For many decades, young people who are considered socially disadvantaged (e.g., socially, educationally, materially) have been identified and addressed as a risk group in the transition from school to work. Many policy measures have been developed to support them during this transition. Based on attributions of individual deficits in terms of skills, knowledge and vocational orientation, these measures aim to increase employability through counseling, information and pre-vocational education and training. Despite being addressed as passive recipients of support, these young people are simultaneously held responsible if they fail to transition into (qualified) employment. Based on analyzes of the biographies of German adolescents in lower secondary school and young adults who receive basic provisions through the so-called “Jobcenter,” this chapter examines how young people are actively involved in shaping their transitions. We show that the way they use institutional programs of career guidance and counseling varies greatly and that the differences are closely related to subjective meaning-making in the context of biographical constructions. This chapter focuses on how adolescents and young adults use institutionally offered support, how they (can) shape these offers and, thus, their transitions from school to work. It reveals that young people’s modes of use are relationally interwoven with institutional-structural aspects and discourses.

First, we approach this subject theoretically from the perspective of reflexive transition research and discuss empirical results from two case studies: one associated with a transition assistance scheme called “Career Entry Support”Footnote 1 and another associated with the “Jobcenter.” Both cases represent longitudinal research and are based on biographical narrative interviews. This chapter addresses the biographical relevance of transitional support for adolescents and young adults in transitioning from school to work and sketches the influence of welfare state modes of regulation on how young people view institutional assistance during the transition. Finally, we discuss similarities and differences of institutional modes of regulation and address the relationship between discursive attributions, institutional (access) regulation and biographical positioning.

Connections Between Welfare State Regulation and Subjective-Biographical Coping: Reflexive Transition Research

In this section, we develop a theoretical perspective on the relationship between welfare state regulations and subjective meaning-making in the context of biographical constructions. We will therefore, first, describe the significance of welfare state regulations in assistances with regard to life course transitions; second, we introduce theoretical aspects of biographical analysis; and third, we integrate both from the perspective of reflexive transition research.

From a theoretical perspective on transitions, the institutionalized life course (Kohli, 2017 [1985]) regulates life phases through institutional, socio-political and welfare state regulations along assumptions of normality (Heinz, 1991, 1992). This points to the lines of discourse immanent in the life course and to the temporality inherent in the concept of the life course linked to age. In Germany, social work acts as institutional social policy, increasingly in the sense of the activating welfare state and assumes the normal life course as a matter of fact (Kessl, 2009; Lessenich, 2013; Pohl & Walther, 2007). Social work measures intervene when fears arise that the “expected” life course, which is discursively produced and shaped by norms, will not be achieved (Walther et al., 2014). The welfare state is to be understood as an influence on the life course and as a framework for social work and social pedagogical action, and thus an institutional form of regulation. For the German context, this welfare state characteristic is reflected in transitional assistance in the form of the activation principle ‘rights and responsibilities’ (Kessl, 2009; Kratz, 2015) as well as in its preventive approach. Thus, welfare needs to be understood as one pillar of the life course; social work as an element of welfare (concerned with controlling and supporting people in staying on track of the life course) and activation as a change in the way welfare and social work address the life course. Through “doing biography” (Dausien & Hanses, 2016) – that is, examining the interaction between being addressed as an actor and author of an individual life history and the respective positioning and construction – biographers appropriate and update the institutionalized structural order of the life course. According to Völter et al. (2009, p. 7), biographies are a “social construct” that refer to individual patterns of processing experiences as well as to social rules, discourses and socio-economic conditions.

Against the background of these theoretical aspects, so-called disadvantaged young people are addressed as participants of transition-related support in the field of assistance in the transition from school to work, because they are less autonomous and have fewer chances to find vocational training and transition into employment smoothly. These ascribed deviations are to be dealt with and compensated for through (socio-)educational assistance, through schemes and projects of the so-called ‘transition system’ consisting of school-based and non-school-based schemes of transition support and counseling.

