“From ‘it’s not possible’ to ‘how we can do it’”. Challenges,opportunities and proposals to adopt intersectionality in local administration

Abstract

The growing interest in the incorporation of intersectionality in public policies, combined with the lack of tools, entails two risks: the rhetoric use of the term and its depoliticization. The present article seeks to analyse the obstacles and facilitating factors for intersectional mainstreaming in the local administration, based on the study case of Terrassa City Council (Spain), which spearheaded a European project to promote bringing intersectionality to local policies. The article, based on the analysis of 16 interviews, and the responses of 4 questionnaires and 13 reports, identifies three challenges: the lack of definition, lack of applicability and complexity of the intersectional perspective; the clash between the dynamics of the public administration and the intersectional proposal; and the segmented structure of the administration. Each challenge is associated with opportunities and specific proposals that emerged in the fieldwork.

Introduction

In 1989 Kimberlé Crenshaw (1989) published “Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex”, in which she criticised “the tendency to treat race and gender as mutually exclusive categories of experience and analysis” (p. 139) and argued that “the intersectional experience is greater than the sum of racism and sexism” and “any analysis that does not take intersectionality into account cannot sufficiently address the particular manner in which Black women are subordinated” (p. 140). Crenshaw (1989, 1991) distinguished between structural intersectionality (which explains how the intersection of the different axes of inequality distributes power across social groups) and political intersectionality (which shows how, through political action –both institutional and activist–, intersectional inequalities are reproduced or fought against).

In 2011, Hankivsky and Cormier (2011: 217) considered that intersectionality had become “a primary analytic tool for theorizing identity and oppression” (p. 217), and pointed out that there was a gap between “the theoretical construct of intersectionality and its practical application” in public policies (225). In 2019, the publication of The Palgrave Handbook of Intersectionality in Public Policy (Hankivsky and Jordan-Zachery, 2019) helped to look at the progress made in this period from another perspective. Intersectionality is recognised even more as a theoretical framework and its incorporation in the study of public policy is “a particularly growing area of interest” (Hankivsky and Jordan-Zachery, 2019: 1). Despite this, Hankivsky and Cormier (2019) warn that “methods for integrating intersectionality into policy development, implementation, and evaluation are in their very early stages of development” (p. 69).

Among the experiences that have progressed in the incorporation of intersectionality in public policies, we can mention practical guides (see Almén, 2014; CAWI, 2015; Page et al., 2019), applied research (see Bishwakarma et al., 2007; Hankivsky and Cormier, 2011) and, in the field of health policies, studies based on the Intersectionality-Based Policy Analysis (IBPA) Framework (see Hankivsky et al., 2019; Palencia et al., 2014). In Spain, the growing interest in the adoption of intersectionality in public policies can be seen in the rise in the number of academic works (for example, Lombardo and Verloo, 2010; Lombardo and Bustelo, 2012; Platero, 2012; Cruells and Coll-Planas, 2013; Cruells, 2015; La Barbera et al., 2020; Rodó-Zárate, 2021), of practical guides (Sordo ruz, 2017; Coll-Planas and Solà-Morales, 2019; Coll-Planas et al., 2021a; 2021b) and the organisation of many courses and workshops on the subject.

On the one hand, there is growing interest in the application of intersectionality in public policies, which takes the form of: highlighting the problems generated by public policies that address the axes without considering their interactions (for example, the exclusion of social groups such as LGTB migrants from both LGTB and cultural diversity policies) (Coll-Planas, García-Romeral and Masi 2022); or proposing public policies that allow for a more complex approach to social inequalities (such as strategic plans that address the different axes of inequality, or policies that focus on the problems rather than on specific axes).

On the other hand, the lack of tools to do it, leads at times to a confusing use of the term, as a “mere sum of discriminations, ignoring the interactions between these” (La Barbera et al., 2020: 26); as a “buzzword” (Jorba and Rodó-Zárate, 2019: 3); or as a “rhetorical concept” (Kantola and Nousiainen, 2009: 473). These warnings also connect with the risk of bureaucratization and depoliticization of intersectionality due to “neoliberal pressures to depoliticize it” (Collins, 2022: 169), which can lead to this approach being “co-opted and stripped of its transformative possibilities” (Hankivsky and Jordan-Zachery, 2019: 10).

These risks lead us to consider the question of whether intersectionality can be adopted in public policies without it being distorted. From our point of view, this approach can contribute considerably to public policies (see Theoretical approach), but the risks mentioned need to be carefully considered.

