Socio-educational action in self-managed youth meeting spaces in the Basque country

ABSTRACT

This study focuses on the emerging phenomenon of youth hangouts as a self-managed sphere for leisure and free time in the context of the Basque Country. The aim of this research was to analyse the following: the characterisation of these spaces and the profile of their participants; possible problems of coexistence; and youth participation and development in their context and in relation to their community. Employing a quantitative methodology, questionnaires were administeried to a sample of 2,014 young people from seven municipalities of Bizkaia (Basque Country). Some of the most significant findings refer to the continuous growth of this phenomenon and the consideration of youth spaces as a context for growth and social participation. These are important aspects to be considered when developing educational and youth policies.

RESUMEN

Este estudio se centra en el fenómeno emergente de los lugares de reunión de jóvenes como un ámbito del ocio y el tiempo libre en el contexto del País Vasco. El objetivo de esta investigación fue analizar lo siguiente: la caracterización de estos espacios y el perfil de sus participantes; posibles problemas de convivencia; y participación juvenil y desarrollo en su contexto y en relación con su comunidad. Para ello, se empleó la metodología cuantitativa mediante la administración de un cuestionario a una muestra de 2.014 jóvenes de siete municipios de Bizkaia (País Vasco). Algunos delos hallazgos más significativos se refieren al continuo crecimiento de este fenómeno y la consideración de los espacios juveniles como contextos de crecimiento y participación social. Estos son aspectos importantes a considerar en el desarrollo de políticas educativas y de juventud.

KEYWORDS:

• Social-educational action
• youth
• education and leisure
• youth participation
• learning

PALABRAS CLAVE:

• acción socioeducativa
• juventud
• Educación y ocio
• participación juvenil
• aprendizaje

Introduction

Various institutions have focused their attention on how to support and encourage young people as they develop and engage with society. Following a European Union (2010) demographic pyramid that shows how the population is ageing, the Europe 2020 Strategy highlighted the need for youth policies and actions to achieve smart, integrative, and sustainable growth. This strategy is centred on involving, connecting, and enabling young people from different countries; a clear example of this being the new Erasmus programme that has been announced for the 2021–2027 period (European Union, 2018). It expands informal learning mobility for young people and learning mobility opportunities for staff, apprentices, and students in higher and vocational education. It also reintroduces mobility for school pupils and low-skilled adult learners.

Adding to this, the responsibility of public institutions (local municipalities and regional governments) to encourage growth, learning, and the participation of all their members — including the youth population — raises the following key questions: what is the responsibility of the Government and adult role models (such as educators) in enabling and driving the participation, growth, and empowerment of youngsters? Secondly, how can we adapt these social and educative interventions to current changes in young people and to the use of leisure and free time?

The youth of today has undergone profound changes. The period of youth itself has been prolonged due to the fact that young people are spending a longer time in education and entering into the job market at a generally later age (Bynner et al., 2019; Cabasés et al., 2017; Corcuera et al., 2019; Tejerina et al., 2012). A further cause for change has been the significant development of information and communication technologies and the consequences for relations and habits in society, particularly among young people (Ahmedani et al., 2010). A further development has been the emergence of new and varied interests around the concept of leisure and free time (Ortega et al., 2015).

Young people are taking different approaches to leisure and free time. In the Basque Country, one such phenomenon is the “youth hangouts”, where large groups of adolescents and young people can rent and manage empty ground-floor premises. These premises are typically allocated for commercial use but are left vacant (Tejerina et al., 2012), and eventually adapted for the recreational activities of young people in their free time (Cruz et al., 2020; Monteagudo et al., 2017; Tejerina et al., 2012). Groups of teenagers and young friends come together to these space for leisure activities, such as interacting with peers, listening to music, playing video and recreational games, participating in social networks, and also, especially at the weekend, drinking alcohol for fun. In itself, it is a space self-managed by its participants, carrying out some of the leisure activities that were previously done in the privacy of their homes, or in spaces such as cultural centres, pubs, or on the street. They are also used sometimes as a space for personal daily activities, such as studying, searching for work, or resolving conflicts or problems that appear on a day-to-day basis. Sometimes their use becomes daily; in other cases, it is limited to the weekend, where it is also common for people who do not participate in these spaces to be invited (Cruz et al., 2020).

