Model photo: Maskot / Johnér
3. Measures and instruments to promote social mobility and enhance protective factors
3.1 Introduction
Growing up in poverty has profound and long-lasting consequences for children’s development, health, and future life chances. Even in the Nordic countries – traditionally characterised by high levels of equality and social mobility – recent research points to widening socioeconomic gaps (Aaberge & Bengtsson, 2023; Eika & Langørgen, 2025). Eurostat data also show that the proportion of children living in low-income households has increased in Norway and Sweden, while the trend has been more stable in Denmark and Finland. As a result, a growing share of children living in low-income families are at increased risk of experiencing poorer health, lower educational attainment, reduced participation in leisure activities, and weaker attachment to the labour market later in life.
Poverty can be transmitted across generations through a complex interplay of mechanisms. Research by Lorentzen and Nielsen (2008) shows, for example, that social assistance receipt can be intergenerational, and that children growing up in economically marginalised families face an elevated risk of receiving social assistance as young adults. The mechanisms include limited access to quality education, lower self-efficacy, social exclusion, and restricted cultural and social capital. These factors interact and reinforce one another over time. However, Elstad and Heggebø (2024) caution against overstating the strength of this association. Their findings indicate that although children from low-income families are at higher risk, most do not remain poor as adults, and the majority of adults living in poverty did not grow up in poor families. This suggests that intergenerational patterns exist, but they account for only a limited share of overall poverty.
In light of these risks, there is also a substantial body of literature examining how to break cycles of disadvantage and improve social mobility. Research from Norway and Sweden demonstrates that early intervention can have significant impacts on children’s development and long-term life outcomes (Fløtten & Grødem, 2014). Universal welfare measures such as free early childhood education, school meals, and access to leisure activities have likewise been shown to reduce inequalities in participation and learning outcomes (Campbell et al., 2014). An expert group appointed by the Norwegian Ministry of Children and Families has further documented that participation in early childhood education has substantial effects on children’s language development, school performance, and later educational attainment (Expert Group, 2024).
Both Fløtten and Grødem (2014) and Eklund Karlsson et al. (2022) show that the Nordic countries share a universal welfare model characterised by extensive cash benefits, free or subsidised services, and a strong political commitment to reducing social inequality and child poverty. At the same time, the studies emphasise that universal measures alone are not sufficient to prevent rising levels of child poverty. Fløtten and Grødem (2014) point out that Norway stands out for its many small, locally initiated and holistic projects, whereas the other Nordic countries rely more on integrated services and broad family policy measures.
In the more recent study, Eklund Karlsson et al. (2022) conclude that the similarities across the Nordic countries outweigh the differences. They find that all Nordic countries offer a wide range of measures for families with children, most of which are universal in nature. However, they argue that the region lacks proportionate universalism, an approach in which measures are universal in access but scaled in intensity according to need. According to the authors, universal policies are widespread, but they are not sufficiently intensified for children and families facing the greatest risks. The authors also note that decentralisation and variations in municipal capacity may contribute to growing geographical inequalities.
In an international perspective, the Nordic countries are often highlighted as particularly relevant cases for studying policies aimed at reducing child poverty and social inequality. This relevance stems from their universal welfare regimes, characterised by extensive public provision, high levels of redistribution, and a strong emphasis on equal access to services across the life course. Universal arrangements such as publicly funded education, childcare, and leisure opportunities are central features of the Nordic model. As a result, Nordic experiences offer important insights into how broadly accessible measures can be combined with targeted support to address socioeconomic inequalities, making them of interest well beyond the Nordic context.
Against this backdrop, this chapter presents and discusses key measures that have proven effective or show promise in reducing low participation and promoting social mobility among children and young people growing up in low-income families. Drawing on both established and emerging research, the chapter identifies interventions with the potential to generate lasting change. The chapter is organised into five categories of measures. The first category concerns early childhood education and care (ECEC), with a focus on how high-quality ECEC systems can compensate for socioeconomic disadvantage and reduce early inequalities. The second category examines school-based interventions, particularly whole-school approaches (WSA) that combine teaching, support services, and relational practices to strengthen pupils’ learning, well-being, and long-term opportunities. The third category reviews parenting and family support programmes, which are widespread across the Nordic region. The fourth category covers measures that enhance children’s participation in leisure activities, an area where the Nordic countries have developed an increasing number of initiatives to remove financial and structural barriers to organised sports, culture, and recreational activities. Finally, the fifth category addresses area-based initiatives, which involve comprehensive, place-based strategies that combine multiple interventions and cross-sectoral services for families living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods.
3.2 Early childhood education and care (ECEC)
Introduction
Early childhood education and care (ECEC) refers to organised provision of care and education for young children prior to compulsory schooling. As a universal welfare provision in the Nordic countries, ECEC constitutes a central arena for early intervention and social equalisation through its mandate of care, play, learning, and formation. For children growing up with limited economic and social resources, high-quality ECEC can compensate for inequalities in the home environment and provide access to developmental and stimulating experiences.
The underlying mechanisms include social participation, a stable and predictable environment, and the fulfilment of developmental needs that might otherwise remain unmet, such as warmth, learning support, stable adult relationships, play-based learning, and early language and numeracy stimulation. For many children, these elements constitute important protective factors, enabling ECEC to function as a preventive measure that reduces the risk of marginalisation and social exclusion later in life.
Across the Nordic region, several policy initiatives have been implemented to strengthen the role of ECEC as an inclusive and equalising institution. These measures can broadly be divided into three main categories:
- Economic support schemes: To ensure that all children can attend early childhood education and care, measures such as free core hours and income-based fee reductions have been introduced. These reduce financial barriers and increase participation among children who might otherwise be excluded.
- Quality improvement and competence development: Efforts to strengthen the quality of ECEC are particularly important for children in vulnerable life situations. These include staff training, stronger pedagogical leadership, the use of educational tools for language stimulation and social development, and systematic work on inclusive practices.
- Targeted support for vulnerable groups: Several municipalities and national initiatives have developed interventions aimed at children with specific needs, such as language support for children from minority backgrounds, additional assistance for children with psychosocial difficulties, and strengthened co-operation with parents in vulnerable situations.
The concept of high-quality ECEC is frequently used in the literature, but without a fixed or universally accepted definition. However, the descriptions largely overlap with the characteristics identified in research on quality in Nordic ECEC settings. As in the broader quality literature, the emphasis is placed on process quality – the quality of everyday interactions between children and staff – as the most crucial aspect of ECEC quality.
High-quality early childhood education and care in a Nordic context
A high-quality ECEC setting can be understood as a knowledge-based universal welfare service with well-documented effects on children’s development. It targets all children aged 1–6 years but is particularly important for children from low-income families, minority backgrounds, and other vulnerable groups (Gupta & Simonsen, 2009; Sluiter et al., 2025).
The purpose of high-quality ECEC is to promote children’s cognitive, social, and emotional development through an inclusive and stimulating learning environment, while simultaneously contributing to social equity and lifelong learning. The concept builds on three integrated dimensions of quality: process quality, structural quality, and system quality.
Process quality is the core of high-quality ECEC. It refers to the quality of children’s direct experiences in the setting, particularly their interactions with adults and peers. It encompasses emotional support, cognitive stimulation, language enrichment, social guidance, and structured play. Research shows that process quality is the most consistent predictor of children’s development and is especially important for children with risk factors (Pianta et al., 2016; Sluiter et al., 2025; von Suchodoletz et al., 2023).
In practice, high process quality means that staff are emotionally available, sensitive, and skilled in supporting children’s development. They create an environment of safety, curiosity, and exploration, and facilitate learning through play, dialogue, and social interaction. Staff also help children regulate emotions, develop language, and build relationships, contributing to inclusive communities where every child is seen and valued (Eadie et al., 2024; Pramling Samuelsson & Sheridan, 2009).
Structural quality refers to the organisational and physical conditions that enable high-quality pedagogical practice. This includes small group sizes, favourable child–staff ratios, staff with formal early childhood education qualifications, and stable relationships over time (Wechsler et al., 2016; Bauchmüller et al., Gørtz & Rasmussen, 2014). Staff stability and access to supervision and professional development are crucial for maintaining quality. Structural quality also involves curriculum frameworks and pedagogical principles that are research-based and developmentally appropriate. It provides the necessary conditions for realising process quality.
System quality comprises the overarching governance structures of ECEC systems. This includes political and administrative governance, funding arrangements, regulation, rights-based access, and systematic quality development (Urban et al., 2023; Gray-Lobe et al., 2021). System quality is maintained through: universal access ensuring every child’s right to an ECEC place (Gupta & Simonsen, 2009); public financing that guarantees economic stability (Karila, 2012); national curricula and quality standards defining pedagogical content and practices (Urban et al., 2023); systems for evaluation and quality monitoring (Sluiter et al., 2025; von Suchodoletz et al., 2023); and professional development and leadership promoting continuous competence enhancement (Wechsler et al., 2016). System quality enables and strengthens both structural and process quality.
The potential equalising effects of early childhood education and care (ECEC) are commonly explained through theoretical perspectives that emphasise how early learning and development are shaped by children’s everyday environments and social interactions. Central to this literature are developmental and sociocultural theories, which highlight the formative role of early relationships, guided participation, and language-rich interactions for children’s cognitive and socio-emotional development (Vygotsky, 1978; Rosa & Tudge, 2013). This theoretical foundation is closely aligned with Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory, which conceptualises development as the result of dynamic interactions between the child and multiple environments over time (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). In ECEC research, these ideas are often operationalised through the structure–process–outcome model, which links structural conditions such as group size and staff qualifications to the quality of everyday pedagogical interactions and, in turn, to children’s developmental outcomes (NICHD, 2002; Rademacher et al., 2025). In the Nordic context, these perspectives are combined with a strong emphasis on child-centredness, participation, and social justice, reflecting a view of ECEC as both an educational setting and a universal welfare institution. Together, they support a broad understanding of quality in ECEC that integrates structural, process-related, and system-level dimensions (Jensen, 2009; Karila, 2012).
