During Denmark’s election campaign, I was invited by Enhedslisten to speak at a townhall on the familiar issue of violence and crime in ethnic minority neighborhoods. As usual, it fueled the predictable political divide, locking the left and right into their opposing positions, which often(always)results in legislative paralysis. However, instead of staying in that debate, I used the crime discussion as a stepping stone to address what I consider a much deeper, systemic problem.

Introduction

I was invited by Victoria Velasquez, a member of the Danish parlament from the party Enhedslisten, to speak at a townhall about “how to prevent and stop violence and crime” (forebygge og stoppe vold og kriminalitet) in ethnic minority neighborhoods. Also present was Reza Javid, 2nd Deputy Mayor and member of Odense City Council.

Discussions on this topic often end up in a deadlock because they tend to fall into predictable patterns of political polarization. The left typically emphasizes systemic causes like poverty, lack of education, and social marginalization, advocating for social programs and community investment. On the other hand, the right tends to focus on law enforcement, stricter policing, and tougher penalties as immediate solutions. These opposing approaches rarely find common ground, creating a legislative stalemate where neither side addresses the full scope of the issue.

Furthermore, media coverage often reinforces this divide, framing the problem as one of criminal behavior tied to ethnic minorities, which only fuels stereotypes and deepens the political divide. As a result, the conversation often remains stuck on the surface-level symptoms of violence and crime, while the underlying structural causes—like underfunding of social services and civic initiatives—are left unaddressed. This lack of progress turns discussions into repetitive cycles without leading to meaningful or lasting solutions, and I was having none of it!

Learning the lesson. Taking the CONCISE shot.

In preparing for the townhall, I drew from the lesson I learned during my meeting with Lars Løkke Rasmussen: preparation is key, and if you want to drive meaningful change, you need to focus the conversation on clear, actionable issues. With this in mind, I turned my attention to a deeper, systemic problem that is often overlooked in discussions about crime in ethnic minority neighborhoods—the chronic underfunding of civic initiatives.

Through extensive research, I analyzed the economic and institutional differences between Denmark’s three largest ghetto areas: Gellerup, Tingbjerg, and Vollsmose. The disparities I uncovered were stark. Vollsmose receives 36% less funding per resident from Landsbyggefonden than Gellerup. This funding gap significantly hinders the ability of Vollsmose to support long-term social and community initiatives that engage residents and offer alternatives to crime.

Contrary to public perception, which suggests that Vollsmose is well-supported with numerous civic projects, the reality is far different. The neighborhood is chronically underfunded, especially compared to Gellerup, which has approximately 19 full-time staff members working on community initiatives, while Vollsmose only has two. This staffing shortage means that any projects initiated in Vollsmose are often temporary or insufficiently supported, further entrenching the neighborhood’s social challenges.

While some may point to short-term or one-off projects as evidence of support, these initiatives lack the sustainability needed to bring real change. The idea that Vollsmose is saturated with civic initiatives is largely a myth. The few projects that do exist are fragile and heavily reliant on volunteers or limited-term funding, which only contributes to the instability of the community’s civic infrastructure.

Moreover, Vollsmose’s geographic isolation from political and economic centers like Aarhus and Copenhagen further compounds the issue. This distance leaves it out of sight for many decision-makers, allowing local councils to be lax in their responsibilities without facing pressure from higher authorities. As a result, the myth of ample support in Vollsmose masks the deeper reality of systemic neglect, which I emphasized in my presentation during the townhall.

The narrative switcharoo

The townhall began with the expected discussions of crime and violence, but after my presentation, the narrative shifted significantly. Instead of focusing solely on crime, both Victoria Velasquez and Reza Javid, in interviews with the press afterward, emphasized the chronic underfunding of civic society in Vollsmose. This was a direct result of the points I raised, where I illustrated how the lack of resources for community programs was a fundamental issue. What began as a conversation about violence transformed into a broader discussion about systemic neglect and underinvestment in the community.

Outcome & Conclusion

Some time after the townhall, Enhedslisten introduced a proposal shaped by the ideas from my presentation and fellow speakers. It focused on establishing a Civic Support Center in Vollsmose to provide long-term support for local NGOs, ensuring stability for community-driven projects. The plan also called for a 10 million DKK annual investment into social housing, with an emphasis on community development and parental involvement.

While the townhall successfully shifted the conversation from crime to the systemic underfunding of civic initiatives, it ultimately had little policy impact. The lack of political will at both the state and municipal levels stifled Enhedslisten’s proposal. Without support from the governing coalition, the necessary reforms for sustainable civic development in Vollsmose remain unrealized.

However, as the transformation of Vollsmose progresses, there may be renewed political interest in fostering integration between new and existing residents. This could elevate civic development as a priority, potentially addressing the long-standing issues of underinvestment.