AN EVALUATION MODEL OF MEANINGFUL YOUTH INCLUSION

The youth inclusion structure in S+50 was rather complex; it involved many structures, stakeholders, activities and coordinators. The outcomes and achievements would manifest at different levels. In order to evaluate whether the youth inclusion in S+50 was meaningful, it was necessary to set up an evaluation model with all relevant indicators, most of which were identified jointly by LSU and the evaluator.

The first step in designing the model was to set up a conceptual framework for how meaningful participation can be grasped and mapped out.

Conceptual framework

Three conceptual components of meaningful participation make up the cornerstones in our model of understanding and mapping meaningful participation:

(I) The ladder of participation, Arnstein (1969); (II) MGCY’s definition of youth participation and (III) the co-creation concept, with reference to Abrahamsson (2015).

The ladder of participation

Sherry Arnstein’s “Ladder of Participation” is often used to represent different levels of citizens involvement and power sharing.5

An important concept in Arnstein’s Ladder of Participation is that of tokenistic participation. In tokenistic participation, citizens are mainly included for “show”, a phenomenon often referred to as youth washing in youth participation processes.

In processes such as S+50, with the overall objective of creating a high level of meaningful youth inclusion, the expected and desired level of participation best corresponds to Partnership, on Arnstein’s ladder.6 Importantly, for participation to be interpreted as “Partnership”, a certain degree of citizens/youth power needs to be present. We will examine what partnership may look like in the following parts of the conceptual framework.

Co-creation as meaningful youth participation

In an intergovernmental policy making process (such as S+50), it is not possible to conceptualise an equal partnership, as decision will rest with the member states.

This does not mean that meaningful youth participation cannot be achieved, but rather that the evaluation model needs another component, in order to serve as an adequate instrument for interpretation and mapping. To this end, the concept of co-creation as defined by Abrahamsson (2015) will be added to the conceptual tools in this evaluation. Abrahamsson (2015) argues for the “importance of citizens’ co-creation as regards to identification of the problems, measures to be taken as well as the implementation of the same… in a new era characterized by complexity.”7 8

5 Arnstein, S. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation Journal of the American Planning Association, 35(4), 216–224.

6 One of the critiques of the Ladder of Participation is that progress should not be perceived as vertical only. This observation is relevant also in intergovernmental policy process. Different levels of Arnstein’s ladder will be meaningful in decision making in various settings, and at different stages of the process(es) analysed.

Co-creation is a process where citizens/civil society/youth are included in the entire process; from identifying the problem, to searching for solutions and, finally, in the negotiations of and implementation of policy. Processes take place in a highly complex setting, which makes it necessary to integrate a wide array of perspectives, and create vertical as well as horizontal cooperation/action.

The quality and outcomes of co-creation processes can be assessed, in a thorough analysis of the conditions for participation, the ability for cross-sectoral deliberation as well as the fairness9 of the negotiations. Important preconditions of a co-creation process include a) feedback given on decision making throughout the process as well as b) the inclusion of the citizens/civil society/youth in implementation of the policy.

In this report, co-creation will be used as a concrete point-of-reference. It serves in our model for understanding, mapping and evaluating as well as suggesting methods and tools for meaningful youth inclusion in similar future processes.

Principles of meaningful youth engagement as defined by MGCY One more component has been integrated into the conceptual framework. It provides an additional analytical (and practical) tool for the evaluator’s understanding and assessment.

MGCY has identified a set of principles and barriers to meaningful youth engagement.10 The principles represent preconditions that are intrinsic to, and essential in any form of meaningful youth inclusion within the UN. The outline below, in Figure 1, has been taken from MGCY’s webpage;

Meaningful youth engagement

Principles

Self-Organised

Legally Mandated - Rights Based Designated

Well Resourced

Accountable

Barriers

Individualisation

Lack of resources

Regressive Normative Framing

Changing Landscape of Non State Actors

7 Abrahamsson, H. (2015). Dialog och medskapande i vår tids stora samhällsomdaning. Utbildning och lärande, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 20-41. Among other publications on the topic.

8 Abrahamsson (2015) applies his interpretation of co-creation in processes of urban development in a new era characterised by complexity. This perspective resonates well with other processes of participation, such as

9 A fair process can be defined as transparent, inclusive and non-discriminatory. Suggestions are taken into serious consideration, to be accommodated fully or partly depending on what is practicable.

10 The principle and barriers have been defined through a consultation process. www.unmgcy.org/meaningful-engagement