for example pedagogic and
community sentences.
5.7. Drugs Problem
Drugs policy has its own perimeter. It is probably for that
reason that the report on youth policy in the Netherlands does not
consider this topic. And yet, the decisive territory on which society
encounters the drug problem is connected particularly with children
and young people.
The Netherlands’ drug policy (initially tested informally and
formalised in 1996) is well known for its unique characteristics. The
rationale behind is the conviction that repressive measures are by
themselves counter-productive. The use of drugs has been
decriminalised; thus, society addresses free individuals, not
criminals. The differentiation between hard and soft narcotics allows
38
the combination between repressive measures against the spread of
the hard drugs and a liberal regime as regards the second ones. The
idea is to treat a social pathology against which the purely repressive
measures, taken in other countries, have not yielded the expected
results.
The data show that the use of hard drugs (heroine, cocaine) has
increased little; one can say it has stabilised. (11) The use of soft
drugs is on the increase: about one fifth of the young people have
tried soft drugs, most of them sporadically, 6 per cent – on a regular
basis. (Repportage Jeugd 1997: 93-94) The interest of the world
public in the results of this policy is understandable. Let this not
sound pathetic: the Netherlands experiment is of historic
significance. If it fails, only the Netherlands people will be the
losers. If it succeeds, we all will be the winners. The time for the
summing up is still far ahead.
5.8. Ethnic minorities
Youth policy in the Netherlands is well aware of ethnic
differences and tensions in the multi-cultural society what the
Netherlands is becoming increasingly. Using the wider definition of
minorities, 17% of the population belong to this category. Most of
them come from non-industrialised countries and again most of
them, unlike the situation in Finland, are racially different. There is
an expectation that ethnic problems will be reduced in the second
generation of immigrants, with a 'new orientation to their parents'
country of origin as well as to the Netherlands society they grew up
in' (RNYP 1998: 3, 9.3).
Policy in the field is based upon analysis of qualitative and
quantitative research evidence and it is interesting to note that
quantitative data present a more positive picture than can be derived
from qualitative sources. Research establishes an unfavourable
labour market position of immigrant youth due mostly to the early
school leaving without qualifications. Although the report mentions
other factors for this situation, including discrimination, it does not
elaborate on the problem, nor does it discuss research evidence about
discrimination. Perhaps one reason for employers to prefer highly
qualified young people for their low-skilled jobs is the desire to
39
eliminate ethnic minority youth. Young immigrants' vocational
career is also hampered, with ethnic minority youth concentrated in
the lowest rated and temporary jobs.
Ethnic minority policy in the Netherlands has somewhat long
history of efforts to integrate immigrants into mainstream
Netherlands society, starting with the first Minorities Memorandum
(1983). Although this was an interdepartmental programme, its coordination
was vested with the Ministry of Interior and this fact
demonstrates traces of paternalistic policy striving to save society
from problems caused by ethnic youth, rather than allow ethnic
youth full development and participation in society.
A very heuristic policy approach in the field is developed in
the Outlines of Ethnic Minority Integration Policy (1994) which
implied a shift from target group policies towards area-based
policies. Based on the concept of citizenship it applies an integrated
approach to ethnic minority problems stressing integration and
participation. Minority policy is closely linked to other policy areas
such as settling-in, employment, education and culture, housing,
health and welfare, etc. The area-based policy is characterised by the
focus on local social policy and the implementation of the approach
named 'quality of the neighbourhood'. Various initiatives are aiming
to improve the quality of life in areas where ethnic minorities and
Netherlands-born citizens live together in deprived neighbourhoods.
A positive trend is that the latest measures and projects (1998)
place the stress on youth as the key group for integration. We should
also evaluate highly positively the efforts of this policy to involve
self-organisations of ethnic minorities into provision. This approach
seems much more effective, allowing the use of their social capital
instead of destroying it. This is a route for their integration and
participation in society which is still an unsolved problem if we take
into consideration the low turnout of ethnic minorities in the 1998
local elections. An indicator of the high awareness of the persisting
problems is the conclusion of the report that 'active policy on
improvement of the position of these groups remains high on the
agenda.