A substantial body of empirical research has examined the effects of ECEC participation on children’s development, with particular attention to differences across socioeconomic groups. High-quality ECEC has well-documented positive effects on children’s development, both in the short and the long term. Short-term studies show that children attending high-quality settings develop stronger language skills, better mathematical understanding, and greater social competence (Morgan, 2019; Schoch et al., 2019; Pianta et al., 2016; von Suchodoletz et al., 2023; Eadie et al., 2024; Rege et al., 2024; Rademacher et al., 2025). Longitudinal studies also show that high-quality ECEC increases the likelihood of completing upper secondary school, pursuing higher education, and achieving stable employment. It also contributes to reduced crime and improved health in adulthood (Schweinhart, 2005; Gray-Lobe, Pathak & Walters, 2021; Bauchmüller, 2014).
The effects are particularly strong for children from low-income families and minority backgrounds, making ECEC a powerful instrument for social equity (Gupta & Simonsen, 2009; Drange & Telle, 2015; Jensen, 2009). In contexts with generally high baseline quality, such as Denmark, average effects on non-cognitive outcomes are modest, but ECEC still outperforms informal family-based childcare for vulnerable children (Gupta & Simonsen, 2009).
Meta-analyses also show that process quality – especially the quality of interactions between children and adults – has a significant and lasting impact on children’s social-emotional development, with the largest gains for vulnerable groups (Sluiter et al., 2025; von Suchodoletz et al., 2023). Structural quality exerts an indirect effect by providing the necessary conditions for high-quality processes (Wechsler et al., 2016; Eadie et al., 2024), while systemic quality is essential for ensuring coherence, scalability, and sustainability in quality development (Urban et al., 2023).
Beyond individual benefits, economic evaluations demonstrate that investments in high-quality ECEC yield substantial societal returns. Estimates range from seven to sixteen times the amount invested, with a reduced need for special education, lower crime rates, improved health, and increased productivity (Dietrichson et al., 2018; Schweinhart, 2005).
Illustrative example: TETT PÅ
The ‘TETT PÅ’ initiative (Up close) in Bærum municipality in Norway is a concrete example of how the three dimensions of quality can be operationalised within a Nordic ECEC system. The initiative is implemented across the municipality’s ECEC sector (110 units) and is anchored in the financial plan and key governance documents (Bærum kommune, n.d.).
At the core of ‘TETT PÅ’ is a systematic strengthening of process quality grounded in evidence-based practice. The initiative employs the research-based observation tool CLASS (Classroom Assessment Scoring System), which is rooted in the ‘teaching through interactions framework’ (Hamre et al., 2013; Evertsen et al., 2022). CLASS focuses on three interrelated dimensions:
- Emotional support: warmth, security, and relational availability.
- Classroom organisation: structure, predictability, and support for self-regulation.
- Instructional support: language stimulation, cognitive challenge, and developmentally attuned guidance.
Each ECEC unit is observed twice a year by certified CLASS observers, and the feedback provides the basis for targeted coaching and documented improvement over time. This coaching includes the use of practice narratives and reflective teams, where pedagogical leaders facilitate structured discussions based on concrete everyday situations. Guidance and reflection are integrated into the centres’ meeting and learning structures and form part of a continuous improvement cycle: observation → feedback → coaching/reflection → testing in practice → new observation.
‘TETT PÅ’ strengthens structural quality through measures ensuring small child groups, favourable staff–child ratios, and employees with relevant qualifications. Professional development is central: all ECEC centres have CLASS-certified observers, and courses and training are offered for childcare workers, assistants, and newly employed teachers. A fixed meeting structure and annual planning cycles ensure continuity and predictability in quality development. The structural components are designed to support process quality by creating time, space, and competence for reflection, coaching, and pedagogical development.
System quality in ‘TETT PÅ’ is ensured through political and administrative anchoring, predictable funding, and strategic implementation. The initiative is embedded in municipal policy documents and in the financial plan. To ensure sustainability and scalability, implementation is organised into six cohorts over five years.
Reflections
Quality in early childhood education and care (ECEC) is a multifaceted and context-dependent concept that cannot be reduced to simple indicators. The three-dimensional framework outlined above forms an analytical framework that explains both how quality emerges and how it can be developed. Structure and system conditions enable process quality, which in turn has a direct impact on children’s development and well-being.
With regard to the equalising effect of ECEC, there is broad agreement that high-quality settings are particularly important for children from low-income families and minority backgrounds. Studies such as Perry Preschool, Head Start, and Boston Universal Preschool show that children attending high-quality ECEC are more likely to complete upper secondary school, pursue higher education, and achieve stable employment (Schweinhart, 2005; Gray-Lobe et al., 2021). In Nordic contexts such as Denmark and Norway, the effects are more moderate, but the distributional impacts seem to be clear (Gupta & Simonsen, 2009; Drange & Telle, 2015).
We can therefore conclude that the socially equalising potential of ECEC is well documented, but this effect is conditional on quality. Low-quality ECEC may have limited or no positive impact, and in some cases may even be counterproductive. It is thus crucial that all three quality dimensions are present and work together.
At the same time, we must recognise that quality does not emerge automatically. It must be built through intentional pedagogical practice, professional competence, and systematic effort, especially in areas with low participation and high vulnerability. Quality should not become a control mechanism, but a tool for development that is grounded in children’s rights, strengths, and needs. Ultimately, it is about creating ECEC settings that not only measure quality but enact it in every interaction with every child.
Developments in the field
Research on ECEC quality has expanded substantially over the past decades, both in scope and methodological sophistication. Two key trends currently distinguish the research frontier.
First, recent meta-analyses and longitudinal studies have reaffirmed the centrality of process quality. Methodologically, this has pushed the field towards more frequent use of observational tools such as CLASS (classroom assessment scoring system). Analytically, it has shifted the focus from asking whether ECEC matters, to asking which aspects of everyday practice matter most for which children. This opens up new possibilities for practice-based improvement but also risks narrowing the notion of quality to what is easily measurable within standardised instruments.
Second, increasing attention is being directed towards the role of ECEC as a socially equalising intervention. Although the average effects of ECEC participation may be moderate in high-income countries with already high baseline quality, several studies show that children from low-income families and minority backgrounds benefit disproportionately from high-quality ECEC (Gupta & Simonsen, 2009; Drange & Telle, 2015). At the same time, research underscores that the effects are conditional on quality, and that low-quality ECEC may have limited or even negative effects.
Summary
ECEC is a central universal welfare provision with substantial potential to promote children’s development and counteract social inequality. Research shows that high-quality ECEC has particularly positive effects for children from low-income families and minority backgrounds, and can contribute to improved school performance, better health, and enhanced life chances in the long term.
Taken together, the evidence reviewed in this section suggests three key points. First, high-quality ECEC is one of the most promising universal measures for improving the life chances of children growing up in low-income families, particularly when process quality is strong. Second, structural and system-level arrangements only contribute to social equity when they effectively enable such high-quality everyday interactions. Third, large-scale quality initiatives such as ‘TETT PÅ’ illustrate that it is possible to work systematically with all three dimensions at once – but also that this requires long-term political commitment, professional leadership, and sustained investment.
3.3 Measures in schools
Introduction
School and education have long been regarded as among the most important instruments for promoting social mobility and reducing poverty (OECD, 2012; Holmlund & Nybom, 2023). The education system has the potential to function as a social equaliser by providing children from different social backgrounds with equal opportunities to acquire the knowledge and skills necessary for further education and participation in the labour market. Research also shows that children from families with low socioeconomic status consistently have lower learning outcomes and weaker school performance than children from more advantaged homes (Cooper & Stewart, 2021; Holmlund & Nybom, 2023; Expert Group, 2024).
Despite being viewed as instruments of social equalisation, schools and educational systems may also reinforce rather than eliminate inequality. This may be linked to the fact that children from low-income families encounter more structural and pedagogical barriers at school, and that schools often fail to compensate for differences in home environments and access to resources (Sandsør et al., 2023; Expert Group, 2024). Empirical research also indicates that disparities in educational achievement between children from different social strata emerge at an early stage and tend to intensify throughout the schooling trajectory (Holmlund & Nybom, 2023; Cooper & Stewart, 2021).
At the same time, research emphasises that it is not schooling itself, but rather how the school is structured and equipped with compensatory measures that determines whether it contributes to reducing or reinforcing social inequalities (OECD, 2018; Holmlund & Nybom, 2023). For example, studies show that measures such as reduced class size, targeted tutoring, and strengthened social and emotional learning have particularly large effects for students from low-income families (Dietrichson et al., 2017; Nickow et al., 2020; Expert Group, 2024).
The school thus appears as a double-edged sword: it can both reproduce inequality and help counteract it. The critical question is therefore what actually has an equalising effect. We can distinguish between three main categories of measures aimed at compensating for social inequality in schools: structural measures, pedagogical measures, and socially supportive measures.
Structural measures encompass organisational and financial arrangements within the school system. This also includes the universal and comprehensive school, which in itself has an equalising effect by limiting early stratification and reducing the influence of family background on educational outcomes (Aakvik et al., 2010; Meghir & Palme, 2005; Pekkarinen et al., 2009). Beyond this universal structure, structural factors such as overall funding levels, teacher capacity, resources for additional instruction and teachers’ qualifications shape schools’ ability to provide equal opportunities (Holmlund & Nybom, 2023). Other complementary structural measures include free and integrated after-school programmes, which provide access to learning support and social environments, and free school meals, both of which can reduce socioeconomic barriers to participation and learning (Cohen et al., 2021; Expert Group, 2024; Olgacher, 2025).
Pedagogical measures target the content and methods of teaching and aim to strengthen students’ academic development, both within and beyond the classroom. In Frønes et al. (2020), with data from Nordic countries, findings emphasise the importance of the teacher’s role, instructional quality, and classroom discipline. Research has also shown that pedagogical approaches that combine play and learning are particularly effective for children with weak academic foundations (Expert Group, 2024). This category also includes measures such as free homework support, which provides accessible academic assistance after school for students who do not receive such support at home.
Socially supportive measures aim to strengthen students’ psychosocial development and well-being, and to compensate for differences in home environments. A central measure here is social and emotional learning, which involves systematic work on students’ social skills, self-regulation, and relationships. Social and emotional learning has been shown to improve both well-being and the learning environment (Wigelsworth et al., 2022). Another measure is the ‘enhanced team around the student’, consisting of interdisciplinary teams of teachers, social workers, school nurses, and child welfare/mental health professionals who support students with complex needs (Expert Group, 2024).
