1. What are the main urgent (policy-relevant) issues related to youth?

Our report highlights that a wide range of social problems, related to disadvantaged youth, are addressed in the Netherlands. In particular, school dropout is assessed and addressed through a number of relevant preventive and curative measures. Besides, significant attention is paid to ‘emergency’ issues such as homeless youth [zwerfjongeren] and young people accused of causing nuisance to others or engaging in criminal activities, for whom special measures are designed. However, the situation of many boys with an immigrant background is highly vulnerable.

A few Dutch agencies identified ‘silent dropouts’ [geruisloze uitvallers], standing for young people who are gradually dropping out without being much noticed (no more benefits but not perceived as troublesome). The agencies mainly call attention to the fact that this group is not ‘in sight’ because these young people no longer attend school and have not applied for welfare (and are not causing immediate problems).

Another emerging issue is – what Bowen Paulle (2013) has called – ‘Toxic schools’, i.e. schools located in distressed (urban) environments, where pupils are facing unequal access to quality schools. Because the violent and chaotic environment at these schools causes so much stress and demands so much energy of both students and teachers, it seriously hampers their achievements, even when pupils are willing to comply with the meritocratic ideal. Paulle’s ethnographic research focussed on a distressed area of Amsterdam, but there is some evidence that more of such schools exist elsewhere in the Netherlands.

Citizen participation is ranking high in policy talk, both at the level of central government and municipalities. However, although participation of ‘vulnerable groups’ is a particular point of interest nowadays, promoting participation within ‘vulnerable groups’ often seems to be merely aimed at enhancing ‘social participation’; stimulating them to become independent/autonomous (from state-funded programmes), for instance through activation of social benefits. As far as youth is concerned, getting a ‘start qualification’ is widely regarded as a must to achieve (economic) participation, beyond which participation is scarcely addressed. In those instances in which it is interpreted as ‘political participation’, policy makers often appear to feel unsure on how to actually realize this in practice.

Some actors (scholars, youth trade union, Netherlands Institute for Social Research) have put forward that discrimination of particular groups of young people is not adequately addressed in the Netherlands, though it seems to be a cause of e.g. youth unemployment. Ethnic/religious categories are used, but mostly to problematize groups, not to pay attention to groups being systematically discriminated against.

As a result of side-effects of the ‘basic qualification law’; young people who have not achieved the minimum level of education are categorised (and stigmatised) as insufficiently trained for work. While some students may not be fit for or not interested in ‘regular education’, they are nevertheless forced into this specific framework, although they might be better suited for alternative ways of learning or gaining work experience. This sounds even more problematic when the available educational offer seems to be ‘toxic’.

Another problem results from the use of ethnicity as an explanatory factor for issues such as school dropout, thereby causing the risk of largely ignoring underlying (possible) causes, such as a low socio-economic status. Simultaneously opportunities are thus created to suggest that young people, identified as ‘non-Western allochthonous’, are to blame themselves for not doing more efforts to adequately integrate into Dutch society.

2. How do existing policies address these challenges? How to increase capability-friendly policies (in the Netherlands)?

So far, it seems that not much is done about promoting participation (in a wide sense) among disadvantaged youth so that the perspective of all young people is considered seriously in the Netherlands. Yet, there are worthwhile foundations for this. In some schools for instance, children are often encouraged to form and voice their personal opinion, and they are provided with tailor-made information and training so that actual participation can become possible. In a number of policy areas some limitations are acknowledged regarding the low participation of certain sections of Dutch society and, though not much is done to increase citizens’ participation (compensating for lack of participation skills), there is some expertise and experience in the matter, thanks to a long tradition of social professional support granted to ‘disadvantaged groups’ to take part in policy applying to them (notably applied to public housing and urban planning in the 1970s and the 1980s in Dutch cities). This could not be testified as ‘examples of success or good practice’ but rather as assets for policy innovation.

Besides, a few initiatives claim not to follow the main stream of participation talk on participation heard as financial autonomy only, notably some attempts to promote participation among non-spontaneously participating young people in debates regarding youth policy or urban policy at the local level. Alongside, some programmes are (more or less directly) considering and trying to enhance the capability to aspire of disadvantaged young people (e.g. the Weekendschool, meant to question and develop school motivation among disadvantaged young children; talent development projects meant to explore and support the –sometimes largely hidden- talents of disadvantaged youth). Yet, it is not possible to testify that these are ‘examples of success or good practice’ since these initiatives – and their potential to consider the perspective of young people seriously – should still be analysed thoroughly.