40
6. Conclusions
6.1. Challenges and response
There are three major elements of the problem situation which
we would like to discuss at the end of this overview of youth policy
in the Netherlands.
First of all, we are dealing here with a new type of youth
maybe radically differing from the previous generations.
Second, there are new challenges rising from the needs of the
new society – that of the 21st century.
Third, the new youth and the new challenges require a new
youth policy with different accents and different approaches.
1. Characteristics of the new youth in contemporary
Netherlands society:
Today's young people in the Netherlands are highly educated
and well informed about developments not only in their immediate
environment but also in the continent and the world. This is also due
to the new high technology and the new media. Contemporary youth
is a computerised youth dealing with and processing an enormous
amount of information.
These are young people who are a watching, rather than a reading
audience, who rarely visit cinemas, theatres and museums, rarely
read books and newspapers. There is a definite shift in the cultural
sources toward TV, video, personal computer, Internet.
Contemporary youth demonstrates little interest in official
parliamentary politics but is attracted toward extraparliamentary
activities. There is a process of distancing not from politics in
general but from the formal representative politics. Today’s young
people are less romantic and more realistic compared to the young
people of 1968. They do not believe too much in the extraparliamentary
forms of pressure.
41
The proportion of non-believers among Netherlands youth is
increasing. The tendency of secularisation of Netherlands society is
realised predominantly by the cultural change in young people's
views and forms of behaviour.
Young people in the Netherlands are in the forefront of a postmodern
phenomenon – the plurality of youth styles and subcultures.
A very important shift is the lost connection between style and
ideology in youth sub-cultural activity.
A very important tendency is the de-ideologisation of youth
which is manifested in the distancing of young people from the
church without their turning toward new religious movements;
young people's declining interest in the major traditional political
party ideologies and their involvement in issue-oriented citizen
politics; and the emptying of youth subcultures from ideological
contents with young people quickly shifting ('surfing') from one to
the other without strong obsessions in any of them.
Obviously, today's youth policy meets young people who have
new, unknown in the past, informational resources at their disposal
and greater freedom in their ways of thinking and behaviour. They
are freed from religious, political, even cultural restrictions typical
for the former generations. These are opportunities for young people
to meet the new risks of contemporary life, of life over the year 2000
but they themselves are not guarantees of such smooth transition.
This lack of restrictions can easily turn into anarchy and violence in
everyday life contexts. Formerly the religious and ideological forms
channelled individual behaviour in socially acceptable routes and
saved the efforts of autonomous thinking. Currently independent
thinking cannot be spared to young people. It is their responsibility
to meet the new challenges.
2. The new challenges facing youth and youth policy in the
Netherlands
There is a need to make a shift from the culture of violence to
the culture of peace. Social development in the past years reveals
42
that even in the most advanced countries in the world, violence is on
the rise. Aggressive potential is manifested from an earlier age –
even among children below 12. Violence is interpreted here in a
general sense, including auto-aggression as demonstrated in suicidal
behaviour, alcoholism and drug addiction. The transition toward a
peace culture is not an easy transition. The factors stimulating the
widened scope of violence are still active and are becoming even
stronger. Provocations towards violence are intensifying as a result
of the mixing of race and ethnic groups in the old nation-states.
Europe in the future and every country forming part of it will be
multiethnic community. ‘It will probably also be necessary to make
some more profound studies in order to find out whether some of the
reasons behind the rise in violence cannot be found in the general
development of present society and its lack of giving obvious
openings and opportunities for the young - especially for those at
risk, (see also chapters 4.6 and 4.7).
Consciousness of belonging to Europe and considering all of
Europe as the natural, boundless arena for operations is a new
development rising from the political and economic processes of
integration. This development is not only the formation of a
widening political unity or the introduction of the Euro but involves
a cultural process as well which comprises a certain level of
consciousness. This consciousness of belonging to Europe of
Netherlands youth is not exhausted by the affiliation with the
country situated in the heart of Europe and who have given to the
world the master pieces of Rembrandt and van Gogh. The formation
of such consciousness requires a process of overcoming of ethnic
stereotypes, violent nationalism and chauvinism. The new attitude of
acceptance of other countries and nations in Europe as your equals
will inevitably influence internal relations toward accepting ethnic
minorities in your own country as equals.
