Innovative local policies against urban inequality

Our interactive map allows you to explore socially innovative policies and approaches to addressing inequalities in the post-crisis era. It draws examples from 15 places across Europe where the UPLIFT project has been carrying out research.

As part of the UPLIFT project we reviewed the literature on 'socially innovative' approaches to policy making and tackling urban inequalities, and looked in-depth at 16 locations across Europe. We define 'social innovation' as the introduction of a social practice, project, arrangement, or other approach that changes relationships between people and institutions. It must be new in its context and has the goal of better satisfying or answering social needs and problems than is possible on the basis of established practices.

From this, we found that since the financial crisis, there has been an intensification of policy (and academic) discussion about socially innovative approaches. However, identifying social innovations that have a primary focus on youth policy can be challenging in some contexts – this highlights the uneven spread of both the concept and the practice of developing individual youth policies across Europe. The struggle to find innovative initiatives was especially marked in New Member States of Eastern and Central Europe. 

Similar spatial patterns were noted with regard to the role of the European Union in fostering innovation. Researchers in Eastern and Southern Europe emphasized that many innovative initiatives depend on European funds. Beyond financial support, the EU can also provide crucial political leverage for actors on the ground to introduce new approaches. Different governance arrangements within states – and especially the extent to which localities have the ability to develop their own policies – can also influence innovation dynamics. Subsidiarity, coupled with local financial resources can enhance the potential for innovation, while the state can play significant role in mainstreaming innovations.

Certain macro events can play crucial roles in the development of innovation. The financial crisis or a large political shift such as a change in government can radically reconfigure the field which can necessitate or enable the introduction of new solutions.

With regard to youth policy, we can distinguish between two types: firstly, where youth matters are not treated as a separate policy field. Policies targeting young people are developed separately in the sphere of social provision, housing and, primarily, education. Secondly, in certain contexts, youth policy appears as an independent field in its own right. These contexts seem to be ahead in fostering coordinated cross-sectoral policies in line with EU guidelines.

You can explore the map here. Click on a place to read an overview. More detail on each is covered in the discussion of what makes them innovative in the next section. You can also read more in our full report here.

The examples reflect seven main innovative features:

1. New service provision: introduction of new type of service(s),
2. Financing innovation: new, innovative combination of financial resources,
3. Open government arrangements: interrelation between top-down and bottom-up planning and implementation,   
4. Public, private, people partnership: wide partnership between public and non-state organizations,
5. Integration of services: cross sectorial cooperation, reacting to the complexity of the needs of the target group,  
6. Evolution and self-reflexivity: the policy contains a strong monitoring system and is flexible to better adjust different needs over time,
7. Participatory approach: involvement of the target group.

By definition, this reflects the intention to respond to unmet needs through the creation of a new programme, project or policy that specifically aims to fill the gap identified. Service innovations do not only foster actual and practical change for those groups who are not targeted efficiently with the existing services but also react to needs that were not adequately recognised by existing programmes and policies.

In the case of the ‘Studiezalen’ project implemented in Amsterdam, a local person – himself originating from a disadvantaged background – realized that there were certain groups of young people who were not targeted by mainstream policies that aim to provide support equal opportunities in education. His initiative intended to fill this gap in official policy, providing help for students living in deprived neighbourhood in low-income families through the creation of quiet places to study.

Meanwhile, in Amadora, The ‘National Programme to Promote Educational Attainment’ (PNPSE) programme in Amadora was introduced in the post-crisis context of 2015-2016, to address the high school dropout rate among students of low-income families, which needed a localized policy answer. The PNPSE programme introduced new measures to improve teacher training that takes the needs of their schools into account, develops flexible teaching methods and so on.

Other examples include the ‘Accompaniment Program for Emancipation and Transition to Adulthood’ in Barakaldo in response to the increased unemployment rate among young people. This new policy targets young people between the age of 18 and 35 years and provides a new service based on personalized strategies to improve employability, level of training or education, social relationships, emotional well-being and so on. Similarly, the ‘Coopération Active et Potentiel’ in Mulhouse introduced a new type of service aimed at fostering entrepreneurship among disadvantaged young people, in the hope of better addressing their social marginalisation.

The examples also illustrate several financial mechanisms that could be considered innovative: 1) corporate financing arrangements: e.g., ‘Studiezalen’ in Amsterdam, 2) the combination of state and private funds e.g. ‘Nová Cvernovka’ in Bratislava, 3) resident-led long-term funding e.g. ‘Big Local’ in Corby, and 4) the creation of a Community Land Trust in Leuven.

The ‘Studiezalen’ initiative in Amsterdam relies both on public subsidies and the support of large corporations. The foundation that runs the ‘Studiezalen’ project, has been experimenting with a sponsorship scheme which draws in donations from private individuals, large companies such as the Shell, Rabobank, McKinsey or the Orange Capital Partners as well as municipal and regional institutions. The financial contributions of private companies have enabled the expansion and the increase in capacities, although there are still long waiting lists to get access to the services provided by the study halls.

