Activating the Practice of Social Work in Confronting Intellectual Extremism of University Youth

The study aimed to Determine the level of the professional practice of social work in confronting the intellectual extremism with university youth. determine the relation between the level of professional practice of social work in confronting the intellectual extremism for university youth and variables (gender, geographical territory of faculty, specialization of faculty, age, qualification, training courses), And Rais a group of procedural suggestions to activate the professional practice of social work in confronting the intellectual extremism with university youth, The study used the descriptive method through a social survey applied in youth welfare departments in faculties of Al – Azhar University in all governorates a questionnaire was applied on (128) social workers, The results showed that level of social workers’ practice at Youth Care offices, Al Azhar University from perspective of the generalist practice in dealing with intellectual extremism phenomenon reached 60.14% which is a medium ratio that reflects weakness of familiarity with knowledge and skills of generalist practice of social work and hence weakness of ability to employ social work profession in dealing with various systems related to intellectual extremism phenomenon.

More “Europe” in Municipal Policy Structures? Anchoring European Youth Policy at the Municipal Level in Germany

Against the background of the implementation of the EU Youth Strategy (2010–2018) in Germany, the article explores the question of how European youth policy can be anchored at the municipal level. The article discusses (1) federal and regional efforts to incorporate the municipal level in implementing European youth policy, (2) arising challenges and (3) the significance of European policy for national, regional and municipal youth policy. Results suggest that although the involved actors stipulate the importance of municipal level involvement in designing the implementation of the EU Youth Strategy in Germany, the Strategy is actually implemented as a top-down strategy in which the municipal level receives impulses from other levels, rather than being incorporated in policy development. The article concludes that, in order to successfully strengthening European impulses in sub-national youth welfare discourses, mutual understanding and dialogue between levels is just as necessary as a content-related rather than process-related discussion.

Locating Central and Eastern European emerging welfare regimes: is the youth welfare citizenship typology useful?

PurposeThe authors’ aim is to establish the variance of youth welfare citizenship regimes in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and to revisit the applicability of the regime approach to the emerging welfare regimes (EWRs).Design/methodology/approachThe empirical analysis follows the descriptive case study strategy aiming to discover diversity of youth welfare citizenship patterns. The case selection is made within the CEE country group, which includes countries in Central Europe, the Baltics, Eastern Europe and Southeast Europe, all sharing the communist past. The subdivision of these countries in reference to the welfare states can be made via the European Union (EU) membership based on the assumption that EU social policy frameworks and recommendations have an important effect on domestic policies. We included countries which are in the EU, i.e., with a similar political and economic transition path. There were three waves of accession to the EU in CEE countries. In the first wave (2004), all the Baltic countries, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary and Slovenia joined. In the second wave (2007), Romania and Bulgaria joined. Finally, Croatia joined the EU in 2013. Altogether 11 CEE countries are the EU members today, the remaining CEE countries are non-EU members and thus are excluded from the current research. Those countries which are part of the EU share similarities in social and economic reforms during the pre-accession period and after in order to reach a comparatively similar system with other member states. So, in terms of casing strategy these six countries can be named as emerging welfare regimes (EWRs) evolving transformations across different public policy areas. Handpicking of six countries out of 11 relies on the assumption that the Anglo-Saxon welfare system characteristics are more evident in the Baltic countries (Aidukaite, 2019; Aidukaite et al., 2020; Ainsaar et al., 2020; Rajevska and Rajevska, 2020) and Slovenia, while in Bulgaria and Croatia certain outcomes reflect the Bismarckian principles of social security (Hrast and Rakar, 2020; Stoilova and Krasteva, 2020; Dobrotić, 2020). This brings important variety into our analysis logic. Last but not least, we juxtapose six CEE EWR countries under analysis with six mature welfare regime countries representing different welfare regime types. Those mature welfare regime countries (Finland, Sweden, France, Germany, Italy, UK) are not an explicit object of the study but help to put analysed CEE EWR cases into larger context and thus, reflect upon theoretical claims of the welfare regime literature.FindingsThe authors can confirm that the EWR countries can be rather well explained by the welfare citizenship typology and complement the existing knowledge on youth welfare regime typology clusters in the Western Europe. Estonia is clustered close to the Nordic countries, whereas Latvia, Lithuania, Croatia and Slovenia are close to the Bismarckian welfare model despite rather flexible, non-restricted educational path, universal child and student support. Bulgaria is an outlier; however, it is clustered together with mature Mediterranean welfare regimes. Former intact welfare regime clusters are becoming more diverse. The authors’ findings confirm that there is no any intact cluster of the “post-communist” welfare regime and Eastern European countries are today “on move”.Research limitations/implicationsAltogether 11 CEE countries are the EU members today. The remaining CEE countries are non-EU members and thus are excluded from the current research. Those countries which are part of the EU share similarities in social and economic reforms during the pre-accession period and after in order to reach a comparatively similar system with other member states. At least one CEE country was chosen based on existing theoretical knowledge on the welfare regime typology (Anglo Saxon, Beveridgean, Bismarckian) for the Post-communist country groups.Practical implicationsIn the social citizenship dimension we dropped social assistance schemes and tax-relief indices and included poverty risk and housing measures. Youth poverty together with housing showed rather clear distinction between familialized and individualised countries and thus, made the typology stronger. In the economic dimension the preliminary picture was much fuzzier, mainly due to the comprehensive education in the region and intervention of the EU in domestic ALMPs (and VET) reforms. The authors added a new indicator (pro-youth orientation of ALMP) in order better to capture youth-sensitivity of policy.Social implicationsThe authors included a working poverty measure (in-work poverty rate) in order to reflect labour market insecurity as an increasing concern. Yet, the analysis results were still mixed and new indicators did not help locating the regime types.Originality/valueIn order to improve the validity of the youth welfare citizenship regime economic dimension, Chevalier's (2020) model may also be worth revisiting. The authors argue that this dichotomy is not sufficient, because inclusive type can have orientation towards general skills or occupational skills (i.e. monitored or enabling citizenship clusters), which is currently ignored. Chevalier (2020) furthermore associates inclusive economic citizenship with “coordinated market economies” (referring to Hall and Soskice, 2001), which seems hardly hold validity in the Nordic and at least some CEE countries.

