Political Participation of Marginalized Young People: Examining Funding Programs from a European and National Perspective

Abstract

The political participation of marginalized young people has gained increasing attention in both research and policy. This study examines the role of funding programs as meso-level infrastructures that mediate political strategies and local practice, aiming to strengthen the political participation of marginalized young people. Drawing on desk research and two expert focus groups at national and European levels, it explores how such programs can be designed to effectively reach and support young people who have not yet participated, or have only rarely participated, in political processes. The analysis focuses on four key dimensions: (1) conceptual frameworks and contextual factors, (2) the positioning of programs within broader structures and cross-sectoral strategies, (3) the inherent logic of administrative structures, and (4) programs’ responsiveness to the needs of practitioners and young people. Results show that finding answers to the question of how programs need to be designed in order to better promote the political participation of marginalized young people, cannot be obtained by looking exclusively at the program level but require an analysis of the relationships to the macro- (political strategies, concepts, structural changes) and the micro-level (implementation practices in projects by professionals and young people). The findings highlight the critical mediating role of programs as both a bridge and a lever between policymakers and young people/professionals in shaping access, and identify several enabling factors: moving beyond deficit-oriented narratives, strengthening bottom-up feedback mechanisms, increasing flexibility and support in administrative procedures, and recognizing the importance of local infrastructures. The study contributes to a deeper understanding of the implementation dynamics at the meso-level and underlines the need for long-term, coherent, coordinated, and context-sensitive approaches in youth participation policy.

1. Introduction

Recent elections in Europe, whether the European Parliament elections in June 2024, the French elections in July 2024, or the German elections in February 2025, show the increasing popularity of anti-democratic and anti-European parties. The electoral base of these parties includes, but is not limited to, young people. Still, the alleged receptiveness of young people to anti-democratic tendencies is raising alarm bells in Europe and beyond (Vinocur & Goury-Laffont, 2024; Storm et al., 2020; Foa et al., 2020; Kitanova, 2020). As a reaction to political polarization, politicians call for more democratic citizenship education for young people (Council of the European Union, 2023b), highlighting questions regarding young people’s political participation for contemporary democracies (Deželan, 2023).

European data on young people and democracy in Europe, however, show that democracy is of essential value for young people. The willingness to become politically involved in the early youth phase (roughly up to the age of majority) is independent of socio-economic contextual factors. In the later youth phase, political and social engagement is more strongly determined by contextual factors such as gender, migration background, level of education, and one’s social situation (Rottach et al., 2025).

The political participation of young people and their involvement in decision-making processes that affect their needs and interests are key to upholding European values, as recognized by international organizations such as the United Nations (2018), the European Union (EU) (Council of the European Union, 2018), and the Council of Europe (2020). Recently, mainstreaming processes in the EU (Council of the European Union, 2023a) and the Council of Europe (2023) were set in motion to strengthen political processes that take into account the perspectives of young people in all policy areas that affect them. According to the EU Youth Strategy, “focusing on the participation of young people is particularly important, since any decision taken today will have the longest impact on the current generation of young people. Moreover, the age group of young people is less represented in political bodies and has fewer opportunities to influence and take part in decision-making processes than other age groups” (Council of the European Union, 2018).

To follow up on the political goals and visions set out in the respective strategies, the EU, the Council of Europe, and national governments alike rely on funding programs that intend to strengthen the political participation of young people. Examples are Erasmus+ in the EU, the European Youth Foundation in the Council of Europe, and the “Live Democracy!” program in Germany. These programs often emphasize that although the right to political participation applies to everyone, special focus should be placed on those young people who have hardly participated, or are underrepresented, in political processes and funding programs. Hence, particular attention is given to the question of how intersectionally disadvantaged young people (in economic, social and cultural aspects), can be given better participation opportunities. This group of young people in particular is perceived as being underrepresented in the participation of young people in political decision-making processes, leading to increased (political) focus on the inclusion of marginalized and disadvantaged young people in processes of political participation.

The present article and the underlying study follow up on this question and the role of funding programs in fostering political participation of marginalized young people. This study examines funding programs as meso-level infrastructures between macro-level political strategies and micro-level project implementation, investigating how these programs can be designed and operated to effectively reach and support marginalized young people in their political participation. Focusing on the role of programs, the study asked the question of how funding programs can better serve as mediating infrastructures to enhance political participation among marginalized youth. Rather than evaluating single programs, the study followed a qualitative research design with international and national focus groups to examine structural and procedural factors that influence program effectiveness. The article comprises four sections. The first section discusses the main theoretical concepts the study is based upon, i.e., political participation and marginalization. The second section presents the methodology of the study. Section three and four present the main results and initial analysis, aiming to deepen the understanding of the role of funding programs in strengthening political participation of marginalized young people. The article concludes with a fifth section recommending the development of strategies and programs to enhance the involvement of disadvantaged individuals in the political process.

2. Main Theoretical Concepts

Both participation and marginalization are contested concepts, having different meanings and approaches depending on the context in which they are used. In the following sections on political participation and marginalization of young people, these concepts are operationalized, sharpening the research perspective based on theoretical backgrounds as well as the current state of research.

2.1. Political Participation

Participation, as a normative concept, consists of different configurations and understandings. Often cited is the participation ladder by Hart (1992), which describes eight ascending levels of children’s (non-)participation. Others developed the concept of child and youth participation further, including, for example, Shier (2001) and Wong et al. (2010), by combining the concepts of empowerment and participation. Cahill and Dadvand (2018) took the discussion on participation another step further by developing a participation model including unintended negative consequences of participation.

Participation can take different forms. Whereas social participation refers to interaction of individuals with others in society and the community, economic participation refers to the contribution of individuals to economic resources (OSCE, 2023). Other forms of participation include civic, cultural and political participation (Council of the European Union, 2018). In this article, the focus is on political participation. Political participation can be understood as the (voluntary) action of individuals as citizens with the aim of influencing politics or the political system (van Deth, 2021) or, as the EU-Council of Europe Partnership in the field of youth (n.d.) defines it:

“Political participation is any activity that shapes, affects, or involves the political sphere.”

Young people’s political participation can range from conventional forms that include involvement in institutional politics (e.g., elections, party memberships, campaigns, local youth councils or organizations) to unconventional ways of participation (e.g., protest activities, demonstrations, online political activism, boycotts) (Riedle & Pelzer, 2021). Some scholars, like Chisholm and Kovacheva (2002), use a broader concept of political participation that includes civic engagement (e.g., associative life, community participation, voluntary work). In the context of this study, the more recent European discourse is followed, which distinguishes clearly between the concept of political participation and civic engagement. It takes a broader view and encapsulates forms of social participation, and political participation as defined above.

An important aspect of political participation is its meaningfulness. The EU Youth Strategy, for example, emphasizes as one of three priorities “engage”, aiming towards “a meaningful civic, economic, social, cultural and political participation of young people” (Council of the European Union, 2018). In a recent synthesis, Barta et al. (2021, pp. 23–24) conclude that meaningful political participation consists of five different elements: information and communication, authority and voice, power sharing, transparency and accountability, and material and non-material support. Over the years, both the Council of Europe and the EU set up institutionalized forms of political participation, with the Council of Europe’s co-management system established in 1972 and the EU’s Youth Dialogue (formerly Structured Dialogue) introduced in 2010.

Moreover, the discourse on youth political participation also highlights the difference in youth participation across different forms of political participation, showing lower scores for young people in institutionalized political formats (Deželan et al., 2023) as well as the general non-engagement of intersectionally disadvantaged young people in political processes. Therefore, recently the political participation of marginalized young people has increasingly become a focus of research (e.g., Deželan et al., 2023; Barta et al., 2021; Deželan, 2023; Brady et al., 2020) as well as political strategies (e.g., Council of Europe, 2020; Council of the European Union, 2018).

