An evaluation study of youth participation in youth work: a case study in Southern Italyi Daniele Morciano, Anna Fausta Scardigno, Amelia Manuti, Serafina Pastore Department of Educational Sciences, Psychology, Communication University of Bari
[email protected] Abstract In this paper an evaluation study of a public programme that financed a regional network of 157 youth centres in the South of Italy was presented. A theory-based evaluation model was adopted to explore the causal links between different kind of participation experiences. Evaluation questions focused on three main issues: the empowerment perception of the team during the management of the centres; the empowering effect of participation in the organization of the youth centre; and the decision making abilities of the young people involved. After an exploratory study, an on-line structured questionnaire has been administered to all the centres. New youth centres appear as striving to become sustainable enterprises. However, there is a common difficulty to integrate day to day management and sustainability strategies. This difficulty is lower when project leaders participated in the design of the centres together with other young people. Thus, results confirmed that participation in the design was an empowering experience. However, this study warns against some unwanted effects of the participation. For instance, participation processes was a form of decorative consultation for half of the cases. Therefore, empirical evidence suggests further research to focus on the creation of stable participation structures inside the centres to avoid the risk of participation processes without a real effect on decisions. Key-words: youth-work, youth centres, youth participation, empowerment
1. Research purpose The main purpose of this research project was to evaluate outcomes and mechanisms of youth participation in youth centres. To this end, a theory-based evaluation model has been adopted (Weiss, 1997) as to explore and test the causal links (Weiss, 1997; Funnell & Rogers, 2011) that have enabled youth participation, thus influencing youth development. Youth centres were defined as centre-based youth work. Differently from other forms of youth work, centre-based youth work provides continuous services for youth development in a specific context where spaces and facilities are available for a large range of adult-led and youth-led activities. Different practices of youth-work are implemented in pre-existing contexts that can be informal (detached youth-work and outreach youth-work) or formal (school-based youth-work) (Smith, 1998; Davies, 2005; Sapin, 2009). The EU definition of youth work includes all kinds of youth development programs occurring outside the formal education systems. Defining features of youth-work are symbiosis between recreational activities and learning opportunities, young people’s voluntary participation, educational work focused both on individuals and groups, growth of associational life and promotion of self-government experiences (Verschelden, Coussée, Van de Walle & Williamson, 2009, p. 138-139; Davies, 2005, p. 22)
1
To evaluate youth-work is a challenging research purpose since youth-work practice is characterized by a great variety of methods, objectives and expectations. Nevertheless, many recent scientific contributions on the topic have witnessed the increasing need to evaluate the role played by youth-work in the youth-development process. According to Williamson (1995): "If anything goes it is hard to identify the defining features of youth-work" (pp. 3645). In view of the above, the present research is aimed at evaluating youth-work in youth centres by adopting a specific theoretical framework on youth participation. Youth participation is a key issue in the national youth policies of the European Union, as in those of the European Commission (IARD, 2001; Walther, 2006). However, there are different definitions of youth participation in youth policies. Mainly, some policies define youth participation as youth social inclusion, while others as youth empowerment (IARD, 2011). In the first case, policies aim to solve specific problems connected to young people through education, training, or employment. Unfortunately, these deficit-based policies often provide top down interventions that are not able to involve young people in the decision-making process (MacDonald 1998). Instead, youth participation could be a cross value in the whole policy cycle. This is the case with ‘resource-based’ youth policies (Williamson, 1995), which strive for enhancing youth capabilities that already exist and give to young people new chances to actualize their potential. Scientific research on youth work and on youth development programmes has investigated youth participation focusing mostly on its effects on the personal variables implied in youth development. For instance, several studies have analysed to what extent participative methodologies could contribute to increase the effect of the programmes on health outcomes (O’Donoghue, Kirshner & McLaughlin, 2006), on the reduction of at-risk behaviors (Peterson, Peterson, Agre, Christens, & Morton, 2011; Denault & Poulin, 2009), on problem solving skills in everyday life (Larson & Angus, 2011), and on the development of attitueds coherent with democracy values (Greetjea, 2009). Nonetheless, still few are the evaluative studies on the role played by youth development programmes in fostering participation processes leading