Social activeness of young people is a new prerequisite of the
coming age. The challenges of the future can be met only by people
with a high civic consciousness – active engagement in the solution
of the major local, national and European problems. The feeling of
responsibility for social problems and the readiness to involve in
their combating are very important attitudes in view of the current
43
social transformation - an important area of work for the non-formal
educational sector - including (voluntary, independent) youth
organisations.
3. A new general youth policy meeting these new challenges
and responsive to the new characteristics of youth is therefore a
necessity. The new youth policy should place a stake on
participation understood broadly as social and political practice
realising youth innovation potential. This is a policy concerned with
the self-realisation of youth and an appeal to the creative abilities of
youth - both as individuals and as groups. Youth participation is a
general change of the contents of youth policy which involves all
young people and is directed towards all of them. It is no longer
enough to direct youth policy only toward those 10 or 15 per cent of
young people belonging to the so-called groups at risk. The
computer unlocked new opportunities and allowed young people and
even children to develop and realise their innovative abilities thus
changing the relations between generations.
Only politics freed from paternalism can ease the formation of
a developed common consciousness of civic responsibility among
the new generation. Traces of paternalism are found not only in the
traditional ideologies but also in many assumptions underlying youth
policy.
6.2. Positive innovations
The innovations referred to represent innovations mainly in the
Netherlands and in its youth policy.
Broad perspective of preventive youth policy
There is a clear understanding of policy institutions that 'to invest in
young people is to invest in the stability of tomorrow's society'
(Youth Deserves a Future: 1993).
Shift in preventive youth policy from paternalism to youth
participation
The declaration of youth participation as a central issue of youth
policy is a key factor for the effectiveness of this policy.
44
Youth information base
A very good relationship between youth research and youth policy.
Most of the strands of youth policy are based upon surveys
conducted every year, or every four years.
Differentiated approach
High awareness about the differentiation in youth – along ethnicity,
gender, disability, urban/rural divisions. Programmes targeting these
various groups. Sensitiveness of policy measures to such differences.
Social homogenisation
Special attention to social inequality and to the material problems of
young people.
Decentralisation
This re-direction of preventive youth policy focus from central to
local level of government generates a more integrated approach,
more flexible and more responding to the needs of young people. It
allows close integration between different strands of youth policy –
education, leisure, care, crime, welfare, etc. Good examples: area
based approach of ethnic minority policy, neighbourhood approach,
’Partner School’, ’Coach’ project.
Integration
Youth policy in the Netherlands promotes a collaboration between
socialising institutions – family, school, libraries, music halls, sport
clubs and youth centres, although mainly in the framework of
preventive approach.
Multiculturalism
Led by the principle 'Everyone should be an Amsterdammer and
should respect each other's culture', youth policy in the Netherlands
reflects the multicultural nature of Netherlands society.
45
6.3. Problem situations
Standardisation
Youth policy in the Netherlands lacks a standardisation of
variables concerning youth. In the national report youth is defined as
the age group of 0 - 25. Statistics Netherlands differentiates groups 0
- 19; 20 - 44 and 15 - 19; 20 - 24. The national report in the chapter
on leisure and youth culture differentiates children aged 4-11 from
young people aged 12-24 and in the chapter on employment
considers young people from 15 to 24. The Department of Youth
Policy in the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport use the age
range 0-19 ("Youth Policy in the Netherlands"). Other official
booklet clarify that: "The age of 27 seems to become the new
borderline between youth and maturity" ("Being Young in the
Netherlands ").
The basic definition unites two generations.
Institutional co-ordination
The wide ranged and multi-sided work in the youth field
requires an institutional structure at ministerial level with functions
of a basic co-ordinator of youth policy.
Partnership of youth
Governmental support for the establishment of one full
National Youth Council would be welcome. By this youth
organisations can become equal partners in decision making and
implementation of youth policy.
Balance 15-85
Despite the focus on youth participation, it seems that in many
cases youth policy in the Netherlands is addressing only the 15%
youth at risk.