2.2. Marginalization and Marginalized Young People

There is no such thing as “the” youth. The term “youth” refers to a heterogeneous group, made up of diverse subgroups (Wyn, 1996). As such, young people reflect the societal structures they are socialized within and are able to shape to a certain degree, as opportunities to (politically) participate as well as various civil rights in society are gradually granted and accessed over time (Marshall, 1950). Following this reasoning, there is also no such thing as “the” marginalized young people. Dean (2023) argues that marginalized groups in general face obstacles engaging with and obtaining access to essential areas of society, such as labor markets and civil services. As all young people face obstacles regarding their political participation because certain rights and opportunities are only granted as they get older, it could be argued that young people are by definition marginalized. The EU Youth Strategy and the Council of Europe follow this argument by implicitly linking marginalization to the youth age cohort, pointing out that they are fundamentally exposed to certain disadvantages compared to other age cohorts in society due to their age (Council of the European Union, 2018, p. 3). Apart from the age cohort, political documents usually subsume a subgroup of young people under the term “marginalized young people”—namely those primarily associated with socio-economic factors of disadvantage (e.g., migration background, poverty, education level) (Council of Europe, 2020).

In dealing with the concept of marginalization, which is primarily used in political documents, there are few concrete theoretical concepts in social science theory. On the contrary, discourses revolve around broad questions of disadvantage, equal opportunities and participation, rather than an analysis of what marginalization actually is and what it means for the individual. Exclusion from participation can have cumulative effects of heightened inequality when disadvantaged groups experience ongoing (for example social, economic or educational) discrimination). Therefore, the lens of intersectionality is crucial when exploring the effect of interconnected social categories. Intersectionality, originally conceptualized as a theoretical concept in women’s studies by Crenshaw (1989) and others, refers to the interconnected nature of social categories such as gender, race and class as they apply to individual groups, creating overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or disadvantage. Rather than understanding these categories as separate and additive, intersectionality emphasizes how they interact and thereby create unique experiences and forms of oppression that cannot be understood by examining each category in isolation (Collins et al., 2021). However, intersectionality is not a unified body of theory but a mix of conceptual, theoretical tools and methodology (Yuval-Davis, 2017; Cho et al., 2013). McCall (2005), for example, further developed this theoretical approach, creating a framework which differentiates between anticategorical, intracategorical, and intercategorical approaches to intersectionality specifically in research. The intercategorical approach being of special interest in the context of this study, as it focuses on how to use existing categories to examine relationships of inequality among different social groups and their experiences (e.g., comparing black and white young girls) (McCall, 2005).

When bringing the intersectional perspective into the context of youth political participation, it can help explain how young people’s experiences of marginalization are shaped by the various interactions of age with gender, class, race, sexuality, etc., and how this impacts access and forms of participation. EU discourse and political documents refer to precisely this group of intersectionally disadvantaged young people as a specific target group of policy and programs. It is argued that a more specific focus on intersectionally disadvantaged young people in strategies and programs fostering political participation would increase the participation of these groups of young people in decision-making processes (Council of the European Union, 2018). According to the EU Erasmus+ funding program, disadvantage is to be understood as eight obstacles that, individually or in combination, can stand in the way of their participation (European Commission, 2001, pp. 7–8). These are disabilities; health problems; barriers related to education and training systems; cultural differences; social barriers; economic barriers; barriers related to discrimination; and geographic barriers. These interacting factors create what Stoetzler and Yuval-Davis (2016) call situated knowledge, referring to the context-specific opportunities and barriers to political participation that can lead to interactively reinforcing disadvantages, thereby perpetuating intergenerational inequalities (De Vries, 2019).

Understanding intersectionality as a methodology as well as a theoretical concept, we understand marginalized young people as those experiencing intersectional disadvantage and who are less involved in political, economic, social, or cultural forms of participation. We are therefore enabled to consider the reinforcing disadvantages of social categories in research design, data collection, and analysis.

3. Materials and Methods

In order to understand and analyze the role of funding programs in the strengthening of political participation of marginalized young people, a systematic framework of analysis as well as a methodology had to be developed. In the following sections, both the research perspective and the methodology are introduced.

3.1. Research Perspective

As the previous section has shown, there are different dimensions at which participation of (marginalized) young people is promoted. There can be strategies, but also programs. To differentiate, a systematic theoretical framework was developed, showing different levels of action and analysis (

Table 1. Examples of different frameworks and forms of action at different levels of society.

Level	Framework of Action	Examples	Core Forms of Action
Macro	Strategies	EU Youth strategy, national youth strategies	Negotiation processes
Meso	Programs	Erasmus+, foundation programs	Administrative processes
Micro	Projects	Participation projects	Pedagogical practice

). The theoretical framework distinguishes between macro-, meso- and micro- levels of analysis as used in political science in order to sharpen the analysis at different levels of abstraction.

Political strategies at the macro-level can be understood as a political declaration of intent. A strategic framework that establishes general visions and goals and formulating recommendations on how those can be achieved. Such strategies are developed through negotiation processes. Examples are the EU Youth Strategy 2018–2027 and the Council of Europe Youth Sector Strategy 2030.

The meso-level focuses on programs as strategy implementation tools. Such programs pursue overarching strategic goals, as formulated in the macro-level strategies, through their guidelines. They are, however, more specific and have the purpose of making a direct contribution by promoting practical implementation through the micro-level. Examples of important youth policy funding programs at the European level are the EU’s youth policy funding programs (Erasmus+, European Solidarity Corps) and the European Youth Foundation of the Council of Europe. These funding programs and their guidelines interpret the general framework of the macro-level and thus can set more narrowly defined goals, according to which the third strategy level, the micro-level, then unfolds.

At the micro-level, organizations develop concrete action strategies, for example, in the form of projects or trainings. The aim is to implement the goals formulated at the macro- and meso-levels in a very practical context.

The analytical distinction between macro-, meso- and micro-level is in practice sometimes blurred, as they are politically and sociologically interrelated (Bronfenbrenner, 1981). At all three levels, explicit efforts are being made to integrate the group of marginalized young people more strongly into formats of political participation. Located right “in the middle” between the macro- and micro-levels, the meso-level occupies an intermediate position between the political strategic level and the concrete implementation in projects and trainings. It is the link between the declared strategic goal of participation of all young people, and the difficulties projects and trainings face in including marginalized young people in their activities.

3.2. Methodology

In order to analyze the programs at the meso-level, the following research question was developed: “How should funding programs be designed, so that they systematically reach disadvantaged young people, who have not yet or hardly ever participated in political processes?”

The aim was to determine effective means of providing support as well as highlighting structural problems. The question of political participation of marginalized young people is not only relevant at European level but also at national level. In addition to the European level, the German discourse was therefore included in the study as an example of national discourse. Through the program ‘Live Democracy!’1 and the ‘National Action Plan for Child and Youth Participation’2, in recent years Germany made efforts to strengthen political participation of young people in general and marginalized young people in particular macro-, meso- and micro-levels. It is therefore a good addition for the European level study to examine how funding programs can contribute to strengthening political participation of marginalized young people.

A two-step methodology was developed to analyze the research question concerning the meso-level at the European level and in Germany. First, desk research was carried out to clarify the theoretical concepts discussed above. The desk research served as the basis for the second step of the methodology, a qualitative study. Methodologically, the qualitative study was based on two focus group discussions with experts in the field.

The chosen methodological approach fits the research question because the examination of the structures of programs at the meso-level can provide information on the effectiveness of programs strengthening actual political participation, which was lacking before due to identified research gaps. There are many evaluations of individual programs that are highly specific to and extremely important in their own right; yet what is often missing, and what this study hopes to provide, is the examination of the meta-level—that is, the interplay of levels, combined with the question of what programs as such, embedded at the meso-level between strategy and project, can contribute from their specific positioning.