This article focuses on the case of Catalonia (Spain) where the concept of intersectionality has been gaining ground in the political agenda over the last 10 years. The first time that the term appears in a regulatory provision is in the Catalan Law 19/2020 and in the Spanish Law 15/2022, both on equal treatment and non-discrimination. The incorporation of intersectionality in these legal texts indicates a timid change of trend in a context in which axes of inequality are addressed separately and unequally, with the axes of women/men equality and disability receiving greater resources and legal protection. According to law 11/2014 for the rights of LGBT people in 2014, it is compulsory for municipalities with more than 20,000 inhabitants to develop an LGBT policy programme. Although this has meant an enormous boost for LGBT equality policies, they have not been designed from an intersectional perspective (Coll-Planas, García-Romeral and Masi 2022). Public policies on cultural and religious diversity do not have much history, partially due to the fairly recent arrival of migrants from the Global South to Catalonia. In this context, in 2019 the City Council of Terrassa, the third largest city in Catalonia with 224,097 inhabitants, spearheaded Connected Equalities, a European project to promote intersectional mainstreaming in local policies. The project emerged from the Terrassa City Council, which addressed inequalities from a unitary approach (with departments focused on one single axis of inequality: gender, LGTBI+, origin, age and disability) and expressed the need to seek out more comprehensive ways to respond to the impact of inequalities in the city. Connected Equalities was aimed at applying intersectionality in a local administration and consisted of implementing a process of training, awareness-raising and mutual learning, and creating tools to transfer the experience to other contexts. The project was carried out with the University of Vic-Central University of Catalonia (UVic-UCC) and a social organisation, CEPS Social Projects. It is a project which, like this article, is based on joint work between the university, public administration and civil society. Due to the lack of examples of intersectionality being applied in local administrations, presenting this project is an opportunity to disseminate a good practice that could be replicated by other public administrations.

The phrase in the title of the article refers to one of the project’s mantras. In the course of the actions, municipal staff often said that intersectionality is a stimulating idea but is not applicable in practice. For the steering committee of the project, the aim was to move from “it’s not possible” to “how we can do it”. The intention was to show that despite the existence of some external limitations, there was also room for manoeuvre to incorporate intersectionality in more accessible aspects, such as for example, the way a service user is addressed or how communication and workspaces are created between the staff from different departments.

Thus, in a context where there is a gap “between (intersectional) aspirations and (empirical) deeds” (Engeli and Mazur, 2018: 118) and there is a lack of empirical research on the adoption of intersectionality in public policies, the present article seeks to analyse the obstacles and factors facilitating the incorporation of intersectionality in the local administration so that the learning resulting from the broad training and reflection process in Terrassa City Council can be transferred to other administrations.

This article is structured in four parts. The following sections present the theoretical approach and the methodology. The analysis section identifies three challenges in mainstreaming intersectionality in local policies: the difficulty of application; the clash between the dynamics of the public administration and intersectionality; and the segmented structure of the administration. Each challenge is associated with opportunities and specific proposals that emerged in the fieldwork. Finally, in the conclusions section, the main contributions are highlighted and new questions for further research on intersectionality in public policy are pointed out.

Theoretical approach

Following Hancock (2007), there are three approaches related to the structure of the axes of inequality: unitary, multiple and intersectional. The most usual way of organising equality and non-discrimination public policies follows the unitary approach, also known as single issue or single ground (Kantola and Nousiainen, 2009). Each axis of inequality is worked on independently, addressed by a different department in the administration. This logic has positive aspects: it highlights the problems arising from one axis of inequality and it can be the foundation from which to mainstream the perspective of the axis in the spheres (Cruells and Coll-Planas, 2013). But it also presents inconveniences, such as: it does not acknowledge that people are simultaneously affected by diverse axes of inequality, tending to understand social position characteristics as “linear, static, unconnected” (Manuel, 2006: 175); it may tend to essentialize and homogenize social groups (Fredman, 2016; Kantola and Nousiainen, 2009); and it may lead to ‘Oppression Olympics’ “where groups compete for the mantle of “most oppressed” to gain the attention and political support of dominant groups as they pursue policy remedies, leaving the overall system of stratification unchanged” (Hancock, 2007: 68).

The multiple discrimination approach, rather than creating organs and rules for each axis of discrimination, deals with different axes simultaneously. The advantages of this model are the use of economies of scale, coherence in the legal interpretation of discrimination, and the possibility of addressing cases of multiple discrimination (Bell et al., 2007; Cruells and Coll-Planas, 2013). As regards the disadvantages, this approach often entails a lack of coordination between the specific agendas that come together; it does not resolve the competition between groups or axes; it does not work on the intersections between axes (Kantola and Nousiainen, 2009; Lombardo and Verloo, 2010; Cruells, 2015).