A substantial body of empirical research demonstrates that the effects of specific, measurable interventions vary. However, studies emphasise that individual measures tend to have a limited impact on isolation. What matters most is the combined effect of multiple, coordinated interventions (Dietrichson et al., 2017; OECD, 2018).
Whole school approach
A whole school approach (WSA) is best understood not as a specific programme, but as a design logic for school development. Rather than adding isolated projects on top of everyday practice, a WSA seeks to align the school’s core functions – teaching and learning, pastoral care, leadership, organisation, and partnerships with families and communities – around a shared set of goals and values. In doing so, a WSA may encompass and integrate all the three main categories of measures aimed at compensating for social inequality in schools (structural, pedagogical, and socially supportive measures). In this sense, a WSA differs from stand-alone interventions by targeting the conditions under which teaching and learning take place, not only the activities themselves.
A review of the literature shows that WSA is based on at least three fundamental principles that appear to be at the core of the models that are most likely to reduce inequality and to support vulnerable student groups (Haworth et al., 2015; Cavanagh et al., 2024; Zhou et al., 2025).
First, they are multi-level. It means that interventions are designed to interact across the classroom, the whole school organisation, and the wider community. For example, a focus on students’ social and emotional learning may be reflected simultaneously in classroom pedagogy, staff development, school policies, and collaboration with external services.
Second, WSA models combine universal, selective, and indicated measures in line with the principle of proportionate universalism. That is, all students are offered supportive environments and learning opportunities, while additional intensity and tailored support are provided to those facing greater adversity. In practice, this means that whole-school initiatives such as anti-bullying work or social and emotional learning are complemented by targeted group programmes and individual follow-up for students with more complex needs.
Third, WSAs are explicitly value-driven and relational. Core values such as inclusion, social justice, participation, and respect are not only stated in policy documents, but are expected to be part of daily relationships in the school. Research on health-promoting and community-oriented schools highlights school belonging and trust between students, staff, and families as central mechanisms that strengthen resilience and mitigate the risks associated with poverty and other stressors.
Within this broad framework, WSA models vary in both their substantive focus and degree of formalisation. Some emphasise particular domains, such as health and well-being, as in the whole school, whole community, whole child approach (WSCC). Others concentrate on mental health and social inclusion, as does, for example, the network of experts on the social dimension of education and training (NESET). There are also approaches that lean on sustainability and democratic participation, or academic improvement in low socioeconomic contexts (Lewallen et al., 2014; Cefai et al., 2021; Mathie & Wals, 2023; Lo, 2020). At the same time, models differ in structure: some, like WSCC, are organised around clearly defined and fixed components, while others adopt more flexible, context-dependent designs. UNESCO’s global citizenship education model (GCED), for example, specifies overarching values and organisational principles, leaving the choice of concrete measures open to local adaptation. Nevertheless, WSA models share a common logic of reorganising the whole school around coherent goals, values, and practices, and often integrate multiple domains in practice.
A whole school approach does not rest on a single, unified theory, but can best be understood as an umbrella approach drawing on several complementary theoretical traditions. A central point of reference is provided by systemic and ecological perspectives, most notably Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model of development, which conceptualises children’s learning and well-being as shaped by interactions across multiple levels, from the immediate classroom environment to institutional, community, and policy contexts (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Rosa & Tudge 2013). This perspective is closely aligned with the WHO framework for health-promoting schools, which similarly emphasises that educational outcomes are produced through the interaction of school organisation, relationships, curriculum, and the wider social environment (Langford et al., 2016).
The relational and pedagogical dimensions of WSA are further informed by theories of social and emotional learning and sociocultural learning. A central reference is the collaborative for academic, social, and emotional learning (CASEL) (Frye et al., 2024; Wigelsworth et al., 2024). This framework defines social and emotional learning as a set of five core competence domains: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision-making. These ideas also resonate with sociocultural theories of learning, which stress that learning is socially mediated, culturally situated, and dependent on participation in meaningful practices (Vygotsky, 1978).
It can also be argued that WSA is grounded in theories of learning organisations and implementation science, which highlight how change depends on leadership, professional learning communities, and iterative implementation cycles.
All in all, WSA can be seen as grounded in a multi-layered theoretical foundation rather than a single explanatory model. Despite this diversity, the literature consistently points to three core ideas: schools should be understood as complex systems; universal and targeted measures need to be integrated across organisational levels; and meaningful participation by students, staff, families, and communities is essential for promoting equity, learning, and well-being.
Existing evaluations of WSA models report a range of outcomes related to students’ well-being, school climate, and academic achievement. However, most evaluations have been conducted outside the Nordic countries, and the findings are not uniform. While some studies report positive effects in specific domains, others find no or limited effects.
Nevertheless, several studies offer relevant insights and suggest that WSA may be a promising approach in Nordic contexts as well. In Denmark, an evaluation of the WSA initiative ‘Up’ found improvements in students’ social and emotional competencies, increasing from 33% before to 41% after implementation (Nielsen et al., 2015). A similar WSA implemented in a marginalised area in the Netherlands showed improvements in students’ quality of life during the intervention period, although these gains diminished once the programme ended (Elsenburg et al., 2023). According to the authors, this indicates that WSA initiatives require sustained implementation to maintain effects. A third study, from Australia, stands out for using a quasi-experimental design (Balasooriya Lekamge et al., 2025). Building on the WHO framework for health-promoting schools, the model showed clear improvements in student satisfaction, mastery, and mental health, particularly in schools that had implemented the model for the longest period (six years).
Several review studies conclude that whole school approaches are promising, although the empirical evidence remains mixed (Goldberg et al., 2019; Cabral-Gouveia et al., 2023; Haataja et al., 2025). However, reviewing the literature, Zhou et al. (2025) argue that WSA has clear potential to reduce social inequality, but emphasise the need for more robust effect studies. Overall, existing evaluations suggest that WSA models can have positive effects on students’ mental health, social and emotional competencies, school climate, and academic achievement. Across studies, early intervention and coordinated support emerge as key conditions for achieving these outcomes.
Illustrative example: NESET
A prominent example of a whole school approach (WSA) in the European context is the EU-based NESET model (Network of experts on the social dimension of education and training), which was developed to strengthen mental health, social inclusion, and well-being through systemic and coordinated school-wide practices (European Commission, 2018). A distinctive feature of the model is that it treats mental health not as a specialised add-on, but as an integral part of the school’s educational mission. This requires embedding well-being in the curriculum, school culture, leadership routines, and everyday interactions, thereby linking academic learning with relational and emotional development. The NESET model operationalises WSA across three interconnected levels:
- Classroom level: Students receive instruction in social and emotional learning, resilience, and mental health literacy. Teachers are trained in relational pedagogy, stress regulation, and inclusive practices, and they learn to identify early signs of distress. This classroom component is designed not only to strengthen individual competencies, but also to cultivate a psychologically safe and participatory learning climate.
- School level: The whole school develops a shared value framework grounded in belonging, respect, and co-operation. Student participation is formalised through councils and well-being committees, while parents are engaged as partners in planning and follow-up. Leadership plays a central role by coordinating professional learning communities and prioritising staff well-being. This is based on the assumption that teacher well-being is a prerequisite for sustained support to students.
- Intersectoral level: The school collaborates with health services, social services, and voluntary organisations through interdisciplinary teams. These partnerships make support services more accessible, reduce stigma, and strengthen early intervention, particularly for students with emerging or complex needs. This component reflects a key insight from research: whole-school work has greater impact when schools are connected to a wider ecosystem of services.
The NESET model offers universal measures (such as social and emotional learning and well-being initiatives) to all students, selective measures (such as stress management) for at-risk groups, and individualised follow-up in collaboration with external specialists. A further strength of the model is that it explicitly links universal well-being work with targeted support, aiming to reduce inequalities in mental health outcomes and access to services.
Reflections
From a social inequality perspective, the central question is whether a whole school approach can change how schools respond to the needs of students growing up in low-income families. Existing research and reviews point to several potential equalising mechanisms. First, whole-school efforts to strengthen school climate, relationships, and a sense of belonging may buffer the negative effects of low socioeconomic status on learning by reducing violence, increasing safety, and improving teacher–student relationships. Second, integrated approaches that connect education with health and social services, often through school–community partnerships, can reduce access barriers for families with limited resources. Third, WSAs that combine universal and targeted measures appear better equipped than stand-alone programmes to address the disproportionate burden of adversity faced by students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, even though robust evidence on distributional effects remains limited.
Because there is no fixed model, a WSA must always be developed locally. This is both a strength and a challenge. On the one hand, schools can adapt the framework to local needs, existing services, and the Nordic tradition of universal provision. On the other hand, the approach can be perceived as demanding in terms of time, coordination, and professional capacity. Several authors highlight lack of time and resources, competing priorities, as well as implementation fatigue as central obstacles to whole-school change (Zhou et al., 2025). In this sense, WSA emerges as a promising but demanding strategy rather than a ready-made solution.
At the same time, the content of WSA can be dynamic, and much of what is described in the literature already exists within Nordic school systems. WSA may therefore be understood primarily as the development of an overarching framework that helps bring these elements together. In addition to structural coherence, the value-based framework may be equally important. It is also worth emphasising that long-term commitment is a key success factor.
Developments in the field
The review of the literature on WSA reveals several emerging developments. First, WSA is increasingly understood as a systemic and flexible model, rather than a model consisting of predefined or fixed interventions. This shift emphasises building structures, leadership, culture, and a learning organisation capable of integrating different measures as needed (Mathie, 2024; Cavanagh & Smith, 2024). Second, recent studies call for more targeted models for vulnerable groups, that is, students with special educational needs or those from low socioeconomic backgrounds (Cefai et al., 2021; Cavanagh & Smith, 2024; Haataja et al., 2025). In contrast to earlier models that focused primarily on universal interventions, newer approaches highlight the combination of universal and selective measures, often framed through the principle of proportionate universalism. In other words, contemporary research is increasingly concerned with how WSA can contribute to reducing inequality. Third, there is greater emphasis on teachers’ professional capital, professional learning communities, and the teacher’s role as an agent of change (Frieling et al., 2024; Sawyer et al., 2025). Fourth, recent studies stress the importance of the implementation process itself – including duration, fidelity, leadership, and organisational readiness – in shaping outcomes (Balasooriya Lekamge et al., 2025). Taken together, these developments point in a common direction: WSA is increasingly understood as a long-term, systemic approach to school development that integrates organisational, pedagogical, and relational change, with a particular focus on equity and the needs of vulnerable student groups.