Although a recent phenomenon, these hangouts respond to the historical (Abbott-Chapman & Robertson, 2015; Hall et al., 1999) and current need felt by young people to have a space where they can develop and enjoy their leisure time. The phenomenon was first identified in the 1990s and became widespread in the Basque Country less than a decade ago (Corcuera et al., 2013; Monteagudo et al., 2017). It enables a large section of the youth population — whether directly or indirectly — to conduct their activities in a group setting, and has become a central part of their socialising, leisure time, and interests (Corcuera et al., 2013; Tejerina et al., 2012). Currently, 20% of the Basque youth population (62,041 individuals) belong to and participate in youth hangouts or leisure societies. A further 36% have been in a friend’s hangout and another 30% would like to participate in these spaces in the future (Corcuera et al., 2013). A greater percentage of boys (24%) than girls (15%) participate in the hangouts (Corcuera et al., 2013; Laespada, 2008; Tejerina et al., 2012). Age is also a significant factor. In the 15–29-year age bracket, 20% of young people currently have a hangout, with this figure rising to 26% of young people aged 20–24 years and 25% of those aged 15–19 years. This means, in effect, that a quarter of the youth population in the Basque Country under 25 years of age currently has a place for meeting up with friends. The 25–29 year age bracket has the lowest percentage of young people with a hangout (11%). Another aspect of those participating in youth hangouts is that most reside with their parents (Corcuera et al., 2013). Bearing in mind that the average age leaving home in the context of this phenomenon is 29.8 years (Youth Observatory, 2018), it is understandable that these young people need their own spaces — shared with their peers — where they can enjoy leisure experiences outside the family home.

Various studies suggested that young people participating in youth hangouts do not agree that there are cohabitation problems within the hangout (Corcuera et al., 2013; Laespada, 2008; Tejerina et al., 2012). The use of these hangouts is not therefore characterised by any particular difficulties or negative factors, but rather by their benefits or positive aspects, although the young people involved are aware of the difficulties inherent in cohabitation and the conflicts which may arise with other stakeholders, such as their neighbours in the building. According to these studies, the hangouts become a reference point and a meeting place for a group of equals (Doistua et al., 2016; Monteagudo et al., 2017). The hangouts are closely linked to a desire to share leisure time with friends, and in this sense, they are spaces for socialising. However, the hangout is not only a place of refuge for getting together with friends, but also a testing ground for autonomy — something that appears to be emerging at an increasingly later age. Young people recognise that autonomy and responsibility are inherent to the hangout. The former comes from having to organise themselves with others, and the latter from keeping the hangout in good condition and maintaining social harmony with the neighbours (Alonso et al., 2018; Corcuera et al., 2013).

Various studies suggested that the culture of youth participation in leisure spaces contributes significantly to the education of young people as critical citizens, promoting responsibility, availability, leadership, and a sense of belonging (Aguirre et al., 2019). Similarly, these spaces generate social, cultural, and personal knowledge that allows young people to interpret the space and its rules of use in a complex and critical way (Mecca, 2018), and as such, this process develops within a scenario that is suitable for experimentation (Doistua et al., 2016).

The literature has demonstrated the multiple ways in which leisure is integral to the emotional, cognitive, physical, and social development of young people (Alonso et al., 2019; Freire & Teixeira, 2018; Rodríguez et al., 2018). Leisure is a source of personal and social growth and development for them (Alonso et al., 2019; Álvarez et al., 2014), and is considered to be a protective factor against risky behaviours, promoting prosocial skills, as well as self-efficacy (Casey et al., 2005; García et al., 2012).

In general terms, leisure can be linked to those times and pleasurable activities that are motivating. These are in some way what we choose to engage in freely (Iwasaki et al., 2018), being activities that help to relax both the body and mind. Young people are not exempt from these needs. In fact, it is at this stage that young people will at times begin to experiment with activities and consumption behaviours (alcohol, hard drugs, gambling) that might lead them to the dark side of leisure and its risk of extremely harmful consequences, such as addiction and mental deterioration.

Around the world, young people are demonstrating that leisure represents a major opportunity, not only for individual development, but also for contribution and change. The way young people spend their free time is also linked to the growing threats to their well-being (Beniwal, 2018; Kim et al., 2019). It is fundamental that the collective has spaces in which to experience alternative leisure — leisure that feeds their personal well-being and allows them to grow within the community. Hangouts provide an opportunity for such growth.

Leisure activities organized by young people themselves are particularly effective in promoting their independence and allowing them to experiment, since they must assume the responsibilities for planning, which also increases personal motivation and has an impact on life experiences, making the latter more authentic (Alonso et al., 2019; Doistua et al., 2016). Some research points out that these leisure activities have a greater impact, albeit in the presence of an adult education figure, if there is a leading role for young people, and they are given greater responsibility for planning and decision making (Alonso et al., 2019; Doistua et al., 2016).