This is precisely why we chose not to evaluate the impact of programs but rather to examine their structural position and the interplay with strategies and projects to highlight their important role as both a bridge and a lever between policymakers and young people/professionals. Therefore, the method of desk research is appropriate to obtain an overview of the context, structures, and research in the field, combined with the operationalization of focus groups, to gain knowledge at the meta-level by analyzing and comparing different experiences of those accountable for and dealing with programs. Following Krueger and Casey (2015), the focus group method is understood as a form of group interview in which carefully aligned questions are discussed. By expressing and relating aspects to another, different professions and perspectives can highlight barriers and challenges of working together in achieving the shared goal of youth participation, to better understand where exactly challenges currently arise.

The desk research had three objectives: (1) to identify, systematize, and analyze existing programs for promoting political participation; (2) to identify, systematize, and analyze concepts/studies and evaluations of the programs, particularly those that consider young people’s perspectives; and (3) to identify potential experts who could participate in the group discussions.

To achieve these objectives, firstly, existing approaches and programs for promoting the political participation of disadvantaged young people, as well as studies that deal with this topic, were identified, systematized, and analyzed. In addition to European programs (Erasmus+ and European Youth Foundation), national programs from other European countries that promote formats for political participation among young people and studies that examine their success were also included. Secondly, existing empirical results that took young people’s perspectives on programs/projects into account were identified, systematized, and analyzed. Concepts for political strategies, programs, projects, and their corresponding levels (micro, meso, and macro) were developed and refined. The theoretical foundations regarding political participation and marginalization were established. Thirdly, based on the results of the first two analyses, individuals who could contribute relevant expertise (in national as well as European contexts) were identified and potentially invited to the focus groups.

Accordingly, the first focus group was conducted online with an international/European focus and had a five-hour timeframe. The first focus group brought together experts from European countries who contributed mainly academic expertise on youth, (youth) participation, marginalization, (youth) policy, EU program evaluations or were experts for EU funding programs (administration, professional workers in associations/projects).

The first focus group had a broader, abstract, international and scientific perspective and discussed (their) research findings and programs in general. The discussion was moderated and prepared in regard to content by the researchers of the study and consisted of several rounds of input presentations and discussion sessions, which were initiated with working hypotheses and addressed broader topics such as participation and marginalization. Two separate breakout sessions followed and helped to focus, respectively, on what programs can achieve in the context of political participation and on other formats/forms of political participation from which program design can learn.

Following an iterative data collection and analysis approach, first insights and initial findings of the international focus group were brought into the national focus group that was conducted in person at local facilities and highlighted the national contexts and application structures. National experts from Germany, familiar with both national and European funding programs and structures and with a connection to the practical level, with experts working at the interface between programs and projects (e.g., sponsoring associations, political institution, and projects) were invited. The group discussion was moderated and prepared by the researchers of the study again and, with a mix of input presentations and discussion rounds held within a five-hour timeframe. It elaborated on the following topics: participation, marginalization, and their conceptual interrelationships; (European) programs and how they relate to strategies and projects; (national) discourse on the positive and negative aspects/recommendations for program design.

The rationale for engaging experts in the field in this study instead of marginalized young people mainly is that young people do not engage with the program-level but, if at all, with the projects—one level “below” the meso-level we are interested in. As the research focused on the funding programs, the methodology focused on experts who had worked in/with and/or evaluated programs or conducted research in the field. The study’s goal was to gain knowledge about the program level and how to promote the political participation of disadvantaged young people by exposing collective narratives and ideas as well as contradicting perspectives and opinions by merging the analysis of the two focus groups and therefore different fields of expertise, levels and perspectives.

The recorded discussions were transcribed in accordance with the recognized principles and strategies for qualitative research and analysis (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018). The transcripts were processed using MAXQDA^® and, combined with notes taken during the focus groups, analyzed using qualitative content analysis (Mayring, 1991; Mayring & Fenzl, 2019), following a social constructivist approach (Holstein & Gubrium, 1995).

The data analysis process followed a systematic, multiphase approach to ensure methodological rigor and trustworthiness. Mainly, the researchers conducted open coding to identify emerging themes and patterns within the transcripts. This inductive process was complemented by deductive coding based on the theoretical framework established in the desk research. Thereby, the interpretation of the data material gradually became more theory-driven with the aim of establishing analytical links between previous research, theoretical concepts, and empirical evidence (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2012). A comprehensive category system was developed, containing 1.324 codes in total. To enhance the reliability and validity of the coding process, intercoder reliability procedures were implemented. Two researchers independently coded a subset data material. Discrepancies in coding were discussed in regular consensus meetings, leading to refinements of code understanding, definitions, and guidelines. The remaining data was coded by the primary researcher, with regular quality checks conducted through ongoing consultation with the research team (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). An additional strategy for ensuring trustworthiness included the triangulation of codes and findings across the two focus groups to identify convergent and divergent perspectives.

Following Mayring and Fenzl’s (2019) approach to qualitative content analysis, the coding process was followed by s systematic paraphrasing phase. Once the final category system was established, key code segments and memos from both focus groups were condensed into paraphrases that reduced complexity, serving as the foundation for higher level abstraction. This enabled identification of overarching themes and patterns across the data set, also informing the structural organization of the subsequent results and discussion sections, empirically grounding them in themes that emerged from the data.

Quotes, codes and paraphrases from the German national focus group were translated into English for coding and publication purposes. To ensure accuracy, all translations were verified by the research team and, where necessary, cross-checked using translation tools.

4. Results

The main findings of the focus groups discussions, underlined by relevant research in the field, will be explored in this chapter and can be categorized from abstract and broad context factors, to the necessity of strategy and networks, to the programs as intermediates between levels, to views on administrative hurdles and implications in the practice field.

4.1. Context

The first result highlighted in the focus group discussions is the importance of context. Participation in general, and political participation in particular, do not take place in a vacuum. To a certain degree, context factors determine the chances of meaningful political youth participation. One such context factor is the level at which political participation is taking place, and the possible forms of participation resulting from that. Local decision-making processes differ from national youth policy decision-making processes, and so do the forms of participation applicable at each level.

It is therefore important to clarify major contexts and concepts underlying the program. The results of the focus group discussions in both national and international contexts emphasize the necessity for programs to clarify what exactly, in their context, is understood by and aimed for with programs fostering political participation. It seems inevitable to acknowledge the significant conceptual ambiguities regarding the definition of political participation and different formats for implementing it. A quote from the international focus group points towards the importance of being clear on context and approach:

“I think marginalization can be very contextual, so in my research, even if I spoke with, let’s say, rather middle-class sort of like young people, if they were living in a more rural setting, they’re simply lacking, for example, opportunity structures to go to.”

(International focus group, 26–26)

Especially against the background of increasing political calls for strengthening civic engagement and political participation, participants in the focus group discussions stipulate the necessity to distinguish between civic engagement and political participation, while also differentiating between political participation and other forms of participation, as each has different approach and objective. This is because depending on the context in which the program is designed, target groups, participation formats, goals, reasons, and expectations will differ. A generalizable, one-size-fits-all approach for fostering and promoting political participation does not seem feasible—not for young people, in general, and especially not for such a specific group like marginalized young people, as another quote points out:

“In that regard marginalization is also always contextual and intersectional. And I feel like especially talking from a very broad European perspective, and I think there’s many countries or parts of Europe that we haven’t looked at today. Maybe this one size fits all approach just is not possible in order to reflect the nuanced intersectional marginalization.”

(International focus group, 174–174)

On the contrary, it is crucial to clarify who is being addressed (and by whom), in which formats, for which reasons, and with which expectations, in order to create concrete strategies for the promotion of political participation. This is precisely where expectations and requirements differ at local, regional, national, and European levels. Accordingly, the context in which political participation takes place, and thus the context for which a program should be designed, is crucial.