The intersectional approach moves away from the two previous approaches by considering a “multi-dimensional and complex” approach of human experiences, which “cannot be explained by taking into account single categories” (Hankivsky et al., 2014: 7). Thus, this approach “posits an interactive, mutually constitutive relationship” between the axes of inequality (Hancock, 2007: 67). The importance of each axis is not defined a priori but according to the context, thereby avoiding hierarchical organisation and competition between axes (Hankivsky et al., 2014).

As regards public policies, intersectionality “reveals the limitations and exclusionary nature of traditional methods of creating policy” (Hankivsky and Cormier, 2011: 218): because it shows the exclusions generated by one-size-fits-all policies and “the marking effect of the subordinate groups that operate through the targeting of public policies” (Esguerra and Bello, 2019: 501). In this line, Hankivsky and Jordan-Zachery (2019) consider that a key contribution of intersectionality is fostering “a comprehensive understanding of the social locations of the people they are targeting and how such locations are shaped and structured by existing and new policies” (p. 4). This comprehensive perspective, however, does not conceal the specific effects of each axis (Jorba i Rodó-de-Zárate, 2019). Therefore, this approach does not necessarily question the fact that there are departments in an administration that address each axis, but considers that these departments must stop operating as isolated compartments (La Barbera et al., 2020).

In relation to obstacles and the factors that facilitate the adoption of intersectionality in a local administration, La Barbera et al. (2020: 30) identify relevant obstacles to putting intersectionality into practice, such as resistance from the municipal staff, who consider that it is an “excessively complex” proposal, which requires too much time and too many resources, and that it is something that might undo what has been achieved to date in the field of gender. Some of this resistance is related to two obstacles identified in previous studies: the gap between the theoretical construct of intersectionality and its practical applications (Hankivsky and Cormier, 2011), which translates into the lack of previous experiences that serve as references (La Barbera et al., 2020); and the fear that the incorporation of intersectionality involves undoing the previous work done for axes of inequality. Another obstacle detected by La Barbera et al. (2020: 37–40) is “the lack of national laws that recognise intersectionality as a binding legal concept”. Castilla (2021) also highlights the lack of disaggregated data to incorporate intersectionality into the design, follow-up and evaluation of public policies. In this regard, Chaney (2013) states that “the absence of systematic, multivariate data is a clear barrier to intersectional practice and lends credence to the notion of ‘data hierarchies’ (with greater coverage of more established equality ‘strands’)” (p.28).

Some authors have systematised the factors that favour the application of intersectionality. Cruells (2015: 67) points out the elements which favour it on a macro level: integrated or hybrid political structures; legal frameworks to address the intersected inequalities; and political frameworks which foster the convergence of actors, avoiding segmented logics. Other aspects have been underlined as favourable: political will, so it does not remain on a purely administrative level (Hankivsky and Cormier, 2011; Chaney, 2013); comprehensive data and research evidence (Chaney, 2013; Hankivsky and Jordan-Zachery, 2019; La Barbera et al., 2020); involvement of different relevant actors, and especially of social organisations (Esguerra and Bello, 2019; Hankivsky and Jordan-Zachery, 2019); internal communication so the departments know what other areas of the government are doing (La Barbera et al., 2020); and training of technical staff (Hankivsky and Cormier, 2011; La Barbera et al., 2020).

Methodology

In this section we first present the methodology of the project Connected Equalities, which provided the fieldwork that has resulted in this paper. The project was structured in three phases. The first consisted of conducting research to establish the staff’s willingness, reluctance and needs in relation to intersectionality, and to define the training strategy.

The second phase was divided into three training cycles: an internal one for municipal staff (Training Workshops, TW), one open to citizens (Dissemination Workshops, DW), and one for a smaller group of technical staff to discuss the proposals and ideas discussed in the former (Mutual Learning Workshops, MLW) (see more detail of the Workshops design in online Appendix 1).

During the third phase of the project, a European congress was organised and a Toolkit to incorporate intersectionality into local policies (Coll-Planas and Solà-Morales, 2019) (inspired by Palencia et al., 2014; Hankivsky et al., 2014; and CAWI, 2015) was published (see the Toolkit’s Table of content in online Appendix 2). The fieldwork of the article is based on the information collected at different times during the project using three techniques: 16 interviews, 4 questionnaires (with 420 responses) and the analysis of 13 documents (see Table describing fieldwork in online Appendix 3).

The information from these sources was entered into an Excel matrix and categorised according to descriptive and conceptual variables designed around the research objectives. The information was analysed using content analysis methodology, based on a systematic, reproducible and valid reading of the data (Andréu, 2002). Thus, based on the grouping together of factors, we inductively identified the challenges, opportunities and proposals we present below.