young people to personally planning and leading interventions for youth community. Though the model of the services supplied “by youth for youth” has been largely discussed by the literature on youth development (Villarruel, Perkins, Borden & Keith, 2003) and on youth participation (Arnstein, 1969; Hart, 1992; Shier, 2001; Wong, Zimmerman & Parker, 2010), evaluative research on the programmes which aim at realising this model in practice are still at an early stage. In their study on the cooperation between young people and adults in community development programmes Wong, Zimmerman and Parker (2010) have reviewed some research studies which tend to confirm the association between youth participation in decision-making processes and the development of relevant abilities in planning and realising community services. These studies aimed at testing if the participative contexts promoted by public institutions (as for instance, Youth councils, Youth forums etc. ) limited themselves in involving young people only in the design phase of youth policies (as for instance, by collecting young people's ideas and proposals on the services which are mostly required by the youth community), or do they gave them the opportunity to exercise decision making and operative responsibilities in the realisation of the interventions they have contributed to design and plan (i.e. by managing directly a service addressed to peers). The development of research tools aimed at evaluating youth participation, on the other hand, is still focused on the quality
2
of participation considered as an involvement experience limited to the programme's life cycle (Tiffany, Exner-Cortens & Eckenrode, 2012). The programme chosen as case study was the Urban Laboratories of Bollenti Spiriti (Urban Labs). The present public programme has been chosen especially because it aimed at involving young people both during the phase of the centre's design and planning (youth participation in planning) as well as during the phase of implementation of its non-formal learning activities (youth-led management). This programme took place in the South of Italy and was considered because of its features: youth participation was a central variable in each stage of the implementation process (Author & Manuti, 2011; Author & Author, 2011). Indeed, with specific reference to this programme, policy-makers involved young people already during the design phase besides of course giving them full responsibility also during the management phase of the Labs. Launched in 2006 by the Apulia Region, it has funded a regional network of 157 youth-work centres (Urban Labs). Youth centres have been located in public buildings, owned by the Local Authorities (Town Halls). Thus, regional government has taken a role in the coordination, while town halls has engaged in implementing the Labs at a local level. During the first stage, the regional programme promoted youth participation in the planning of the Labs (2006-2007). In the second stage, it promoted the refurbishment of the building started (2008-2009). Finally, town halls started to involve young people in the management of the Labs. The regional programme required to town halls to devolve the management of the Labs to non-profit private partnerships for at least five years. Consequently, the regional programme gave a specific priority to the self-sustaining management of each Lab. In fact, the programme provided financial support only for the first year. Afterwards, the managers would have been ready to find new financial resources for any services and activities. Recreational and learning facilities were made available in the Labs. Furthermore, a range of self-managed activities and ‘adult-led’ services were provided for leisure, vocational training, job orientation and enterprise creation. The programmes provided by each Labs were mainly focused on artistic activities (photography, multimedia, handicraft, theatre). Moreover, they strived also for offering paid services in different sectors, especially in tourism, publishing, events and show production. The labs involved in the present study were experiencing different stages of their implementation process when the research project started. The participatory planning stage was completed and the refurbishment was started for all 157 Labs. About one third of them was open (n. 57), another third has accomplished management partnership but wasn't still open (n. 48) and the remaining part wasn't still completely refurbished (n. 52). In view of the above, the research project aimed at evaluating the ongoing activities brought about by the Labs in the frame of this regional programme, thus comparing the implementation process of the labs in different stages. By this, the present evaluation research aimed at being a case study mostly useful for the Labs which were still going on with their implementation process thus receiving relevant feedback by those labs which were already open and active. The present study is the prosecution of an evaluative research that the authority of the programme has commissioned to the University of Bari (Sociology section) in 2009. The research was originally aimed at evaluating the dynamics and the outcomes of youth participation activated through the programme Bollenti Spiriti (B.S.), and has involved both Youth Urban Laboratories, both the intervention called "active principles (Principi Attivi) for 3