In this sense, the hangouts of the Basque Country have become a new form of organization that ties in with the existing concerns in the scientific literature about how to promote participation, growth, learning, and empowerment among the youth population. Briggs (2011) highlighted the importance of socio-educational action in youth spaces for preventing young people from distancing themselves and becoming socially excluded. Úcar (2018) defined socio-educational intervention as a professional activity performed by community workers for setting up a socio-cultural situation or problem, with the aim of creating scenarios that assist people, groups, and communities to participate and to empower themselves and to give themselves the lessons and the resources that are needed to improve their position in the world. For example, one study focusing on the impact of structured participation in a youth club concluded that this can be beneficial as it boosts participation to more autonomous levels, thus enabling an empowering and autonomous learning process (Aguirre et al., 2019).

These socio-educational interventions raise a point that has been recognised for some time, that is, that learning occurs throughout the entire life span and that it can take place in any social environment, not just in formal education spaces in the traditional sense (Norqvist & Leffler, 2017). Indeed, leisure time could be particularly important for many developmental processes in adolescence (Säfvenbom & Samdahl, 1998).

The aim of many of these programmes and socio-educative initiatives that promote the intervention of community workers has also been to promote youth involvement and social engagement (Checkoway, 2011; Pritzker & Schuster, 2016). The European Council (2010) discussed this goal in the context of the need to ensure that every young person plays a role in society and contributes to its development. Checkoway (2011) entailed the involvement of young people in the situations and decisions that have an impact on their lives whilst providing them with the tools to facilitate this involvement, through community workers and mediators. In the phenomenon studied in this work, we are referring to those community workers employed by many municipalities in the Basque Country to carry out community and educational work in the hangouts of their locality. Normally they are mixed teams, men and women, with more than three members depending on the size of the municipality (Cruz et al., 2020). These teams of community workers carry out an initial diagnosis of the situation in the municipality, contact and get access to these spaces, and later carry out an individual and group socio-educational intervention with these young people, and also to evaluate the results (Alonso et al., 2018)

In this context, the objective of our study was to: 1) analyse the characteristics of youth hangouts (aspects such as number of participants, years of operation, access to other people), the profile of their participants (gender, age, and socio-economic status) and the type of emancipation in these spaces, as well as the relationship between these aspects and socio-demographic variables such as gender and socio-economic status; 2) analyse the relationship between possible conflicts in the hangouts and gender and socio-economic status; 3) analyse the level of satisfaction with contact with educators and community workers and/or town hall experts; 4) analyse the perception of participation in the community, personal growth and the social image of the hangouts and whether there are differences depending on the type of participation in the hangouts, contact with educators and community workers and/or town hall experts, and socio-demographic factors (such as gender or socio-economic status).

Methodology

Participants

The sample consisted of 2,014 participants, selected from a total of 100,000 young people from seven municipalities in Biscay (Basque Country). The average age of the participants was 22.0 years (SD = 4.00). Of the sample, 48.6% were girls and 51.4% were boys. 31.8% were members of a hangout, 33.1% had been members of one in the past, and 35.1% were not part of a hangout.

The data were gathered via telephone interview. Telephone surveying remains one of the most popular models of data collection in probability sample surveys, in spite of the rapid developments of novel and more cost-effective technologies (i.e. web-based surveys). One of the main advantages of telephone surveys is the relative simplicity of the procedures used to obtain probability samples of the general population whilst maintaining acceptable response rates and accessing a wide range of areas (Vehovar et al., 2012).

This research technique enabled us to respond to all of the objectives set and yielded valid and reliable results which can be used to define effective action for going forward. We gained written informed consent after providing the study participants with information on the research objectives, the anonymity of the data, and the voluntary nature of their participation. We emphasised the need for honest responses and stressed that the data would be treated in the strictest confidence. It takes the participants around 15 min to respond to all questions.

Stratified sampling based on gender and age was carried out in each region. The sampling error was ±2.1 for the overall dataset and ± 5.5 for the data from each municipality, with a confidence interval of 95% (Table 1).

Table 1. Sample strata according to gender and age.

Municipality	Surveys	16–24 age group	Weighting	Sampling error at 95% conf. int.
Santurtzi	302	6160	1.330553	5.5%
Bermeo	280	2294	0.0534426	5.5%
Galdakao	295	4213	0.931584	5.5%
Getxo	310	12037	2.5328448	5.5%
Valle Trápaga	265	1478	0.367981	5.5%
Mungia	285	2433	0.446865	5.5%
Derio-Lezama-Loiu-Sondika-Zamundio	280	2260	0.526505	5.5%
Total	1,014	30,875	1.000000	2.1%

Variables and measurement instruments

We used a single questionnaire containing closed and open questions to analyse various dimensions related to socio-demographic characteristics, aspects related to the composition and use of hangouts, characteristics of the hangouts, coexistence problems, social perception of the hangouts, participation in the community and personal growth, and finally, items related to the quality of socio-educational intervention in hangouts.