The ‘Nová Cvernovka’ project in Bratislava was realized through the cooperation of Bratislava Self-Governing Region (which still fully owns the premises where the cultural and artistic space has been created), the partners of the Cvernovka Foundation and several other organizations, together with the help of volunteers. The place is leased to the Foundation for 25-year period by the Bratislava Self-Governing Region, which in itself constitutes an innovation.  The ownership of the Bratislava Self-Governing Region also provides the municipality access to all internal documents of the Foundation and ensures an influence on decisions regarding the Foundation.

Likewise, the Community Land Trust’ in Leuven also constitutes a financial innovation, as affordability is ensured in CLTs through the ownership of the land, and mechanisms which forestall the capitalisation of subsidies and the possible increase in land values.

It is particularly interesting to see what role actors in different governance levels play in a programme, policy or project that has been identified as an innovation. It provides insight into the question how and where within institutions new approaches to reflexive policy making might be introduced.

Both top-down and bottom-up initiatives are both represented in the case studies. Top-down does not, however, always mean that community voice is excluded and some show a strong local role and sharing of responsibilities across multiple levels of governance.

The ‘Big Local’ programme in Corby is part of a nation-wide programme initiated by the National Lottery Community Fund, which is a non-departmental public body responsible for the distribution of funds for community benefit across the UK. However, each of the 150 funded communities has total control over how their allocation of £1 million is spent.

Another example of cooperation between national and local actors is the ‘National Programme to Promote Educational Attainment’ program in Amadora, which was born based on the decision of the national government in 2016 to encourage localities to create local Plans of Strategic Action.

The collaboration of public and private local institutions and organizations, sometimes also from different policy fields, seems to be a common innovative feature which in some cases also involves the local community. We describe the participation of citizens in a separate section due to its specific importance.

The ‘Together for Work’ programme in Bologna is a city-wide collaboration between workers, companies, the church, and the public administration to provide help for those chronically unemployed middle-aged people (between the age of 50 and 60) who are not yet eligible for retirement. The network of local organizations reflects the complexity of the needs of the target group and proved to be a unique experiment, contributing to the creation of a thousand new jobs in the last 3 years.

In Chemnitz, the ‘DELPHIN’ project is an integrated youth welfare project that runs on an independent basis while still cooperating with public welfare services. This collaboration is claimed to be a precondition to alleviate inequalities among young people.

Similarly, one of the main innovative elements of the ‘PROSPERA SEPSI’ project in Sfântu Gheorghe is the partnership between state institutions, locally important NGOs, and private companies (possible employers) and trainers in the field of work. This magnitude of cooperation of different stakeholders is a country wide new experiment.

The integration of services refers to cross-sector cooperation which aims to place the individual at the centre of service provision. This is often a response to the way that traditional welfare provision, which is rigidly siloed across different fields (such as education, social assistance, and work-related services) is often unable to respond to complex and closely interconnected problems. Recognizing the complexity of the needs of the targeted marginalized groups has necessitated the development of integrated services that take a more holistic approach. Such initiatives often go hand in hand with the involvement of a wide range of organizations (e.g. the 4P approach) to make the provision of integrated services as efficient as possible.

The ‘Prospera Sepsi’ programme in Sfântu Gheorghe provides integrated interventions to combat discrimination, segregation and to reduce the risk of falling into poverty. It brings together a team of 36 professionals with different fields of expertise, with wide collaboration between different state institutions and NGOs that operate in different policy fields. Although there were previous attempts to establish integrated service provision, individual actors could not achieve it. This collaboration allows to the interdisciplinary team to identify local problems, thus making a tailor-made integrated service provision possible within the framework of a national programme.

The ‘Arany János Talent Support Programme’ in Pécs aims to give personalized assistance to young people to help them obtain qualifications and skills that increase their chances of success in the labour market. This is essential aspect as students originating from disadvantaged settlements and coming from low-income families tend to have complex needs, thus a holistic view of their problems is required to achieve real change.

Similarly, the ‘Accompaniment Program for Emancipation and Transition to Adulthood’ programme in Barakaldo is also based on a holistic approach: the first step in the programme is always the creation of a multidimensional analysis of the young person’s situation, which then allows professionals to see the complex structure of their needs. This enables youth workers to set a context-based and personalized strategy to efficiently help participants in the transition to adulthood.

The ‘Delmos’ project launched by the Swedish government is implemented in 32 municipalities including Borlänge, to help socially deprived neighbourhoods through the collaboration of different local institutions and NGOs providing a wide range of services (including: ‘heads of sustainability unit, crime prevention, public health and youth health, pre-schools, primary and secondary schools, adult education, labour market, refugee reception, neighbourhoods project leaders, strategic units working for the welfare of children’ and the young people themselves). In interviews, however, some local stakeholders critiqued the slow pace of progress from ideas to action.