the creation of youth businesses (Author & Author, 2011). Then, aims and methodologies of this evaluative research have been shared with the authority of the programme as foreseen by institutional agreements already started. The research project about Urban Laboratory programme included three studies. A first exploratory study aimed at reconstructing the regional programme theory on young people’s participation with specific reference to design and management of youth centres, through focused interviews with local authorities representatives and trough the analysis of the main official documents. A second study was focused on some of the most important evaluation questions deriving from the first study, thus involving project leader of all organisations engaged in the management of the Labs who were asked to fill in an online questionnaire. Finally, a third study aimed at evaluating to what extend non-formal education have had an influence on youth agency in the youth centres. For the purpose of the present paper only the results from the first and the second study were presented because they are specifically focused on the link between youth participation and youth decisional power in programme implementation. Author (2012) has given an exhaustive overview of the results from the third study on the impact of non formal education in the youth centres.
2. Youth work welfare in Europe The case of the regional programme taken into account in the present study could be framed within a policy pathway which is oriented towards open youth-work (IARD, 2001), That is a form of socio-educational service dedicated to young people which is mostly universalistic and free from any belonging to groups or movements settled into specific political and/or religious ideologies. In view of the above, such experience showed how the conservativecorporative model of welfare that Esping Anderson (1990) saw as representative of the Italian situation could be no longer valid to read the changes which are in progress with reference to youth policies. Then, moving from the youth policies perspective, such model stressed the relevant role played by the religious institutions within the socio-educational activities addressed to young people outside the formal system of education together with the roles played by family and wider parental networks. The progressive weaking of these traditional educational agencies, together with the even weaker attractive power exercised by the informal socialization contexts proposed by parties/trade unions' system (Fincardi & Papa, 2007), has engendered a “regulation void” thus pushing towards the assumption of a most relevant role of the national public authorities as well as of the third sector. Besides Italy, such change has involved also other European southern countries (i.e. Spain and Portugal), who therefore have been inserted in a model of Mediterranean welfare (IARD, 2001; Gallie & Paugam, 2000). Even in middle Europe countries, those belonging to the Conservative-Corporative model the role of Third Sector is widely recognized within national and local youth policies (IARD, 2001). Nonetheless, the frame of the relationships between social private and public institutions seems to be more stable and structured, less open to negotiation and more incline to reduce the autonomy sphere of no profit youth organizations. For instance, as with reference to the German case, this specific model of cooperation between youth-work operators and public administrations has been defined “neo-corporative” (Bazzanella, 2010, p. 333). The general asymmetry of relationships which works to public institutions' advantage
4
produces even a stronger institutional pressure towards the aim of socialization to "adult roles". Indeed, in the middle Europe countries youth policies and youth-work services tend to be activated since childhood and generally last until young adulthood. With reference to this issue, the middle European model of youth policies differs very much from the universalistic model proposed by the Scandinavian countries, where youth is considered as a specific phase within the growth cycle and not simply an intermediate phase of transition towards adulthood. Therefore, in these countries the key issues are mostly anchored to participative processes and to the creation of structures which would be able to promote and foster them. Moreover, differently from the selective approach which is mostly diffused in middle and southern Europe and which is based on the canalization of interventions towards specific categories of young people "in need", in northern Europe youth policies are typically focused on universalism, that is they are designed and addressed to young people as "citizens” as they consider them a resource to promote in the present and not necessarily bound to their future status of adult. In neat contraposition with the Scandinavian model, the liberal model brought about by Great Britain and Ireland has traditionally been centered on prevention of youth problems, with a specific light on the difficulties in labor market's entry and in late transition to adulthood. In this area, youth policies and youth-work activities have traditionally concentrated in issues such as deviance, drop out, criminal behavior, drug use and adolescents' pregnancy. Nonetheless, within the last decade a growing interest has been registered towards the topic of youth participation to social and political life, maybe as a counterbalance to a more traditional orientation to consider young people as a disadvantaged or a challenging category for