Summary
This section has described school-based measures that can mitigate the negative consequences of growing up in low-income families. The starting point is research showing that students from low socioeconomic backgrounds tend to have lower academic performance, and that schools can both reinforce and counteract inequality. School measures can be grouped into three main categories: (1) structural measures such as financial arrangements, free after-school provision and integrated support teams; (2) pedagogical measures such as instructional practices or homework support; and (3) socially supportive measures aimed at strengthening students’ psychosocial development.
A whole school approach (WSA) can be understood as a framework that seeks to create a coherent school environment for all students. In doing so, a WSA may encompass and integrate structural, pedagogical, and socially supportive measures as well. Although WSA models differ in their specific components, they share the ambition of improving students’ well-being, learning, and sense of belonging. Studies suggest that WSA can have positive effects, especially in schools with high levels of social disadvantage, though the evidence base remains mixed. This is probably related to the fact that WSA is difficult to implement. Successful implementation requires time, resources, leadership commitment, and local adaptation.
3.4 Parenting and family support
Introduction
Parents play a fundamental role in children’s development. A safe and stimulating home environment is essential for well-being, learning, and social belonging. In the early years of life, parents’ ability to meet children’s material and emotional needs is crucial for healthy development. Later, parents play a central role in supporting school performance, social skills, and the ability to cope with challenges in adulthood.
When parents are unable to fulfil these tasks, the risk of serious consequences for a child’s health and life course increases. Children growing up in low-income families are particularly vulnerable, as financial constraints often limit parents’ ability to provide a stable and stimulating environment. Poverty can lead to high levels of parental stress, which in turn reduces their capacity to provide care and support.
For children, this may result in lower self-esteem, an increased risk of mental health problems, and poorer academic performance in the short term. Over the longer term, the consequences may include lower educational attainment, weaker attachment to the labour market, and an increased risk of health problems. Recent brain research highlights the importance of parenting support as a stress-reducing factor: prolonged and uncontrollable stress in childhood – especially in the absence of stable, supportive adults – can negatively affect brain development, particularly in areas that regulate emotion, impulse control, and learning (Blair & Raver, 2016; Lupien et al., 2009).
Parenting support initiatives have therefore gained increased attention as a strategy to counteract the negative consequences of poverty. Such initiatives aim to strengthen parental caregiving skills, reduce stress, and foster positive interactions with children. In this chapter, we focus particularly on family coordinators and three related models of parenting and family support. We first provide a brief overview of the Nordic tradition of various models involving coordinators or case managers. The role of the coordinator is further illustrated through three examples: ‘Nye mønstre’ (New patterns), ‘Opgang til opgang’ (Entrance to entrance) and nurse–family partnership (‘Sammen på vei’).
The family coordinator
In many recent initiatives, parenting and family support is organised around a family coordinator who follows the family over time. Despite variations in design, these models share some core features: they give families a single entry point into an otherwise fragmented service system, facilitate comprehensive assessment and planning, coordinate contact with social security, schools, health and housing services, and at the same time provide stable relational support. In this way, the coordinator role links everyday family life with the broader welfare system and is particularly relevant for families in persistent low income, who often have limited capacity to navigate complex service pathways.
Nordic research indicates that such coordinator functions can help bind services together around vulnerable children and families. However, many such functions are project-based, weakly embedded in ordinary operations, and characterised by unclear mandates that lie somewhere between administrative coordination and relational social work (Møller et al., 2021; Lehto-Lundén et al., 2024; Skolverket & Socialstyrelsen, 2023). An important exception is Iceland, where a national child coordinator scheme was established by law in 2021. This model organises support at three levels, from universal services and early help to a dedicated coordinator and multidisciplinary support team for children with more complex needs and thus represents a more institutionalised and permanent coordination model.
In the following, we illustrate different ways of operationalising the family coordinator role through three examples. ‘Nye mønstre’ and ‘Opgang til opgang’ are explicitly organised around a designated coordinator or contact person. By contrast, in the nurse–family partnership, the specially trained nurse functions as a long-term key worker and acts as a bridge between the family and the wider service system.
Nye mønstre
‘Nye mønstre’ is a long-term, municipally anchored model for families living in persistent low income and often facing complex challenges related to health, housing, employment, schooling, and social relations. The model is built around a family coordinator who serves as the family’s primary contact person and ensures coordinated and comprehensive support for both children and adults. Rather than establishing a new service alongside existing ones, the initiative reorganises and makes better use of the ordinary welfare services already in place (Mølland et al., 2023a; Mølland et al., 2023b).
The core of the intervention is that each family is assigned a permanent family coordinator responsible for maintaining oversight, connecting the various elements of support, and following the family over time – up to five years. Each coordinator works with approximately ten families, allowing sufficient time for relational work, practical assistance, and cross-sectoral coordination. Continuity is a key principle: ideally, the same coordinator accompanies the family throughout the entire period and remains easily accessible (Mølland et al., 2023a; Vigsnes et al., 2024).
The mechanisms in ‘Nye mønstre’ can be understood as a combination of assessment, follow-up, and coordination. The intervention begins with a comprehensive assessment of the family’s situation, covering areas such as economic conditions, housing, health, employment, education, relationships, leisure activities, and everyday functioning. Based on this assessment, a dynamic family plan is developed jointly with parents and children. Follow-up primarily takes place through home visits, which constitute the main arena for guidance and support. This guidance focuses on everyday functioning and may include organising finances and routines, supporting school and kindergarten attendance, accompanying families to meetings with the Labour and Welfare Administration, schools or health services, assisting with practical tasks in the home, and facilitating children’s participation in leisure activities (Lundberg & Danielsen, 2024).
The relationship between the coordinator and the parents and children is a central mechanism of the intervention. Over time, the aim is to build a trusting relationship in which the coordinator becomes a stable, predictable, and accessible adult with whom the family can discuss concerns and make decisions. As trust develops, the coordinator can both support and challenge the family, helping parents strengthen their sense of mastery and ownership of their goals. User involvement is an integral part of the model (Vigsnes et al., 2024).
Another key mechanism is the coordinator’s system-level work. This includes navigating the service landscape, establishing contact with relevant agencies, convening meetings when needed, contributing to shared understanding among actors, and, when necessary, acting as the family’s advocate within the system (Mølland et al., 2023a; Vigsnes et al., 2024).
The literature on ‘Nye mønstre’ shows that the initiative draws on a theoretical framework combining systems theory, professional theory, and relational perspectives on change. Vigsnes et al. (2024) describe the model as systems-oriented, with the primary aim of improving interactions between families and their surrounding environments, rather than seeking to change the family itself. The family coordinator role is further anchored in a professional perspective, drawing on the international definition of social work, which emphasises support, empowerment, and coordination across services (IFSW, 2014). Relationships are identified as a core mechanism of change. A trust-based relationship between the coordinator and the family is described as a fundamental precondition for the intervention to function, a finding that is also supported empirically by Danielsen and Lundberg (2024).
The impact research on ‘Nye mønstre’ is embedded in a comprehensive, long-term evaluation design (Mølland et al., 2020), though results are not yet available. Qualitative studies nevertheless provide a clear picture of the intervention’s significance in families’ everyday lives. Lundberg and Danielsen (2024) show that parents report both small, concrete improvements (better financial overview, greater daily stability, easier contact with services) and major changes related to safety, housing, and their relationship with the support system. The authors describe how the coordinators’ flexible and long-term follow-up works by ensuring that help is available over time, is practical in nature, and contributes to better coordination of services.
Oppgang til oppgang
‘Oppgang til oppgang’ is a Danish model that in many ways builds on principles similar to ‘Nye mønstre’: long-term relational work, practical support, and active coordination of services for families with complex needs. However, the model distinguishes itself through a stronger anchoring in the local neighbourhood.
‘Oppgang til oppgang’ is a comprehensive, community-based model for families living in disadvantaged housing areas (Kjær et al., 2023). The support is low-threshold and relationship-oriented, and is closely embedded in families’ everyday lives. The target group consists of families facing multiple and interrelated challenges related to economic conditions, health, employment, parenting, and housing. The initiative is implemented through a partnership between the municipality, housing-related services, and local civil society actors, with outreach workers assigned to follow families within defined residential areas.
At the core of the model is an outreach contact person who builds and maintains a stable relationship with families. This role involves providing practical support and guidance, helping families navigate the service system, and coordinating across schools, health services, social services, and the voluntary sector. Much of the work takes place through informal conversations, small practical actions, and relational support, which over time can open the way for more targeted interventions (Kjær et al., 2023). In addition, the initiative includes a neighbourhood dimension that aims to strengthen social cohesion and well-being through shared activities and the use of common community spaces.
The evaluations indicate particularly positive effects for children and young people, including reduced school absenteeism and increased working hours among youth. For adults, the results point to some favourable structural outcomes, such as a lower risk of early retirement and increased participation in flexible forms of employment, while effects on regular employment appear more limited (Simonsen & Skipper, 2023; Kjær et al., 2023). The municipality also reported reduced public expenditures for participating families. Similar to findings from other Nordic coordinator models, these experiences suggest that proximity, relational continuity, and flexibility create favourable conditions for change. At the same time, the model remains vulnerable to project-based organisation, unclear mandates, and weak structural anchoring.
Nurse–family partnership
Nurse–family partnership (NFP) is a selective and indicated home-based parenting support programme for first-time pregnant women in vulnerable life situations. Internationally, the programme recruits young first-time mothers with low income, low education, weak attachment to the labour market, unmarried status, and often considerable psychosocial challenges (Olds et al., 2013; Nøkleby et al., 2021). In Norway, the target group has been further developed, focusing on first-time mothers who meet multiple vulnerability criteria, including experiences of maltreatment or violence, previous child-welfare involvement, limited social networks, persistent low income, mental health difficulties, substance use problems, lack of work or education, and/or young age (Pedersen et al., 2019; PwC, 2023).