Analysis

In this section, we focus on the three challenges of mainstreaming intersectionality in the local administration, resulting from the analysis of the material: the difficulty in applying the intersectionality; the clash between the dynamics of the administration and the intersectional proposal; and the segmented structure of the administration.

First, we break down each challenge to show what it entails; secondly, we associate the challenge with the opportunities highlighted by the informants, with a view to overcoming it; and, thirdly, we associate it with the specific proposals that emerged in the fieldwork.

Challenge #1: difficulty in applying intersectionality

This challenge is related with aspects that are intrinsic to the theoretical proposal of intersectionality, which can be grouped into three aspects. The first is related with the perception that intersectionality, in its theoretical formulation, is unclear. A participant at a TW describes the perspective as follows: “Different interpretations, confusions, dilemmas, it is not a simple or clarifying debate. This could lead to paralysis” (TW2 Report). Likewise, they also warn of the risk of the term being used with different meanings (“Although some strategic documents mention the axes of inequality and/or intersectionality, they do not always share one same conceptual paradigm”, Diagn Report), or that it might be used unsystematically, rendering it void of content (“Talking about diversity and assuming that this means intersectionality, without entering into the specificity of this perspective”, Ext.Adv.2 Report).

The second aspect is related with the feeling that intersectionality is difficult to put into practice. A participant in a TW considers as an obstacle “the lack of methodological proposals and tools to systematise the analyses” (TW1 Report). According to an external advisor of the project:

Intersectionality has been spoken of for 25 years and the concept is finally becoming popular in the south of Europe. But people still do not understand what putting intersectionality into practice entails. There are few studies on the implementation of intersectionality in municipal policies (Ext.Adv.2 Report).

The complexity of the intersectionality is the third aspect we mention regarding this challenge. As one interviewee expresses: “There is a risk of getting lost in the complexity” (Int 9). The following quote specifies this fear, warning that “the excess of reflection and the desire to consider all possibilities leads to a lack of action” (Diagn Report). This phrase helps to identify two ingredients of this fear: the perception that intersectionality is a theoretical proposal that is too removed from reality; and that considering all the axes of inequality and their interactions is not viable, as “the list of axes of inequality is endless” (TW4 Report).

Opportunities

To counterbalance this challenge, the informants identify three opportunities. First, that intersectionality fills gaps that were previously identified, and considers solutions to problems that have been previously detected. For example, it confirms the feeling that the unitary logic presents a simplified view of inequality that does not serve to address the fact that people’s situations are intersected by different axes of inequality. This limitation can be seen in the cases of overlapping or the lack of coordination when attending to people who, due to their profile, access different accompaniment services, each addressing one dimension of their experience as if they were independent (Int 15); or in the biases found in the definition of the target users of the services or policies (Diagn Report). The informants consider that intersectionality can contribute towards providing comprehensive care for citizens or making the services and policies more inclusive. Furthermore, the technical staff of the departments focused on one field (such as employment or education) consider that the application of intersectionality is an opportunity to resolve “the demand for mainstreaming the different axes, which up to now has been done in parallel” (Int 11).

The second aspect identified as an opportunity is that, despite the lack of benchmarks, previous experiences can be found which serve as a starting point, such as cross-sector working groups and local social inclusion plans (Int 7, Int 4). However, the experience most clearly identified as the foundation on which to build intersectionality is gender mainstreaming policies (Int 3), which is very well established in the case of Terrassa City Council. The organisation has a longstanding trajectory which has materialised in compulsory regulations which institutionalise, for example, budgets with a gender perspective, the systematic incorporation of the variable of sex in data collection and the non-sexist use of language (Diagn Report). This visibility and recognition of the importance of gender mainstreaming is one of the reasons why in the case of Terrassa, this department did not lead the strategy to promote intersectionality, unlike the Madrid City Council, where the Department of Gender coordinated the process (La Barbera et al., 2020). Actually, in Terrassa City Council, intersectionality is perceived as a more evident opportunity for other departments of those axes of inequality which have less visibility or fewer resources.

Rethinking how inequality is understood and addressed is the third aspect the informants highlight as an opportunity afforded by intersectionality. They point out that the debate that was triggered within the organisation leads to reconsidering aspects such as the multidimensional effects of inequality (MLW Report, TW5 Report, Int 1), the incorporation of the heterogeneity of social groups into the diagnoses prior to the design of policies (MLW Report), and to avoid

understanding the axes of oppression as static and universal; essentialising and homogenising the intersections and the construction of intersectional subjects (which we all are); contributing to gender binarism between privileged and vulnerable people (essentialises and victimises); organising struggles into a hierarchy (TW4 Report).