the social order. Among the most interesting initiatives on the topic of youth participation the Youth Opportunity Fund and the Youth Opportunity Capital deserve a mention. These are both programmes launched by the national government in 2007 which have supplied microincentives to projects developed and proposed by young people aged between 13 and 19. Differently from the case-oriented tradition which is present within the educational practices addressed to young people in northern Europe, the British isles prefers youth-work approaches involving the whole community. A distinctive trait of this model is the intense involvement of local public authorities (cities e counties) within the creation and management of youth centers and youth clubs, often in cooperation with no-profit organizations. The tendency to plan and realize actions at a communitarian level has also allowed to create and enhance collaboration alliances with the world of enterprises (National Youth Agency 2008 and 2012). In Great Britain, for instance, such tendency is also the result of a recent reduction in transferring the national public resources dedicated to young people's services which are generally supplied by the local authorities.
2. Youth participation and empowerment Youth participation was operationalized by two main dimensions: decision-making power concerning active participation in the planning activities of the centre (Hart, 1992; Williamson, 1997; Bobbio, 2003); empowerment meant as a sensitive output of participation both in terms of practical management as well as of concrete ability to affect local development processes (Zimmerman, 1995; Wong, Zimmerman, Parker, 2010).
5
Following Arnstein (1969) and Hart (1992), youth participation was meant as an indicator of young people's decision-making ability. Moving from such theoretical framework, higher levels of youth participation would be connected with a marked managerial power over the youth centre (citizen control, Arnstein, 1969). Therefore, the public actor would support the projects proposed directly by young people (young people-initiated and directed, Hart, 1992). A second theoretical line adopted as framework of the paper is the notion of "deliberative arena" (Bobbio, 2003), which would allow to better observe participation as an empowering process. This concept specifies the features of the public decision-making process where decisions are made up after a vivid debate and confrontation of participants’ points of view (Elster, 1998). According to Bobbio's theory, deliberative arenas are mainly promoted by the public authority as to involve citizens within a specific issue and thus to increase participation. Indeed, other relevant features to observe are the inclusivity of the deliberative arena, that is to what extent the participation process is structured, the support provided by mediators or facilitators, and the impact it has on public decision-making. Then, the participation process could mainly generate a circumscribed or a non-circumscribed arena (Saward, 2000), as indicated in the table 1. Table 1. Circumscribed and Non-circumscribed Deliberative Arenas (adapted from Saward, 2000) Level
Circumscribed Arenas
Non-circumscribed Arenas
Push
Top-down
Bottom-up
Duration
Limited
Not Defined
Agenda
Specific Themes
Open to New Themes
Location
Physical
Even Virtual
Ownership
Public
Citizens
Formality
High (defined rules)
Low (informal processes)
A short-term time frame of the participation process is one of the limits of a deliberative arena. In fact, participation could be experienced simply as an exciting and intense moment of citizen's involvement. Therefore, it is important to design deliberative arenas which are able to build stable participation structures where citizens could express their opinions and take part to the public decision as well as could exercise direct responsibility in the implementation of public projects or services (Bobbio, 2003). Thus, according to this theoretical perspective, special attention should be devoted to the empowering effect of deliberative arenas. Adopting Zimmerman’s (1995) approach to empowerment, youth participation in the designing phase of a youth centre could be conceived as an ‘empowering’ process that increases young people's participation and competence within the future implementation and the management of the centre. Zimmerman defines empowering processes “those where people create or are given opportunities to control their own destiny and influence the decisions that affect their lives (Zimmerman, 1995, pag. 583). This process occurs also when community members are involved in the development and implementation of interventions. The author introduces also the concept of Psychological Empowerment (PE) which is related to the extent where a person believes him/her self to be able to influence a given context (intra-personal component), to understands "how the system works in that context" (interactional component) and to engage "in behaviours to exert control in the context" (behavioural component)”. The intra-personal component of empowerment is associated with
6
the self-perceived competence about a specific life domain, similarly to what Bandura (1997) called self-efficacy. The interactional dimension is related to the ability to find resources useful to achieve a specific goal. For instance, critical awareness could be meant as a knowledge about the social and political context which is a necessary condition for social action (Kieffer, 1984).