The core of the NFP consists of long-term, structured home visits delivered by specially trained nurses. The visits start early in pregnancy and continue until the child reaches two years of age. Intensity is highest in the early phases and gradually tapers over time. In the original model, families may receive up to 60–64 visits (Olds et al., 2013; Nøkleby et al., 2021). The content of the visits follows a planned progression aligned with the child’s development and the family’s situation, addressing topics such as maternal health, parent–child interaction, the home environment, future plans and goals, and navigation of the welfare system (Pedersen et al., 2019). The programme is manualised, with clearly defined core components, standardised assessments and a specified visit frequency, while still allowing for individual tailoring. Systematic data collection and documentation are integral to quality assurance, professional supervision, and research (Olds et al., 2013; PwC, 2023).
NFP is grounded in three main theoretical pillars. Ecological theory frames child development as shaped by interactions between the child, the family, and wider social systems. Attachment theory highlights the importance of parental sensitivity and the development of secure attachment relationships. Self-efficacy theory focuses on strengthening parents’ confidence in their ability to manage both the parenting role and decisions in their own lives (Nøkleby et al., 2021). In the Norwegian context, these perspectives are explicitly integrated together with complementary methods such as motivational interviewing, the newborn behavioural observations system, and video-based interaction guidance (Pedersen et al., 2019; PwC, 2023).
In the short and medium term, NFP aims to improve maternal health during pregnancy and strengthen sensitive and stable caregiving. The programme also seeks to support children’s cognitive, language, and socio-emotional development, reduce injuries and maltreatment, and promote maternal mental health and effective collaboration with services (Nøkleby et al., 2021; Pedersen et al., 2019). In the longer term, NFP aims to increase parents’ participation in education and the labour market, reduce reliance on child welfare and other costly services, and lower the risk of crime, substance use, and marginalisation in the next generation (Miller, 2015; Nøkleby et al., 2021).
Effect studies conducted in Canada, England, Netherlands and United States show generally positive, though not uniform, outcomes. Overall, the evidence points to improvements in children’s language development, fewer injuries, and reduced child maltreatment, as well as fewer child welfare cases. Studies also find reductions in closely spaced pregnancies and some long-term effects on crime and substance use (Miller, 2015; Nøkleby et al., 2021; Catherine et al., 2025).
In Norway, no full effect study has yet been conducted, and findings are therefore based on implementation and process evaluations. These show that the programme is experienced as helpful by families, and appears to strengthen caregiving environments, parental mental health, and coordination across services (Pedersen & Nilsen, 2018; PwC, 2023). For example, Pedersen et al. (2019) report that many participants describe the nurse as the most important support person during a vulnerable phase of life. Overall, the evidence suggests that NFP has a strong empirical and theoretical foundation and is well targeted at vulnerable first-time families. The strongest effects are observed when the programme is implemented with high quality, sufficient intensity, and close integration with the wider service system (Olds et al., 2013; Miller, 2015; Catherine et al., 2025; Pedersen et al., 2019).
Reflections
Parenting support interventions have traditionally been based on the assumption that improving parental skills will lead to better developmental outcomes for children. Although manual-based programmes show generally positive effects, it is reasonable to question how well such interventions meet the needs of families living in persistent low income. For these families, parenting is closely intertwined with economic stress, unstable housing conditions, health problems, and weak connections to public services – factors that fall outside the traditional focus on parental skills and parent–child interaction.
The examples in this chapter represent more holistic approaches. Rather than focusing solely on parenting or family relationships, these interventions provide support wherever needs arise. The coordinator is expected to relieve burdens, help families navigate the system, coordinate services, and build bridges between the family’s everyday life and a fragmented welfare system. This is likely to be particularly important for low-income families, who often have limited capacity to manage bureaucracy and a complex service system.
A consistent feature across all three interventions is that the relationship with the coordinator functions as a mechanism in its own right. A long-term, predictable, and accessible helper provides both emotional support and a stable entry point into the service system. Support is not delivered primarily through instruction, but through sustained interaction, joint problem-solving and opportunities for mastery in everyday situations. In this respect, the nurse–family partnership stands out, as the relationship is established already during pregnancy and continues throughout the child’s first two years. This period is widely recognised in developmental psychology and neuroscience as particularly sensitive. Early childhood, and infancy in particular, is marked by heightened vulnerability to stress, unstable caregiving, and violence, while also being a phase of high responsiveness to protective factors. Prolonged and uncontrollable stress during this period may affect brain development and stress regulation in ways that have lasting consequences, which underscores the importance of early, relationship-based support for both children and parents.
At the same time, the interventions represent different approaches to the coordinator role. In a nurse–family partnership, the coordinator is a specially trained nurse working within a tightly manualised model with predefined themes, structure, and fidelity requirements. The relationship is important, but the scope for discretion is clearly regulated. In ‘Nye mønstre’, the coordinator is also a professional, but with a stronger emphasis on system work and cross-sectoral coordination, and with substantial room for professional judgement in adapting support to the family’s needs and local service structures. In ‘Opgang til opgang’, the coordinator/contact person is more often a volunteer or semi-professional rooted in the local community, with high flexibility and close proximity to families’ daily lives, but with less formal authority vis-à-vis public services. Taken together, the three initiatives can be understood as three distinct models of the coordinator role. This raises further questions about how such a role should be designed to address the particular challenges associated with growing up in a low-income family.
Summary
Parenting support has traditionally been understood as manualised programmes aimed at strengthening parental skills and regulating children’s behaviour. Research indicates that such programmes can have positive effects, but that effect sizes are often moderate, variable, and sensitive to contextual factors. Critics of their behaviourist foundations point to a narrow understanding of parenting and argue that these interventions insufficiently address the structural and material conditions shaping the lives of families living in persistent low income.
More recent models developed within and beyond the Nordic region represent a shift towards more relational and system-oriented forms of support. These approaches place greater emphasis on the relationship between parents and professionals, on coordination across services, and on linking families to existing welfare provisions. Various coordinator arrangements and initiatives such as ‘Nye mønstre’, ‘Opgang til opgang’, and NFP also illustrate a move away from time-limited courses towards long-term, interdisciplinary, and context-sensitive support.
In the context of poverty, it is particularly notable that these models combine work on the parent–child relationship with assistance in navigating and making effective use of the ordinary welfare system. In doing so, they address a broader set of factors than parenting practices alone when seeking to strengthen families’ resources. A key question, however, is whether such relationally grounded and structurally anchored forms of support offer greater potential for long-term social equalisation than traditional parenting programmes.
3.5 Measures that promote participation in leisure activities
Introduction
Children and young people growing up in households with persistent low income often face structural barriers that limit their access to organised leisure activities. Leisure activities play an important role in children’s social development, well-being, and sense of belonging. Such activities can function as arenas for mastery, friendship, and participation, and therefore have the potential to counteract some of the negative consequences of economic marginalisation. Studies also indicate that access to financial resources restricts opportunities for participation (Hyggen et al., 2018; Myksvoll et al., 2023).
In recent years, the Nordic countries have developed a range of initiatives aimed at ensuring that all children and young people have the opportunity to take part in leisure activities, regardless of their family’s financial situation. The initiatives vary in form and focus, but can broadly be divided into the following categories:
- Financial support schemes, such as leisure cards and activity funds, where families receive direct support to cover participation-related costs.
- Facilitation measures, such as equipment libraries, free transport, or low-threshold local activities that reduce practical and financial barriers.
- Collaborative initiatives, where municipalities, voluntary organisations, and sports clubs work together to include children and young people from vulnerable groups.
- Information and guidance measures, such as activity guides or leisure coordinators, who help families identify and make use of relevant opportunities.
Common to these measures is their aim to compensate for inequalities in living conditions by strengthening children’s opportunities for participation, belonging, and development. The measures typically seek to reduce barriers to joining organised leisure activities. As an illustration of initiatives to promote increased activity, we provide a more detailed description of the different leisure card schemes in the Nordic countries.
Leisure card
The leisure card is a public support scheme that provides financial assistance to children and young people, enabling them to participate in organised leisure activities. The scheme is particularly relevant given the existence of comparable models across the Nordic region. In Iceland, the leisure card also forms part of a broader, coordinated youth prevention strategy within the framework of the Icelandic prevention model (‘Planet Youth’), where financial support for leisure participation is combined with other preventive measures (Kristjánsson et al., 2019).
The design of leisure card schemes varies across the Nordic countries. In Norway, the scheme has been piloted as a largely universal model, but with considerable local flexibility and differing degrees of targeting towards low-income families (Arnesen et al., 2022). In Denmark, the leisure card is typically means-tested and paired with coordinator roles and close collaboration with civil society organisations (Pilgaard & Mellmølle, 2025). Iceland operates a universal leisure card where activities must have a formal contract with the municipality, meet minimum duration requirements, and be delivered by qualified instructors (Reykjavík City, 2023). Finland has taken a different approach by offering free after-school activities on school premises, coordinated by municipalities and integrated into the school day (Laimi et al., 2023). Sweden introduced a national scheme in autumn 2025, combining universal and selective elements through both a general card and an enhanced subsidy for socioeconomically disadvantaged households (Socialdepartementet, 2024). Despite differences in design and implementation, these Nordic models share a common ambition: to reduce financial barriers and strengthen social inclusion by ensuring that all children and young people have access to meaningful leisure activities.
The level of financial support varies across the Nordic countries. In Norway and Denmark, municipalities typically offer a moderate annual allocation per child, sometimes supplemented by support for equipment (Arnesen et al., 2022; Pilgaard & Mellmølle, 2025). Iceland’s universal scheme provides a relatively high allocation per child, while Sweden combines a lower universal allocation with additional support targeted at socioeconomically disadvantaged households (Socialdepartementet, 2024). Finland, by contrast, funds free after-school activities rather than individual allocations (Laimi et al., 2023).