Funding
The diminishment of structural funding of youth activities in
favour of project based funding does not seem the best solution; both
have their specific (dis)advantages.
46
Students
The possibilities for students’ participation in management of
educational institutions could be wider.
Leisure
Leisure is a major factor in two aspects: first, as a striving of
young people themselves, and second, as a chance for society to
model young generations not into passive consumers, but into active
participants. It is known that the reverse side of material welfare and
social security can be passiveness and consumerism.
The value system of young generations plays the key role for social
dynamism. This requires more attention to leisure and to the nonformal
education.
European Co-operation
Greater attention to the process of increased European cooperation.
What are the expected consequences of this process on
youth education, employment, and leisure. How does it relates to the
prospects of ethnic minority and low qualified youth for
participation in society.(9)
Juvenilisation
If we have to express by one term the need of a further
development of the youth policy in the Netherlands in the direction
that has already been chosen, this term may be juvenilisation (12) of
youth policy.
6.4. Summary
Youth policy in the Netherlands is faced with problems the
majority of which are common to the European countries. The
search for decisions through the orientation to multiculturalism, the
positive approach and youth participation, is worth noting. The
practical application shows the scale of the change, which is
imperative in overcoming the residual paternalism and negative
thinking, under the conditions of a genuine empowerment of young
people.
47
Young people offer more opportunities than problems; focus,
policy and funding has to be in balance with this reality. The trial
and error method seems impossible to avoid. This emphasises the
importance of exchange of experience and information.
48
Notes
1. Carl Nissen - Special Advisor of the Ministry of Education, Denmark;
Annette Scerri - Youth for Exchange and Understanding, Malta; Nikos
Gousgounis - Anthropologist, Researcher, Greece; Petar-Emil Mitev,
PhD - Sociologist, Professor at Sofia University "St Kliment Ochridsky",
Bulgaria; Catalin Ghenea - Programme Adviser, Youth Directorate at the
Council of Europe.
2. In the 5th Conference of European ministers responsible for youth
(Bucharest, 27 - 29 April 1998) it was declared: "5. To implement, from
local to European level, an intersectoral, integrated and coherent youth
policy, based on the principles of the European Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the
European Social Charter".
3. There is rich literature on pillarisation. Arend Lijphart study (Lijphart
1975) is particularly instructive. (See also References.) According to a
compendious assessment: "Pillarization had received official
confirmation in the Pacification of 1917 and removed most of the tinder
from Dutch politics; but it also kept ordinary Dutchmen religiously
separated from each other to a greater degree than in the most Western
countries ... Some 25 years after the end of World War II, the system
began to disintegrate." (Enc. Brit., Vol. 24. p. 895).
4. "The term consocionalism denotes the elite accommodation in
segmented societies by means of four mechanisms: grand coalitions,
segmented autonomy, proportionality and minority veto" according
Lijphart (Pennings 1997 : 9).
5. The main opposition party (CDA), according to the party manifestos
(1998), supports the integration of different cultures in the Netherlands,
the co-sharing of responsibilities by high school and university students,
which takes place in the respective schools and universities, and the
combination of adequate assistance with political commitments which
offer new chances. Probably the most rational proposal is for students
under the age of 25 to be able to start their studies and to apply for
financial assistance during the whole course of studies plus one more
49
year; this will eliminate the age limit of 27 years. CDA puts an emphasis
on family values.
6. The young Christian democrats (CDJA) hope that the government is
able to encourage and create a coherent youth policy in a way that the
participation on the general elections and activities in society will
increase. (Meeting with Vereniging 31, Final Statements).
7. According to Winter there is a contradiction between declared
intentions and their implementation: "Although the appeal to young
people’s own competence is presented as a general policy vision (and
therefore applicable to all young people), in the elaboration the accent is
strongly with young people with problems." (Winter 1997: 36).
8. "With a more structural approach it was easier to see the similarities
between Komsomol relationships and Western arrangements of State
Youth Councils, both of them linking older youth (young adults) to
paternalistic regimes and to altruistic duties or services within society."
(Ola Stafseng 1992: 29).