3. Evaluation questions The present study gathered empirical evidence about both outcomes and mechanisms of youth participation in the specific context of a group of youth centres (Urban Labs). Evaluation questions focused on three issues: team empowerment in the management of the youth centre; the empowering effect of the participation in the design of the youth centre; and young people’s decision-making ability in the management of the centre (see table 2). Table 2. Evaluation questions
Topics
Evaluation questions
Team empowerment
1) To what extent project leaders perceive their team being able to face the challenges of an autonomous and self-sustained management of the centre?
Participation as an empowering process
2) Did the participation process in the design of the youth centres contribute to incubate their current project-leaders? 3) do the project leaders perceive their team to be more competent to manage the youth centre after having participated also to the design of the centre?
4) did participation in the design lead to higher young people’s decision-making power in the Young people’s decision management? power 5) Is self-perceived team empowerment in the management higher when young people have a decision power?
With respect to the outcomes, the study aimed at evaluating if the regional programme succeeded in building a team with self management abilities as for the organization and implementation of the youth centres (evaluation question no. 1). As for the investigation of mechanisms implied in the process of participation, the study verified if the project leaders would have had previous similar participation experience in the design of the Urban Labs (evaluation question no. 2). At the same time, the study investigated if higher self-perceived ability to manage the centre were associated with higher levels of young people's involvement in its design (evaluation question no. 3). By this, the study aimed at evaluating if participation would have contributed to improve an empowered management structure of the Urban Labs. Finally, other two evaluation questions focused on young people’s decision-making power. The first one explored the association between the project leaders’ participation in the design and young people’s decision-making power in the current management (evaluation question 7
no. 4). The second one dealt with the association between young people’s decision making power associated with the experience of participation in the youth centre and self-perceived team empowerment (evaluation question no. 5). The following figure summarizes the evaluation questions in terms of causal links occurring occurred between the design of the youth centres and the following management stage. Figure 1. Causal links on which the evaluation questions are focused
Young people’s decision power Participation of project leaders and young people Team empowerment
Stage 1: design of the youth centre
Stage 2: management of the youth centre
4. Research methods and instruments The formulation of the research questions and the development of the research tools has taken into account the results coming from the explorative study. In this exploratory stage, the official documents has been analysed, namely the regional public call, the Labs’ projects, a guide for the start-up of the Labs and a case study report that policy maker prepared for the European Commission. After the analysis of documents, 11 Labs have been selected moving from the consideration that they were experiencing a relatively advanced stage of implementation. Focused interviews have been conducted with 11 representatives of the Management Bodies, with 4 representatives of the Local Authorities and with a urban planner who played a role in social animation. Focused interviews allowed to collect the experience of the public and private actors involved in the development of the Urban Labs. More specifically, narrative data have allowed to identify some key issues about the quality of participation within the designing and managing phases. Following the exploratory study, the research then involved all the organisations (N=103) which have had a direct responsibility in the management of a 105 Labs (the remaining 58 Labs did not have a management partnership yet). An on line questionnaire has been administered between December 2011 and February 2012 to the person with a leading role for the activities of the youth centre (project leader). Only 8 project leaders did not return the questionnaire.