Research on children’s and young people’s participation in leisure activities rests on at least three different theoretical traditions. First, Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model of human development emphasises that children’s development is shaped through interactions between the individual and multiple layers of their environment, where organised leisure activities form a key microsystem that interacts with school, home, and the local community (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Second, theories of social capital highlight that participation in activities provides access to networks, norms, role models, and resources that are unevenly distributed across social groups (Coleman, 1988; Putnam, 2000). Third, positive youth development (PYD) offers a broad developmental-psychological framework that describes how meaningful activities contribute to the so-called five Cs – competence, confidence, connection, character, and caring – which in turn promote well-being and civic participation (Bowers et al., 2010; Holt et al., 2017).
The literature identifies several mechanisms that help explain why participation in leisure activities can benefit children and young people. These mechanisms are commonly grouped into individual, relational, and structural processes. At the individual level, organised activities support skills development, mastery, and self-regulation, which in turn strengthen confidence, autonomy, and a sense of purpose (Fredricks & Eccles, 2006; Ravn & Clement, 2025). Participation in sports and physical activity is also associated with long-term health benefits (Bengtsson et al., 2025). At the relational level, studies highlight the importance of supportive adults, stable peer groups, and positive social norms. Participation fosters a sense of belonging and social integration, reduces loneliness, and expands children’s social networks (Tu, 2020; Heckel et al., 2024; Luong et al., 2024). At the structural level, organised activities provide meaningful and structured use of time, which can replace risky time use patterns and contribute to greater stability in everyday life (Mahoney et al., 2006). Activities also offer safe arenas, establish norms for co-operation and responsibility, and create links between home, school, and the local community (Mansfield et al., 2020). Economic and practical measures, such as leisure cards, operate at this level by reducing barriers to participation. Their effectiveness therefore depends not only on increasing participation rates, but also on ensuring that participation takes place in safe, inclusive environments characterised by positive relationships. Research further suggests that such schemes have the greatest impact when combined with complementary measures, including equipment support and personalised guidance (Arnesen et al., 2022; Pilgaard & Mellmølle, 2025; Laimi et al., 2023).
Several studies have shown that leisure initiatives aimed at children and young people in low-income families can contribute to social equalisation and the prevention of exclusion. Evaluations of measures such as leisure cards and equipment libraries indicate that these initiatives can increase participation among children and young people or lower the threshold for participation (Socialstyrelsen, 2021; Arnesen et al., 2022; Myksvoll et al., 2023). At the same time, evaluations point out that it is difficult to measure effects in terms of increased participation, partly because changes usually arise when several measures are implemented simultaneously.
Evidence from Denmark suggests that leisure cards lead to higher and more sustained participation when combined with adult support and active brokering into voluntary associations (Socialstyrelsen, 2021). In Finland, studies report broad participation and positive effects on well-being and social inclusion, particularly when activities are offered immediately after school and in familiar school-based settings (Laimi et al., 2023). Iceland’s universal scheme also appears to increase participation and shows potential for transferability to other contexts. A quasi-experimental study of an Iceland-inspired model in the United States found that the odds of participating in organised leisure activities more than doubled in the first year. The strongest effects emerged when the scheme was easy to use and paired with locally adapted implementation (Meyers et al., 2023).
Illustrative example: Danish leisure card
As an illustration, we provide here a more detailed description of the Danish leisure card. The reason for choosing this example is that the scheme has been tested over time and is relatively well documented. Two key sources of knowledge are Socialstyrelsen (2021) and the evaluation by Pilgaard & Mellmølle (2025).
The Danish leisure card has evolved as a municipal, structural prevention measure under Section 11(6) of the Social Services Act (Serviceloven), which authorises municipalities to provide financial support for children’s and young people’s participation in leisure activities. Municipalities decide for themselves whether to implement such a scheme, how it should be designed, and which eligibility criteria should apply. As of 2024, around 84–85 of Denmark’s 98 municipalities operates a leisure card or similar arrangement, and just over one-third also employ a municipal leisure mentor to support the scheme.
Although the schemes differ in form, their core function is to provide financial support – and in some cases equipment support – for participation in organised leisure activities. Families typically receive between 1,000 and 2,000 DKK per child per year, although some municipalities cover actual participation fees regardless of level. In many municipalities, the leisure card is a one-off grant, while others allow repeated applications. Applications may be initiated by the child, parents, professionals or associations, and allocations are usually made on a trust-based assessment that does not require formal financial documentation.
Municipalities administer the scheme locally, with substantial scope for adaptation. Responsibility typically lies within the culture and leisure department or the children and youth sector, often supported by a designated project leader. Municipalities develop systems for registering children, processing applications, approving eligible activities, and handling payments. Payments may be made directly to families as reimbursement, but most commonly they go straight to clubs and associations. Schools, social services, refugee services, child welfare services, and voluntary organisations serve as key channels for disseminating information, recruiting participants, and supporting families in navigating the scheme.
Experience suggests that while financial support is valued by families, the scheme is used more intensively and reaches more children when it is complemented by a leisure mentor function. These mentors help identify eligible children through collaboration with schools, child welfare services and health clinics, and they support families in finding suitable activities and navigating entry into voluntary associations. Municipalities without such mentor functions often report low application rates and unused funds, whereas municipalities with mentors both distribute more leisure cards and experience higher levels of repeated use.
At the same time, evaluations point to several challenges. Administrative procedures can be time-consuming and fragmented, and co-operation with schools is not always straightforward. Municipalities also face a growing dilemma between providing repeated support to the same children and prioritising new applicants. In response, several municipalities are developing a ‘third pillar’ that focuses on strengthening the capacity of leisure organisations and expanding inclusive activity offers for target groups.
Reflection
Overall, evidence from the Nordic countries suggests that leisure cards and comparable schemes can increase participation in organised activities, particularly among children and young people who might otherwise be excluded. At the same time, evaluations show that these effects are strongest when financial support is embedded within a broader set of measures such as equipment loans, outreach and information efforts, and recruitment through schools and public services. The leisure card should therefore not be viewed as a stand-alone intervention, but as one important element within a wider inclusion strategy.
Research on the mechanisms underlying the benefits of leisure participation emphasises that positive outcomes depend less on participation per se than on the quality of the activity environment. Studies consistently show that competence development, a sense of belonging and well-being require safe and inclusive settings, characterised by stable adult support, clear structures, and genuine opportunities for mastery. In this context, it is noteworthy that both the Icelandic and Swedish schemes make use of accreditation or approval systems for eligible activities and providers. Such systems allow public funding to be used not only to expand participation, but also to set expectations for quality and inclusion, thereby influencing the types of activities that are offered.
The choice between universal and selective design also raises important questions about stigma. Selective schemes can be more precisely targeted, but they may also be experienced as stigmatising by those who receive support. Universal schemes reduce this risk but provide weaker redistribution. The Swedish model with differentiated levels may offer a response to this dilemma, though it remains to be seen how the selective component will function in practice. It is reasonable to assume that stigma may be reduced when a scheme is presented as universal, while targeted supplements are delivered in ways that are not publicly visible. This may allow policymakers to combine high legitimacy with strong targeting, without creating visible distinctions between children.
Developments in the field
Although the Nordic countries share the ambition of reducing economic and structural barriers to children’s participation in leisure activities, the schemes are evolving in different directions. Finland, Iceland, and Sweden have all established national models. Finland differs from the others by prioritising school-based approaches in which activities are placed close to the school day and the local environment. These activities are free of charge, take place immediately after school, and are held on school premises. This reduces the need for transport and logistical arrangements and appears to increase participation, particularly among children in low-income families (Laimi et al., 2023).
A distinguishing feature of the Icelandic and Swedish schemes is the use of approval or accreditation requirements for organisations eligible for support, which provides greater opportunities for governance and quality control. Denmark, by contrast, has adopted a largely targeted, municipality-based model that combines financial support with equipment provision, coordinator roles, leisure guides, and close follow-up (Pilgaard & Mellmølle, 2025). Norway also operates a municipal model. The Norwegian leisure card pilots were initially framed as universal, but evaluations show considerable variation in practice. Many municipalities linked the leisure card to complementary measures such as equipment libraries, guidance services, and other public-sector supports (Arnesen et al., 2022). As a result, it is likely that a variety of local adaptations now exist across Norwegian municipalities.
Summary
This section has examined leisure initiatives as compensatory measures for children and young people growing up in low-income families. The evidence reviewed indicates that participation in organised leisure activities can promote social inclusion, well-being, and development, particularly when activities are stable over time, of high quality, and embedded in supportive relationships with adults and peers.
Leisure card schemes are widespread across the Nordic countries, but they vary considerably in design and implementation. Despite these differences, research indicates that financial support alone is not sufficient. The greatest effects are observed when economic support is combined with complementary measures such as outreach, guidance, equipment provision, and organisational support for inclusive activity environments.
Taken together, the findings suggest that leisure initiatives are most effective when they are embedded in broader inclusion strategies that address both access and quality. Leisure cards should therefore be understood not as stand-alone instruments, but as entry points to social arenas where relational, developmental, and health-promoting mechanisms can unfold.
3.6 Area-based initiatives
Nordic area-based initiatives
Area-based initiatives in the Nordic countries can be understood as place-specific and cross-sectoral interventions targeting geographically defined areas with concentrated living-condition challenges, commonly described along two dimensions: the balance between housing and planning instruments and social measures, and the degree of state steering versus local implementation (Brattbakk & Andersen, 2017; Stjernberg et al., 2025). Across the Nordic countries, area-based initiatives vary primarily along these two dimensions, reflecting differences in the balance between housing and planning instruments and social measures, as well as in the degree of state steering versus local implementation.
Denmark appears as the most interventionist case. Through the so-called ghetto and parallel society policies, housing and planning instruments have played a dominant role, including demolition and restructuring of housing stock, changes in tenure forms, and regulation of settlement patterns in designated areas (Stjernberg et al., 2025; Sørensen et al., 2024). These structural interventions are supplemented by extensive social housing initiatives, but several studies point to a limited degree of integration between the structural housing measures and the social interventions (Jensen, 2021; Christensen et al., 2021).
Norway represents a clear contrast, as its area-based initiatives have primarily been socially and service-oriented. Norwegian initiatives have made limited use of intrusive housing policy instruments, instead emphasising the strengthening and coordination of municipal services in areas such as education, health, and preventive work, combined with leisure activities, voluntary sector involvement, and the establishment of neighbourhood meeting places (Andersen & Brattbakk, 2020; Eimhjellen et al., 2023). Partnership-based governance models between the central government and municipalities, with a strong emphasis on local anchoring and participation, have been a defining feature (Ruud et al., 2020).