9. It is not only governmental policy but also the documents of the
political opposition that heavily underscore care and concern. CDA points
out in its election manifesto that the care and concern for the young
people have strongly increased.
10. For comparison: 24% of high school students in the USA say that
"they seriously contemplated suicide, while 9% admit attempting
suicide." (Braungart and Braungart 1997: 3-4).
11. In 1988 0.3% of the young people over 12 aged have taken heroine
during the last four weeks before the survey; in 1996 - 5%. The cocaine
addicts' per cent is increased from 0.4% in 1988 to 1.1% in 1996. The
consumption of XTC and LSD has increased more visibly. (Rapportage
Jeugd 1997: 95).
12. Juvenilisation (also juventisation) is a concept, which describes the
change introduced by youth into social relations. It is by its content a
50
specific type of creativity resulting from the new access to the sociopolitical
and value system of society. (Mitev 1978: 3)
51
References
Beker, M. and others 1998. Rapportage jeugd 1997. Rijswijk: Sociaal en
Cultureel Planbureau.
Berg, Gert van den 1998. Being Young in the Netherlands. An
Introduction to Youth, Youth Services and Facilities and Youth Policy.
Amsterdam: Stichting Exis.
Braungart, Richard G. and Margaret M. Braungart 1995. Today's Youth,
Tomorrow's Citizens. In: The Public Perspective. Vol. 6, No. 5.
Braungart, Richard G. and Margaret M. Braungart 1997. Why "Youth" in
Youth Movements? Paper presented at the 20th Annual Scientific
Meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Jagiellonian
University, Krakow, Poland.
CDA 1998. Samenleven doe je niet alleen. Verkiezingsprogramma
1998/2002. The Hague: CDA.
Centre for Educational Research and Innovation 1998. Co-ordinating
Services for Children and Youth at Risk. A World View. Paris: OECD.
City Council of Rotterdam 1995. The Partner School. Rotterdam: City
Council.
Coach Project Deventer 1998. Coaching to measure of Deventer`s
vulnerable youth. Deventer : Coach Project Deventer.
Compiche, Roland J (ed.) 1997. Cultures jeunes et religions en Europe.
Paris : CERF.
Defence for Children International Section the Netherlands.
Governmental Youth Policy in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: Defence for
Children International Section the Netherlands.
52
European Ministers responsible for youth 1998. Young People: Active
Citizens in a Future Europe. Final Declaration at the 5th Conference of
European Ministers responsible for youth. Bucharest, 27-29 April 1998
Giessen, J. van der 1995. Youth Today & Tomorrow. An Agenda for the
Youth of Amsterdam.
Groenhuis, M. te, J. Peters en P. Scheepers 1998 Waarom lopende kerken
leeg? Over oorzaken van afgenomen kerkbezoek en kerkverlating in
Nederland tussen 1937 en 1995 (Church is running out. Causes of church
attendance and church membership decline in the Netherlands from 1937
to 1995). In: Sociale wetenschappen, 2/1998.
International review group appointed by the Council of Europe 1997.
Youth Policy in Finland, October 1997. Report. Strasbourg: The Council
of Europe.
James, Estelle 1989. the Netherlands: Benefits and Costs of Privatized
Public Services - Lessons from the Dutch Educational System. In:
Walford, Geoffrey (ed.). Private Schools in Ten Countries. L-NY:
Routledge.
Jennings, M. Kent and others 1990. Continuities in Political Action. A
Longitudinal Study of Political Orientations in Three Western
Democracies. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Jones, Trevor 1995 Policing and Democracy in the Netherlands. London:
Policy Studies Institute.
Kampen, J. van and others 1996. The State of the Young Netherlands. A
national report on the situation of children and young people in the
Netherlands commissioned by the Interdepartmental Commission for
Youth Research. Amsterdam: Eburon Publishers Delft.
Kiernan, Kathleen E. 1997 Becoming a Young Parent: a Longitudinal
Study of Associated Factors. In: The British Journal of Sociology. Vol.
48.
53
Knulst, Wim and Gerbert Kraaykamp 1997 The Decline of Reading.
Leisure Reading Trends in the Netherlands (1955-1995). In: the
Netherlands'Journal of Social Sciences. Vol. 33/2.
