Periodic Reporting for period 2 - UPLIFT (Urban PoLicy Innovation to address inequality with and for Future generaTions)
Periodo di rendicontazione: 2021-04-01 al 2023-06-30
The UPLIFT project is founded on two fundamental premises: 1) following the financial crisis of 2008, the urban youth population in numerous European countries struggled to recover economically compared to other age groups. 2) Existing policies designed for vulnerable young individuals do not align with their evolving needs. Based on these premises, UPLIFT seeks to achieve a deeper comprehension of the factors contributing to youth vulnerabilities in European cities. Furthermore, it aims to establish a policy-making mechanism known as Reflexive Policy Making that directly addresses the needs of young people.
The overarching objectives of the project are as follows:
1. Providing state-of-the-art analytical understanding of the socio-economic inequalities in post-crisis Europe
2. Assessing the opportunities of urban governments to reduce inequalities within their national welfare contexts
3. Understanding the roots, consequences, and possible solutions for the deprivations of vulnerable urban youth (15-29) under increasing socio-economic polarisation
4. Pursuing methodological innovations in policy design for the Reflexive Policy Agenda
5. Creating a dissemination network connecting local, regional, national, and EU level
The overarching objectives of the project are as follows:
1. Providing state-of-the-art analytical understanding of the socio-economic inequalities in post-crisis Europe
2. Assessing the opportunities of urban governments to reduce inequalities within their national welfare contexts
3. Understanding the roots, consequences, and possible solutions for the deprivations of vulnerable urban youth (15-29) under increasing socio-economic polarisation
4. Pursuing methodological innovations in policy design for the Reflexive Policy Agenda
5. Creating a dissemination network connecting local, regional, national, and EU level
The scientific and methodological research was conducted across four distinct work packages.
• Work Package 1 focused on clarifying the concept of inequalities, with a particular emphasis on the urban youth population in Europe. Initially, the team reviewed various inequality concepts, connecting them to multi-level governance and regional development. Subsequently, we presented quantitative inequality indicators at both NUTS1 and NUTS2 levels, with a primary focus on comparing the young urban generation with other age cohorts. In the course of the quantitative analysis, new indicator sets were developed. The findings were summarized in conceptual deliverables and an Atlas of Inequalities, which was later transformed into an Interactive and searchable Atlas.
• Work Package 2 focused on youth inequalities in various domains such as education, employment, housing, social care, and healthcare. These inequalities and the welfare policies linked to them were examined in 16 European urban areas through desk research and expert interviews. The findings from the local analyses were documented in 16 Urban Reports, which were then synthesized into a separate deliverable. Additionally, innovative local policies from these 16 locations were collected and described in a report on post-crisis welfare policies. The results of this work were summarized in two policy briefs.
• In work package 3, eight out of these 16 urban areas were put into the focus. In these cities, expert interviews were complemented by 20 interviews with currently young (aged 15-29) vulnerable people, and 20 formerly young people who were in a vulnerable situation at the time of the financial crisis. The results of the interview processes were presented in eight Case Study Reports - regarding Amsterdam (NL), Amadora (PT), Barakaldo (ES), Chemnitz (DE), Corby (UK), Pécs (HU), Sfântu Gheorghe (RO) and Tallinn (EE). The Case Study Reports were compared and their relevance to Reflexive Policy Making Processes was described in a Transferability Report. Bi-lingual policy briefs were also created in these eight locations to share the research results in an easy to understand way.
• Work Package 4 focused on piloting Reflexive Policy Making processes in four of the eight WP3 locations: Amsterdam, Barakaldo, Sfântu Gheorghe, and Tallinn. Co-creation processes were initiated within the framework of Youth Boards, composed of vulnerable young individuals. These Youth Boards engaged with Institutional Stakeholders with the assistance of moderators and facilitators. The outcome of this process was the creation of Reflexive Policy Agendas, which encompassed interventions aimed at improving the lives of vulnerable young people at the local level. Implementation of these Reflexive Policy Agendas commenced towards the end of the project period. The insights and lessons gained from the co-creation processes were consolidated in four deliverables concerning Individual Reflexive Policy Agendas. These individual agendas were then synthesized in a Guidebook on Reflexive Policy Making and summarized in a Policy Brief on Reflexive Policy Making. Additionally, the project developed a Training Material and an Open Online Video Course to facilitate the understanding of the essential steps involved in Reflexive Policy Making for interested parties.
All the outcomes of the project processes are available on the UPLIFT website (uplift-youth.eu) in the form of research reports, publications, the Interactive Atlas, blog posts, and video tutorials. Project progress and updates can also be followed through its social media channels on Facebook (@upliftyouthEU), Instagram (@uplift_youth), Twitter (@uplift_youth), and LinkedIn (www.linkedin.com/in/upliftyouth). In addition, the project results were shared and disseminated through local events and was showcased at 24 external conferences and workshops.
• Work Package 1 focused on clarifying the concept of inequalities, with a particular emphasis on the urban youth population in Europe. Initially, the team reviewed various inequality concepts, connecting them to multi-level governance and regional development. Subsequently, we presented quantitative inequality indicators at both NUTS1 and NUTS2 levels, with a primary focus on comparing the young urban generation with other age cohorts. In the course of the quantitative analysis, new indicator sets were developed. The findings were summarized in conceptual deliverables and an Atlas of Inequalities, which was later transformed into an Interactive and searchable Atlas.