Together, these theoretical explanations clarify the structural framework conditions that young people encounter in transition. At the same time, the young people are not only at mercy of these structural framework conditions but are rather to be understood as co-producers of institutional support. However, it remains open how this is done. In order to investigate this and to reconstruct the interrelationships between different actors, processes and social regulations in the context of support and processing transitions through assistances, we will argue here from the perspective of reflexive transition research (Walther et al., 2020; see also the introduction by Stauber, Settersten and Walther to this volume). Following the concept of “doing difference” (West & Fenstermaker, 1995) and practice-theoretical perspectives, this research analyzes the social production of transitions in their concrete social realities (Hirschauer, 2004). It makes it possible not to interpret transitions as social facts, but to critically examine their practical implementation and their emergence and to question how transitions are produced and shaped in the relational interplay of discursive practices of articulation, institutional modes of regulation and subjective-biographical processes of coping (Walther et al., 2020; see also the introductory chapter by Stauber, Settersten and Walther, this volume). This makes it possible not to presuppose and accept transitions as existing facts, but to question “how transitions are shaped by different processes of constituting reality and are thus first made a social fact” (Wanka et al., 2020, p. 19). This means that not only young people are addressed as potential participants in institutional assistance in transition, but also that those who participate address (socio)pedagogical actors as those providing support (cf. Hirschfeld, 2021, p. 76). Social pedagogical assistance in transition is a social construct that, based on a fiction of a normal life, is intended to get young people to position themselves in an employment-centered society or to allow themselves to be positioned.

With regard to the question of the connections between welfare state regulation and subjective-biographical coping, transitions and social work are located at the intersection of institutionalization, the supposed achievability of a normal life course and welfare state regulation: transitions, because they mark “special risk situations” (Leisering et al., 2001, p. 12) and breaks that have to be overcome biographically; social work, because it can be understood as an institutional regulation and coping support with which precisely these risk situations are to be overcome. Participants in transition-related support are co-producers, as they (co-)shape the assistance by attributing the significance of the support to their own transition.

Making and Shaping Transitions by Adolescents and Young Adults in the Context of Welfare State Regulation

Using two individual case studies, in this section we discuss how young people (can) shape their transitions to show how biographies are formed in interaction with welfare regulations and the process of support. The focus is on how young people use institutional career guidance and counseling programs. How do they position themselves in relation to the (imposed) support and schemes and which meaning do those institutional assistances have in the context of biographical construction? In both studies,Footnote 2 the narrative interviews were analyzed using biographical case reconstruction, which is characterized, among other things, by a sequential approach (Rosenthal, 2011). The interplay of discourse, individual and society and the significance of discourse in subject formation were taken into the spotlight.

  • “This is something for stupid people” – Producing and Forming Transitions in and Through the Program “Career Entry Support”.

The first case study refers to VanessaFootnote 3 who was interviewed three times over a three-year period between the ages of 14 to 16 as part of a longitudinal dissertation study using a narrative-biographical interview (Hirschfeld, 2021).Footnote 4 She was interviewed as a participant of the transition-related support measure “Career Entry Support”Footnote 5 addressing young people in the lower secondary educational during the transition from school to work. These young people are considered to be particularly disadvantaged and needy as a result of the selective structure of the German tripartite school system and the standardization of training, which is based on school selection. Because of the selective structures, they are confronted with special challenges when transitioning from school to work, which are to be accompanied, dealt with and compensated for at an institutional level through various forms of assistance. The transitional assistance “Career Entry Support” is one such form of support that begins in the grade prior to graduation and ends after a maximum of 2 years. Counselors offer (socio-)pedagogical support to the young people and help them become ‘prepared’ for vocational training through work-related, school-based and real world offers, so that the transition from school to vocational training is as seamless and ‘successful’ as possible. A look at the legal framework of “Career Entry Support” shows an inherent problem with the assessment criteria used to select those young people who seem to have difficulties in the transition phase, perform poorly at school and/or have a migration background. At the same time, they must also have the potential to successfully transition into vocational training through the support of the program. Teachers and vocational counselors interpret the legal requirements and select the participants; here, a distinction is made between young people who need and deserve help. This means that in addition to poor school grades and ‘wrong’ or non-existent career ideas, the young people must be motivated and willing to accept the “rules of the game.” On the biographical level of experience, it becomes apparent that the perception as well as the acceptance of help is influenced by the access to help and also by the way in which help proceeds, as illustrated by the following case study.