Kovatcheva, Siyka 1995. 'Student Political Culture in Transition: the
Case of Bulgaria', In: CYRCE (ed.) The Puzzle of Integration. Berlin,
New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Kwakkelstein, Peter 1994 Restyling Youth Policies in the Netherlands.
The Challenge of Co-operation. In: Hartmann-Fritsch, Christel and
Alexander Yaremenko (ed.). Youth Exchange between East and West.
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European
Communities.
Lijphart, Arend 1975. The Politics of Accommodation: Pluralism and
Democracy in the Netherlands, 2d ed. London: University of California
Press.
Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport. Review of National Youth Policy:
The Netherlands. The Hague 1998. (cited as RNYP)
Ministry of Education of Denmark 1998. Objectives of the Danish
Government's Youth Policy. Youth Policy for Today's Young People in
Tomorrow's Society. Copenhagen: Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education of Finland 1997. Review of National Youth Policy
of Finland. National Report. Helsinki: Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport. Department of Youth Policy.
Youth Policy in the Netherlands. The Hague: Ministry of Health, Welfare
and Sport.
Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport. Interdepartmental Youth Research
1997-2001. A View of Young People: Young People on their Way to the
Future. The Hague: Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport.
54
Ministry of Welfare, Health and Cultural Affairs, Youth Policy
Directorate. Youth Deserves a Future. Government Memorandum of
Inter-sectoral Youth Policy Summarised. Rijswijk: Ministry of Welfare,
Health and Cultural Affairs.
Minister for Welfare, Health and Culture and the Minister of Justice
1994. A Framework for Youth Care. The Hague: Welzijn
Volksgezondheid en Cultuur, Ministerie van Justitie.
Mitev, Petar-Emil 1978. Socialisation and Juventisation. Paper presented
at the IX World Congress of Sociology. Sweden, August 14-19 1978.
Sofia: Centre of Scientific Research of Youth.
Mitev, Petar-Emil and Jim Riordan 1996. Europe. The Young. The
Balkans. Sofia: International Centre for Minority Studies and
Intercultural Relations.
Mungra, A. and others (ed.) 1997. Young, Active, Serious, but also
Funny. Youth Participation on a Local Level in European Perspective.
Rotterdam: Municipality of Rotterdam.
NGO Group for the Convention on the Rights of the Child 1997.
Implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The
Netherlands, April 1997. Geneva: NGO Group.
Peltenberg, Monique 1997. The Deventer Neighbourhood Approach.
Deventer : Raster Foundation.
Pennings, Paul. 1997. The Evolution of Dutch Consociationalism, 1917-
1997. In: The Netherlands '. Journal of Social Sciences. Vol. 33/No 1.
Roche, Jeremy and Stanley Tucker (ed.) 1997 Youth in Society.
Contemporary Theory, Policy and Practice. London, New Dalhi: SAGE.
Rooy, Piet De 1997. Farewell to Pillarization. In: The Netherlands '
Journal of Social Sciences. Vol. 33/1.
55
Ros, E. and A. Afkerin 1998. Multi-lateraal Youth Exchange Project.
Waarnemers. Dutch Parliament Elections, 6 May 1998. Haarlem: Institute
for International Migration Issues.
Shetter, William Z. 1971. The Pillars of Society. Six Centuries of
Civilization in the Netherlands. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Stafseng, Ola 1992 Youth and Youth Movements towards Year 2000,
Oslo: NAVFs.
Statistics Netherlands 1998. Statistical Yearbook of the Netherlands
1998. Voorburg/Heerlen.
UNESCO. From a Culture of Violence to the Culture of Peace 1996.
Paris: UNESCO.
Wallace, Claire and Sijka Kovatcheva. 1998 Changing Times, Changing
Lives. The Construction and Deconstruction of Youth in East and West
Europe. Wien: Institute for Advanced Studies.
Warnaar, Marcel and Bernard van Praag 1996 How Dutch Teenagers
Spend their Money. The Hague: NIBUD.
Winter, Micha de 1995 Children as Fellow Citizens. Participation and
Commitment. Oxford, New York: Radcliffe Medical Press.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment