Mapping the Connection between Urban Settings

The objec­tive of this map­ping process has been to pro­duce a frame­work with the fol­low­ing dimen­sions, expressed in three core questions:

• How is the mar­gin­al­iza­tion of urban youth pro­duced, iden­ti­fied and per­ceived in these dif­fer­ent urban and socio-cul­tur­al con­texts? What are some key indi­ca­tors (social, phys­i­cal and polit­i­cal) in each local­ly spe­cif­ic area?
• What insti­tu­tions and/or orga­ni­za­tions (public/private) are key play­ers in pre­ven­tion and inter­ven­tion activ­i­ties in these respec­tive urban areas, and what are the insti­tu­tion­al and geo­graph­i­cal frame­works they oper­ate within?
• How do pro­fes­sion­als (ped­a­gogues, social work­ers, teach­ers, psy­chol­o­gists and oth­ers) in these dif­fer­ent con­texts nav­i­gate the lim­i­ta­tions and pos­si­bil­i­ties of urban space(s) and insti­tu­tion­al con­texts in their work with mar­gin­al­ized youth?

These local map­pings were dis­cussed at transna­tion­al meet­ings in May and Novem­ber 2020, in order to com­pare, mir­ror and ana­lyze spe­cif­ic local char­ac­ter­is­tics, dif­fer­ences and strengths and weak­ness­es. The aim of this exchange was to achieve trans­fer­abil­i­ty (based on an inter­na­tion­al com­par­i­son), and to pre­pare all par­tic­i­pat­ing insti­tu­tions for their work in out­put 3 – that is, the devel­op­ment of a mod­el of social, par­tic­i­pa­to­ry plan­ning. At the same time, the map­pings are an impor­tant part of devel­op­ing inno­v­a­tive and revised R&D strate­gies with­in the par­tic­i­pat­ing institutions.

The main con­tent of this report con­sists of map­pings from each local set­ting. How­ev­er, we need to pin­point some dif­fer­ences and sim­i­lar­i­ties in the three con­texts here.

Differences:

• The cat­e­gories of young peo­ple tar­get­ed in the three nation­al con­texts dif­fer. In the Span­ish map­ping, the focus is on under­aged per­sons who have migrat­ed with­out being accom­pa­nied by their par­ents, or by a cus­to­di­an, or by any oth­er mem­ber of their fam­i­ly (UFM); and also on ex-pro­tect­ed Young Immi­grants (EXYI).
  Those tar­get­ed in the Swedish map­ping are young peo­ple with a migrant back­ground liv­ing in so-called socioe­co­nom­i­cal­ly vul­ner­a­ble neigh­bor­hoods.
  In the Dan­ish map­ping, the focus is on young per­sons liv­ing in pover­ty in neigh­bor­hoods char­ac­ter­ized as social­ly prob­lem­at­ic, and in some ways dis­con­nect­ed from the wel­fare insti­tu­tions sup­port­ing their inte­gra­tion and lifestyle.
• In Swe­den and Den­mark the social wel­fare of the young peo­ple tar­get­ed is main­ly man­aged through tax financed pub­lic ser­vices. These ser­vices dif­fer from one local author­i­ty to anoth­er, which results in great vari­a­tion with­in and between munic­i­pal­i­ties.
  In Spain, the insti­tu­tions involved in the social wel­fare of par­tic­i­pat­ing young peo­ple are main­ly region­al and munic­i­pal author­i­ties, act­ing in col­lab­o­ra­tion with a great num­ber of NGOs and pri­vate orga­ni­za­tions which oper­ate at a more local level.
• In Swe­den and Den­mark the pro­fes­sion­als work­ing with the young peo­ple being tar­get­ed are main­ly pro­fes­sion­als work­ing in pub­lic ser­vice, and in Spain they are pri­mar­i­ly con­nect­ed with NGOs.
• While the Swedish and Dan­ish map­ping main­ly focus­es on young peo­ple who are resid­ing legal­ly with­in the coun­try, the Span­ish map­ping has its focus on those who do not have a reg­u­lar­ized admin­is­tra­tive sit­u­a­tion, and who are there­fore not allowed to reside and work legal­ly in the Span­ish territory.

Similarities:

• Although the con­texts and sit­u­a­tions of the young peo­ple tar­get­ed dif­fer, the nation­al map­pings demon­strate sim­i­lar­i­ties with regard to the mar­gin­al­iza­tion process­es and con­straints that these young peo­ple are fac­ing. These are process­es such as the widen­ing of gaps in eco­nom­ic con­di­tions and social wel­fare, and exclu­sion in rela­tion to edu­ca­tion, employ­ment, social wel­fare, hous­ing and leisure time.
• Stig­ma and ter­ri­to­r­i­al fix­a­tion through racist, Islam­o­pho­bic, gang-relat­ed and neg­a­tive neigh­bour­hood dis­cours­es. These are direct­ed towards the cat­e­go­ry which oth­ers per­ceive that the young migrant peo­ple belong to.
• Mar­gin­al­i­sa­tion relat­ed to the lack of suc­cess in school, in employ­ment and in hous­ing is often explained at an indi­vid­ual lev­el – that is, by the expe­ri­ences and back­grounds of par­tic­u­lar young peo­ple and their families.