Suchergebnisse

Summary The Government White Paper on day care provision presented in December 1999 announced a three-year quality drive. Starting in 2001, all Norwegian day care centres were to establish, by the end of 2003, tools and systems designed to further develop and safeguard the quality of day care centres. At the end of the day-care-centre year 2001-2002, NOVA conducted a survey to ascertain the progress made half-way through the three-year period. A similar survey was conducted early in 2004 shortly after the end of the period. The results of the latter survey are reported here. Marginally more children were enrolled in day care centres in 2004 than in 2002. Moreover, a number of day care centres only offer places on a full-day basis. However, staff numbers had not increased. The number of day care centres with at least one male employee had risen from 33 to 41, although the number of male pre-school teachers had shown no increase. Day care centre managers remain a stable labour force element. Only 12 per cent had been employed for less than one year. More than half had managed the same day care centre for more than four years. Other personnel also show a high degree of stability. In more than half of the day care centres, no employee had left in the past year. When day care centres which had lost just one employee in the past year are added to those which had lost no employees, the two groups combined account for 80 per cent of all day care centres. The fact that those who have left have generally been employed in large rather than small day care centres probably further increases children's and parents' perception of low staff turnover. A large majority of day care centres have established formal routines for information exchange. This applies above all to what may be turned "start-up information", less to daily, general information. The latter is probably compensated for by means of parent-staff conversations, parent-staff meetings, liaison committee meetings and users surveys which are a feature of nine out of ten day care centres. In 2002 the existence of formal information routines depended on a day care centre's size and ownership. Since then, private day care centres have initiated further information measures, bringing them into line with the municipal day care centres. Children's well-being and development are in general surveyed in the traditional manner, i.e. by observation. About half of the day care centres make little or no use of methods such as reports from daily life practice or systematic conversations or interviews with children. The number of day care centres where both children and parents participate in assessment work and planning has risen since 2002. In almost half of the day care centres children now participate in at least some assessment work. Children are being drawn more and more into the process of planning the day care centre's content and activities. There are still a considerable number of day care centres where there is little or no child or parental participation, although they are fewer in number than in 2002. Where buildings and outdoor areas are concerned the general position appears to be good, and at least on a par with or marginally better than in 2002 in the case of areas on which comments were requested. While the situation remains better in large day care centres than in small ones, the difference between small and large day care centres has narrowed. This is especially true for a key feature of the quality drive, namely the question of whether the day care centre's physical environment is suitably adapted for all children. Since 2002 it has become slightly more usual for the owner to introduce a common system for quality assurance of day care centres as well as of other service provision. Naturally enough this applies above all to municipal day care centres where the owner, to a far greaterextent than private day care centre owners, offers a broader range of additional services. Municipal day care centres are also a step ahead of their private counterparts in terms of planning and providing training and post-qualifying education facilities for their staff. Despite these disparities, private day care centre managers are far more satisfied with the conditions in which they operate than are the managers of municipal day care centres. Both in 2002 and 2004, a clear-cut majority of managers were satisfied with their framework conditions. As regards the extent of contact and collaboration between the individual day care centre and the municipality in its role as local day care centre authority, no change can be seen from 2002 to 2004. Half of all day care centres still receive no annual supervisory visit from the municipal authorities. Use of formalised leadership models has increased between 2002 and 2004. Such models are most prevalent in the largest day care centres and municipal day care centres. No corresponding increase is evident in the use made of the quality assurance tools that we questioned our respondents about. Such tools are most widespread in the largest day care centres, however, and are far more in evidence in municipal day care centres than in their private counterparts. Service declarations, above all, are more widespread in 2004 than in 2002, and there is a clear preponderance of municipal day care centres that employ this tool. The 2004 survey incorporated questions on two new themes: bullying and the transition from day care centre to school. Seventy five per cent of day care centre managers report instances of bullying over the past year. However, a large majority state that bullying is a very rare occurrence. The largest day care centres report somewhat more instances of bullying than the smallest day care centres, but there is no correlation between reported instances of bullying and the day care centre's ownership. Eighty seven per cent of day care centres utilised one or more methods to counteract bullying. The commonest methods are the programmes entitled "You and I and the two of us", "Step by step" and "Eight themes for successful interaction/supervised interaction", in addition to systematic observation of child interaction. Ninety per cent of day care centres report having in place measures or routines to prepare for the transition between day care centre and school. In half of this 90 per cent the measures and routines are anchored to the individual day care centre, in the other half they are anchored to the municipal level. There is a positive correlation between anchorage to the municipal level and other quality objectives, both in terms of managers' quality assessments and in terms of the overall number of quality indicators. In 2002 one in ten day care centre managers reported that they had attained the target set for the quality drive at their day care centre. More than half expected to attain the target by the end of 2003. At the latter point in time far fewer, only one in five, managers perceived the target to have been attained. Progress in attaining the targets was clearly slower than expected. The survey cannot provide a definite explanation of how and why this delay has risen. Since 2002, however, the day care centre sector has been greatly affected by the agreement on day care provision reached in the Norwegian parliament, an agreement which puts a far greater focus on price than on quality. ; I 2001 gikk startskuddet for det som ofte kalles kvalitetssatsingen i norske barnehager. Innen utgangenav 2003 skulle alle barnehager ha etablert redskaper og systemer for å videreutvikle og sikre barnehagens kvalitet. På oppdrag fra Barne- og familiedepartementet har NOVA fulgt kvalitetssatsingen med en kartleggingsundersøkelse midtveis i perioden og med en tilsvarende undersøkelse etter at kvalitetssatsingsperioden er avsluttet. I rapporten beskrives hva norske barnehager har tatt i bruk av tiltak og redskaper for å sikre, videreutvikle og dokumentere kvaliteten på sine tjenester. Undersøkelsen presenterer også de første systematiske og representative funn om forekomst av og tiltak mot mobbing i barnehager.