The first part comprised questions about the participant’s profile related to socio-demographic factors, including age, gender, region, socio-economic status, and emancipation (Corcuera et al., 2013), and also on how they use the youth hangouts. To establish how young people use the hangouts, we provided nine options requiring a yes/no answer. Items that had been used in previous research were used to analyse this phenomenon (Corcuera et al., 2013).

The second section consisted of questions on the characteristics of the hangouts and the reasons for participating in them. The items created here were based on those used in previous research analysing hangouts (Corcuera et al., 2013; Tejerina et al., 2012). We provided 12 possible yes/no responses to establish the reasons why hangouts are a leisure resource. In choosing the response options, we primarily considered the conclusions of qualitative studies conducted in Portugalete and Vitoria-Gasteiz in the Basque Country (Tejerina et al., 2012), and also previous quantitative studies (Corcuera et al., 2013).

The third part addressed cohabitation problems, drawing upon the study by Corcuera et al. (2013) as a reference. We used dichotomous questions to quantify or measure the intensity of cohabitation problems which may exist as a result of activity in the youth hangouts, e.g. whether the participants have had any problems with the owner of the hangout, their neighbours, the town hall, or other people using the space.

The fourth part used a Likert scale with values ranging from 1 (not at all) to 10 (completely) to assess the social perception that young people have of the hangouts. We used an existing questionnaire designed for this purpose (Corcuera et al., 2013) which presented various positive and negative statements related to the social function of the youth hangouts, including: “it’s cheaper to go to the hangout than a bar”; “people mainly use it for drinking”; “it teaches you about responsibility”, etc. Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was .659.

The fifth part comprised two Likert scales with values ranging from 1–10 to assess participation in the community and personal growth. We used the following three items to measure participation in the community: “Do you think the hangouts can play an important role in the community (festivals, cultural policies, social support activities, etc.)?”; “Does having a hangout encourage participation in the community?” and; “Does having a hangout improve relationships between members of the group?”. Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was .661. We used a two-item scale to gather data on personal growth. The first item was: “Does having a hangout teach you to take on responsibilities and to organise yourself with others?” The second was: “Does the hangout enable you to learn and develop on a personal level?” Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was .676.

Finally, we used a four-item scale to measure the quality of socio-educational intervention. The items were: “What has the relationship with the community workers been like?”; “Can their work help us in some way?”; “How would you assess the activities carried out so far?” and; “Should town halls provide mediators in the event of problems with neighbours or with the owner of the hangout?”. Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was .856.

Data analysis

We used a descriptive and comparative methodology. Statistical data were analysed using SPSS 24.0. Contingency tables, Kruskal–Wallis tests, and Mann–Whitney U tests were used in the statistical analysis given that the quantitative data were not normally distributed. We adopted a significance level of p <.05.

Results

Characteristics of youth hangouts and participant profiles

The descriptive analysis of the sample indicates that youth hangouts consist of groups with an average number of 22 individuals, with an average age of 22.20 years (minimum 16 years, maximum 29 years). Most hangouts have been operating for around three years and the people participating in them have been doing so for just under 2.6 years. Most hangouts are mixed (69.6%), whilst 26.5% of youth hangout members occasionally sleep in the hangout. Most hangout members were previously members of another hangout (65.7%), and the majority allow access to people who are not members (94.4%). In addition, many hangouts comprise not just one group but more than one group, which have come together to form the hangout (40.8%). The majority of participants (63.5%) only use the hangout at the weekend.

We used the chi-squared test and Kruskal–Wallis test to observe whether there was a link between the various groups based on gender, socio-economic status, and level of emancipation, and from there we conducted a socio-demographic comparison of the profile of the young people using the hangouts. Table 2 outlines the profile of these young people based on how they use the hangouts, and socio-demographic variables.

Table 2. Profile of participants and non-participants in youth hangouts based on gender, age and level of emancipation.

	Hangout participant		Previously, now not		Non-hangout participant
	N	%	N	%	N	%	χ²
Gender
Male	361	66.2	276	44.8	243	40.4	78.552***
Female	184	33.8	290	51.2	358	59.6
	N	M	N	M		M	χ²
Age
	546	21.61	566	22.60	601	22.36	34.783***
	N	%	N	%	N	%	χ²
Socio-economic status
…  … High	131	24.3	144	25.6	174	29.5	5.944
…  … Medium-High	351	65.1	347	61.7	347	58.8
…  … Medium-Low	57	10.6	71	12.6	69	11.7
	N	%	N	%			χ²
Emancipation
…  … I live with my parents	530	97.1	529	94.0	563	94.1	18.291***
…  … I live alone	4	0.7	7	1.2	16	2.7
…  … I live with a housemate	5	0.9	19	3.4	10	1.7
…  … I live in a house share	4	0.7	8	1.4	9	1.5

***p<.001

Comparison of the groups revealed differences based on gender (χ² = 78.552, p<.001), age (χ² = 34.783, p<.001), and level of emancipation (χ² = 18.291***). More boys (66.2%) use the hangouts than girls (33.8%).