Some informants highlight that intersectionality has enabled them to stand in front of the mirror and to question not only the policies being developed or the actions being implemented, but also their own stance: “to be aware that the technical staff have a certain perspective of a situation and that our own imaginary conditions how we analyse and intervene” (MLW Report).

Similarly, some informants note that intersectionality has been an opportunity to demonstrate that the action of the public administration does not only combat inequalities, but sometimes it also reproduces them and creates new ones:

Our policies also generate norms. By defining the subjects of our actions (also in inclusive policies) we decide who fits and who does not. The administration, with its policies, creates a homogenization. There is a risk of culturalising identities or differences (TW3 Report).

Proposals

Below we collect the proposals that emerged in relation to how to address this challenge. The first block of proposals seeks to counteract the complexity of intersectionality and the impossibility of considering the multiplicity of axes and their intersections in all the interventions. In this line, an external advisor points out that the “prioritization of axes according to the context is key for addressing this complexity in a practical, effective and efficient way” (Ext.Adv.6 Report). Similarly, several informants consider that to prevent the complexity from “paralysing us, we need to observe which axes are more relevant at each moment and in our workplace” (TW4 Report), in line with the ‘situated intersectionality’ proposed by Nira Yuval Davis (2017), which highlights the fact that inequalities are produced in specific contexts.

The second proposal consists of “having internal rules and regulations which facilitate the application of intersectionality” (Int 12), in line with Cruells (2015) and La Barbera et al. (2020), who highlight the importance of developing binding regulations. Thus, we see a repetition of the idea that the incorporation cannot “be left to the will of the teams”, but that we need regulations and “mechanisms that guarantee and demand technical quality” (TW4 Report). However, other informants limit this logic, as they consider that it is important to “involve the departments more out of motivation than obligation” (Int 3) and that people need to see that applying it will enrich their work.

Beyond the debate on the creation of obligatory mechanisms, there is agreement that regulations alone are not sufficient, and that there is a need for “a professional who can support and accompany the technical teams in the implementation of intersectionality” (Diagn Report). As this interviewee expresses, if no one in particular is responsible for intersectionality, it will be disregarded as “what is everyone’s is no one’s” (Int 5).

In view of the lack of tools, the following proposals appear: to share good practices among administrations (Ext.Adv.3 Report); to establish “a network which can collect and enhance experiences coming from local public administrations, in order to generate a positive knock-on effect” (Ext.Adv.4 Report); to learn from the strategies and methodologies that are already being implemented (Int 5); the road-testing technique explained in Hankivksy and Cormier (2011) that was presented in a TW in the project; or to create tools, methodologies and strategies in the administration, based on collective experience and learning.

In this line, the proposal is to generate assessment models which serve to measure the intersectional impact of the actions carried out (MLW Report) and, more generally, “to generate methodologies that facilitate a systematised application beyond the technical will of the person performing it” (Int 10).

Challenge #2. Clash between the dynamics of the administration and the intersectional perspective

The second challenge focuses on the tension between the intersectional perspective and the administration dynamics in relation to the organisational culture, the way inequalities are addressed and the training of work teams.

Regarding the first aspect, the technical staff interviewed agree that intersectionality requires establishing collaborative and procedural work logics (Int 1, Int 4, Int 7). In contrast, the organisational culture of the administration is based on rigid procedures that do not encourage interdepartmental collaboration, but rather, they generate counterproductive dynamics such as the disconnection between policies and competition between departments (Quest 1, Diagn Report).

Other difficulties that the informants attribute to the organisational culture are the lack of time (MLW Report) and the work overload (Quest 1, Int 7, MLW Report), which hinder the analysis and reflection required to face the profound transformations intersectionality entails (MLW Report, Int 3):

The departments see the need to work in an intersectional manner, but the structure does not help, it is obsolete. It is not designed to respond to common problems, nor does it facilitate the encounter and group work (Int 7).

Some participants in the project show a lack of trust towards the ability of the administration to assume new ways of working (TW1 Report). Some interviewees also feel that when there is a commitment to promote changes in the administration, “they are left half-done or they fade away” (Int 3, Int 5).

The second aspect is related to the way inequalities are addressed. The informants recognise that the administration tends to simplify situations, to classify people in homogeneous categories, and that there is a tendency to standardise and establish protocols (TW3 Report). This logic contrasts with intersectionality, which proposes: contextual analyses to capture the complex and dynamic nature of social situations; bearing in mind the specificities of life experiences; and a commitment to comprehensive responses which are also flexible and adapted to each situation. In this vein, Manuel (2019: 43) highlights this contradiction between, on the one hand, public policies, which are “reductionistic and incremental”, “try hard to simplify policy solutions” and “work within the short time horizons of policymakers” and, on the other hand, intersectionality, which provides complex, contextual solutions that cannot be standardised.