Vanessa is 14 years old at the first interview and lives in a small town in southern Germany. Her childhood was marked by fragile relationships and relationship losses: her father committed suicide, her mother’s relationships failed, Vanessa moved several times and she lived with her godparents, her great-grandmother and later with her grandfather. Relationships, relationship losses and – nevertheless – a sense of belonging to her family are central scenes in how she presents her life story. Vanessa qualifies to participate in the “Career Entry Support” program in eighth grade. She is selected as a participant by her teacher. She is disappointed, cannot understand the selection and even sees it as a breach of trust by her teacher. She says: “At first I was against it because I thought ‘This is something for stupid people’.” (Vanessa, first interview). She also dislikes the counselor as a person and does not feel at all addressed by the ascribed need for help. This shows that young people view such programs as highly stigmatizing, fueling Vanessa’s rejection of and resistance against the program.

Vanessa is unable to escape participation because of family pressure and her need to maintain her affiliation with the family. Ultimately, she decides to participate. In retrospect, she clearly tried to differentiate herself from the other participants, who, she believed, showed poor academic performance, behaved improperly, and were rightly selected for other reasons. She attests to their need for help, while she assumes that her numerous and fluid ideas for her profession ultimately lead to her being selected as a participant, which, however, sets her apart from the others in her perception.

Later, she begins to accept her role as participant and uses the program’s offerings. This is made possible above all through the scope of co-design, in which she actively works to co-construct the offering. For example, a friend may come along, which means that the offer loses its stigmatizing character. She usually finds that her needs and conditions are accepted, and her wishes respected. This makes it possible for Vanessa to discuss family problems, experiences of violence with her mother’s partner and her everyday life. She describes her relationship with the guidance counselor as follows:

At the very beginning, I had a strange feeling, and then I really got to know her; […] we became really close, meaning I really had a close relationship with her. You could say it was really friendly. And really intimate. (Vanessa, second interview).

In the second interview, Vanessa has just finished general education and started a vocational school, she reflects on the advantages she gains through the support. She highlights that she is more confident and has more knowledge about the requirements for the transition. Even though she finds the guidance counselor to be a person with whom she can talk about real-world problems, for Vanessa, despite all difficulties, her family remains the most important support system during the transition, because it is not limited to a certain structure or time frame, but always available.

Shortly before Vanessa graduates from general school, the guidance counselor falls ill, quits her employment, and is replaced. With the change of personnel - the relationship with the first guidance counselor was terminated without notice - Vanessa’s perception, attitude and acceptance of the program changes and she refuses to accept further support and stops attending. In this way, Vanessa experiences yet another loss of relationship, which she has to cope with. She does neither discuss the issue with her family, nor is she pressured to continue the program.

This insight into Vanessa’s assistance process shows that the way in which she is being addressed as a participant shapes her access to assistance. In addition, biographical experiences are reflected in the course of help and also shape the ways in which it is used: Vanessa’s family experiences and experiences of relationships shape her perception of institutional assistance. Her experience with relationships is that they require a great deal of work, are conditional and unreliable. For her, developing a relationship always involves the risk of loss and therefore she must balance the need for closeness and help with the risk of loss. The fact that Vanessa is able to build a sustainable relationship with the professional is also a result of the possibilities for co-design and the possibility to include relevant actors from her everyday life (like the friend coming along and influencing the form and content of support). Of all of the available offers, Vanessa reports having used formal support offers the most (writing applications, improving school performance). She said, she rejected offers that she considered to lack added value, yet without questioning the relationship with the counselor. At the same time, however, she says to have discussed everyday life problems with the professional and attributes her an added value in this respect. Her perception, attitude and acceptance of the help changes with the change of staff so that she leaves the program.

In retrospect, the program played an important role in Vanessa’s transition process. The relevance she attributes to the counselor is ignited by the relationship that developed and that she experienced as trusting. This was possible because the guidance counselor understood her, offered opportunities to talk about real-world issues and supported Vanessa in the demands of a transition.

  • “I miss this helping hand that pulls me out of this swamp” – Transitional Support and Shaping Transitions in the Context of the “Jobcenter”.

The second case study relates to Dennis.Footnote 6 Dennis took part in a biographical-narrative interview three times within 4 years, aged 21–24, in the context of the dissertation project “The right help!?” (Lenz, 2022). The study focuses on the production and forming of the transition from school to work in the strained field of the institutional standardization and regulation processes of the so-called “Youth Job Center” (Jugendjobcenter; JJC). The JJC is an alliance of various institutions of basic security, unemployment insurance and municipal social work and proclaims to support under 25-year-olds on welfare as individually tailored as possible in the transition from school to work.

Dennis becomes a beneficiary of the “Jobcenter”Footnote 7 because of his single mother’s financial dependence on social benefits. In contrast to the “Career Entry Support,” the “Jobcenter” is not only a support for young people in the transition from school to work, but the central institution for basic material security in Germany. As regards young people under 25 years of age, the focus of activities is on a transition from school to training or work that is as smooth as possible. According to the paradigm of ‘rights and responsibilities,’ they are to be offered schemes as quickly as possible with the aim of integrating them into the labor market – if they do not cooperate, they can be sanctioned by cutting their financial benefits. The declared political objective is long-term independence from state transfer payments.

Dennis consistently presents himself as a help-seeking person, who does not receive the support he needs. The analyzes show that Dennis is confronted with multiple life issues. At the same time, he emphasizes his strong desire to “just live a fucking normal life,” which he associates with having a job, wife and child. Professionally, he has the ambition to study, preferably in the field of social work. During the survey period, he does not come closer to this objective on a formal level.

Corresponding to the outlined policy of ‘rights and responsibilities,’ Dennis goes through various job orientation and training schemes of the “Jobcenter” after finishing general school. In his view, these are “as far away from his interests and abilities as the earth is from Pluto.” When Dennis is around age 20, he does “nothing” for about a year. This phase resulted from his then-girlfriend being unfaithful to him with a good friend and the subsequent break of their relationship. Even though Dennis continues to be addressed by the “Jobcenter,” these problems relevant for him at that point are not dealt with. It is unclear whether the counselor can recognize Dennis’ situation. In Dennis’ words, the support provided by the “Jobcenter” is like mass processing “one chicken after another at the butcher’s.” Moreover, the support is so clearly limited to the area of training and work that it is difficult for the young people to address other, real-world problems – either in terms of content or for reasons of time. Thus, Dennis “serves up” to his counselor what he supposedly wants to hear, without seriously grappling with the support offers and demands of the “Jobcenter,” so that “they just leave me alone.” Dennis is on his own with his most pressing problems. He has few family resources: he has an ambivalent relationship with his father, characterized by (emotional) distance; he disdains his mother. The end of this “hardest” phase of his life is marked by his self-reflection on future scenarios, should he not change his life: “If you go on like this, what-what about when you’re 30? 35? Then you’ll probably be hanging around with the junkies at the main station and begging or something like that.” This makes Dennis receptive to support and he learns about a scheme. His declared goal is to find an apprenticeship – congruent with the objective of the “Jobcenter” and the scheme. In retrospect, he attributes the added value of the scheme to the way it was addressed by the counselor responsible for the scheme:

For the first time I have the feeling that he [counselor] puts his heart and soul into it [...] maybe that is also a reason why I am so committed to it [...] I really have hope that I will come out of it with an apprenticeship, which was not the case with the last four or five. (Dennis, first interview).

This gives him perspective; it becomes a “last straw” that prompts him strive more fully for the normalizing course he desires. This points to the potential influence of an individual professional in opening one’s perspectives and activating resources. Dennis’ statement “why I am so committed to it” shows how institutional support is translated biographically. The program or scheme alone – despite its objective of tailored support – does not necessarily have the intended effect, but must be appropriated, integrated into his life situation and given subjective relevance by the beneficiary himself.

The further course of the scheme and Dennis’ life reflect how resources and hopes that have been laboriously activated are negated at the level of the young people by institutional logic, because the scheme is discontinued after 1 month due to a lack of participants. The “Jobcenter” then delegates Dennis to a scheme focused on placement. The counselor now in charge also succeeds in establishing a form of working relationship with Dennis. Dennis reports appreciatively:

Best man […] he was such a cool, easy-going guy with whom you could have stolen horses […] he wrote me the [laughing] nicest looking and really best application to date […] there's nothing uh so there's nothing in it in terms of content [laughing] but he re-packaged it as if I were the greatest president. (Dennis, 2nd interview)

Dennis considers his CV to have low value for an apprenticeship application. From his point of view, the caseworker nevertheless improves his CV by presumably concealing gaps and breaks in his biography and placing his achievements in the foreground. Dennis’ expression indicates enthusiasm and suggests that he felt recognized and supported in this relationship. For him, it is crucial to have met a counselor whom he can trust.

Dennis’ application for an apprenticeship as a geriatric care assistant is successful. He evaluates how “wonderful” the training initially went. His “finally […] I’m off” shows that he equates the start of training with the start of a ‘normal’ life. However, a “turning point” occurs when his mother suffers a stroke. He uses this incident to justify having abandoned his vocational education – “partly […] willed […] partly […] forced.” He describes and argues how his mother’s illness and subsequent need for care changed his life, and how he has to take responsibility for the household and his mother. Dennis’ path to a regular life is interrupted again. At this point in his life, there is no institutional support to alleviate the additional burden and overwhelming demands. Furthermore, the family network is thin: Dennis’ uncle helps with the groceries, but his father does not take an active role. Dennis characterizes his life situation in the second interview as “[A]ttempt to somehow keep everything straight.”

The excerpt from Dennis’ life shows that institutional support in the transition from school to work can offer young people support (in stages) on the one hand, but, on the other hand, it fails and is not intensive and comprehensive enough. This is especially relevant for the support provided by the “Jobcenter,” which is narrowly focused on school and work issues, when, as in Dennis’ case, there are pressing problems to be dealt with in the family, among friends and in couple relationships. Dennis longs for a strong, appreciative relationship. His family network is weak and increasingly fragile; it actually causes new worries. The same applies to his circle of friends. He lacks a (male) role model. Institutional support can meet this need temporarily to get Dennis on a normalizing path – but he has (so far) not managed to follow this path to the end without intensive help, especially emotional help, in order to achieve the (formal) qualifications that would open up new options for him outside of the welfare system.

Discussion

Programs and schemes implemented in the field of transition from school to work aim to support so-called disadvantaged young people to make ‘successful’ transitions. From a welfare state perspective, this goes hand in hand with the assumption that a successful transition to training and work leads to financial independence from welfare state benefits and social participation. This definition of success is also reflected in the objectives as well as the approaches and ways that the guidance counselors act, which are greatly shaped by both (social) policy guidelines as well as discourses, which influence how counselors address the beneficiaries. The two case studies show, on the one hand, the complex relationship that young people form with the counselors responsible for them in the transition from school to work. In this context, Smith and Dowse (2019, 1338) refer to the importance of counselors seeing these young people and recognizing their needs. On the other hand, it becomes clear that welfare state services, e.g., the transition-related services, are always (co-)shaped by the young people receiving them. This happens by way of the participation offer, but especially through an idiosyncratic and modified form of acceptance or rejection of the (individual) offers as well as through an individual way of using them. Even if this kind of ‘support’ never leaves the young people without a trace, it becomes apparent that given structures are simultaneously powerful and powerless, especially with regard to the politically intended effect. It is also evident across both cases that transitional assistance does not address them merely as participants, but always as needy.

We discuss the results in three steps: (1) addressing people as disadvantaged and needy is the starting point of institutional support in transition; (2) interpretation and appropriation of (need for) support, and; (3) support as interaction between attribution and addressing, use and positioning.

  1. 1.

    Addressing people as disadvantaged and needy is the starting point of institutional support in transition

Social pedagogical support in transition, at least in the context of the German welfare state (see the Chap. 3 by Walther, this volume), necessarily implies addressing young people as needy in order to be able to provide support at all. In the context of the “Career Entry Support,” this is done by the institutional actors in cases of so-called disadvantaged young people deemed at risk of experiencing frictions in their transition from school to vocational training, denying them “training ability” (Ausbildungsfähigkeit) perceiving their parental support as too little or even non-existent, viewing their life course as fragile and judging them to have few prospects on the labor market. Such an assessment allows counselors to include the young people in the program. At the “Jobcenter,” the young adults are first addressed as needy because of being dependent on welfare benefits – or for being children of parents being on benefits. If they are not in school, training or work, some form of counseling and, as shown in Dennis’ case, (repeated) placement in schemes for so-called activation, vocational orientation and/or placement in training or employment also take effect here.