This contextualization therefore includes a clearly formulated understanding of what marginalization means and whom the programs are aimed at exactly. It needs a clear description of the complex, structural disadvantages of which political marginalization is a consequence, and of the implications this has for programs and the projects they fund. Following the discourse on marginalization, the researchers in the international focus group, especially, pointed out that by definition, young people are marginalized with regard to political participation. Certain privileges, for example, like the right to vote, are only granted in the process of entering adulthood. However, varying degrees of other forms of structural disadvantages intersect, leading to the conclusion that, while barriers to political participation apply to young people generally, they create intersecting barriers that act as particular hurdles for certain marginalized groups. When discussing the design and role of programs, a differentiated perspective in relation to diversity and marginalization is therefore needed.

Closely related to these views on adultism and enabling and disabling factors of youth political participation are youth policy narratives (see Wallace & Bendit, 2009; Pelzer et al., 2024), as the following quote from the national focus group refers to:

“…yes, if you will, critically questioning two narratives. And one is a clear case of adultism. Both in terms of political participation, but also in terms of other, um, other, um, needs or requirements of young people. This view of youth, which has recently become very apparent as a view of a risk group, is something we in political education are very aware of, of course, i.e., extremism prevention instead of political participation and political education. … Another issue is the underestimation of young people and, of course, attribution, i.e., something like external attribution or external exclusion. […] Um, so the narrative is, I think, well known: it’s so difficult, they’re not interested, um, it’s actually too complex.”

(National focus group, Pos. 35, authors’ translation from German)

As well-highlighted in the quote, the results of the focus group discussions, especially the national one, point out that even in countries with a positive youth policy narrative, where young people are seen as a resource for society, the predominant narrative regarding marginalized young people is deficit-oriented. This narrative shapes the agenda and strategic frameworks behind programs, holding implicit and explicit assumptions and expectations towards strategies, programs, projects, and young people.

Young people are consciously and unconsciously seen as a risk group, framing policy—and ultimately programs—accordingly. An example is the increased discourse in Germany on prevention of different forms of extremism, rather than active citizenship education. The danger of such narratives, according to the results of the focus group discussions, lies in the fact that policy and programs mutually reinforce each other. The presence of a rather preventive, deficit-oriented perspective in politics is implemented in programs, for example, through a specific focus on disadvantaged young people. It reinforces a narrative underestimating young people, ascribing to young people modes of disinterest and incapability. As all these assumptions are external attributions, such narratives contextualize the way programs are designed.

In the focus groups, it was therefore argued that a positive, resource-oriented narrative regarding the political participation of marginalized young people would foster their participation rather than hinder it. The narrative context is further reinforced by the impression that policymakers seem to prefer certain (conventional) forms of participation, which in turn favor certain groups of young people, as the following quote highlights:

“So it’s very, very tedious to discuss with politics, who decide on the funding programs, um, because there are only certain forms or formats that are obviously conceivable.”

(National focus group, Pos. 49, authors’ translation from German)

A deficit-oriented reservation towards marginalized young people in politics and administration is reflected in corresponding narratives on participation, shaping participatory strategies, and emphasizing the potential to shift towards empowering, inclusive narratives and strategies that allow for flexibility the shape and form of political participation. A need for more empirical research on this issue, and the field in general, is also highlighted.

4.2. Necessity of Strategies and Networks

The influence of context factors on youth political participation can be reinforced as well as mitigated by both a comprehensive strategic view on participation and the existence of networks to support participation. Participants in the focus groups took a structural perspective, pointing out the necessity for social categories and circumstances of young people and participation to be taken into account when considering participation opportunities. The underlying structures of participation and youth policy play an important role. Of fundamental importance is the linkage between different perspectives on youth policy and the lives of young people. In youth participation, different policy fields and areas of life join, while the issues discussed are complex and young people are heterogeneous.

4.2.1. A Comprehensive, Cross-Sectoral View on Youth Policy

“To me, sometimes when we address this question [of the political participation of young people], the framing of the question implies that the choice to participate and the agency situates entirely with the young people. And that comes from the way we define or some of those opening definitions of participation sort of define it as it’s something young people choose to do or don’t do. But if you start to think of participation and citizenship as relational and you think of it as a relationship between the state or government bodies and citizens, you can ask the question in a different way and that would be around, what are the factors that prevent states or state institutions effectively engaging with young people or marginalized groups or effectively representing them?”

(International focus group, 24–24)

As the quote emphasizes, there is a need for a comprehensive strategic view on participation, taking into account various factors at a structural level, based on a cross-sectoral view of youth policy, as will be elaborated. Political participation can be enhanced by active citizenship and political education, which both strengthen democratic competences, political interest, and thus democracy. However, it is important to focus not only on the individual level and the competences that can be gained there, but also on structural aspects such as the relationship between citizens and states, national contexts, as well as structures and intersectional conditions. Each of these changes the approaches towards young people and their political participation.

So far, youth political participation is often limited to offers from the youth sector. Non-formal education and youth work play an important role in offering young people opportunities for participation in general and political participation in particular. Yet they cannot be the overall solution to the complex problem of active citizenship, political education, and democracy. For youth political participation to have a larger societal impact, a broader view of political participation is needed. The participants in the focus groups stipulated that youth political participation should not stop at the youth sector, but opportunities should be given and taken in a broader setting.

Political participation needs structural anchoring in societal structures as well as everyday life in order to avoid parallel structures and unnecessary complexity between the levels and actors. Thus, long-term stable structures enabling long-term work with secure funding, rather than individual project cycles, should be provided. A cross-sectoral view of complex issues like health care, the green transition, etc., is needed to really take young people’s concerns and worries about democratic processes and coexistence seriously. From this perspective, the latest European developments in mainstreaming youth perspectives may strengthen such efforts (Hofmann-van de Poll et al., forthcoming).

To strengthen cross-sectoral cooperation in political participation, in-depth knowledge is needed to generate useful approaches for politics. This includes knowledge about youth participation and intersectional structures as well as about cooperation between different actors and levels. This would enable researchers, politicians, and practitioners alike to move from the general statement of “we need more participation” towards a knowledge-based view of cooperation and communication challenges and efforts, room for improvement, and success. This would include, but is by no means limited to, better defined strategic impact, foreseen achievements, as well as definitions.

4.2.2. (Local) Networks and Cooperation

A further finding, related to the need for cross-sectoral cooperation, is the need for more cooperation among different levels and groups of stakeholders. Interaction between local, regional, national, and European levels and between political, academic, and practical stakeholders is considered to be increasingly present, contributing to the further development of the programs. Such cooperation on all levels allows all institutions and actors to focus on their respective strengths and challenges while complementing each other in a meaningful way. Especially the increased political commitment to youth programs, combined with established processes of interim evaluation by academia, is an example of the will to further develop programs as (political) tools and mechanisms.

Furthermore, such cooperation could enhance the integration of forms of participation and (civic) engagement into political structures and systems. For example, civic engagement can create experiences of self-efficacy and empowerment in young people, and these experiences in turn can be the basis for political participation. Strengthening cooperation and networks between actors could have a long-term impact compared to single projects, as resources, connections, and knowledge can be created and shared, and strengths and weaknesses of actors can be combined. This would also help with insufficient support structures for professionals and young people working on projects. Beyond these arguments for cooperation, local support structures and youth centers also make it possible to combine forms of participation in civil society.

The findings show a strong support for local support structures and youth centers as the place where young people are anchored in their everyday life. Moreover, such local networks and structures may provide mediation and guidance between strategies and programs. It is not surprising that the national focus group elaborated more on concrete national contexts, the need for networks and local support structures, and talked more about professional workers and their working conditions, but it was certainly also a topic in the international group, as the following quote shows:

“Finally, the question of continuity, the possibility to transform some programmes into networks, focus on different interest, for instance, climate change, peace, gender, abuse […] that can transform some concrete projects into more stable networks. Networks in an intergenerational approach, that it sometimes uses a period of life, but if the actual generation can transmit their experience into the next generation….”

