Yhteinen verkosto? : Tutkimus nuorten syrjäytymistä ehkäisevistä poikkihallinnollisista ryhmistä

Since the 1990s, European policy strategies have stressed the mutual responsibility and joint action of all societal branches in preventing social problems. Network policy is an integral part of the new governance that generates a new kind of dependency between the state and civil society in formulating and adhering to policy goals. Using empirical group interview data collected in Helsinki, the capital of Finland, this case study explores local multi-agency groups and their efforts to prevent the exclusion of children and young people. These groups consist mainly of professionals from the social office, youth clubs and schools. The study shows that these multi-agency groups serve as forums for professional negotiation where the intervention dilemma of liberal society can be addressed: the question of when it is justified and necessary for an authority or network to intervene in the life of children and their families, and how this is to be done. An element of tension in multi-agency prevention is introduced by the fact that its objectives and means are anchored both in the old tradition of the welfare state and in communitarian rhetoric. Thus multi-agency groups mend deficiencies in wellbeing and normalcy while at the same time try to co-ordinate the creation of the new community, which will hopefully reduce the burden on the public sector. Some of the professionals interviewed were keen to see new and even forceful interventions to guide the youth or to compel parents to assume their responsibilities. In group discussions, this approach often met resistance. The deeper the social problems that the professionals worked with, the more solidarity they showed for the families or the young people in need. Nothing seems to assure professionals and to legitimise their professional position better than advocating the under-privileged against the uncertainties of life and the structural inequalities of society. The groups that grappled with the clear, specific needs of certain children and families were the most capable of co-operation. This requires the approval of different powers and the expertise of distinct professions as well as a forum to negotiate case-specific actions in professional confidentiality. The ideals of primary prevention for everyone and value discussions alone fail to inspire sufficient multiagency co-operation. The ideal of a network seems to give word and shape to those societal goals that are difficult or even impossible to reach, but are nevertheless yearned for: mutual understanding of the good life, close social relationships, mutual trust and active agency for all citizens. Individualisation, the multiplicity of life styles and the possibility to choose have come true in such a way that the very idea of a mutual and binding network can be attained only momentarily and between restricted participants. In conclusion, uniting professional networks that negotiate intervention dilemmas with citizen networks based on changing compassions and feelings of moral superiority seems impossible. Rather, one should encourage openness to scrutiny among tangential or contradicting groups, networks and communities. Key words: network policy, prevention of exclusion, multi-agency groups, young people