Summary The Government White Paper on day care provision presented in December 1999 announced a three-year quality drive. Starting in 2001, all Norwegian day care centres were to establish, by the end of 2003, tools and systems designed to further develop and safeguard the quality of day care centres. At the end of the day-care-centre year 2001-2002, NOVA conducted a survey to ascertain the progress made half-way through the three-year period. A similar survey was conducted early in 2004 shortly after the end of the period. The results of the latter survey are reported here. Marginally more children were enrolled in day care centres in 2004 than in 2002. Moreover, a number of day care centres only offer places on a full-day basis. However, staff numbers had not increased. The number of day care centres with at least one male employee had risen from 33 to 41, although the number of male pre-school teachers had shown no increase. Day care centre managers remain a stable labour force element. Only 12 per cent had been employed for less than one year. More than half had managed the same day care centre for more than four years. Other personnel also show a high degree of stability. In more than half of the day care centres, no employee had left in the past year. When day care centres which had lost just one employee in the past year are added to those which had lost no employees, the two groups combined account for 80 per cent of all day care centres. The fact that those who have left have generally been employed in large rather than small day care centres probably further increases children's and parents' perception of low staff turnover. A large majority of day care centres have established formal routines for information exchange. This applies above all to what may be turned "start-up information", less to daily, general information. The latter is probably compensated for by means of parent-staff conversations, parent-staff meetings, liaison committee meetings and users surveys which are a feature of nine out of ten day care centres. In 2002 the existence of formal information routines depended on a day care centre's size and ownership. Since then, private day care centres have initiated further information measures, bringing them into line with the municipal day care centres. Children's well-being and development are in general surveyed in the traditional manner, i.e. by observation. About half of the day care centres make little or no use of methods such as reports from daily life practice or systematic conversations or interviews with children. The number of day care centres where both children and parents participate in assessment work and planning has risen since 2002. In almost half of the day care centres children now participate in at least some assessment work. Children are being drawn more and more into the process of planning the day care centre's content and activities. There are still a considerable number of day care centres where there is little or no child or parental participation, although they are fewer in number than in 2002. Where buildings and outdoor areas are concerned the general position appears to be good, and at least on a par with or marginally better than in 2002 in the case of areas on which comments were requested. While the situation remains better in large day care centres than in small ones, the difference between small and large day care centres has narrowed. This is especially true for a key feature of the quality drive, namely the question of whether the day care centre's physical environment is suitably adapted for all children. Since 2002 it has become slightly more usual for the owner to introduce a common system for quality assurance of day care centres as well as of other service provision. Naturally enough this applies above all to municipal day care centres where the owner, to a far greaterextent than private day care centre owners, offers a broader range of additional services. Municipal day care centres are also a step ahead of their private counterparts in terms of planning and providing training and post-qualifying education facilities for their staff. Despite these disparities, private day care centre managers are far more satisfied with the conditions in which they operate than are the managers of municipal day care centres. Both in 2002 and 2004, a clear-cut majority of managers were satisfied with their framework conditions. As regards the extent of contact and collaboration between the individual day care centre and the municipality in its role as local day care centre authority, no change can be seen from 2002 to 2004. Half of all day care centres still receive no annual supervisory visit from the municipal authorities. Use of formalised leadership models has increased between 2002 and 2004. Such models are most prevalent in the largest day care centres and municipal day care centres. No corresponding increase is evident in the use made of the quality assurance tools that we questioned our respondents about. Such tools are most widespread in the largest day care centres, however, and are far more in evidence in municipal day care centres than in their private counterparts. Service declarations, above all, are more widespread in 2004 than in 2002, and there is a clear preponderance of municipal day care centres that employ this tool. The 2004 survey incorporated questions on two new themes: bullying and the transition from day care centre to school. Seventy five per cent of day care centre managers report instances of bullying over the past year. However, a large majority state that bullying is a very rare occurrence. The largest day care centres report somewhat more instances of bullying than the smallest day care centres, but there is no correlation between reported instances of bullying and the day care centre's ownership. Eighty seven per cent of day care centres utilised one or more methods to counteract bullying. The commonest methods are the programmes entitled "You and I and the two of us", "Step by step" and "Eight themes for successful interaction/supervised interaction", in addition to systematic observation of child interaction. Ninety per cent of day care centres report having in place measures or routines to prepare for the transition between day care centre and school. In half of this 90 per cent the measures and routines are anchored to the individual day care centre, in the other half they are anchored to the municipal level. There is a positive correlation between anchorage to the municipal level and other quality objectives, both in terms of managers' quality assessments and in terms of the overall number of quality indicators. In 2002 one in ten day care centre managers reported that they had attained the target set for the quality drive at their day care centre. More than half expected to attain the target by the end of 2003. At the latter point in time far fewer, only one in five, managers perceived the target to have been attained. Progress in attaining the targets was clearly slower than expected. The survey cannot provide a definite explanation of how and why this delay has risen. Since 2002, however, the day care centre sector has been greatly affected by the agreement on day care provision reached in the Norwegian parliament, an agreement which puts a far greater focus on price than on quality. ; I 2001 gikk startskuddet for det som ofte kalles kvalitetssatsingen i norske barnehager. Innen utgangenav 2003 skulle alle barnehager ha etablert redskaper og systemer for å videreutvikle og sikre barnehagens kvalitet. På oppdrag fra Barne- og familiedepartementet har NOVA fulgt kvalitetssatsingen med en kartleggingsundersøkelse midtveis i perioden og med en tilsvarende undersøkelse etter at kvalitetssatsingsperioden er avsluttet. I rapporten beskrives hva norske barnehager har tatt i bruk av tiltak og redskaper for å sikre, videreutvikle og dokumentere kvaliteten på sine tjenester. Undersøkelsen presenterer også de første systematiske og representative funn om forekomst av og tiltak mot mobbing i barnehager.