In terms of average age, those participating in hangouts are generally younger (M = 21.61) than those who previously participated but have been members for longer (M = 22.60) and are also younger than those who are not members (M = 22.36).

Significant differences were also found in relation to emancipation. A high percentage of individuals in all groups still live with their parents, with a slightly higher percentage in the case of hangout participants compared with the other groups (97.1%).

We used the chi-squared test to analyse the relationship between the way hangouts are used and variables linked to gender and socio-economic status.

Table 3 shows gender-based differences in how the hangouts are used, with significant differences being confirmed for the following activities: watching TV (χ² = 5.857, p<.01), playing video games (χ² = 84.720, p<.001), playing board games (χ² = 3.926, p<.05), studying (χ² = 7.402, p<.001), and smoking joints (χ² = 12.361, p<.001). The results indicated that boys using the hangouts watch more TV (92.8%) than girls (86.4%), play more video games (89.5%) than girls (54.9%), play more board games (85.0%) than girls (78.3), and smoke more joints (51.5%) than girls (35.7%). Conversely, more girls (44.6%) than boys (32.7%) use the hangouts as a place to study.

Table 3. Type of hangout participation broken down by gender and socio-economic status.

	Male				Female
	Yes		No		Yes		No
	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	χ²
Watching TV	334	92.8	26	7.2	159	86.4	25	13.6	5.857**
Video games	324	89.5	38	10.5	101	54.9	83	45.1	84.720***
Board games	307	85.0	54	15.0	144	78.3	40	21.7	3.926*
Drinking alcohol	287	79.5	74	20.5	156	84.3	29	15.7	1.859
Listening to music	349	96.7	12	3.3	179	97.3	5	2.7	.148
Studying	118	32.7	243	67.3	82	44.6	102	55.4	7.402***
Smoking joints	186	51.5	175	48.5	66	35.7	119	64.3	12.361***
Hobbies; painting etc.	130	36.0	231	64.0	58	31.5	126	68.5	1.087
Group conversations	353	97.8	8	2.2	180	97.3	5	2.7	.125
	High				Medium				Low
	Yes		No		Yes		No		Yes		No
	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	χ²
Watching TV	116	88.5	15	11.5	322	91.7	29	8.3	52	91.2	5	8.8	1.181
Video games/consoles	101	77.1	30	22.9	274	78.1	77	21.9	45	78.9	12	21.1	.090
Board games	110	83.3	22	16.7	285	81.2	66	18.8	51	89.5	6	10.5	2.403
Drinking alcohol	113	86.3	18	13.7	282	83.3	69	19.7	45	78.9	12	21.1	2.535
Music	128	97.7	3	2.3	340	96.9	11	3.1	54	93.1	4	6.9	2.771
Studying	49	37.4	482	62.6	124	35.3	227	64.7	235	44.8	32	44.2	1.953
Smoking joints	74	56.5	57	43.5	148	42.2	203	57.8	24	42.1	35	57.9	8.209*
Hobbies; building models, etc.	41	31.3	90	68.7	113	32.2	238	67.8	31	54.4	26	456	11.416
Group conversations	129	98.5	2	1.5	342	97.2	10	2.8	57	100	0	0	2.207

*p<.05 **p<.01***p<.001

The only significant difference relative to socio-economic status was in terms of smoking joints (χ² = 8.209, p<.05), with a somewhat higher percentage in the case of individuals with a high socio-economic status (56.5%).

Finally, we used the chi-squared test to evaluate the main reasons why young people use the hangouts and whether there is a link with gender and socio-economic status.

(Table 4)

Table 4. Reasons for using the hangout.

	Male		Female
	N	%	N	%	χ²
For financial reasons	6	1.8	8	5.1
To be with friends	253	74.9	108	61.0
To have a place to go in winter	63	18.6	46	26.0
To avoid having to go to bars all the time	0	0	1	0.6
Because of their boyfriend/girlfriend	1	0.3	0	0	21.710*
It’s a trend	1	0.3	5	2.8
Wanted a change	1	0.3	0	0
There’s nothing to do in the local area	3	0.9	3	1.7
To relax	1	0.3	0	0
They were bored hanging out in the street	1	0.3	0	0
To meet more people	7	2.1	5	2.8
They had similar pastimes	1	0.3	0	0
	High		Medium		Low
	N	%	N	%	N	%	χ²
For financial reasons	2	1.6	8	2.4	4	7.4
To be with friends	84	66.7	241	73.3	32	59.3
To have a place to go in winter	33	26.2	63	19.1	13	24.1
To avoid having to go to bars all the time	1	0.8	0	.0	0	.0
Because of their boyfriend/girlfriend	0	.0	1	.03	0	.0	53.057***
It’s a trend	0	.0	6	1.8	0	.0
Wanted a change	0	.0	1	0.3	0	.0
There’s nothing to do in the local area	2	1.6	3	0.6	0	.0
To relax	1	.8	0	0	0	.0
They were bored hanging out in the street	0	.0	0	0	1	1.9
To meet more people	3	2.4	6	1.8	3	5.6
They had similar pastimes	0	.0	0	0	1	1.9