In Lódz, meanwhile, the revitalization of the city centre has brought many actors together to ensure the best possible outcomes for inhabitants. The constant discussions with the inhabitants who live in the soon-to-be renovated areas, create the basis for understanding the actions needed to make the revitalization process as human as possible. To ensure the most efficient support, a large network of local actors has come together:

Among the cases that have been operating for a while, a noticeable feature is an emphasis on reflexivity, achieved by thorough and systematic evaluations. This enabled projects to be flexible and adjust better to the complex nature of the problem that they intend to combat.

The evolution of the ‘Studiezalen’ project in Amsterdam serves as a good example of a flexible and self-reflective programme made possible by the financial scheme described above. At the very beginning, the programme ‘only’ intended to provide a space to study for those children who live in an overcrowded home or in a noisy environment and also lack the necessary tools for studying. The initiative expanded dynamically not only territorially but also with regard to the provided services, building on the insight it developed through working with young people: it now includes help with homework, life coaching, expert pedagogical guidance, initiatives against bullying and talent development for primary and secondary school students. It also provides counselling and services for the parents as well, such as help with language, financial literacy courses and parenting advice.

The ‘Arany János Talent Support Programme’ in Pécs also has a strong, built-in monitoring system that not only evaluates the success of the programmes but also compels policy makers to make necessary  changes or add further elements.  The initiative originally operated as a talent management programme for students coming from disadvantaged areas and families. Realizing the potential for further supporting participating students living in dormitories (since students usually had to move away for secondary school)  a new sub-project was included, which aims to compensate learning difficulties by providing further support in the dormitory setting. Later, another sub-programme was included, specifically focusing on vocational education.

Tallinn’s ‘nudge approach’ aims to influence citizen behaviour in both individually and socially beneficial ways through the reconfiguration of existing policies. As an example, the underused paternity leave policy was adjusted (to last longer and provide additional benefits) to encourage fathers to use this opportunity. The changes based on the ‘nudge approach’ were initiated by the Ministry of Social Affairs, and it is part of a wider attempt to create science-based policies.

Involving beneficiaries in policy making and the empowerment of local groups is a core component of socially innovative policy making. Local communities and specific target groups can be involved in many different ways and in many different phases of the policy making and implementation processes.  

Our case studies display a variety of routes from forums to active and established ways of citizen inclusion. There are programmes, in which the community-led approach constitutes the main innovation of the initiative such as the case of Corby, Leuven and Belfast. In Corby, the community-led approach of the ‘Big Local’ programme has shown how participation increases the effectiveness of policies:

Similarly to Corby, the ‘CLT’ programme in Leuven is also built upon a strong community approach which manifests in regular meetings between local stakeholders and both current and possible future inhabitants in spite of the top-down origin of the initiative. It has involved numerous public meetings between the residents, institutional stakeholders, housing experts and the wider community.

In the case of Belfast, a Youth Council is embedded into the Belfast Agenda, itself an example of an innovative policy introduced after the city has taken the identity of being a ‘post conflict’ city. The Youth Council is made up of 40 young people from the whole city between the age of 13 and 21, who are elected for two years and are actively responsible for running projects in the city.

In contrast, some projects lack a participatory element, such as the ‘Delmos’ programme in Borlänge, and have been criticised by local stakeholders as a result: What can also be more questioned is the apparent lack of involvement of local residents in the efforts to change the trajectory of poor neighbourhoods.’ A similar challenge is identified in the case of the ‘PNPSE’ in Amadora:

We identified several innovative policy approaches which appeared in multiple different contexts. These developments aim to address the perceived failures of traditional welfare states – such as the top down, overly bureaucratic, and closed decision-making processes and the rigid separation of sectoral policies.

The analysis of both the literature on innovation and the cases identified as innovative by local stakeholders in our 16 locations provided us the opportunity to identify the most promising entry points for introducing the Reflexive Policy Agenda as a social innovation that aligns with the recent trends of participatory policy making and integrated service design.

Reflexive policy making – the process in which vulnerable young people are part of the policy creation, implementation and evaluation processes – can be a useful tool to reveal the complex nature of vulnerability that may lead to the creation of cross-sectoral and multi-level social policies.

Reflexive policy making is likely to have the highest potential in the case of policies on which the local actors have the biggest influence. These policies may be exclusively local or they can also be top-down policies which provide room for independent local decision-making (e.g. in the field of urban rehabilitation and education).

There is also potential in designing small-scale services through reflexive policy making, which can accommodate vulnerable young people in a co-creation process more easily, but at the same time has the potential the be scaled up or become more complex in the longer run. This needs the inclusion of reflexivity and constant feedback as an integral part of the policy design.

During 2022 and 2023, the UPLIFT project will be piloting reflexive policy making with young people in four European urban areas: Amsterdam, Barakaldo, Talinn and Sfântu Gheorghe. Together, with the UPLIFT researchers, young people in each of these four areas will design potential policy solutions to address their experiences of inequality.

You can follow their progress on our website, via twitter, and on Facebook or Instagram.