Тема номера
жүктеу/скачать 4,71 Mb. Pdf көрінісі
|
- Бұл бет үшін навигация:
- Lesson 4: Support for Carers
- ШЕТЕЛДІК ТӘЖІРИБЕ ЗАРУБЕЖНЫЙ ОПЫТ FOREIGN EXPERIENCE
- УДК 316.334.3(1-87) Жолдыбаев А. А.
- EUROPEAN RESPONSES TO YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT: ANY LESSON FOR KAZAKHSTAN Abstract
- Key words
- General Overview: Youth Unemployment Policies in Britain and Germany
- The main Policies for the Young Unemployed in Britain and Germany
Lyazat Nurkatova Social services provision for children in Britain: Policy lessons for Kazakhstan?
92 informed about issues in education, and provide all possible support from the inside, without waiting for government intervention. The establishment of family and children’s centers with regional Akimats (local authorities) is effective opportunity to provide timely social work (Ministry of Education and Science of the RK: 2011).
The Government recognises the contribution unpaid carers make to supporting vulnerable and needy people. Carers and young carers are offered financial support and social services provide respite and support groups for the carer. For young people, this support ensures that their education does not suffer, family relationships are backed up and the young person is allowed to thrive. Legislation prevents carers being penalised for out of work caring responsibilities and flexible working hours further protect carers in their responsibilities. Social workers are professionally qualified staff who assess the needs of service users and plan care packages and support tailored to services users’ individual needs. Social workers must hold an honours degree in social work (although previous qualifications including the Diploma in Social Work continue to be recognised as a valid social work qualification). The degree in social work is practically weighted, requiring a minimum of 200 days spent in practice settings. Once qualified, social workers must register with the General Social Care Council (GSCC website). The GSCC was established in October 2001 under the Care Standards Act 2000 and is the workforce regulator and guardian of standards for the social care workforce in England. Applicants for registration are required to demonstrate that they have completed the compulsory social work training and have met requirements around conduct, health and competence. The GSCC has the right to rule that a newly qualified person should undertake further experience in practice before granting full registration as a worker. Registered social workers are also required to complete post- registration training and learning activities before renewing their registration every three years. The GSCC accredits universities who offer social work qualifications at both undergraduate and post-qualifying levels. It also quality-approves social work courses and dictates statutory codes of practice for social workers and their employers (ibid., Codes of practice). The GSCC works to raise standards in social care and maintain a high level of protection to service users. All social workers in England must be registered on the GSCC’s Social Care Register and act in accordance with the codes of practice. Service users and carers can check the registration of a social worker and establish whether they meet GSCC standards. They can also raise concerns about the conduct of a registered social worker and request the GSCC to investigate (ibid, Conduct Rules, 2003). In 2001 the Government established the Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE) to improve social care services for adults and children in the UK. The SCIE is governed by an independent board of trustees, which includes representatives from across the social care sector and seeks to identify good practice and help to embed it in everyday social care provision. SCIE’s work on children and families’ services focuses on family support, safeguarding children and looked-after children. It looks at effective interventions, managing the boundaries between children and families’ and adults’ services, organisational learning and risk management and seeks to address these barriers through the provision of materials to support good practice (Social Care online).