The third aspect is related to the training of work teams. The diagnosis performed at the beginning of the project observes that the training concerning the axes of inequalities carried out from a unitary approach is an obstacle when establishing tools, methodologies and shared conceptual paradigms.

Moreover, the profile of the technical, directive and political teams is generally homogeneous and does not represent the diversity in the population. Following Haraway (1991), knowledge is constructed on the basis of the social positions of the people who produce it. In this sense, having more diverse professional teams would allow for the construction of more robust and complex knowledge about the impact of the axes of inequality on people’s lives.

In this regard, the law limits the possibility of diversifying some profiles, since, for example, one of the access criteria for the civil service is having Spanish nationality (TW4 Report). Furthermore, Spanish law stipulates that there are personal data that are especially protected (for example, race, religion and sexual orientation), which can cause difficulties when objectifying the biases in staff and when incorporating criteria to correct them. Nevertheless, there are other options, such as the recruitment of non-established public employees or outsourcing which are more flexible in these terms.

Opportunities

The three opportunities which were identified as a counterweight in relation to this challenge are: the potential of the local environment; community work; and the possibilities of review afforded by intersectionality.

Regarding the first, one of the external advisors points out that local administrations are an ideal setting for mainstreaming intersectionality (Ext.Adv.2 Report), especially small and medium-sized municipalities, as it is easier for them to directly know the agents and dynamics of the territory. Moreover, they have more room for manoeuvre to introduce changes and organisational improvements to incorporate intersectionality (TW5 Report). Different municipal workers reinforce this idea and add that the closeness of the local administration to the citizens helps to recognise “the complexity of the situations that need to be addressed and forces people to broaden their perspective” (Diagn Report).

Experience in community work is another opportunity mentioned, related to the first opportunity, because it helps to bring the administration closer to people and it helps to gain a better understanding of the dynamics on the ground. From this situated knowledge, it is easier to incorporate intersectionality, as it helps to start from the territory and its context instead of doing it in an abstract and sectorial way. Accurate knowledge of the context helps to consider the intersection of axes and their priority according to each problem (Int 10).

Regarding the third opportunity, participants in the project express that discovering and incorporating intersectionality is an opportunity to rethink the organisational culture and to foster changes in the way of working.

Proposals

The first group of proposals revolves around the organisational culture. It is seen as necessary to incorporate changes to “ensure that what is done out of the good will of the more conscious staff becomes a core matter in the organisation” (TW3 Report). And to ensure this, time must be dedicated to work on processes and avoid emergency actions (MLW Report). Likewise, establishing rigid protocols must be avoided to commit to work formulas that are flexible and contextual (MLW Report).

Moreover, the focus was placed on community work: “We need to decentralise the Town Council, and work on the ground” (TW3 Report) to increase the knowledge and identify the needs in their context. In this regard, among the participants of the MLW, there is consensus about having community intervention teams on the ground that operate with an intersectional perspective (MLW Report).

The second group of proposals encompasses actions that help to progress through small but feasible changes that serve to experiment with new practices (Int 9, TW1, TW3 Report) and “look for the gaps in intervention that help us to work in an intersectional manner within a rigid structure” (Ext.Adv.6 Report). One way of making progress is by creating stable but flexible inter-departmental working groups, which incorporate the intersectional perspective, to find shared goals and to develop specific projects (TW5 Report).

The third group encompasses proposals related to leadership. There is consensus that to generate these changes, there must be a political will, with a clear mandate and a sustained commitment (Diagn Report), and technical leadership (Int 5, Diagn Report). In the case of Terrassa, the technical team’s will to adopt intersectionality was key: staff in intermediate positions acted as a chain of transmission to their teams and political leaders.

As regards the work teams, training actions are proposed to ensure the intersectional perspective reaches all spheres of public policy (MLW Report). The participants recognise that the training undertaken during the project served to broaden perspectives, dismantle prejudices and share a language, a theoretical framework and practical tools. As a result, there has been a proposal to extend training on intersectionality to all professional teams in the municipal organisation.

Lastly, a proposal is made to seek out hiring mechanisms that promote diversification among staff both in the Town Council’s calls for job applications and in outsourcing.

Challenge #3. Segmentation of the administration

While in the previous challenge we dealt with organisational culture - i.e. values, work dynamics, etc. - this third challenge is focused on structure, which refers to the organisation of departments and the distribution of functions. Thus, the third challenge brings together three elements related to the segmentation of the administration: the organisational structure; the lack of relations between departments; and the fact that some axes are recognised more than others.