*p<.05 **p<.01***p<.001

Table 4 shows a link between the reasons for using a hangout and gender. We can conclude that the majority of individuals in both groups choose to join a hangout “to be with their friends”, with a slightly higher percentage of boys (74.9%) than girls (61.0%) citing this reason. Those reasons cited in higher percentages for girls than boys are “financial reasons” (5.1%), “it’s a trend”, “to meet more people” (2.8%), and “there’s nothing to do in the local area” (1.7%). For boys, with the exception of “to meet more people” (2.1%) and “financial reasons” (1.8%), the other options were cited in less than 1% of cases.

The link with socio-economic status is statistically significant (χ² = 53.057, p<.001). “To be with friends” is the main reason cited among the three groups and is somewhat more predominant for individuals with a medium socio-economic status (73.3%). The next most predominant reason is “to have somewhere to go in winter”, although the percentage choosing this option is greater among those with a high socio-economic status. In addition, more individuals in the low socio-economic status group chose “for financial reasons” (7.4%) than those in the other two groups.

Cohabitation problems

We used the chi-squared test to assess whether there is a link between gender or socio-economic status and cohabitation problems with neighbours, hangout owners, hangout members, people from another hangout or with town halls.

The results in Table 5 show the significantly higher number of “No” than “Yes” responses in relation to conflicts or cohabitation problems in the hangouts. Neither gender nor socio-economic status appear to be significant determinants of whether there have been conflicts with neighbours, hangout owners, hangout members, people from another hangout or with the town hall.

Table 5. Conflict in youth hangouts broken down by gender and socio-economic status.

	Male				Fem.
	C. Yes		C. No		C. Yes		C. No
	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%
Neighbours	64	17.7	297	82.3	36	19.5	149	80.5	.245
Hangout owner	8	2.5	352	87.5	3	1.6	179	98.4	.400
Among hangout members	55	15.3	305	84.7	29	15.9	153	84.1	.040
People from another hangout	8	2.2	353	97.8	5	2.7	177	97.3	.146
Town Hall	18	5.0	341	95.0	9	4.9	173	95.1	.001
	High				Medium				Low
	Yes		No		Yes		No		Yes		No		χ²
	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%
Neighbours	28	21.4	103	78.6	56	16.0	295	84.0	151	26.3	42	73.3	4.555
Hangout owner	3	2.3	128	97.7	8	2.3	341	97.7	1	1.8	56	98.2	.067
Among hangout members	24	18.2	108	81.8	51	14.7	296	85.3	8	13.8	50	86.2	1.026
People from another hangout	2	1.5	128	98.5	10	2.9	338	97.1	0	0	57	100	2.233
Town Hall	5	3.8	125	96.2	20	5.8	327	94.2	1	1.9	55	98.2	2.039

Note: C. Yes = Conflict Yes; C. No = Conflict No.

Participation in the community, personal growth and social image of the hangouts

We used the Kruskal–Wallis test to analyse if there are significant differences between the groups regarding their perception of whether being part of a hangout helps with their community participation and personal growth, and whether this affects the social image they have of the hangouts. We used the Mann–Whitney U test for pairwise comparisons.

Table 6 shows the significant differences regarding the perceptions that youth may have towards these spaces as “spaces for participation” (χ² = 62.836, p<.001) “personal growth” (χ² = 64.255, p<.001) and “social image” (χ² = 201.787; p<.001). With regard to these three aspects, the scores of the group of young people who participated in youth hangouts were higher than the others. Pairwise comparisons revealed differences between all groups analysed with respect to participation and both the social image and view that young people have of the hangouts. Furthermore, the scores in all groups analysed were above the mean values.

Table 6. Personal growth, participation and social image in the community based on participation in hangouts (yes or no) and contact with educators/community workers or town hall experts, gender, and socio-economic status.

