download - Deutsches Jugendinstitut e.V.

presentations here in Leipzig have augmented the picture with several vital elements which
must also be taken into consideration. As important and correct the request not to
oversimplify everything was, I caught myself once or twice thinking: my goodness, how can
we manage to achieve all this? I was here naturally thinking less of my task of producing an
initial interim summary, although it goes without saying that this would not be made any
easier, but above all of our plan to present the EU Commission with viable
recommendations resulting from the conference.
I finally spied dry land yesterday evening in a preliminary talk including reports from the
working groups and, without wanting to anticipate the results from these working groups
which will be presented below, I should like to draw three personal conclusions from the
conference:
1. The conference has shown that where transversal national strategies exist, integrated
approaches function better on a local level. The involvement of all relevant
departments also appears to be important. Without doubt, these are ambitious
demands and Howard Williamson has just reiterated in his contribution the problems
associated with this approach. The conference has however shown that this can
actually function and it will remain to be seen which will be the conditions for
success on a national level.
2. Experiences from a number of projects appear to suggest that it is not only state
actors which should be involved, but also non-state actors on an eye-to-eye level, i.e.
NGOs, local initiatives and, not to be forgotten, private enterprise, although the
ultimate responsibility must remain with the state.
3. National processes are necessary to provide flexible answers to local conditions and
allow sufficient scope for local actors to guarantee independent local implementation.
Global funds and micro-projects which are managed and created locally appear to be
important elements. The subject of participation is also part of a sensitive
consideration of local conditions. We are aware that projects which foresee
participation of affected persons right from the start meet with greater success than
purely top-down ‘happiness projects’, how ever well meant these may have been.
In conclusion, allow me to touch on two final thoughts which arose at different points
during the conference and which provoked a great deal of reflection. When we talk about
national strategies, this inevitably provokes the question as to what is to be achieved. The
relevant question here is often how the target groups are to be defined, as different
departmental areas all have widely heterogenic perspectives. What the school considers to be
truancy is seen by the social worker as unsolved adolescent problems and by employment
administration departments as a disqualification for integration on the employment market. If
however transversal strategies are to be coordinated and determined, the question arises as to
who has the final say and which criteria influence the relevant processes. This throws up a
further probing question which was incidentally briefly touched on by a Swedish colleague:
could it be that the concept of relating to clearly defined target groups could become a new
problem in itself in view of the problems already encountered in urban districts and neglected
rural areas?
This is however a new wide subject to be saved up for the next time round.
107