The first aspect is related to the compartmentalised and rigid structure of the administration, organised into departments focused on one single axis of inequality, which clashes with “the intersectional perspective based on a new innovative, experimental and integrative perspective in terms of tackling specific problems” (Ext.Adv.6 Report). This is a challenge also identified by La Barbera et al. (2020) in the case of Madrid City Council. As pointed out by most of the interviewees, this compartmentalization occurs on all levels (“the political, programmatical, budget, professional and physical structure -location of departments-”, Quest 1), which makes it difficult to change the dynamics. Moreover, the segmentation also happens in supra-municipal administrations, and in the “regulations, conventions and agreements, which follow a sectorial logic” (TW2 Report).

A second aspect is that, due to this fragmentation and compartmentalization, there is a huge lack of knowledge about how the other axes of inequality function and what the other departments do. This factor was also highlighted by La Barbera et al. (2020) in relation to Madrid City Council: “internal communication is scarce and there is a huge lack of knowledge about the work of other areas of government” (p. 37). Thus, an obstacle to progress in the interrelation between axes is “the lack of coexistence between the departments” (Quest 1). Although the departments share some spaces of coordination, in general they establish once-off relationships, based on mutual demands or specific needs. This has repercussions on policies, for example, in the development of partial and sectorial diagnoses: “If the analysis of the situation is fragmented, it is hard to perform actions from a more global perspective” (Diagn Report).

In addition to the lack of knowledge, there is also a logic of ownership –‘my area’, ‘my axis’– which hinders collaboration and promotes competition between axes to obtain resources and presence in spaces. The mainstreaming strategy of each axis occurs in a sectorial and parallel way and “this means that often the actions are multiplied and repeated under the perspective of each axis” (Diagn Report). In this context, the departments organised according to fields consider that each department focused on one axis seeks collaboration for ‘their’ area, without any real dialogue or coordination. In relation to the difficulties of interdepartmental collaboration, Mavrot and Hadorn (2021) note that “where different actors have different priorities, struggles for resources in multi-actor and interdepartmental settings can be expected” (p. 14).

This competition between axes links in with the third element of this challenge: the inequalities between departments within the organisation. The trajectories and backgrounds of the different departments are very diverse and this translates into inequalities in terms of the recognition they receive in the City Council and the resources they have to develop their programmes:

Not all the axes have the same weight in the administrations because they have gone through different processes of institutionalization –resources, legal protection, structures, etc. For example, the axis of gender has been worked on since 1975 and has been provided with regulations, funding, etc. This greater protection has certain effects: hierarchies have been created and these must be taken into account (TW2 Report).

This means that departments with a position of power within the City Council feel that the intersectional proposal may make them lose visibility or resources, while departments that are currently more peripheral see this proposal as an opportunity to increase their impact.

Opportunities

Three opportunities identified to respond to this challenge are: to apply a comprehensive perspective that dismantles the competition between axes; to join forces and resources to carry out more effective and efficient actions; and to construct a discourse that brings coherence to the policies in relation to the different axes.

Regarding the first, one of the informants points out that “the axes do not need to be understood as in competition with each other but as part of one same system of holistic power” (TW1 Report). As highlighted, “in general, the departments of the axes of inequality understand that their function, in addition to looking after the service users, is the mainstreaming strategy of their perspective to achieve inclusive policies” (Int 5). Thus, the comprehensive perspective can facilitate the incorporation of planning strategies and methodologies that take into consideration the different axes of inequality and that help to move away from the logic of competition between departments. Coordination between departments addressing axes of inequality would facilitate the intersectional mainstreaming strategy (Int 11). Furthermore, Pemberton (2008) highlights the importance of “more effective horizontal (multidimensional) and vertical (multilevel) integration to support locally-informed social inclusion interventions of relevance” (p. 130).

However, several informants point out that intersectionality does not have to blur the axes of oppression and that in certain cases, specific axes need to be focused on: “although all the oppressions always intervene, we have to be able to do studies, policies or actions focused on the effects of one oppression in particular” (TW1 Report). Therefore, some professionals mention the need to find a way to combine the work per axes (which is still necessary) with intersectional work. This idea is in line with the intersectionality theorizations that emphasise that this perspective is compatible with analysing the particular functioning of the different systems of oppression and intervening in them specifically (Cruells, 2015; Jorba and Rodó-Zárate, 2019).

The second aspect is related to understanding intersectionality as an opportunity to review current proposals and resources to make them more efficient:

It is not about replacing them [the departments addressing axes of inequality] structurally, but of additionally contributing the intersectional perspective as a way of working that coordinates the trajectories of all the departments through a shared approach that is innovative, integrative and collaborative (Ext.Adv.6 Report).