	P. Yes		P. now Do not		P. Do not
	N (M)	SD	N (M)	SD	N (M)	SD	χ²	C. two by two	SD
Participation	508 (5.89)	1.95	532(5.36)	2.13	557(4.81)	2.34	64.255***	Y/NN	2.06	159240.500***
								N	2.25	177318.000***
								Y/NN	2.23	146967.000***
Growth	540(6.45)	1.74	561(5.82)	1.98	583(5.55)	2.06	62.836***	Y/NN	1.89	172256.500***
								N	2.03	204566.500***
								Y/NN	1.96	166880.000***
Image	510(6.31)	1.02	527(5.69)	1.09	529(5.38)	1.22	201.787***	Y/NN	1.10	124143.000***
								N	1.17	160367.500***
								Y/NN	1.22	105475.000***
	High		Medium		Low
	N(M)	SD	N(M)	SD	N(M)	SD	χ²
Participation	430(5.30)	2.18	966(5.30)	2.21	183(5.58)	2.19	.048
Growth	438(5.80)	1.91	1032(5.91)	2.00	196(6.31)	1.92	2.76
Image	415(5.70)	1.13	952(5.77)	1.19	182(6.04)	1.24	1.06
	Male		Female
	N(M)	SD	N(M)	SD	U
Participation	810(5.24)	2.21	787(5.42)	2.18	414899.00*
Growth	867(5.83)	1.94	817(6.04)	2.00	448391.500**
Image	809(5.87)	1.13	757(5.70)	1.23	387150.500**

Note: P. yes = Participation hangouts Yes; P. now Do not = Participation hangouts before yes, now I do not; P. Do not; Participation hangouts I do not. Y = Participation hangouts Yes; NN = Participation hangouts now I do not; N = Participation hangouts I do not.

*p<.05 **p<.01***p<.001

However, it is worth noting that although significant, the highest mean scores were found in young people with a lower socio-economic background: participation (M = 5.58), growth (M = 6.31), and image (M = 6.04).

Finally, it is worth highlighting the differences according to gender in the three measures: participation (U = 414899.00, p<.01), growth (U = 448391.500, p<.001), and image (U = 387150.500, p<.001). In particular, girls had the highest scores for their perceptions of the youth hangouts as spaces for participation (M = 5.42) and personal growth (M = 6.04). However, in the case of social image, the scores of the boys were the highest (M = 5.87).

Table 7 shows the mean values of satisfaction regarding the contact between hangout participants and town hall experts or educators/community workers.

Table 7. Perception of satisfaction towards contact with administration or educators.

	N	M	D.T.
Satisfaction towards administration or educators	85	7.13	1.69

The mean values are positive (M = 7.13) and point to a positive relationship regarding the contact that the young people have had with educators and community workers and/or town hall experts.

We used Mann–Whitney U tests to study whether, based on this contact, there are differences in young people’s perception in terms of community participation, personal growth, and their perceived social image of the hangouts.

Table 8 shows that whilst the mean values are greater among those who have had some form of contact with educators and community workers and town hall experts, no significant differences emerge in terms of participation in the community, personal growth, and social image.

Table 8. The impact of contact with educators and community workers and/or town hall experts on participation in the community, personal growth, and happiness.

	I. Yes		I. No
	N (M)	SD	N (M)	SD
Participation in the community	104(6.08)	1.87	394(5.85)	1.96	29840.00
Personal growth	113(6.51)	1.47	416(6.44)	1.73	3516.00
Social image	107(6.25)	1.13	393(6.33)	.99	2865.500

Note: I Yes = Intervention yes; I. No = non-intervention.

Discussion and conclusions

The findings of this research are in accord with those reported in previous studies (Corcuera et al., 2013) suggesting the considerable impact of the phenomenon of youth hangouts among the youth population, with 31.8% of young people currently belonging to a hangout. As with other studies concerning the profile of individuals using youth hangouts (Corcuera et al., 2013; Laespada, 2008; Tejerina et al., 2012), we found that most members are boys (66.2%) with an average age of 21.5 years, and the majority still live with their parents. The novel findings to emerge in this particular study are the gender and socio-economic differences in terms of what young people consider to be the purpose of the hangouts, and why they decided to rent such a space. These differences should be taken into consideration in any research or socio-educational actions in relation to these spaces.

The potential for conflict in youth hangouts appears time after time in the collective consciousness, an idea that is reinforced by (mostly) negative news in the media. The results of our study, however, clearly suggest that there is a much lower level of conflict in reality. In particular, our data indicate that maintaining a good relationship with neighbours in the building is the norm, and that the percentage of conflict in most cases is below 20%. Furthermore, we have not identified any significant differences with respect to gender and socio-economic status when it comes to young people's perceptions of conflict. The disparity between the actual conflicts and the image projected by the collective consciousness suggests the need — following Krauskopf (2000) — for a shift from policies and actions that view the youth population as a problem towards a rather different approach, recognizing the potential for young people to develop into capable individuals. This perspective must, of course take into consideration their responsibility as citizens in relation to antisocial activity or indeed any activities that have a negative impact on the local area.

