CIDSBT Report June 2012
Results and Conlusions - June 2012 Within this report contains the results and conclusions of Kumanovo’s First Street Based Youth work Team established through the Center for Intercultural Dialogue (CIDSBT). The results are for June 2012 where the team spent three sessions that happened every Thursday evening from 19:00 for approximately two hours each. Within these sessions they engaged in dialogue with young people from Kumanovo within the city’s main squares to gain a greater understanding of the youth in Kumanovo’s situations. The started in the second week of due after CID’s partner organisation Streets Festival ran a Youth in Action training ‘Street Base Youth Work for Roma Inclusion’. The training contained a day where the participants undertook a session of street based youth work in teams across the city, the results can be found here: http://issuu.com/danieljohncarter/docs/street_based_youth_work_4_roma_inc_04062012 These results are for June 2012 and the street based team will continue their work for the foreseeable future providing a report of results with conclusions each months. This will be sent around the organisation as well as to interested Non-Government Organisations and the Municipality of Kumanovo itself. During June 2012 the teams engaged in dialogue with 63 young people within the main squares of Kumanovo. This report shows and discuses several factors about these young people, these factors include the:
Age distribution of the young people. Average group size/s of the young people. Gender distribution. Ethnic distribution. The stage of relationship (how well the young people are known) of the young people with the CIDSBT. The issues and subjects discussed by the young people. The curriculum (structure and method) of the conversation.
Review: A review of particular aspects or quotes is also included in the report at the end. These quotes or notions have been highlighted by the street based team as they are of significant importance. The results and conclusions for these factors are as follows: CIDSBT June 2012
Page 1
CIDSBT Report June 2012 Age Distribution: The CIDSBT aims to engage in dialogue with young people aged between 10 and 25 years old, although this is not essentially exclusive. The ages of the young people encountered in June 2012 varied from 13 years of age to 23 years old. This was distributed as:
Age: 13 Yrs 14 Yrs 15 Yrs 16 Yrs 17 Yrs 18Yrs 19 Yrs 20 Yrs 21 Yrs 23 Yrs
Total No.
Age 4 9 10 2 9 14 5 6 2 2
13 Yrs 14 Yrs 15 Yrs 16 Yrs 17 Yrs 18Yrs 19 Yrs 20 Yrs 21 Yrs
Total
63
As can be seen the largest age groups encontered were 18 years, 15 years and 14 years respectively. The main hypothesis that can be taken away from these results is that the majority of young people within the main squares on Thursdays around 19:00 to 21:00 are aged between 14 18 years old. However, this can not be confirmed until several months of research is conducted.
Group Size: The CIDSBT aims to engage in dialogue with groups of young people of any group size. The group sizes of the young people encountered in June 2012 varied from 1 individual person to a group of 6. This was distributed as: Group Size: 1 Person 2 People 3 People 4 People 5 People 6 People
No. 1 6 6 3 1 2
Group Size 1 Person 2 People 3 People 4 People 5 People 6 People
CIDSBT June 2012
Page 2
CIDSBT Report June 2012 As can be seen the majority of the groups composed of 2 or 3 persons suggesting that this is the preferable group size for young people. However, it will take several months of research to really conceive the average group size that young people ‘hang out’ around the central area of Kumnovo.
Gender Distribution: The CIDSBT aims to engage in dialogue with and equal number of male and female young people aged, but due to the unpredictable nature of street based work as well as cultural, geographical and religious factors of the area. The gender distribution was as follows: Male: Female: 37 26
40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Male:
Female:
The CID team encountered more male young people than female during June 2012. Over the next few months the team will analyse the results to see if this trend continues. If such a trend does continue, discussion and dialogue with young people will be used to establish why this happens.
Ethnic Distribution: The CIDSBT aims to establish a realistic idea of the ethnic distribution of those hanging out within the central area of Kumanovo within the times designated for the street based sessions. It also aims to establish the gender distribution within those ethnicities we encounter to establish an understanding of the cultural, religious and general differences between them. The ethnic distribution of those young people encountered within the main squares was as follows:
CIDSBT June 2012
Ethnicity:
Male:
Female:
Total Ethnic No.