AbstractResearch has recognized that states enable or constrain private governance initiatives, but we still know too little about the interactions between private and public authority in the governance of various social and environmental problems. This article examines how states have responded to the emergence of forest and fisheries certification programs, and how state responses have influenced the subsequent development of these programs. It is argued that historical and structural differences in the management of forest and fisheries have resulted in divergent state responses to certification programs, but that both trajectories of interaction have led to a strengthening of the non‐state program. The article draws upon these cases to inductively identify types of interaction between state policies and non‐state certification programs, the causal mechanisms that shed light on interaction dynamics, and the conditions under which state involvement is likely to result in either strengthening or weakening of non‐state programs.

This article explores the influence of scientific knowledge in rule-making processes to enhance environmental protection in Swedish and Norwegian forestry. It examines the mapping and protection of small reserves; the development of plans for protection of large reserves; and rule-setting in voluntary forest certification schemes. The analysis shows that Sweden has enacted more stringent environmental protection policies on all measures examined. Whereas variation in the state of knowledge about environmental protection needs does not explain these differences, variation in the access to the science-policy dialogue and in the distribution of costs and benefits in the forestry sector does help explain the differences in the stringency of Norwegian and Swedish forest policy. I conclude that the influence of knowledge depends on the process by which it is created. Although scientific information usually has little influence when strong economic counter-forces are involved in the decision-making process, this problem can be ameliorated by facilitating processes of coproduction of knowledge among scientific experts, practitioners, and decision-makers.

This paper analyses accountability arrangements in the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and other organizations that set standards for certification and eco-labelling. It focuses on two types of accountability that are likely to be achievable and important to non-state standards organizations: control and responsiveness. In setting a global standard based on a multi-stakeholder governance structure, FSC established a model for other certification schemes, specifically within the forestry and fisheries sectors. By creating the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), FSC-supporters exported the certification model to the fisheries sector. Industry-led forest certification schemes that were initiated to compete with FSC and offer an industry-dominated model have come to mimic procedural accountability arrangements initially established by their competitor. However, they have carefully filtered out the prescriptions that could reduce their influence in standard-setting processes. The paper argues that while certification schemes could enhance control of corporate environmental and social performance, some of the industry-dominated schemes adopt popular and fashionable accountability recipes to divert criticism of their activities instead of acting responsively to external constituents such as environmental and social groups.