For all groups in this study — whether participants in youth hangouts or not — the young people believe that forming part of a youth hangout encourages participation in the community and personal growth. Previous studies have also highlighted the importance of young people having their own space for facilitating social engagement (Jennings et al., 2008; McHale et al., 2009). As proposed by Úcar et al. (2017), such spaces should provide young people with experiences that are linked to success, overcoming challenges, a sense of wellbeing, and the feeling that one is part of a group and a project — in other words, spaces synonymous with learning and experimentation (Jennings et al., 2008; McHale et al., 2009). Moreover, these spaces could help to provide young people with the tools for participating in all aspects of modern life (Krauskopf, 2000) and could support them in developing capabilities and new skills that meet the demands of the current social and employment spheres (Souto-Otero, 2016). In short, these spaces provide a solution to the current need for long-term learning and self-management (Alheit & Dausien, 2008). The youth hangout phenomenon shows great potential in terms of encouraging young people’s personal development and helping them to acquire much-needed skills, such as communication, social participation, conflict management, management/organisation of a space shared with peers, etc. (Alonso et al., 2018; Doistua et al., 2016; Fariñas & Gezuraga, 2018). This is an important issue that should be addressed by our political establishment, from a broader scale to the most local levels. To invest in youth policies is to invest in the future.

In this sense, this research provides valuable information and ideas for the various agents working in youth leisure. A number of experiences in other places (Morciano et al., 2014; Warner, 2012) indicate the importance of enabling young people to organize themselves and manage public or private spaces to develop their leisure activities. Moreover, across the globe we can find dance groups, sports groups, and groups related to the passions and interests of these young people in streets, parks, or public or private centres. Our work proposes that in hangouts — in which there is no educational aim — not only is growth promoted, but, through the socio-educational intervention of an adult role model, such spaces also allow for the protection, growth, and participation of these young people who are in a period of transition to adult life. This role model should not only provide support but also personal and collective empowerment. As stated by Cruz and collaborators (2020), it is a socio-educational intervention: a) that focuses on an approach of participation and empowerment and not of control; b) in which an initial participatory diagnosis of the needs of young people is the key; c) that takes into account different intervention phases that enable participation and empowerment: a first contact phase, a second activation and empowerment phase, and a third closing phase; d) that is based on the relationship and the educational link developed in the daily life, with an educational and team intention; e) that promotes socio-educational actions at the individual, group and community level and at the different levels of prevention of problems and behaviours of risk that appear in these spaces, i.e. before, during and after they appear. In short, it is an adult educational figure that, based on the needs, demands and concrete reality of young people in their natural spaces, and from the link and the educational relationship, allows to generate processes of activation, growth and empowerment both in them and in the community, while facing and preventing problems that appear at this vital moment. This is undoubtedly an important issue that must be addressed at the different levels of youth leisure policy and practice. It is important to identify these places where young people organize themselves to enjoy their leisure time, and to facilitate socio-educational actions so that spaces that are invisible or stigmatized within society become places of protection, growth, and participation.

As in previous studies (Briggs, 2011; Monroe et al., 2016), the majority of young people using these private spaces are not exempt from intervention by public administrations such as mediation (and other) programmes. One novel aspect of our study is that that we included two groups of young people: those who have maintained a relationship with educators and community workers via socio-educational programmes launched locally, and those who have not. The data show that young people positively assess approaches by public institutions when the latter are interested in their needs.

It can therefore be concluded that, whilst the literature showed low levels of self-management in youth leisure (Rodríguez et al., 2018), at least in the case of the Basque Country, there are self-managed youth experiences that are not only compatible with the interests and needs of young people but are also helping to generate new ways of organizing free time. Initiatives of this sort are helpful for producing new knowledge and skills in youngsters, along with transformation at political, individual, and social levels.

The chief limitation of this study is its geographical scope. Given that the research was conducted in a specific region and that the phenomenon has, up to now, been studied at a local level, the results should be taken to indicate trends that provide a clear picture of the local context, rather than simply being generalized to other places. Further, the use of single items (or a limited number of items) to measure some of the dimensions analysed could restrict the interpretation of the data. It is finally worth noting that our findings open up some possibilities for future research. For instance, in future studies it could be of interest to identify the methodological characteristics of the socio-educational actions and programmes being implemented with the youth population, with a view to achieving the stated aims of greater participation and learning. In turn, such research could also evaluate the results of programmes being developed in this area.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This study has been funded by the Youth and Sport Department of the Regional Government of Biscay and the Vice-Rector’s Office for Students, Employment and Social Responsibility of the University of the Basque Country.