Youth and Youth Movements

During the Weimar Republic, crucial initiatives in the field of youth welfare gave rise to the justified hope that the conditions under which adolescents grew up could improve. In the 1920s, legal regulations and social initiatives intertwined to advance reform processes. A broad consensus on these values indicated a solid foundation on which youth welfare and support services could build. This was supported by some social democrats, the Centre Party, and social and educational reformers who saw Weimar as a promising, forward-looking, social and cultural project. Before 1914, members of the youth movements had claimed autonomy for adolescents and had expressed excitement about the future and reform optimism. This optimism continued in the 1920s. In addition, multifaceted types of youth communities developed, which were expressions of the changed needs and expectations of young people in Germany during the inter-war period. However, excessive demands that were placed on young people contributed to a crisis of legitimacy of the democratic political system. Its representatives ultimately failed to secure broad support among the younger generation. The answers to social and societal youth issues thus proved to be a seismographic indicator of the stability or instability of the Weimar Republic.

Achtsamkeit in der Heilpädagogik

Mindfulness can increase the quality of therapeutic pedagogical work in several ways: the relationship with clients gains in presence and depth, and professionals are provided with validated methods of self-care and health-care. Based on a selective literature search, this work uncovers theoretical and practical parallels between the concept of mindfulness and the therapeutic pedagogical discipline. An ethical and application-oriented perspective emerges that includes all system-relevant participants. Kristina Gottschall works as a pedagogical therapist and educator in outpatient youth welfare and integration assistance for adults with disabilities. She is responsible for the guidance and training of inclusion specialists.

RESIDENTIAL CARE IN GERMANY FOR REFUGEE YOUNG PEOPLE

This article analyzes developments in the forms of social work with young refugees and the legal framing of such work in Germany from 1990 to the present. In particular, it addresses the reactions of politicians and the child and youth welfare system to the sharp rise in the number of refugees in 2015 and 2016, and the concomitant significant increase in the number of unaccompanied minor refugees. It underlines the need for an approach based on children’s rights, and the necessity for social workers, especially those involved in helping youth, to resist the policies of deterrence that are aimed at keeping refugees out of Germany.