(International focus group, 178–178)

Turning local projects into stable networks, with programs enabling this process, making regional cooperation between parts of civil society the goal, was an important discussion in both focus groups, as it highlighted the idea that networks are much more beneficial in the long run than individual projects, serving as resources, connectors, and knowledge-holders, that can be developed over time, but need anchoring in structures.

It was argued that National Agencies, like those for the Erasmus+ programs, can be such intermediate support structures. As easily accessible contact points, they are considered particularly relevant in the context of organizations working with marginalized young people at a local and regional level.

“I also believe that it would be extremely helpful, em, to have more contact persons or more structures at the state level. And the question is whether this actually requires EU funding or to what extent the federal government or states are also involved. […] So promoting and expanding such structures even more, which is certainly another relevant aspect…”

(National focus group, 145–145, authors’ translation from German)

The importance of local structures for programs is also recognized in the literature. Brady et al. (2020) identified youth centers, youth work, and informal education as a worthwhile strategy in youth engagement efforts. According to Deželan (2023), local civic education programs are crucial for the promotion of political participation. Such local programs can connect with young people, including relevant groups of young people and their interests. Moreover, such local programs can focus on the functioning of the political system, involve media and civil society organizations, especially youth organizations, in order to better reach underrepresented youth groups (Deželan, 2023, p. 54). In line with this, meaningful participation mechanisms are important, for example, demographic representation (i.e., the representation of young people in administrative bodies), or participatory budgeting (Deželan, 2023, p. 65). The latter enables young people to have a say in the democratic consultation process on the allocation of public funds. Participatory budgeting is essentially a concept of deliberative decision-making at the local level and enables the targeted promotion of specific groups (e.g., randomly selected, interested, marginalized young people).

Program evaluations furthermore support the fact that the local environment in which measures and projects are implemented, including local (framework) conditions, can only be influenced to a limited extent when a national or European program is designed. This creates certain implementation risks, either hindering or promoting successful program design and implementation (Jütz et al., 2022, p. 15ff). Such influencing factors are, as the example of the German program Live Democracy! shows, recognition and acceptance of the project, accessibility and access to local stakeholders and the target group, ideologically motivated violence (including threats or assaults), social and political perception of stakeholders and target groups, and the relevance of the topic (Jütz et al., 2022, p. 16f). Therefore, general funding programs need flexible adaptation opportunities to local contexts and challenges in order to increase successful implementation.

4.3. Programs: Intermediaries Between Strategy and Project

The findings show that programs, situated at the meso-level, have an important mediating role between the macro- and micro-level, serving simultaneously as a bridge and a lever. Programs translate the strategic and political goals set at the macro-level into practical guidance for the micro-level. Without such mediation, implementing these goals would be even more challenging. The comparison of European and national funding programs revealed that several features are shared across these initiatives, particularly in their administrative structures and processes. These features can be categorized into two groups: beneficial elements, such as the presence of clear guidelines, accountability measures, and an increasingly diversity-sensitive perspective; and more challenging aspects, such as program discontinuity, insufficient development, and tedious bureaucratic application processes. The following sections will provide a detailed discussion of these strengths and weaknesses discussed in the focus groups.

4.3.1. Guidelines and Accountability

A program can offer valuable strategic direction and guidelines for the planning and implementation of projects. In some countries, European funding programs account for the majority of available opportunities for (marginalized) youth and participation, making them a necessity and crucial as a supporting structure.

The discussions highlight the fact that despite self-organized forms of political organization, institutionalized programs, and EU funds are necessary—especially in highly polarized countries, when national funds are not available for projects that potentially oppose governments and the norms they set, or simply because, overall, only few resources flow into the youth sector, as the following quote illustrates:

“Although I am kind of a little bit harsh to the programs, I know, I think we need them, but not in this way, actually. Not in this way. Just an example, again from Turkey. I know it’s not the model country lately, but this is the worst-case scenario you can see. If you’re living in a country in such a polarized country just like this, then as a youth organization, if you want to be politically active, and if you want to say what you want to say and if you just stand against the government, first and foremost it’s not that easy that you get the funding from these programs. Second, that means your reporting will be very, very, very detailed investigated, searched, monitored. Third, it means the next funding from the Erasmus+ program, even from that, could be not possible. […] The second one is, these programs provide kind of necessary funding for their organizations, if they do it right. So that’s why we need them, but not in this structure.

(International focus group, Pos. 87)

The findings indicate that the guidelines that come with the programs are widely regarded as a source of support and orientation. This is especially relevant in addressing social barriers—such as inequality and disadvantage—that hinder marginalized young people’s access to political participation.

One particular need for such guidelines comes from the need to strengthen and defend democratic values by setting values, norms and frameworks for the micro-level. Against the background of extremist and anti-democratic tendencies and social crises, the provision of value orientation and guidelines that must be promoted and lived in the projects can also contribute to relieve the field of practice, as they can rely on and refer to program guides. As political debates intensify, the findings clearly show demands as well as caution in dealing with the topic of political education in the practical landscape. Political education and the danger of giving radical groups too much freedom, allowing them to go against democratic and basic values, is something that concerns the program and project administrators as well as practice field greatly and can lead dismissing topics of political participation due to excessive demand.

Based on political strategies, program guidelines and funding regulations, programs always require a certain degree of administrational requirements and formality. These requirements are often critically discussed with regard to the extent to which they create barriers or discourage young people to access in a program (see “Section 4.3.4. Application process”). However, as discussed, the findings of the focus groups clearly show that these requirements also offer positive aspects such as accountability, transparency and a shared and agreed understanding. They therefore provide guidance with regard to the opportunities, objectives and, above all, values that must be represented and promoted.

4.3.2. Diversity-Sensitive Perspective

Most programs lack a systematic approach to addressing issues of inclusion. Instead, individualized solutions are often implemented to facilitate the participation of specific marginalized young people in projects. This approach has been widely criticized, as marginalization affects not only individuals but also entire groups of young people. Nevertheless, a positive trend has emerged. With the increased prioritization of marginalized youth in policies and strategies, a relatively new discourse and political framing have influenced program designs. Diversity and diversity-sensitive structures are being promoted, gradually moving away from a deficit-oriented perspective that frames marginalized individuals solely in terms of disadvantage.

With regard to the Erasmus+ funding program, such a structural change has taken place over the last few years. Costs can now be covered through specific inclusion funding lines and positive experiences were shared in the focus groups:

“It is very good that it is possible to apply for inclusion costs, individual inclusion costs, and in my experience, at least here in Germany, these are also approved—at the application level, approval level, and now also in accreditation, our experience so far has been that we have been granted what we wanted”

(National focus group, Pos. 124, authors’ translation from German)

Funding guidelines are more freely customizable in order to cover inclusion costs. From an administrational program perspective and in terms of program strategy, inclusion funding guidelines are intentionally kept more open and flexible. Its underlying perspective is the understanding that practitioners, organizations and projects know their own needs and the needs of marginalized young people best and should thus not be restricted in implementing these diversity requirements in very different national contexts. However, the findings of the focus group discussions also point out that more open, customizable guidelines that lack strict descriptions and definitions can result in uncertainty regarding the costs covered, as highlighted in the following quote:

It is an obstacle that it is defined so vaguely or not at all, but rather that it is one’s own responsibility to predict and assess what exactly? What is legitimate now? What is recognized? What is accepted? What is an inclusion service and what is not? What does marginalized even mean?

(National focus group, Pos. 124, authors’ translation from German)

Ultimately, it is considered to be a challenge to adjust the high administrative requirements to the flexibility needed in dealing with projects of marginalized young people. This need for flexibility could be accommodated by more low-threshold and flexible application options, such as micro-grants.

4.3.3. Discontinuity and Development of Programs

“Often, even after the project is over, the question remains: Yes, but how can I actually continue to participate politically?”