Across cases, the practice of addressing young people as needy and the practice of vocational orientation – which aims at developing realistic career aspirations (cf. also Walther, 2015) – points to the power of (socio)pedagogical support as well as to the influence of the welfare state’s regulation of support, which has anchored normative notions of life, success and failure in transition. Thus, socio-educational and institutional support regulate transitions. Furthermore, power becomes visible in the form of more or less coercive conditions: young adults can only escape the “Jobcenter” if they accept the threat of sanctions such as cuts in welfare benefits, while “Career Entry Support” participants can end this support without sanctions. Yet, experienced vulnerability apparently makes it impossible to refuse help, and if so, then at the price of losing participation and belonging (Hirschfeld, 2021, p. 239).

The sanctions are also understood as part of the legal framework of the schemes, in which support is provided. However, this is not the only framework: the counselors who move within this framework and impose sanctions also have a formative influence and shape the support in very different ways, in the sense of “street-level bureaucracy” (Lipsky, 1980). This can be seen, for example, in the young people’s possible scope for shaping their lives, such as selecting schemes and having a say in appointments. Participation is a principle hardly ever practiced in the “Jobcenter,” whereas the counselor of the “Career Entry Support” opens the possibility for Vanessa to make her own decisions.

It thus becomes clear across the cases that by being addressed as needy, so-called disadvantaged young people are forced to deal with negative attributions and normative expectations. From an institutional perspective, the assumption is that programs and schemes that are either opened up to or imposed on young people will either place them in training or enable them to advance to it. How young people deal with this and how they perceive support is discussed in the following section.

  1. 2.

    Interpretation and appropriation of (need for) support

The way young people perceive and accept institutional support is determined by their positioning vis-à-vis being addressed as needy. Positioning, understood as the assumption of a discursively produced subject position (Hall, 1990), can mean that the support offered is reinterpreted, resulting in a repositioning vis-à-vis the assistance. For example, Vanessa can only accept the support by interpreting it as a knowledge advantage and differentiation from others, whereby the stigmatizing character is softened or even lost. Dennis, on the other hand, positions himself very much as needy – which, however, also goes hand in hand with adopting hegemonically recognized ideas of the normal life course. In this respect, he takes on the offered or imposed subject position of a needy person but demands more intensive and comprehensive support than the institution provides and thus fills the position differently than intended by the institution. Furthermore, both cases reveal that the participants try to meet institutional as well as social expectations and map out normative life plans. This is also accompanied by the attempt to compensate for (ascribed) deficits by participating in transitional support in order to achieve such a normal life. Dennis, in particular, illustrates the high need for guidance and counseling as well as the burden of educational decision making on young people (cf. Walther et al., 2016), and that said burden of decision making also applies to life in general.

Both case studies show that the ways in which young people use the support are characterized by (the lack of) opportunities for co-determination, by (the lack of) support with everyday life problems outside of school and the working world (e.g., the immediate caring obligations for the sick mother, violence in the family, troubles in friendships) and by the nature of the relationship with the counselors, and depend on the extent to which the young people can make the services suitable for themselves and their current needs. In this respect, ‘timing’ or the availability of support over a longer period is also important (see the Chap. 8 by Sánchez-Mira and Bernardi in this volume). The quality of the relationship between the counselor and the young person has a special and often fundamental function (Hirschfeld & Walter, 2013). Vanessa shows that it is possible to establish a trustful relationship in which biographically relevant issues can be discussed. However, this requires Vanessa to commit to the relationship, with the risk of further loss. This reveals the vulnerability that goes hand in hand with a trusting relationship as well as the challenge for young people to get involved in new relationships without knowing about their viability and value. Similarly, Dennis shows that a trusting relationship can be significant for accepting support. It also shows the difficulties of inflexible and narrowly defined assistance that do not (or cannot) react adequately to life events and biographical developments.

This reflects that the support is not experienced as adequate per se, but that the young people are challenged by being labeled as needy. This shows the powerless side of support, because what the young people “do” with the offer, how they interpret it, is only partly subject to the influence of the counselors.

  1. 3.

    Support as interaction between attribution and addressing, use and positioning

Support takes place in the interrelationship between attribution and addressing on the one hand and use and positioning on the other. Powerful structures, the coercive contexts – produced institutionally and discursively – force young people to position themselves in order to deal with the assignment as being needy and the assistance offered.