Albanian
22
17
39
Macedonian
2
9
11
Roma
10
10
Turkish
3
3
Page 3
CIDSBT Report June 2012
Total Ethnic No.
Albanian Macedonian Roma Turkish
45 40 35 30 25
Male:
20
Female:
15
Total Ethnic No.
10 5 0 Albanian
Macedonian
Roma
Turkish
As can be seen the largest ethnic group encontered were Albanians making up making up almost 62% of the young people we spoke with. The Macedonians were the second largest group making up just over 17%, followed by the ethnic Roma young people making up almost 16% and the Turkish young people making up almost 5% of those we spoke with. What can also be noticed from the results is that we spoke to a larger number of male Albanians than female, whereas in the Macedonian we spoke predomiantely with the female young people. However, with the Roma and Turkish young people we spoke exclusively with males young people. The Statistical Year Book of the Republic of Macedonia states that according to census of 2002 Kumanovo had a population of 105 484 people. That population made up of 63 746 Macedonians, 27 290 Albanians, 4256 Roma, 292 Turks, 9062 Serbians, 147 Vlachs, 60 Bosniaks and 671 Others. It must be noted that the populatio has most likely changed in 10 years, however it can be assumed it is not massively dissimilar.
CIDSBT June 2012
Page 4
CIDSBT Report June 2012 Questions that arise from these results are ones such as:
Why did we speak to more Albanians when Macedonians are a larger population? Why did we speak to predominantly Female Macedonians? Why did we exclusively speak to Male Roma and Turkish Young People? With a population of 9062, why did we not engage with any young people fromt he Serbian population?
Answers to these questions will only come with further street based work over a much larger period of time, but the results are still worth noting. The difference between the number of male and female Albanian young people we spoke too was small enough to assume it was by chance.
Stage of Relationship: The CIDSBT aims to engage in dialogue with young people and establish new relationships. At the beginning of the project it is most likely that we will only have beginning stages of relationships with only low key and interactive levels of conversation. The stage of the relationship with the young people is represented by a code, e.g. A2. This code is formed by two measurements. First we measure how well we know the young people with three letters: A = Introduction, B = Familiarising, C = Maintaining. Secondly we usual a number to describe the level / degree of conversation: 1 = Low Key (Hello, how are you, goodbye, etc.), 2 = Interactive (An actual conversation), 3 = Productive (A conversation or dialogue which results in young people acting on opportunities, advice, etc.). So for example, if we had a conversation with a group of young people we had spoken with once or twice, the code would be ‘B2’, B for familiarising and 2 for the conversation. The results for our stages of relationships are as follows: SOR: A1 A2 B2 C1 C2
No. 1 12 1 5 1
SOR
A1 A2 B2 C1 C2
CIDSBT June 2012
Page 5
CIDSBT Report June 2012 As can be seen the majority of interaction as ‘A2’ which is introduction and interaction (usually disscussion). This is to be expect as it the the first months of the project and it takes a lot of time to establish relationships with young people. We only had one ‘A1’, introduction and low key, which suggests that this group were not interested in talking to us. We had one ‘B2’ which is probably from the second or third shift and meant that we met one group twice, therefore familarising ourselves with them throuigh interaction.The results showed a number of C1’s, but this was usualy when staff knew some young people in the area well already and made light conversation. Following this we also recieved one ‘C2’ and this is where the team knew the young people well and also engaged in active conversation about Street Based Work and other programmes. Looking at the results they correspond well with what is to be expected for the the first month of the project.
