Youth policy "In a coma"

Another round of events related to the management of youth, again forces you to pay attention to what is happening in the regional youth policy.
Information about the departure of the head of the Department of Youth Affairs of the region (hereinafter referred to as UDM) Sergei Schuev was unexpected for me. Suddenly, from the position of the fact that this happened spontaneously, quickly and in the conditions of the fact that Udm was actually exposed. And this was a lot of conversations and comments on the sites.

With something I agree (more on this below), but I want to start with the state of the state of regional youth and whether it is worth blaming one of participating in the fact that everything is collapsed.
I wrote more than once that with sadness I recall the first heads of the Youth Committee Leonid Yambaryshev and Irina Bolshedrskaya. With them, the state youth policy was not just formed, but turned into a system, both organizational and substantial. Significant experience of the alrghanizing work in the Komsomol, the desire (as a key condition) of the then managers to restructure from the Soviet approach to the new youth policy formats, and most importantly, the goal -setting, as a prerequisite that determines the vector and priorities in state youth policy events. Of course, today someone will reproach that this is all the "ancient scoop" and I, as a person who has nostalgia for that period, is conservative. But when we recall that it was with those handlers that the municipal bodies for youth and youth public organizations were formed, and the UDM activities went beyond the organization of events such as "balls-backgrounds" and "youth parliaments".

Further, Udm encountered the problem of "personnel degradation" and if, at the next head of the novel by Beresnev, at the beginning of his journey there were still some attempts to hold the nets, then all subsequent "bosses" led youth to rapid degradation.
First, after the departure of R. Berosnev, municipalities disappeared. No, of course, and today in each district there are specialists responsible for youth. But any system of interaction and working with them from the regional level (except reports, of course) disappeared, which led to a high turnover from these municipal posts and a decrease in motivation to engage in active youth policy. For me this period - since 2005

The next "dying" element was public organizations. Yes, during the leadership of R. Beresnev, grant competitions appeared with the aim of motivation. But at the next “chief”, competitions have ceased to be competitions, and, as it seems to me, they became forms of bonus loyal and support for “their” organizations. As a result, the majority of “unnecessary” organizations, that is, the actual majority of youth public organizations, refused to cooperate with the UDM and “went” either to other areas, or simply ceased to exist. And the point is not so much about monetary support! We are talking about participating in discussions of youth policy, attracting organizations as co -organizers to large regional youth events, etc. In their place came the "youth parliaments" created on the top and formed on the principle of loyalty. This period came somewhere in the year 2006-2007.

The final "thawed" lead of the system became the frames of the Udm itself. Instead of criteria for professionalism and desires, such as performing and devotion became priority. Maybe performing is both good and correct quality, but when specialists of a high organizational level are transferred to paperwork and empty service of “their” projects, it is quite clear that the motivation of such a specialist is lost and he leaves. And devotion was generally that the whole Udm "clogged". No information leakage, closeness even from their own, incomprehensible actions on the verge of fraud, etc. That is, the entire organizational structure was supposed to be closed from external attention and, despite the individual leaks that the bosses "create", in general, it was possible to achieve this. And it all began somewhere in 2008 and especially intensified with the advent of a person who calls himself "Boyscout" as a deputy.

It is with his appearance that the youth becomes more and more political. But instead of developing the political activity of youth, they are offered to become political "instruments", stating that young people are only the future of the country, and not its present. The result is not forced to wait - another part of social activists who do not want to engage in politics or not "in trend" also depart from cooperation with the UDM and participation in the GMP.
The emergence of a new governor’s site is actually “empty” and under these conditions, individual functionaries from UDM offer “their” events and projects, denoting them as a priority of all youth policy. However, professional experience, connections and motivation is not enough to make events and projects successful. And the situation with the implementation of state youth policy continues to quickly go down.
The subsequent period before the arrival of S. Uchaev can be considered stagnation in the GMP: nothing arises, only traditional events are held, the emphasis is on Merporiaki in the regional center (where the former “boss” is working by this time), etc. It is no coincidence that the issue of the new boss was resolved for more than 1.5 years.

The appearance of S. Uchaev was a surprise. A person who does not imagine what GMP is should have taken UDM and GMP to a new standard of living. Could he do it? He could, but for this he still needed to plunge into the topic of youth policy, as well as solve the personnel issue. He did not do this, but instead he began to disassemble what was sophisticated before him. Who knows that the report of the regional control and accounting chamber contained a clear wording of violations in the period before the appointment of School. But, I repeat, Sergey was not destroyed by these violations, but the fact that he could not organize the work of UDM in the main areas of the state program ...
His departure raises the question of what will happen to UDM and GMP further. The most likely and discussed option is the accession of management to the Department of Education. I think this is not the best option. The Department of Education has its own goals and objectives, its structure and system of work and the accession of UDM can lead to the youth “in the backyards” (as happened in a number of municipalities and regions where there was such a merger).
A possible option and, in my opinion, promising, reformat the GMP in terms of goal and priorities. Young people are a labor and demographic resource that is developing and implementing today. And it is necessary to create conditions in order to help the development and implementation of the resource capabilities of young people. In this case, the UDM must either remain independent of the authorities, or be attached to the relevant department, or transformed into a new body - the management (department) of labor and demographic resources.

In this case, GMP has a path to development, albeit complex, since it is necessary to rebuild the work of not only UDM, but also the Youth Palace, and municipal specialists. But this is a chance for youth.

Original