In Kazakhstan, with the support of the Ministry of education and science in Astana city established the Institute of family upbringing for realization of the State policy on family education. Collaboration and inter-agency cooperation of State structures with non-governmental and international organizations are in improving the quality of life of children. A Council of NGOs with the Committee on the protection of the rights of children. In fact, sociological studies, forums, conferences, roundtables, seminars, trainings, meetings to address child care with the involvement of international and national experts. A number of social projects for children in conjunction with the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) were a lot. However, a comprehensive approach to the formation of a clear social services system has not been achieved. Conclusion The improvement of the social protection of vulnerable groups of children in Kazakhstan, occurs in connection with parallel processes. Firstly, reform of social welfare, where a great deal of effort has been taken to improve the system of social protection of vulnerable groups such as children and the family. Secondly, administrative reform of the public service of Kazakhstan, where better planning and ШЕТЕЛДІК ТӘЖІРИБЕ ЗАРУБЕЖНЫЙ ОПЫТ FOREIGN EXPERIENCE ÌÅÌËÅÊÅÒÒІÊ ãîñóäàðñòâåííîå óïðàâëåíèå è ãîñóäàðñòâåííàÿ ñëóæáà
93 standardization of government services to be serialized. Finally, better interaction of State and non-governmental sector in the area of protection of the interests of vulnerable groups of children and their families, development of these relations works as an equal partnership. In 2012, the President of Republic of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev has commissioned Government to consider compensating for part of expenses incurred by parents sending their children to child care facilities, with compensation packages depending on the number of children in each family, according to President Nazarbayev’s article “Social Modernization of Kazakhstan: 20 steps towards Universal Labor Society and Employment” (President’s article on social modernization published). In accordance with article 44 of the Convention on the children rights prepared by the fourth periodic report of the Republic of Kazakhstan (Ministry of education and science of RK: 2011) on realization of the Convention on the children rights. There can be no doubt that despite on indicators and indicators for the protection of children’s rights are included in the strategic plans of ministries and agencies and the program for the development of territories of local executive bodies, it is too early to claim about child-centered system. Thus, the positive experience of foreign countries, including the article lessons from Britain, will help to build and further strengthen the social services to Kazakhstani children and families in the period of its reform. REFERENCES: 1 Alcock, Pete: 2008. Social Policy in Britain/ third edition, pp.101–104 2 Bredihina, Tatyana: 2009. Aspect– social, assistance– real, http://kazpravda.kz/c/1236245768 3 Common Assessment Framework, http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/deliveringservices/caf/ 4 Every Child Matters Outcomes Framework, Version 2.0, Published 1 September 2005 http://www. everychildmatters.gov.uk/_files/F25F66D29D852A2D443C22771084BDE4.pdf 5 Fleckenstein, Timo: 2010. Party politics and child Care: Comparing the Expansion of Service Provision in England and Germany. Social policy and Administration, Nol.44, No 7, pp.789-807 6 General Social Care Council (GSCC) website: http://www.gscc.org.uk/Home/ 7 Humphries, Richard:2010. Dartington review on the future of adult social care: Overview report: Dartington, p.9 8 Ministry of Labor and social protection of the RK: 2012, В Минтруда и соцзащиты РК рассмотрели итоги первого этапа реформы системы социального обслуживания населения: http://www.enbek. gov.kz/node/255954 9 Ministry of education and science of the RK: 2011, Fourth periodic report of the Republic of Kazakhstan (Об утверждении четвертого периодического доклада о реализации Республикой Казахстан Конвенции о правах ребенка), http://www.adilet.gov.kz/ru/node/33114 10 Munro, Eileen: 2011. The Munro review of child protection/ Final report. Child-centred system. www. education.gov.uk/publications 11 Office of Children’s Commissioner website: http://www.11million.org.uk/?CFID=17705111&CFTO KEN=48747296 12 President’s article on social modernization published, http://caspionet.kz/rus/general/Presidents_arti- cle_on_social_modernization_published_1342066130.html 13 Social Care Online: http://www.scie-socialcareonline.org.uk/ 14 Tutt, Rona: 2007. Every child Included, Paul Chapman Publishing, pp.1-39. Дата поступления статьи в редакцию журнала 12 января 2013 года Lyazat Nurkatova Social services provision for children in Britain: Policy lessons for Kazakhstan?
94 УДК 316.334.3(1-87) Жолдыбаев А. А., руководитель сектора организации науки НИИ Академии госуправления при Президенте РК EUROPEAN RESPONSES TO YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT: ANY LESSON FOR KAZAKHSTAN Abstract This essay first compares the British and German approaches towards youth unemployment, and then asks whether Kazakhstan can draw any lessons from the European experience.
Мақала Ұлыбритания мен Германиядағы жастарды жұмыспен қамту саясатына салыстырамалы талдау жасауға арналған. Автор әлеуметтік саясат қалыптастыру принциптері мен тәсілдерін, жұмыссыздықпен күресте қолданылып отырған бағдарламалар мен механизимдерді зерттеу негізінде жұмыспен қамту «Қазақстан – 2020» бағдарламасын жетілдіруге бағытталған нақты іс-шаралады ұсынады. Тірек сөздер: әлеуметтік мемлекет, жастарды жұмыспен қамту саясаты, оқу жүйесінен тыс болу, NEET тұжырымдамасы, еңбек нарығындағы саясат, «Жұмыспен қамту – 2020» бағдарламасы Аннотация Статья посвящена сравнительному анализу политики молодежной занятости в Великобритании и Германии. На основе изучения принципов и подходов в формировании социальной политики, действующих механизмов и программ борьбы с безработицей, автор предлагает конкретные меры, направленные на повышение эффективности программы занятости «Казахстан – 2020».