(National focus group, 46 -46, authors’ translation from German)

A major disadvantage of many programs, and the projects they are funding, is their discontinuity. In the focus groups it was criticized that most projects funded by the programs are designed for a brief, limited time, with hardly any continuity and exchange between (follow-up) projects. This leads to the loss of knowledge on project contents and findings, application processes, etc., that needs to be taken seriously in the context of program development. The following quote highlights this problem:

“…because Erasmus+ and other limited in time one or two years and when the groups or the teams start to be clear and have all the knowledge to be more in deep then the program ends and they have to apply again and not always have again [the] funds to continue with it. So maybe the lack of continuity, when the programs are successful, it’s a problem.”

(International focus group, 63–63)

The disadvantage emerging from discontinuity, that is, the lack of structural anchoring of participation experiences and opportunities for young people, is highlighted in the focus groups as well. The risk of leaving young people behind, letting them down, and potentially discouraging them from continued participation, was emphasized in this context. It was also pointed out that young people are not necessarily less supportive of democratic values and systems, but that they do feel disconnected from and dissatisfied with them, as another quote highlights:

“…young people are approached by caregivers, people from the main office, to do something, to give their opinion, to say something… and then nothing happens. And that leads to frustration and also to withdrawal from such structures, which is a great pity. The approach is not always successful here either.”

(National focus group, 43–43, authors’ translation from German)

In this regard, research confirms that it is especially crucial to take concerns of young people seriously so as not to let dissatisfaction shift into apathy, but instead into supported and motived (political) practice (Fernández Guzmán Grassi et al., 2024; Rottach & Wielath, 2023).

Closely related to the risk of discontinuity in projects is the relationship and risk of discontinuity between strategy development, program design and project implementation. The development of a strategy, the design of a program following the strategy, as well as the application and implementation of projects are each time-consuming processes. Between the identification of the needs of young people, the development of a strategy and a specific program and subsequently its implementation through projects, may lay years. According to the findings of the focus group discussions, this runs the risk of losing sight of the needs of young people:

General programs, like Erasmus+, need constant adaptation of the program guide due to changing political priorities and needs of young people. It is, however, criticized that besides the time delay in the development and adaption of programs, there is little space for the incorporation of received (bottom-up) feedback. The extensive knowledge that exists on the practical professional level is often not taken into account in the development of programs. Participants of both focus groups therefore argue strongly to install mechanisms to incorporate feedback of practitioners, researchers as well as young people in the development and adaption of programs, thus advocating for a less narrow and top-down approach.

4.3.4. Application Process

Criticism of the lack of bottom-up feedback processes is closely tied to the challenges posed by bureaucracy and application barriers. Although such criticism is not new in the context of European funding programs, there was a strong consensus in both focus groups that the bureaucratic requirements for project applications remain one of the primary obstacles, particularly for youth-led non-governmental organizations seeking European funding. Focus group discussions strongly highlighted that administrative procedures are perceived as massively challenging, creating a rigid and restrictive framework within which organizations must navigate, which the following quote highlights:

“The only thing that gets in the way, in my opinion, when it comes to project and program implementation, is not the content requirements, but rather the formal requirements and the complexity, which sometimes have nothing to do with content at all and are disruptive. This, of course, probably necessitates a discussion between practitioners and administrators or program planners. How this can be reconciled, and I believe there are ways and means to do so. And you can also see in the development that it has become increasingly complicated. So it must be reversed or made feasible again, in my view.”

(National focus group, Pos. 102, authors’ translation from German)

Application processes are mostly seen as overly formalized, complex, and difficult to understand, necessitating significant levels of education and time resources from organizations and project managers. For organizations working with marginalized young people, these bureaucratic hurdles are especially pronounced and often times the project beneficiaries are solely responsible and overwhelmed by the expectations:

“From a program’s perspective, the responsibility of that process is entirely on the project beneficiary. They have to describe how they’re going to prepare the participants, how they’re going to implement the project. There’s this emphasis on project cycle, how they’re going to follow up, what is going to be the impact. But where is the support for all these activities? How do we provide all the tools and all the ways how this follow-up can actually be implemented? We cannot just expect that from the beneficiaries”

(International focus group, Pos. 126)

In the absence of adequate local support structures, applying for national or European funding programs is often described as a high-risk financial undertaking. This is compounded by the fact that working with marginalized youth frequently incurs hidden additional costs, which are not always covered by general programs and often require separate applications for funding.

4.4. Micro-Level Impacts: Practice Field and Youth

By implementing policy and strategy, programs influence the micro-level of projects and pedagogical practices, ultimately affecting young people. Since the specific programs and funding opportunities examined in this study are targeted toward the youth sector, the analysis of micro-level impacts focuses on youth work. Youth work functions as the practical field where political initiatives and strategies are realized (Council of Europe, 2017).

Youth work is understood to act as an important interface between political action and young people. It uses appropriate language and approaches to reach young people in general and marginalized young people in particular, the latter often remaining invisible, thereby being overlooked in (political) forms of participation. The findings strongly emphasize the demanding outreach and relationship-building work carried out by youth workers to reach out to marginalized groups and individuals. Not only do they reach out but they also include them in political participation processes and secure the commitment of both young people and decision-makers in such processes. Both focus groups emphasized the enormous importance of building trust and relationships. Without this commitment on the part of youth workers, it would not be possible to reach the target group and have lasting effects at all as the following quote illustrates:

“And in any case, I have of course gained the trust of these young people, whom I have now managed to win over through a lot of relationship work, building trust through these European mobility programs, so to speak, or to connect with them, so that they are now also motivated to support me in these European election matters, to really volunteer to help out at this pavilion, to organize activities there, to report on their positive experiences, and all of that is really a wonderful movement… We also have here, exactly… I now have a real group, and I tell them, “There’s something coming up, can’t we do a little advertising for the youth? Come here, let’s do it…” And then they come as volunteers and… Because that trust is there. So because this relationship work is unpaid, as I said, it’s actually completely voluntary on top of what I do, that I’ve built up this trust and that trust in the EU or the connection to the political level of representation has also been built up somehow by the fact that they themselves say that they had no connection to it at all, but through their participation in the youth exchange, then… Right? They developed this European identity.”

(National focus group, Pos. 151, authors’ translation from German)

The findings of the focus group discussions thus point out the need for improved infrastructure and regular work contracts and conditions to recognize the work being done. Beyond the political decision to provide structural funding for youth work, programs can add to recognition and promotion of youth work by adopting a more structural funding approach to the inclusion of marginalized young people. Such a structural approach would also reduce the above-mentioned risk of project discontinuity and interlock with national and international discussions on qualification as the following quote elaborates on:

“But if the professionals are not given time off for such qualifications, and if they then see no opportunities to implement this locally… so this also offers great potential for forming such a community in Europe, in terms of the further development of participation and inclusion and really qualified further development. But if this is not promoted locally and is not seen as a potential and also as a certain urgency to strengthen democracy… I believe that it will not be possible to really exploit the potential that is there or to ultimately generate added value locally. And that’s a shame, because the potential is there, but the political commitment to it still needs to emerge.”

(National focus group, Pos. 129, authors’ translation from German)

Finally, beyond the micro-level impact, programs have a direct and indirect influence on young people themselves. Because we did not interview young people, we point towards research that finds that program-funded projects often provide first spaces of political participation: Being a participant in a project can provide a fundamental first experience, addressing issues such as alienation from politics by letting young people “practice” political participation (Brady et al., 2020). However, the findings of the focus group discussions highlight the risk that if young people do not feel meaningfully enabled, participation instruments and formats can become a (unintentional) vehicle for deficit-oriented narratives, with adult society inadvertently increasing alienation and preventing progress and intergenerational exchange.