How the young people feel when the “Career Entry Support” or the “Jobcenter” identify them as needy, how they incorporate this label into their self-image and how they ultimately use this support is determined by biographical experiences, including their family, extracurricular and school experiences, their experiences during internships and schemes, their social role expectations, and tasks, but also by their responsibilities in their families. According to this, institutional assistance regulates the young people’s transition into the working world or their attempt to do so, but the “how” depends on their biographical experiences and individual situation. The support or the biographical meaning of the support can thus only be understood if it is embedded in its relational framework between institutional contexts, discursive references, and the individual with his or her respective biography.

Support that focuses on the quickest possible transition to training and employment – such as the transition-related support provided by the “Career Entry Support” or the “Jobcenter” – is of great importance in the career orientation process of young people. These are interwoven with cooling-out mechanisms (Goffman, 1962; Walther, 2015). The institutional attribution of the need for help is linked to the fact that the “Career Entry Support” only promotes occupations that are considered realistic. The same applies to the “Jobcenter,” where classic cooling-out mechanisms can be observed, and schemes often place people in low-skilled professions. This is also the case with Dennis, who was last placed in a training as a geriatric care assistant, but dreams of studying. Clark (1960) identified various counseling settings in the field of higher education in the USA as central instruments to minimizing demands but also the burden on individuals and the education system and to point out alternative career paths. Counseling settings initiate cooling-out mechanisms in the “Career Entry Support” program as well as the “Jobcenter.”

It cannot be generally assumed that young people experience institutional assistance as appropriate and suitable for their needs. Rather, they are challenged to make the support suitable for themselves and to establish appropriate relationships. This should be understood as a process that has to be adapted again and again throughout institutional support (e.g., by reinterpreting support or developing new forms of support within the existing context of support). This process and its ongoing production can be influenced by the relationship with the guidance counselor. Recognition and opportunities for participation can have a positive effect on the relationship. However, unstable relationships do not necessarily lead to a rejection of support.

Conclusion: Power and Powerlessness of Institutional Support in Transitions

The results show that institutional assistance in transitions should be interpreted as interactive negotiation processes between addressing and attribution on the one hand and positioning and the production of fit by the young people on the other (Hirschfeld, 2021, pp. 242–248.). Transitions are, therefore, incomplete, and constantly recurring processes of production and shaping that can be understood as transitions with and through support. The explanations show that institutional assistance for so-called disadvantaged young people is both powerful and powerless at the same time: it powerfully regulates adolescents’ and young adults’ scope of action in the transition process through discursive social realities that are reproduced by institutions and their professionals. At the same time, their power is limited: Even in the space of the “Jobcenter,” characterized by the application of harsh sanctions, the assistance can only have an effect in the interaction with the young people, which can also always lie outside the intended objectives of the scheme or program. The cases of Vanessa and Dennis illustrate the complexity, relativity, and processual nature of ‘doing transitions’ and thus contribute to a better understanding of transition processes in terms of educational pathways, as called for by Parreira do Amaral and Walther (2016, p. 284). Sanderson (2020, p. 1325) calls for “[a] more biographical, relational understanding regarding the ongoing changes young people are encountering [including] understand[ing] how policy and practice can best tackle youth unemployment today.” The analyzes presented in this chapter begin to illuminate these dynamics.

Understanding support as an interactive negotiation process also means critically questioning the socio-political proclamation for tailored transitional support for so-called disadvantaged youth and young adults. Implementing support meeting such a claim seems not feasible due to the constantly changing and fluid needs of youths and young adults. Rather, transitions require support that focuses on the beneficiaries’ life situations and needs – not merely vocational orientation and integration – and that offers space and time for the youths’ problems in their lifeworld. In particular, the young people in those institutional transition services experience “[i]ntersecting and overlapping forms of disadvantage [what mean] not only […] non-normative transitions to adulthood, they also experience multiple other system and service transitions” (Smith & Dowse, 2019, p. 1328). Transitional assistance cannot be viewed or designed exclusively from an institutional, welfare state perspective, because how young people relate to being in need of assistance lies outside institutional settings, is linked to their biographical experiences and requires biographical processing on their part. Professionals can provide the framework, open up room for maneuvering and opportunities for co-determination. This requires transitional support to be made more flexible, which requires more leeway for the counselors – absolutely presupposing their professional qualification and regular supervision – as well as for participating young people so that they can use and shape the support according to their needs. However, the addressed adolescents and young adults themselves are forced to produce fitting relationships and thus make offered support suitable for themselves.