The youth unemployment remains high in absolute and relative terms, and also carries the risk of further marginalization of the unemployed. In 2011, of the 94 million young Europeans aged 15
29, only 34% were employed, the lowest figure in the history of Eurostat. In 2011, according to Eurostat, 7.5 million young people aged 15 – 24 years, and additional 6.5 million young people aged 25
29 years were excluded from the labor market and education in Europe (European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Standards 2012)Policy focus). For example, in 2000, the unemployment rate among young people of the European Union was about 16%. It was two times higher than the proportion of unemployed adults (7%). Another interesting figure: young people are about 40% of the unemployed, whilst the proportion of young people is only 20% of the working- age population in Europe. Over the last 10 years the growth in youth unemployment coincided with demographic decline in the share of youth in Europe (Hammer, 2003). Unemployment among young people is a challenge for the EU. First, the level of youth unemployment in the past 10 years has been two times higher than that of the total population in the labour market. Second, in the economic downturn the youth has been the most vulnerable group of the labour market. For example, in the UK, the unemployment rate for the 16 – 24 year-olds rose from 19.1% in 2009 to 21.1% in 2011. By contrast, in Germany, the number of young unemployed decreased from 11.2% in 2009 to 8.6% in 2011 (Eurostat 2012). In the domain of youth unemployment, the European Commission introduced the concept of NEETs
(“Not in Employment, Education or Training”). NEET category encompasses all unemployed and inactive young persons who are not in any employment, education or training. This new concept is useful for the monitoring of the labour market and the social situation of young people, as well as to facilitate comparison between member states in the context of the strategy “Europe 2020”, which aims at reducing youth unemployment. Young people with a low level of educational attainment, young people with a disability and young people from an immigrant background are more likely to be ШЕТЕЛДІК ТӘЖІРИБЕ ЗАРУБЕЖНЫЙ ОПЫТ FOREIGN EXPERIENCE ÌÅÌËÅÊÅÒÒІÊ ãîñóäàðñòâåííîå óïðàâëåíèå è ãîñóäàðñòâåííàÿ ñëóæáà
95 NEETs. Importantly, research strongly suggests that young people in the NEET category experience a greater risk of unemployment and social exclusion throughout their working life (Hawley et al. 2012). In this study, it is looked at the cases of the UK and Germany as examples for European policy strategies in the face of youth unemployment. The UK and Germany were selected, as these countries exhibit different experiences and results in dealing with youth unemployment. In terms of welfare typology, the UK represents a liberal welfare state, whereas Germany is the prime example of a conservative/continental welfare state (Clasen 2005). For liberal welfare states, activating LMP is defined in particular as encouraging individuals to seek work and promoting financial incentives such as tax credits and ‘in-work benefits. While continental or concervative welfare states are still developing, the shape of a possible third type is not clearly defined (Dingeldey, 2007). This essay first compares the British and German approaches towards youth unemployment, and then asks whether Kazakhstan can draw any lessons from the European experience.
In Britain, the issue of youth unemployment gained great prominence in the late 1990s with the election of the New Labour government and the introduction of the New Deal or Welfare to Work programme (starting in 1998). The New Deal was first targeted at the young unemployed (NDYP) (Dingeldey, 2007). New Deal is a key part of the previous government’s welfare to work strategy. It is an active labour market policy designed to move people into work quickly, and provide those who need it with extra help to improve their employability (Cuddy and Leney, 2005). The first phase of New Labour’s welfare reform witnessed the introduction of New Deal employment programmes alongside tax and benefit changes aimed at “making work pay”. A second phase, outlined in a 2001 Green Paper, linked welfare reform with restoring full employment. It plans through Jobcentre Plus to transform the passive culture of the benefit system by creating more explicit links between individual behaviour and engagement with labour market programmes (Finn, 2003). The training and work experience of the New Deal has been accompanied by a number of other important employment policy initiatives designed to support those in paid employment. Most significant perhaps, and yet now the least controversial, was the introduction of a statutory minimum wage in 1999 for all employees. The minimum wage was initially set at £ 3.60 an hour, but had risen by 2007 to £ 5.52 for those over 22, with lowers rates of £ 4.60 for 18
21 years olds and £ 3.30 for 16 – 17s (Alcock. 2008). The change of government in May 2010 led to a significant shift of policy emphasis. Previously, the focus had been on labour market activation policies (ALMPs) providing subsidies for employers to take on young people in employment and work experience positions. These programmes have been closed and the current government published a strategy document Supporting Youth Employment in May 2011. It identifies five key areas: 1) the adoption of measures aimed at the formation and training of professional skills among young people; 2) support to local partners, providing consulting and other services to young people; 3) to encourage employers who offer work experience, internships and apprenticeships; 4) promotion of personal activity in search of work; 5) creating the wider conditions for economic growth (Simms, 2012). The new program focuses on the preparation of young people for entry into the labor market. In the German case, youth unemployment received policy attention earlier as compared to the British example. Starting in the 1980s German labour markets policy has developed instruments to both reduce the duration of individual unemployment and the total number of the unemployed. Due to this attempt a huge variety of schemes and labour market measures for the younger (unemployed below 25 years of age) were developed and introduced: At least three lines should be distinguished: a) Vocational Qualification or Training-oriented: – support for apprenticeship-seekers – pre-apprenticeship-training – apprenticeship-training out of enterprises b) Employment-oriented measures – wage subsidies for the primary labour market – job-creation schemes for employment in the secondary labour market. c) Target group oriented measures – measures for young handicapped people, for young people with limited learning capacities and for other disadvantaged groups aged below 25 (young foreigners, German immigrants) (Dietrich, 2001).