The impact programs and projects have on (marginalized) young people is often related to the resource of time. Both focus groups noted the lack of time young people have. Political participation is seen as important by young people, but engagement in projects and structures fostering and offering participation opportunities is time intensive. Although barriers of getting information and access to programs are general, they are particularly grave for marginalized young people. The findings show that youth political participation needs to be made more available and manageable for young people—especially marginalized groups. Knowledge about large European funding programs does not seem to reach young people adequately. Local and regional support, participation opportunities and resource allocation could be part of a strategy needed. Especially, as the general commitment and concern for various topics from young people was highlighted in findings, although coupled with their uncertainty as to where this could be used proactively.

The findings thus suggest that political participation needs to be structurally embedded in the everyday life of young people, the professionals and society at large. Particularly with regard to marginalized young people, a sustainable approach is a prerequisite for participation. The one-off project character does not seem to be sustainable, attractive or even feasible most of the time. One of the obstacles for promoting political participation is that it is heavily dependent on individual and contextual factors (Kitanova, 2020). The integration of youth political participation measures into everyday life (e.g., formal, non-formal and informal environments) can create the basis for dealing with the topic of political participation, creating entry points. It is thus argued that programs should be designed in such a way that would allow the creation of spaces and organic situations to foster political participation, offering participation at places where young people already are, to engage in dialog on the topics that affect and interest them, relating them back to politics and modes of getting involved.

According to the results of the focus groups, such approaches may reduce the distance towards “faraway politics”, as is particularly the case with marginalized youth, embedding political participation in their everyday lives. Although political participation of marginalized young people is considered to be a challenge, requiring a great deal of effort to involve them, when successful, there is a high potential for motivation and engagement, especially in unconventional forms of political participation.

5. Discussion

Based on the description of the themes found in the code-system, this chapter aims to provide a more abstract analysis. Starting with a research question focused on funding programs and the meso-level, analysis has shown that examining programs alone does not do justice to the complexity of its intermediate role and positioning. We found that the findings play out on different levels and will elaborate on these in the following.

Unlike traditional program evaluations, this study did not focus on the internal logic and functioning of individual programs. Rather, emphasis was placed on programs’ structural anchoring as components of a broader system. Interconnected with other elements within that system, programs assume a role as intermediaries at the interface between target groups and practice at the one hand and policy at the other. Following this perspective, a program derives from the existence of societal conditions requiring change in this case, the inadequate political participation of marginalized groups. By contextualizing programs at the meso-level between policy and practice rather than taking an internal evaluation perspective, a broader and more comprehensive approach to addressing the research question of how programs can strengthen political participation of marginalized young people can be taken.

The following section discusses the main findings of the previous chapter and their implications for the macro-, meso- and micro-levels, on designing and implementing programs to strengthen political participation of marginalized young people. At the macro-level, the focus is on broad conceptual issues, contextual factors, and cross-sectoral cooperation. At the meso-level, attention shifts to the roles and positioning of programs within the system. Finally, at the micro-level, the emphasis is on the practical implementation of projects and their direct impact on young people.

5.1. Macro-Level: Providing Context and Support for Programs

The macro-level provides the context in which a program is designed and implemented. This includes the policy and strategy, which lay down societal problems, how they can be solved, and define the program as an implementation instrument. The contextualization of a program within the macro-level shows that a program does not occur in isolation, but is dependent on broader cultural and socio-political contexts. Clearly defined policies and strategies thus provide a framework in which a program can be effectively designed and implemented.

Such clarity is first and foremost given through the use of precise definitions and concepts. Against the background of political participation of marginalized young people, definitions and concepts play a particularly important role due to amplified barriers they face. This includes, for example, differentiating between civic engagement and political participation, recognizing varying formats, goals, and expectations towards participation. However, conceptual clarity needs to be balanced with enough flexibility to adapt strategies to unique implementation circumstances, as one-size-fits-all models will not work.

Comparative research like Deželan (2023) and Kitanova (2020) underlines that macro-level institutions and national contexts (institutions, opportunity structures, etc.), strongly shape youth political participation patterns.

Second, the prevailing policy discourses and narratives are crucial. This includes not only definition of the target group, but also the underlying implications and explicit expectations with which young people are addressed. Currently, the prevailing narratives in Europe are deficit-oriented, creating preventive discourses treating young people as a risk group. Programs are designed accordingly. The findings support the assumption that some of the shortcomings of currently active programs may be related to context, concepts and narrative, and a more positive narrative, in which young people are seen as valuable, and as resources, to society, may be more effective. Thus, a stronger awareness of underlying narratives and their implications for programs may support programs in becoming more effective.

Closely related to the importance of context, narratives of policy, and program implementation, one of the findings calls for the promotion of political participation which could be extended beyond the confines of the youth sector. To be effective, programs strengthening political participation (specially reaching for marginalized young people) should become an integrated component of broader societal structures and long-term (funding) strategies. This includes the establishment of sustainable, long-term structures and funding modes, opposed to the now project-based, temporary funding models. Such sustainable structures seem crucial to allow for more effective participation opportunities. On the macro-level, this would imply collaboration across sectors (such as health, environment, etc.) and levels of governance (local, regional, national, European) to address the multifaceted needs of young people accordingly. Furthermore, local networks should be strengthened as a form of structural support for the implementation of programs. Local structures can support factors like acceptance, resource availability, access to target groups and ideological coherence which are known to enhance the effectiveness of both projects and programs. Such collaborative approaches—cross-sectoral, across levels of governance, or local—can bridge gaps between policy, research, and practice, better ensuring that programs and the strategies shaping these remain responsive to the lived realities and challenges of young people.

5.2. Role and Design of Programs: The Meso-Level

Programs and their underlying funding structure play a relevant mediating role between the general visions of policy and strategy at the macro-level and the practical implementation of projects at the micro-level. They operationalize strategic objectives by offering specific guidelines and frameworks for project funding and subsequently implementation. However, this significant role of programs in the overall structure between strategy and projects is often invisible or underestimated. They are, from a project point of view, often regarded as stand-alone options for receiving funding, rather than being part of a broader policy.

On the other side, within programs, due to the deficit-oriented narrative, a predominantly individualistic approach is adopted, prioritizing the promotion of singular individuals and their skills. The combination of an individualistic approach with the short-term project-based nature of the funding inadvertently favors already privileged young people and established organizations, while at the same time providing transparency and accountability in funding practice. The design of programs, including their often-perceived bureaucratic application procedures, thus poses significant challenges for smaller organizations, like youth-led and non-governmental organizations working with marginalized young people. Solutions to this dilemma may lie in the establishment of local supporting structures as well as more low-threshold approaches to funding. The micro-grants of Erasmus+, established in the European Year of Youth 2022, explicitly framed to lower entry barriers and widen reach through lighter procedures, may serve as an example in this regard.

Finally, the design of programs with regard to its often-favored project-based approach to program implementation can be considered a weakness. This is mainly due to its lack of continuity, considering projects as stand-alone implementations of the program rather than as a part of a broader perspective on policy. Rather than taking such a broader perspective in evaluation, as it is done now, it is suggested to take such a broader perspective during program implementation. This would include exchange between projects and their outcomes, thus fostering a narrative of policy rather than project implementation. The mediating role of a program between policy and project would be crucial for such an approach. With regard to fostering sustainable youth participation of marginalized young people, long-term perspectives and broad frameworks are considered to be essential. The temporary nature of funding cycles, furthered by challenges such as bureaucratic hurdles and an individualistic, project-based approach, can lead to the loss of knowledge on how to strengthen participation of marginalized young people. EU evaluations note, that while programs translate strategy into practice, administrative complexity and reporting burdens continue to limit accessibility and equity (European Court of Auditors, 2018).

The absence of follow-up mechanisms to gather feedback from young participants as well as collecting project outcomes and learnings at a meta-level further exacerbates the disconnection between program goals and the evolving needs of young peoples.

