GEN-Y CITY Developing, attracting & retaining Gen-Y ‘creative-tech’ talent in European cities Baseline Study 1 Lead Partner City Development Department Poznań City Hall Plac Kolegiacki 17 www.poznan.pl 61-841 Poznań +48 61 878 47 00 Lead Representative: Iwona Matuszczak-Szulc [email protected] Communication Officer: Karolina Łukowska [email protected] Finance Officer: Monika Owień-Hofman [email protected] Lead Expert Jim Sims [email protected] +44 (0)7740511976 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................................... 4 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE BASELINE STUDY ....................................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 THE MAIN COMPONENTS OF THE URBACT III BASELINE STUDY ............................................................................................... 4 2.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 DEFINITION OF THE MAIN POLICY CHALLENGE TO BE ADDRESSED ................................................................................................ 4 2.2 CONTRIBUTION TO THE EU 2020 STRATEGY AND 2014/2020 COHESION POLICY ........................................................................ 6 2.3 BUILDING ON THE URBACT KNOWLEDGE ............................................................................................................................. 8 3.0 THE GEN-Y CITY ‘STATE OF THE ART’.......................................................................................................................... 9 3.1 SETTING THE SCENE: UNDERSTANDING THE CONTEXT .............................................................................................................. 9 3.2 THE WAR FOR ‘CREATIVE-TECH’ TALENT ............................................................................................................................... 13 4.0 A FRAMEWORK FOR DEVELOPING, ATTRACTING & RETAINING YOUNG CREATIVE-TECH TALENT IN A CITY ............ 14 4.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................... 14 4.2 COLLABORATIVE LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE .................................................................................................................. 15 4.3 PLACEMAKING ................................................................................................................................................................ 16 4.4 DEVELOPING YOUNG CREATIVE-TECH TALENT IN THE CITY ...................................................................................................... 22 4.5 RETAINING YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE CITY ................................................................................................................................ 27 4.6 ATTRACTING AND EMBEDDING CREATIVE-TECH TALENT IN THE CITY .......................................................................................... 34 5.0 PARTNER PROFILES.................................................................................................................................................. 45 5.1 OUR PARTNERSHIP .......................................................................................................................................................... 45 5.2 DAUGAVPILS (LATVIA – LESS DEVELOPED) .................................................................................................................... 46 5.3 KLAIPEDA (LITHUANIA – LESS DEVELOPED) .................................................................................................................. 54 5.4 WOLVERHAMPTON (UNITED KINGDOM – MORE DEVELOPED) ...................................................................................... 60 5.5 GRANADA (SPAIN - TRANSITION) .................................................................................................................................. 66 5.6 POZNAN (POLAND – LESS DEVELOPED) ........................................................................................................................ 73 5.7 GENOA (ITALY – MORE DEVELOPED) ........................................................................................................................... 80 5.8 KRISTIANSAND (NORWAY – MORE DEVELOPED) ........................................................................................................... 89 5.9 NANTES (FRANCE – MORE DEVELOPED) ...................................................................................................................... 96 5.10 BOLOGNA (ITALY – MORE DEVELOPED) ...................................................................................................................... 102 5.11 SABADELL (SPAIN – MORE DEVELOPED) ..................................................................................................................... 108 5.12 COIMBRA (PORTUGAL – LESS DEVELOPED) ................................................................................................................ 113 5.13 TORUN (POLAND – LESS DEVELOPED) ........................................................................................................................ 117 6.0 SYNTHESIS ............................................................................................................................................................. 122 6.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................. 122 6.2 THE LEARNING NEEDS OF PARTNERS AND CONTRIBUTION TO THE LEARNING PROGRAMME .......................................................... 123 6.4 DELIVERING AN EFFECTIVE LEARNING PROGRAMME THAT LEADS TO CONCRETE ACTION .............................................................. 128 6.5 MONITORING RESULTS AND CAPITALISATION ..................................................................................................................... 129 6.6 NEXT STEPS .................................................................................................................................................................. 130 Version Number Date Last edited by Comments Version 14 28/12/15 Jim Sims Sent to LP& Secretariat Version 30 28/01/16 Jim Sims Sent to partners Version 35 29/02/16 Jim Sims Sent to Pole Expert Version 36 02/03/16 Jim Sims Feedback from Lead Partner and Pole Expert Version 44 (FINAL) 15/3/16 Jim Sims Post pole expert changes 3 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 Purpose of the Baseline Study 1.1.1 All URBACT action-planning networks are required to produce a baseline study during the development phase of their network. It is a capitalisation exercise, providing partners with an opportunity to start their work with a sound underpinning of knowledge combined with an awareness of the state of play in other European cities, including each of the partner cities. It involves the Lead Expert working closely with the Lead and Project Partners in a process that strengthens understanding amongst the key actors and provides the foundations for the network. 1.1.2 Baseline studies allow the partners to: Deepen and share understanding of the way that related policy has developed elsewhere in Europe and at EU level (referred to as the ‘state of the art’ elsewhere in this document). The study should also be an opportunity for cities to explore with their expert the current state of the art in the discipline. This will ensure that the topic is defined in the most relevant way by taking account of existing work in that field. It will also help to identify what the project’s added value could be, as well as underlining potential links to other ongoing projects, programmes and platforms working on similar issues. Build knowledge of the issues in each city and deepen the understanding that each partner has of the situation in the other partner cities. This will clarify the policy conditions under which each city operates, facilitate exploration of the specific needs and experience in each city, and thereby verify the relevance of the project. Establish baseline indicators relating to the URBACT III Programme level results for each city, in order to assess progress over the course of the project Develop a shared understanding of the issues, needs and research agenda for the implementation phase of the project on which partner activities can be planned in detail. 1.1.3 The concept of a baseline is familiar in evaluation as a way of establishing the starting position, before activities commence. This provides a yardstick against which progress can be measured. It is to be envisaged that the baseline document will be finished before the final (real or virtual) meeting of the partnership during the development phase in order to inform the final work programme and application form for phase 2. 1.2 The Main Components of the URBACT III Baseline Study 1.2.1 The URBACT baseline study comprises 3 separate but related components as follows: 1. A ‘State of the Art’ providing a European level overview of the topic being addressed by the project and existing knowledge/ projects/ programmes/ good practices, etc. related to the policy challenge to be addressed. 2. Partner Profiles