Lastly, the third opportunity detected includes “building a unique shared discourse without losing the richness of specificity” (Quest 1 Quest 3). In the Terrassa City Council some initiatives have taken place in this regard, making the most of “the opportunity represented by the shared management” of different departments dealing with axes of inequality (Int 4), and promoting the joint construction of a unified and coherent discourse related to the axes of inequality, one of the facilitating elements mentioned by Cruells (2015). An example can be found in the awareness-raising and prevention interventions carried out in educational centres, where a strategy is being prepared to work on the different axes of inequality together (Int 4).

Proposals

The informants indicated several proposals to overcome the structural fragmentation of the Administration (TW2 Report). For instance, there is consensus about the need: “to establish political and technical structures that bring together the different axes of inequality to foster joint work under the intersectional perspective” (Diagn Report). Other proposals are: sharing management between the different axes of inequality (Int 4, Int 7); locating different departments in shared physical spaces (Diagn Report); “encouraging the rotation of technical staff between the departments to acquire expertise and adding broader perspectives” (Int 7); or “assigning specific budget entries to undertake projects with an intersectional perspective” (Ext.Adv. 6 Report).

Concerning the lack of knowledge between axes, a proposal is made “to establish a mechanism to share and raise awareness of the actions each department performs” (MLW Report) or to have “a figure who connects” the different teams (TW1 Report).

The informants also suggest strategies to avoid competition between axes, such as creating “work spaces where the projects shared between different fields and departments are promoted as a whole, and where dialogue and analysis can be generated” (Ext.Adv.6 Report), or “holding ‘clinical sessions’ between departments to address multi-problematic or high complexity cases” (Int 4). They also point out that, to overcome the competitive dynamics between axes “the problem needs to be defined together, going beyond each department” (Diagn Report).

Conclusions

Based on an applied project, this article analyses the challenges, opportunities and proposals concerning mainstreaming intersectionality in local public policies.

The first challenge considers how to overcome the conceptual limitations that intersectionality a priori presents in terms of clarity, applicability and complexity. The intersectional approach is an opportunity to review and improve the professional practice and achieve more comprehensive responses. To achieve this, it is essential to progress in the definition of normative and methodological mechanisms.

The second challenge reveals that there are contradictory points between the work dynamics intersectionality requires (procedural, collaborative, holistic and contextual) and those of the administration (rigid, disconnected, simplifying and immediate). Nevertheless, the possibilities offered by the local sphere and the background of positive experiences define an optimistic scenario to incorporate changes. However, there is a need to find more flexible organisation and intervention formula which are close to the territory. It is also key to ensure the training, leadership and commitment of the political leaders and the involvement of the whole technical structure.

The third challenge warns that the structural, functional and resources sectorisation hinders the application of intersectionality. Intersectionality is seen as an opportunity to generate more holistic approaches, more efficient policies and coherent discourses that counteract the fragmentation of the administration. Informants point out that there is a need to think about work strategies that serve to cross-cut intersectionality through coordination and joint work between departments.

At the beginning of the article, we said that we consider that intersectionality can be put into practice in public policies. To do so, it is important to recognise the challenges it presents as well as two risks. The first risk is the possibility of distorting the intersectional approach by emptying it of its transformative potential. The second risk is considering intersectionality as an untouchable and unattainable perspective, so it does not provide tools for social transformation.

After analysing the pioneering experience of the Terrassa City Council, another question emerges; can intersectionality be institutionalised? In other words, if we consider that intersectionality can contribute positive changes to the administration, how can we ensure it does not depend on individual will or that it does not become a rigid rule that contradicts the contextual and non-standardisable spirit of the intersectional proposal?

It is important to analyse how the administrations that are committed to mainstreaming intersectionality progress in the development of strategies to face the challenges and risks identified in this article. In the case of Terrassa City Council, after the intense training and reflection process described in this article, the first strategic plans with an explicit will to incorporate intersectionality have been approved, and a procedure that establishes the need to incorporate the intersectional perspective in all policies is under discussion. The analysis of this type of process will help to identify new strategies and new challenges to move forward in the integration of intersectionality in public policies.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - “From ‘it’s not possible’ to ‘how we can do it’”. Challenges, opportunities and proposals to adopt intersectionality in local administration

Supplemental Material for “From ‘it’s not possible’ to ‘how we can do it’”. Challenges, opportunities and proposals to adopt intersectionality in local administration by Gerard Coll-Planas, Tere del Amo, and Roser Solà-Morales in Public Policy and Administration