Concluding, stipulating the role of programs as mediator between policy and projects may lead to refining funding programs. This would make them stronger as effective conduits between high-level strategies and grass roots projects, ensuring accessibility, sustainability and responsiveness to diverse needs.

5.3. Micro-Level Discussion

The success of funding programs in strengthening participation of marginalized young people depends on their ability to address the specific needs and contexts of marginalized youth, with a focus on project implementation practices and the experiences of young people themselves. While program funding may benefit all young people, the structural and social barriers faced by marginalized groups are more pronounced, requiring targeted interventions and adaptations. At a micro-level, this implies that programs should provide for measures helping to reduce barriers, for example, by fostering integration of participation into accessible and familiar settings, while at the same time providing sustainable, structural support for practitioners.

One such way of reducing barriers can be found in the strengthening of youth work. Evidence from the Netherlands strongly suggests, that Youth Work significantly contributes to strengthening social skills and networks and civic participation among vulnerable youth (Sonneveld et al., 2022). As youth work serves as a vital bridge between political structures and marginalized youth, a close cooperation between programs and youth work may be a key when it comes to integrating accessible, low-threshold participation opportunities into everyday spaces. Youth work structures could thus not only be applicants of programs, but also part of the suggested local support structures enhancing effective program implementation at the micro-level.

This would allow tailored implementation at the local community level, strengthening participation of marginalized young people.

Finally, at the micro-level a fundamental part of political participation of young people is the relationship between young people and decision-makers. Fostering mutual understanding between the two is essential. For program design and implementation, this implies a change in the current micro-level perspective on participation. In political discourse, youth participation is often framed as an offer that is or is not taken up by young people. Such traditional approaches consider youth participation as a one-sided opportunity for young people to engage with decision-makers in existing structures and situations. A program perspective, in which decision-makers and organizations are included as a target group would be beneficial. One way of achieving this could be that decision-makers and organizations participate in youth-led spaces rather than young people in adult-led spaces. Such a perspective would however include political education programs for both adults and young people, thereby building trust and reinforcing the legitimacy of youth perspectives and the participation of marginalized young people.

6. Conclusions

The findings highlight the special interface position of programs as a bridge and lever between policymakers and young people/professionals. To answer the question of how programs need to be designed to better promote the political participation of marginalized young people, it is integral to take the interplay of the macro-level (political strategies, concepts, structural changes) and the micro-level (implementation practices in projects by professionals and young people) into account.

This broad perspective on program development, which is still understudied, allows for a complex approach to implementation challenges, leading to specific policy/action recommendations, e.g., shift towards empowering narratives, more button-up feedback, as well as fundamental theoretical questions such as who are we trying to reach and what is the motivation behind those expectations.

The relevance and importance of political participation of young people in general and marginalized young people in particular has been emphasized in many political policies and strategies over the last decade. Funding programs fostering political participation have flourished both at the European level and in European countries. In parallel, the discourse on how to reach marginalized young people has become one of the core youth political topics. Programs have been developed, or strands within existing programs, to specifically strengthen the political participation of marginalized young people. One of the main problems of implementation, however, is the diffuse field of marginalized young people. Marginalization can be caused by many factors, which are often interdependent. This increases the difficulty for programs to react through tailor-made approaches.

With the present study, we focus on the structural role of programs at the meso-level, intermediate between policy (macro-level) and projects (micro-level). Rather than evaluating a program as a stand-alone instrument, the decision to focus on the structural role of several programs with the same aim, interlinking the program with macro-, meso- and micro-level developments, was taken. By taking a stronger structural focus on the context in which a program was designed as well as implementation challenges, overarching factors both fostering and hindering effective program implementation could be identified.

When it comes to the context in which programs are designed and implemented, there is a strong need for a shift from deficit-oriented approaches to empowering narratives. This includes a change in the perception of young people’s potential and capacity for political participation by decision-makers. The current rights-based approach of youth mainstreaming, as a political principle where the perspectives of young people should be taken into account in all stages of decision-making and implementation, may encourage this development.

Regarding the design of programs, there is an increased need for more flexible and low-threshold funding options. This would encourage youth-led as well as small organizations to apply, adapting the funding rules to the needs of their target group. This, however, requires a balance between the general need for transparency and accountability, leading to a general funding approach, and a more individualistic approach focused on the (extra) needs of marginalized young people.

On the level of projects, programs should take a more comprehensive and active approach to exchange. This includes institutionalized feedback and reciprocal exchange between young people, the practice field and policymakers, but also a mutual learning from outcomes and project impacts. In this way, programs may foster learning effects not only between projects, but also in general, with regard to the policy goals at the macro-level.

While the findings of this study offer valuable insights into the role of programs and their interplay with the macro- and micro-level, several limitations must be acknowledged. The analysis is based on the data collection of two focus groups that provide a limited data set to begin with. Experts in the field of youth programs/work/policy were interviewed as our focus was on a structural level, but we are aware that the reliance on their view may limit the significance of the findings, as the youth perspective was missing and they were serving as proxies for young people themselves. Young people’s views on these topics were only indirectly addressed and filtered through the interpretations of professionals. As elaborated, we deliberately chose to focus our study on the structural program-level, yet still, future research would benefit from focusing on the (marginalized) youth’s perspective and make their views a focal point of research. This reliance on expert accounts as well as a limited data set and the qualitative nature of the data means the findings cannot be generalized. The small number of focus groups constrains the transferability of the results to other contexts, as they reflect specific perspectives. We view the findings as exploratory rather than representative and think of them as rich, contextualized data, yet do not intend to make generalizations. Future search could benefit from multiple data sources and a broader range of participants to provide dependability and conformability and add robustness to the analysis.

Overall, this study shows that a diverse landscape of services, networks, support and cooperation structures at all levels and in more coordinated interaction with long-term perspectives, further development of services and programs in order to do justice to the various groups and levels is needed. Achieving this requires, first, the establishment of practical mechanisms and supportive structural conditions that enable the field to serve as a vital bridge between policymakers and young people. These measures help reduce barriers, integrate participation into accessible and familiar settings, and provide sustained structural support for practitioners. Second, we argue that a more coordinated approach within a program can only be taken by placing the program in relation to policy and project. Such a structural approach allows for comparison across programs, thus enabling conclusions fostering their effectiveness.

From a research point of view, therefore, we conclude that there is a need for more research connecting the macro-, meso-, and micro-levels of funding programs. In this study, we deliberately focused on funding programs with specific strands fostering political participation of marginalized young people, taking an explorative approach. It would be interesting to see whether the findings of this study are similar or different compared to funding programs fostering other youth-related topics, such as youth exchanges. Furthermore, as this research took an explorative approach, further research could take this up by analyzing certain aspects of the study in depth. Aspects like social media use in everyday life and its potential as well as challenges are an example of a perspective that is highly relevant in young people’s everyday life, yet they hardly appeared in the data collected and analyzed.

We consider two general aspects in particular to be very worthwhile in terms of further research. Firstly, this is the need for a more individualistic approach to project funding. This would include special budgets on top of general budgets to cater to the needs of marginalized young people. In the programs analyzed in this study, such an individualistic approach often collides with the need for transparency and accountability, as well as a one-size-fits-all approach taken in most programs so far. Even in programs that have budgetary lines for marginalized young people, such strands often have a general approach, which may not cover the specific needs of single persons. This forces projects to take decisions between persons, thus effectively hindering the participation of all.

Secondly, we consider a genuine debate on participation of marginalized young people as intriguing. In much of political discourse, participation is treated as value in itself, justified as it strengthens democracy. It provokes questions as to why decision-makers focus on marginalized young people as groups of people who need to participate. One of the main arguments often brought forward is that of legitimacy. However, it does raise the question of to what extent the involvement of a target group is necessary for the legitimization of politics. Following this line of argument, it could be questioned to what extent offers of political participation of marginalized young people are intrinsically motivated, and to what extend attempts of involvement are indeed serious. This, however, touches the very core of participation and democracy.