Sweden has long experience of state-initiated area-based initiatives characterised by goal- and indicator-based steering, where municipalities have held primary responsibility for implementation (Stjernberg et al., 2025). These initiatives have combined housing-related and social measures within education, employment, safety, and prevention, but without resorting to intrusive housing market regulation. The literature describes Swedish area-based initiatives as largely focused on local service coordination and social mobilisation, functioning mainly as support and implementation tools for existing welfare policies (Hertting & Urban, 2020; Karlsson, 2016).
Finland stands out by having developed few explicit area-based initiatives, instead relying on long-term spatial planning and housing policy aimed at preventing segregation, particularly through strategies for mixed tenure housing (Stjernberg et al., 2025). Social measures are largely embedded within universal welfare services such as education, health, and family services, rather than organised as place-specific programmes (Ruonavaara et al., 2025; Rosengren et al., 2025).
Iceland has limited experience with area-based initiatives compared to the other Nordic countries. According to Stjernberg et al. (2025), place-specific initiatives have only recently been developed, primarily in the Reykjavík area, and are mainly linked to social and preventive measures within existing welfare and service systems.
Taken together, the Nordic countries illustrate variation in approaches to area-based initiatives. Denmark and Norway can be understood as contrasting cases: Denmark emphasises strong housing and planning regulation, while Norway relies primarily on social, service-oriented, and partnership-based instruments. Sweden occupies an intermediate position, combining strong state steering with locally implemented social and organisational measures, while Finland stands out with a more distinctly preventive approach based on spatial planning, housing policy, and universal services. Despite these differences, the Nordic countries share a common understanding that complex living-condition challenges in disadvantaged areas require holistic and cross-sectoral responses.
Measures in area-based initiatives: Scope and quality
While the previous section illustrated how area-based initiatives are implemented in practice, this section turns to the social measures that typically form part of such initiatives. In this regard, the question is not only what types of measures are included, but also whether these measures are of sufficient quality and intensity to have a compensatory effect for children and young people growing up in disadvantaged neighbourhoods.
Across Nordic area-based initiatives, social measures typically target children, young people, and families and include strengthened early childhood education and schools, leisure activities, preventive and outreach services, parental support programmes, and initiatives aimed at strengthening participation, safety, and inclusion in the local community (Brattbakk & Andersen, 2017; Stjernberg et al., 2025). These measures are often delivered through existing welfare services, but are adapted to local conditions through increased presence, coordination, and collaboration with voluntary organisations.
In addition to the measures themselves, area-based initiatives depend on organisational arrangements that ensure coherence and coordination. Two elements recur across Nordic experiences: coordination and participation. Coordination refers to efforts to align measures across sectors, services, and arenas in order to create more coherent and mutually reinforcing interventions. Research shows that initiatives tend to function better when key actors such as schools, early childhood education, social services, police, housing authorities, and voluntary organisations collaborate within stable coordination structures (Vista Analyse, 2015; Eimhjellen et al., 2023). Participation and co-creation involve residents in the design and implementation of measures. Such involvement is highlighted in the literature as important for local adaptation, legitimacy and ownership, and as a counterweight to top-down governance in disadvantaged areas (Brattbakk & Andersen, 2017; Hertting & Urban, 2020). Together, coordination and participation shape whether measures operate as fragmented efforts or as part of a coherent area-based initiative.
Evaluations and knowledge reviews of Nordic area-based initiatives consistently show that the most robust and recurring outcomes relate to procedural and organisational aspects rather than to documented changes in living conditions, educational attainment, or employment. The literature shows that the most tangible outcomes of area-based initiatives are related to organisational and process-oriented changes, including improved coordination between services, strengthened local presence, increased accessibility of welfare services, enhanced collaboration with civil society, and stronger local co-operation and trust (Ruud et al., 2019; Hertting & Urban, 2020; Schwabe et al., 2025). By contrast, evidence of effects on long-term outcomes such as living conditions, educational attainment, employment, or social mobility remains limited and difficult to document. Overall, the evidence indicates that area-based initiatives primarily achieve short-term and intermediate objectives related to service coordination, accessibility, and local collaboration, while long-term effects on living conditions and life chances are difficult to measure and document.
These findings point to a critical explanatory gap between short-term organisational outcomes and more substantive effects on living conditions and life chances. A key issue in this regard concerns not only whether social measures are included in area-based initiatives, but whether they are of sufficient quality and intensity to have a compensatory effect. Research from early childhood education, schooling, and leisure-time interventions shows that positive effects depend on high-quality provision, qualified staff, continuity, and adequate resources. In this perspective, area-based initiatives may also be understood as a form of proportional universalism, where universal services are delivered with greater intensity and support in areas with higher levels of disadvantage. However, several evaluations indicate that social measures within area-based initiatives are often implemented as add-ons or short-term projects, rather than as sustained improvements to core services, which limits their potential compensatory impact (Schwabe et al., 2025; Brattbakk & Andersen, 2017).
From measures to mechanisms: Neighbourhood effect
Area-based initiatives are commonly based on the assumption that their effects extend beyond individual measures to influence neighbourhood-level social dynamics. This assumption is captured in the concept of neighbourhood effects, which refers to the idea that characteristics of the local social environment have an independent influence on children’s and young people’s development beyond individual and family-level factors (Norges forskningsråd, 2005; Galster, 2012; Li et al., 2022).
Within neighbourhood research, these effects are commonly understood through the concepts of social capital, social cohesion, and collective efficacy. These concepts describe collective characteristics of neighbourhoods that emerge over time through patterns of relationships, norms, and interaction, and that cannot be reduced to individual attributes (Kawachi & Berkman, 2000; Breedvelt et al., 2022). Social capital refers to relational resources embedded in networks of trust, reciprocity, and mutual support, including both bonding ties within groups and bridging and linking ties across groups and institutions. Social cohesion captures residents’ sense of belonging, safety, and shared responsibility, while collective efficacy combines social cohesion with shared expectations about taking action when neighbourhood conditions or children’s well-being are threatened (Browning & Cagney, 2002; Coley et al., 2025).
A substantial body of research indicates that these collective neighbourhood characteristics are associated with outcomes relevant for children and young people. Higher levels of social capital and collective efficacy are linked to lower levels of crime and violence, better physical and mental health, stronger social support, and closer connections to schools and local communities (Kawachi & Berkman, 2000; Browning & Cagney, 2002; Visser et al., 2021; Breedvelt et al., 2022). Vyncke et al. (2013) further show that the neighbourhood social climate can moderate the relationship between parental stress and children’s behaviour, suggesting that cohesive neighbourhoods may buffer some of the negative effects associated with family-level disadvantage. This buffering function lies at the core of what is commonly referred to as neighbourhood effects.
Importantly, research also suggests that collective neighbourhood characteristics can be shaped by policy interventions. In this perspective, area-based initiatives can be understood as attempts to strengthen neighbourhood effects by fostering social capital, cohesion, and collective efficacy. Nordic experiences indicate that measures such as sustained meeting places, inclusive leisure activities, outreach and relational services, and stable adult presence in the local environment can contribute to building trust and reducing social distance (Brattbakk & Andersen, 2017; Vista Analyse, 2015). Such measures can therefore be seen as an extension of the social measures discussed in the previous section, targeting not only individuals and families, but the relational infrastructure of the neighbourhood itself.
Qualitative studies further highlight the role of local organisations and professionals as intermediaries who connect residents to public services and institutions, translate between systems, and facilitate co-operation across sectors (Custers & Engbersen, 2024). These actors contribute to what is often described as linking social capital, helping ensure that resources and services reach those most in need.
In general, this body of research suggests that area-based initiatives may influence children’s and young people’s development not only through the direct effects of individual measures, but also through their potential to shape collective neighbourhood characteristics. In this sense, investments in relationships, meeting places, and local collaboration structures can be understood as mechanisms that mediate between measures and outcomes, complementing the social interventions discussed above. However, identifying neighbourhood effects empirically is difficult, as it is hard to separate the influence of neighbourhood characteristics from individual characteristics, and uncertainty therefore remains regarding the strength and persistence of such effects (Galster, 2012).
Relational welfare and area-based initiatives
Building on the discussion of neighbourhood effects, the perspective of relational welfare offers a conceptual framework for understanding how collective neighbourhood characteristics are actively shaped through policy, services, and local interaction. In this perspective, relational welfare provides a way of understanding how the effectiveness of area-based measures depends on the relational structures through which they are implemented.
The perspective of relational welfare provides a useful theoretical framework for understanding why some area-based initiatives succeed in strengthening neighbourhoods and local communities, while others do not. In this context, relational welfare refers to an understanding of welfare as something that is produced through relationships, trust, and co-operation between individuals, services, and communities, rather than solely through individual benefits or service provision. At its core lies the idea that welfare is not created primarily through services and structures, but through relationships, networks, and local cooperation. Cottam (2011, 2020) argues that sustainable welfare solutions require strong, reciprocal relationships between people and between residents and institutions, and that public services must be designed to support, rather than replace, local networks.
Relational welfare also offers more precise concepts for how such qualities emerge. Von Heimburg and Ness (2021) argue that welfare depends on ‘the four Rs’: redistribution, recognition, representation, and relationships. In an area-based initiative, this means that residents not only need improved services and meeting places, but also must be included, listened to, and given influence. These are conditions for building what neighbourhood research identifies as social trust and collective responsibility. Research on relational practice in public services similarly shows that continuity, presence, collaboration, and reciprocity trigger positive mechanisms that reduce isolation and strengthen community bonds (Lamph et al., 2023). In this sense, relational welfare can help clarify the mechanisms that underpin thriving neighbourhoods: trust, belonging, and social support do not arise automatically, but develop through repeated interactions, shared activities, common spaces, and services that facilitate cooperation.
At the same time, the perspective warrants critical attention. The literature on relational welfare is normative and idealistic, often based more on case studies and narratives than on strong causal evidence. The concept says little about the structural conditions required for relational processes to take root in disadvantaged areas, where time pressure, insecurity, weak organisational foundations, and limited resources frequently make relationship-building difficult. Despite these limitations, relational welfare remains a fruitful perspective for understanding the relational dimensions of neighbourhood development.