• Work Package 2 focused on youth inequalities in various domains such as education, employment, housing, social care, and healthcare. These inequalities and the welfare policies linked to them were examined in 16 European urban areas through desk research and expert interviews. The findings from the local analyses were documented in 16 Urban Reports, which were then synthesized into a separate deliverable. Additionally, innovative local policies from these 16 locations were collected and described in a report on post-crisis welfare policies. The results of this work were summarized in two policy briefs.
• In work package 3, eight out of these 16 urban areas were put into the focus. In these cities, expert interviews were complemented by 20 interviews with currently young (aged 15-29) vulnerable people, and 20 formerly young people who were in a vulnerable situation at the time of the financial crisis. The results of the interview processes were presented in eight Case Study Reports - regarding Amsterdam (NL), Amadora (PT), Barakaldo (ES), Chemnitz (DE), Corby (UK), Pécs (HU), Sfântu Gheorghe (RO) and Tallinn (EE). The Case Study Reports were compared and their relevance to Reflexive Policy Making Processes was described in a Transferability Report. Bi-lingual policy briefs were also created in these eight locations to share the research results in an easy to understand way.
• Work Package 4 focused on piloting Reflexive Policy Making processes in four of the eight WP3 locations: Amsterdam, Barakaldo, Sfântu Gheorghe, and Tallinn. Co-creation processes were initiated within the framework of Youth Boards, composed of vulnerable young individuals. These Youth Boards engaged with Institutional Stakeholders with the assistance of moderators and facilitators. The outcome of this process was the creation of Reflexive Policy Agendas, which encompassed interventions aimed at improving the lives of vulnerable young people at the local level. Implementation of these Reflexive Policy Agendas commenced towards the end of the project period. The insights and lessons gained from the co-creation processes were consolidated in four deliverables concerning Individual Reflexive Policy Agendas. These individual agendas were then synthesized in a Guidebook on Reflexive Policy Making and summarized in a Policy Brief on Reflexive Policy Making. Additionally, the project developed a Training Material and an Open Online Video Course to facilitate the understanding of the essential steps involved in Reflexive Policy Making for interested parties.
All the outcomes of the project processes are available on the UPLIFT website (uplift-youth.eu) in the form of research reports, publications, the Interactive Atlas, blog posts, and video tutorials. Project progress and updates can also be followed through its social media channels on Facebook (@upliftyouthEU), Instagram (@uplift_youth), Twitter (@uplift_youth), and LinkedIn (www.linkedin.com/in/upliftyouth). In addition, the project results were shared and disseminated through local events and was showcased at 24 external conferences and workshops.
The unique contribution of UPLIFT lies not only in the exploration of general inequality concepts but, more importantly, in its ability to operationalize these concepts and establish concrete connections with policy practices.
• By comparing the inequality situation among the young population in 16 European urban locations and the welfare responses in education, employment, and housing issues, we were able to describe the relevance of the economic potential of cities in creating social inequalities, the effect of the crisis on inequalities, and the room for manoeuvre that localities have in mitigating inequalities within their national contexts.
• By operationalising the capability approach through the interview process, we could identify the main conversion factors that hinder young people from living the life they value. Some of these factors are rather universal, such as the role of individual characteristics or the overwhelming influence of family background. However, we also discovered the varying capacities of local institutions to counteract the deterministic factors behind vulnerabilities. We also revealed that, despite differences in local institutional settings, the main deficiencies in welfare policies are rather similar.
• In piloting Reflexive Policy Making processes in four locations, we could identify the steps and possibilities but also the constraints and barriers of such a lengthy (1/2-2 years) process.
The project yielded three primary categories of impacts:
• The ongoing implementation of Reflexive Policy Making in the four pilot locations, its adoption by various local stakeholders, and the integration of Reflexive Policy Agendas into local strategies and policy practices.
• The research findings were not only compiled into project reports but also disseminated through scientific articles, with 14 already published and seven under review and publication. Seven of these articles will be featured in a Special Issue of Frontiers in Sustainable Cities titled "Youth Vulnerabilities in European Cities."
• Both vulnerable young individuals and institutional stakeholders involved in the co-creation process, as well as the researchers themselves, acquired new knowledge, skills, and capabilities, which have translated into new career opportunities, projects, and expanded social networks.
• By comparing the inequality situation among the young population in 16 European urban locations and the welfare responses in education, employment, and housing issues, we were able to describe the relevance of the economic potential of cities in creating social inequalities, the effect of the crisis on inequalities, and the room for manoeuvre that localities have in mitigating inequalities within their national contexts.
• By operationalising the capability approach through the interview process, we could identify the main conversion factors that hinder young people from living the life they value. Some of these factors are rather universal, such as the role of individual characteristics or the overwhelming influence of family background. However, we also discovered the varying capacities of local institutions to counteract the deterministic factors behind vulnerabilities. We also revealed that, despite differences in local institutional settings, the main deficiencies in welfare policies are rather similar.
• In piloting Reflexive Policy Making processes in four locations, we could identify the steps and possibilities but also the constraints and barriers of such a lengthy (1/2-2 years) process.
The project yielded three primary categories of impacts:
• The ongoing implementation of Reflexive Policy Making in the four pilot locations, its adoption by various local stakeholders, and the integration of Reflexive Policy Agendas into local strategies and policy practices.
• The research findings were not only compiled into project reports but also disseminated through scientific articles, with 14 already published and seven under review and publication. Seven of these articles will be featured in a Special Issue of Frontiers in Sustainable Cities titled "Youth Vulnerabilities in European Cities."
• Both vulnerable young individuals and institutional stakeholders involved in the co-creation process, as well as the researchers themselves, acquired new knowledge, skills, and capabilities, which have translated into new career opportunities, projects, and expanded social networks.