Жолдыбаев А. А. European Responses to Youth Unemployment: Any Lesson for Kazakhstan 96 As a consequence of German reunification, it was not the restructuring but the expansion of traditional instruments of active labour market policy, particularly job creation schemes, that was on the agenda at the beginning of the 1990s. Although there were some cuts in unemployment benefit, labour market policy did not change substantively until 1998, with the reform of the Employment Promotion Act (Dingeldey, 2007). In Germany we have the Dual System that helps youth to include into the labour market. The Dual system included two component: 1) learning on the job (in a company); 2) vocational training school (where prevailed theory). But it does not offer sufficient training for school leavers and so has been developed the JUMP programme. The youth action programme started on 1 January 1999. According to the political implementation process the youth action programme indeed was an immediate action programme. According to the mayor aims and the specific target groups the youth action programme supplies different types of measures, which can be grouped into five mayor lines: – Improving the supply-side of apprenticeship places – Preparing for apprenticeship: supporting young people to find a training place in the apprenticeship system.
– Apprenticeship: offer apprenticeship training in enterprise-external training organisations and support the supply of regular apprenticeship-opportunities. – Continued training for young unemployed people who already have finished apprenticeship training. – Integration in jobs: gives subsidies to private or public employers to integrate young people into work (Dietrich, 2001 ). The JUMP programme tried to fill the gaps within the Dual system, and cope more generally with the increasing risk of unemployment among young people.
In this part of essay a short analysis the policy measures of the UK and Germany that was adopted in recent years in order to re-engage young NEETs into education and employment. 1. High risk of unemployment is associated with low levels of education and skills. Therefore, in both countries is the prevention of early school leaving (ESL). Germany have more regional leadership in this field, but it is also apparent that there is an aspiration, and in some cases also political will, to make ESL a priority at national level (Hawley et al. 2012). Both countries want to have an effective system that gives information to schools and education authorities about how many students have dropped out of education and why, and identify individual students at risk of doing so. At schools of the both countries some programmes typically utilise different and innovative teaching pedagogies, have more specialist staff available to support the students and use a range of environments to revitalise the motivation of young people to learn (Hawley, et al. 2012). In order to prevent ESL the measures provide increasing the age for schooling from 16 to 18 years. Alternative learning environments exist within the public education system, either off-site as separate schools or on-site as temporary programmes within schools (Ofsted, 2010). Career guidance is particularly important at transition points from one level of education to another. Bridging programmes and ‘pick and mix’ taster opportunities have been introduced in Germany. For example, ‘Qualification and connections’ is a four-year programme introduced in 2010. The programme consists of three activities which aim to ensure that students make a smooth transition to the next level of education and do not end up leaving school without a qualification (Hawley et al. 2012). 2. Systems that provide second chances for young dropouts have already become established elements of the education and training landscape in most European countries. In England the policy landscape in this area is made up of a range of different second chance opportunities which are implemented by various different actors. Overall, they tend to focus on the provision of alternative training/teaching environments and methods. They also tend to be more practically orientated than mainstream provisions and include elements of non-formal learning. These measures also usually highlight the importance of gaining soft skills and both personal and social development. The re- engagement process of an excluded young person can be complex, involving a range of public authorities. The UK have responded to this challenge by setting up ‘one-stop-shop’ guidance centres which provide a broad range of services to young people. Tracking or ‘cutch up’ services have been introduced to identify, support and monitor inactive young people in the UK. Second chance жүктеу/скачать 4,71 Mb. Достарыңызбен бөлісу:
|