CIDSBT June 2012
Page 6
CIDSBT Report June 2012 Issues: The CIDSBT aims to engage in dialogue with young people and from this dialogue establish the things, issues and areas that they like to talk about and matter to them. The items raised in conversation and dialogue are record and are represented by a code, e.g. ED (Education), if the code had a circle around it, it means physical information like leaflets were handed out on that matter. If the code has a square around it, it means the young people actively participated on the information given. The full code list and their meanings are attached in Appendix 1. Although the team engages in dialogue about many subjects we document no more than the five most talked about subjects in each conversation. The results are as follows: Issue: (YC) (YW) AC AK CR DI DYW E ED EI GH ICT PT SM SP SS UN YCA
No. 12 13 2 8 4 1 7 1 6 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1
Issues (YC) (YW) AC AK CR DI DYW E ED EI GH ICT PT SM SP SS UN YCA
The information shows that most of the subject matter was about youth work (YW), youth clubs and with information presented. This is because to start the street based service we have to introduce who we are what organisation we represent, as well as other organisations. Also Detached Youth Work (DYW) was also mentioned a lot to explain the service and why we have started it. The other common subjects were acknowledgement (AK), Education (ED), and Community Relations (CR).
CIDSBT June 2012
Page 7
CIDSBT Report June 2012 Curriculum: The CIDSBT aims to engage in dialogue with young people and from this dialogue establish the methods that young people use and accept to engage in dialogue. Such as voicing an opinion, making a decision or just listening. These are again represented by codes which can be found in Appendix 2. How the young people engage in dialogue helps us to understand a method of approach to young people within the city and for all youth organisations to develop their youth dialogue. The results are as follows: Curriculum: No. AOI 1 DIS 17 DR 1 DU 5 INFO 13 MA 7 NEW 1 ORG 2 VO 11 YC 2
Curriculum AOI DIS DR DU INFO MA NEW ORG VO
As can be seen from the chart the main areas between us and the young people were discussed using general discussion (DIS), providing information (INFO) and allowing the young people to voice their opinion (VO). There was also a significant amount of making apointments (MA) and developing the understanding of subjects (DU) used. The large levels of general discussion and providing information are to be expected as this is the first month of the project as this is needed to introduce ourselves and develop relationships. One really great result is the large amount of young people voicing their opinion. This means that young people are willing to speak with us, do feel a need to be vocal in the town and have ability to express themselves freely. Allowing young people to express their our personal views freely and without corruption is a major and important aspect of youth work and this should be promoted further as the project develops.
CIDSBT June 2012
Page 8
CIDSBT Report June 2012 Review:
Young people were regularly providing us with information about where other young people were, what they were doing and if certain events were happening. It’s good that these young people felt relaxed enough to be able to casually provide us with information about the young people of Kumanovo’s lives.
The foreign volunteer’s attempts at Macedonian conversation seemed to relax young people and create successful dialogue with humorous results. . The British volunteer’s accent seemed to promote dialogue and keep young people interested in conversation.
When exchanging in dialogue with those of different ethnicities, particularly Albanians the team usual experience humour and successful dialogue with an exchange / teaching of languages. Very rarely was the team ever met with hostility or disinterest.
Many adults within the Roma population expressed a requirement and want for English lessons.
Many of the male Roma population also expressed a want for more friends from different ethnicities.
Although generally successful the street based team did encounter a few groups who were ether a little hostile or just didn’t seem very interested.
A number of young people said they want to participate in Street Based Youth Work.
Most young people we encountered, even those with very good English expressed a want to develop their English.
A large number of expressed an interest in workshops like English in Action.
A number of young people proposed to have more inter-ethnical events where people hang out and have fun.
A number of young people have very strong opinions for life in Kumanovo both positive and negative.
The team encountered a number of Albanians that didn’t understand Macedonian or English very well which states that we need to get some Albanian volunteers on the team to we do not segregate anyone with our work.
Some young people expressed happiness that we now have street based work in Kumanovo.
CIDSBT June 2012
Page 9
CIDSBT Report June 2012 Appendix A:
CIDSBT June 2012
Page 10
CIDSBT Report June 2012 Appendix B:
CIDSBT June 2012
Page 11