All in all, the literature reviewed in this chapter indicates that the effectiveness of area-based initiatives depends on the interaction between concrete measures, organisational arrangements, and relational dynamics at neighbourhood level. While measures and organisation provide necessary conditions, it is through the development of trust, social ties, and collective capacity that such initiatives may generate cumulative and potentially lasting effects for children and young people.
Summary
Area-based initiatives in the Nordic countries can be understood as place-based, cross-sectoral responses to concentrated living-condition challenges, combining physical, social, and organisational measures. Although the specific design and institutional context of such initiatives vary across countries, the literature reviewed in this chapter points to a shared understanding that complex neighbourhood-level problems require coordinated and locally anchored interventions rather than isolated sectoral measures.
Across Nordic experiences, the most consistently documented outcomes of area-based initiatives relate to organisation and process, including improved coordination between services, strengthened local presence, enhanced collaboration with civil society, and increased accessibility of welfare services. Evidence of long-term effects on living conditions, educational attainment, employment, or segregation remains limited and difficult to establish. This underlines the importance of focusing not only on the inclusion of social measures, but on their quality, intensity, and institutional anchoring within area-based initiatives.
The chapter further highlights that area-based initiatives are often underpinned by expectations of neighbourhood effects, understood as the influence of collective neighbourhood characteristics such as social capital, social cohesion, and collective efficacy. Research suggests that such characteristics are associated with positive outcomes for children and young people and can be strengthened through sustained investments in meeting places, relational services, participation, and local collaboration. In this perspective, area-based initiatives can be seen as attempts to build the relational and social infrastructure of neighbourhoods. The perspective of relational welfare offers a conceptual framework for understanding why relationships matter for the effectiveness of area-based initiatives.
3.7 Discussion
Four measures and a unifying structure of relationships
In this chapter, we have presented five types of measures that, in different ways, seek to promote social mobility and counteract the negative consequences of growing up in low-income families. The measures vary in structure, design, and target group, but they all rest on a core assumption: that inequality can be compensated for through targeted, high-quality, and relationship-oriented interventions. At the same time, research shows that the category of intervention in itself is not sufficient. Rather, it is the specific characteristics of the interventions – such as quality, continuity, accessibility, and relational mechanisms – that ultimately determine their effectiveness.
The first type of measure concerns what are often described as high-quality early childhood education and care (ECEC) settings. Research highlights process quality as the key mechanism behind their equalising effect. ECEC becomes effective only when children encounter emotionally available adults, language-rich environments, play-based learning, social structure, stability, and a sense of security. Structural and systemic conditions (staffing, competence, small group sizes, quality assurance) are necessary prerequisites, but it is the interactions and relationships that generate the actual impact. In this way, high-quality ECEC functions as a compensatory measure for children who receive less linguistic, cognitive, and relational stimulation at home. Over time, such provision can also help reduce poverty and inequality by better preparing children for school.
The second type of measure is whole-school approaches (WSA). These combine structural interventions (e.g., free-of-charge after-school programmes, interdisciplinary teams, school meals), pedagogical measures (homework support, small-group instruction, systematic learning support), and socially supportive initiatives such as social emotional learning (SEL), school-based social workers, and inclusion measures. A WSA is therefore not a single intervention but an overarching framework that creates coherence across multiple compensatory mechanisms. Research indicates that these measures can be effective for students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, particularly when they are implemented over time, are well-coordinated, and combine academic and social components.
The third type of measure includes parenting support programmes and more system-oriented models such as family centres and coordinator schemes. Here, we have highlighted three initiatives: ‘Nye mønstre’ (New patterns), ‘Opgang til opgang’ (Entrance to entrance) and nurse–family partnership. In all these, the coordinator role acts as a bridge between the family and the support services, helping compensate for the fact that low-income families often have fewer resources and weaker system literacy. If such measures also include a system for capacity-building within the service apparatus, thereby laying the foundation for developing poverty-aware services, this contributes to strengthening the relationships between low-income families and the support system (Gustavsen, 2023).
The fourth type of measure encompasses economic and organisational mechanisms that increase children’s participation in leisure activities, such as activity vouchers, leisure passes, and equipment centres. These measures reduce financial barriers, and their effect emerges when children gain access to inclusive environments, stable adults, safe social relationships, and opportunities for mastery. In other words, these interventions function as an entry point to arenas with potentially strong relational and identity-forming mechanisms. In addition to strengthening social bonds and a sense of community, participation in leisure activities can also yield direct cognitive benefits for children and young people. Such experiences may enhance concentration, problem-solving skills, and feelings of mastery – factors that contribute to the development of psychological resilience and learning capacity. Meaningful leisure activities also stimulate the brain through the release of neurotransmitters such as dopamine, serotonin, and endorphins. These chemicals are directly associated with feelings of happiness, reward, and a reduced risk of depression and anxiety (Gustavsen, 2023).
The fifth type of measure is area-based initiatives. These differ from the previous four in that they do not target a single arena but rather the totality of children’s environments. Area-based initiatives can be understood as the mesosystem in Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory. In Bronfenbrenner’s ecological framework, the mesosystem refers to the interactions and linkages between a child’s immediate environments – such as family, school, leisure activities, and local services – and is therefore critical for understanding how coordinated efforts can shape children’s everyday lives. Research also shows that relationship-building is one of the most essential features of such initiatives. Through cross-sector coordination, local participation, and the creation of shared meeting places, area-based initiatives aim to strengthen trust, social networks, and collaboration between residents and public services. These relational processes often determine whether measures remain isolated efforts or evolve into a coherent neighbourhood-wide strategy capable of mobilising local resources and supporting children’s development.
Quality and relationships as core elements
The review of the five measures suggests that their impact on social mobility is not determined by the type of intervention itself, but by how the measures are designed and implemented. Early childhood education, schools, leisure initiatives, parenting support, and area-based programmes can all generate equalising effects, but only when they are characterised by specific qualities such as strong process quality, integrated and coherent approaches, and well-developed relational components.
A further core dimension of quality across the five measures is the central role of relationships. In different forms – between children and adults, between families and services, and between services and local communities – relationships function as a prerequisite for interventions to connect with families and produce meaningful benefits for children in low-income households. This understanding resonates with the perspective of relational welfare, which views welfare not primarily as benefits or discrete services, but as something generated and sustained through trust, proximity, collaborative practices, and stable bonds between people and institutions (Cottam, 2011; Von Heimburg & Ness, 2021).
Research on relational welfare shows that relationships operate on multiple levels (Lamph et al., 2023). At the individual level, it concerns safe, caring, and available adults – something particularly beneficial for children living with high stress and uncertainty. At the service level, relationships function as a bridge between families and the system. And at the organisational level, strong relationships across services form the basis for coordination, information sharing, and integrated support around the child. This also serves as a counterbalance to vertical governance in the public sector, which often reinforces siloed structures.
Viewed in this light, the perspective of relational welfare helps clarify why the five measures tend to be effective when they succeed. High-quality early childhood education offers a relational safety net for the youngest children. Schools with holistic orientations are marked by secure teacher–student relationships and inclusive learning environments. Leisure activities generate impact when children feel recognised and supported by adult leaders and develop positive peer relationships. Parenting support and coordinator schemes are effective when trust is built over time and when sustained relationships are established both between practitioners and families and between families and the wider service system. Area-based initiatives, in turn, link these efforts by connecting the key arenas in children’s everyday lives.
As noted, the quality of the measures is crucial, and relationships form a key part of that quality. Relationships function as a central mechanism of impact, enabling interventions to work as intended. While structural conditions such as funding and organisation are necessary, they are not sufficient. Lasting effects arise only when measures foster stable, trusting, and inclusive relationships between children and adults, families and services, and across the wider system. Relational quality can therefore be viewed as the mechanism that converts solid structures into actual social mobility.
Structure as a prerequisite for relational quality
It is important to emphasise that relationships cannot be regarded as the sole or primary mechanism behind social equalisation (Von Heimburg & Ness, 2021). The Nordic welfare states are fundamentally built on universal economic arrangements such as child benefits, subsidised early childhood education, free schooling, and publicly supported student financing. All these arrangements have historically contributed more to social mobility than most relationally oriented interventions. In this light, relational mechanisms help explain how services make an impact, but they cannot substitute for the foundational role of economic security.
To understand how the welfare system functions as a whole for children and young people in low-income families, it is useful to consider at least three interdependent dimensions: a) economic support schemes that provide material security and reduce stress; b) institutional arrangements – such as ECEC, schools, health clinics, and employment and welfare services – that organise and structure the provision of support; and c) relational mechanisms that concern the quality of interactions between children, parents, and professionals within and across these structures. Seen together, these dimensions illustrate that the five measures discussed in this chapter cannot be understood in isolation. Rather they form part of a wider welfare ecosystem in which economic, structural, and relational conditions must work in concert.
Final reflections
It is reasonable to argue that if families facing difficult living conditions received timely and effective support, both the families themselves and society at large would be spared considerable strain and cost.
A key intervention that should be integrated across all areas discussed is the strengthening of knowledge and competence. Services that work with low-income families must have knowledge about what poor living conditions entail, what socioeconomic stress is, and how to practise in a way that is sensitive to disadvantaged living conditions (Gustavsen, 2023). This includes knowledge about the brain’s responses to stress and how such stress can trigger cognitive, psychological, and somatic challenges.
In addition, there is a need to promote evidence-informed practice as a guiding principle for the development and implementation of measures and policy instruments. Evidence-informed practice does not imply a narrow reliance on standardised interventions, but rather a context-sensitive integration of different forms of knowledge. This includes research-based and theoretical knowledge, professional expertise and judgement, as well as the experiences and perspectives of service users. Such an approach allows interventions to be adapted to local conditions and complex family situations, while still being grounded in the best available knowledge.
Equally important is an understanding of what evidence-informed practice requires, and how welfare professionals can and should work in a knowledge-based manner. This entails a continuous commitment by both practitioners and leaders to monitor their own practice and ensure that interventions genuinely produce benefits for the families they are intended to support.