8
In order to assess the deliberative quality of participation, an ad-hoc scale was developed by adapting some measurement tools already tested in other similar research studies (Steenbergen, Bächtiger, Spörndli & Steiner, 2003; Podestà & Chiari, 2011 Seyle, McGlohen, Ryan, Durham-Fowler & Skiadas, 2008).; Lanzara, 2005). Participants were asked to express their agreement/disagreement with a list of items referred to the quality of the experience of participation during the meetings dedicated to the planning of the Urban Labs. Specifically, the Deliberative Quality of Participation Scale was a 6 points Likert scale articulated in the following sub-scales: -
-
inclusive peer interaction (i.e. “I had the chance to compare my proposals with those expressed by the others”; "Groups and associations which would have expressed interesting proposals have not been involved in the discussion") learning and reflexivity (i.e. “Thanks to the meetings I have had the chance to improve my knowledge of key issues implied in the activities of the Urban Labs”) impact on final decision-making (i.e. “The final project of the Urban Labs mirrors the proposals which have emerged during the meetings”) generation of new social relations (i.e. “The meetings have been a chance to develop collaboration with the other partners who at the moment manage the Lab”)
Other questions about participation have been included as to investigate youth initiative in participation and if some participation experiences already existed before participation to the regional programme. To assess empowerment, a specific measure for each of the component identified by Zimmerman's theory was adopted. More specifically, for the intrapersonal component the "collective self-efficacy" scale (Bandura, 1997) was used with specific regard to the context of youth centre management. Participants were invited to express their agreement/disagreement with each item using a likert scale (1 to 6) evaluating the extent to which each project leader believed his team to be ready to cope with a list of tasks and challenges referred to the management of the youth centre. Such list was developed both thanks to the main results of the explorative phase of the research, and to the most recent literature on the topic (Tyler, Hoggarth & Merton, 2010). More specifically, the Management Empowerment Scale has articulated according to the following dimensions: -
-
-
“Funds”. This dimension was referred to the ability to exploit different kind of financing resources (i.e. “Exploiting the opportunities to offer paid services in the youth centre”) “Means”. This dimension was connected to the management of physical infrastructures and financial resources (i.e. “Maintaining the building and the facilities”) “Team” This dimension was focused on the search for professional skills and interpersonal relationships inside the team (i.e. “Finding the staff we need for every activities we would like to offer”) “Plans”. This dimension referred to the ability in planning and programming (i.e. “Designing projects and applying for commissioning)
With regards to the inter-personal component of empowerment, some items from the Mobilization Scale (Jakes & Shannon, 2002) were selected. These items emphasised the perception about having abilities and motivations useful to make the difference in the community.
9
5. Team empowerment Evaluation question no. 1 to what extent project leaders perceive their team being able to face the challenges of an autonomous and self-sustained management of the centre? The first evaluation question focused on the project leader's perception about the ability of their team to face the challenges implied in the management of the Urban Labs. more concretely, the Management Empowerment Scale asked them to express their perception by choosing a score from 1 ("Not at all") to 6 ("To a great extent"). The intermediate scores allowed them to highlight those challenges that they perceived as more or less able to deal with ("Very Little", "A Little", "Somewhat" and "To a good extent"). As shown in chart 1, lower rates of self-efficacy were mostly found with reference to fund raising ability (e.g. "attracting corporate investments", "raising money from donors or sponsors"). Instead, most of the managers of the Urban Labs count on their team's ability to offer paid services. Thus, they strive for the sustainability of the youth centre by generating income, as well as by the participation in public funding schemes (bids, tenders etc.). This makes Urban Labs more similar to commercial enterprises rather than to non-profit organizations. Such result was further confirmed by the relatively higher rate of low confidence about involving volunteers. Chart 1:ii Management Empowerment Scale: % of responses with score range 1-3 and 4-6 (N=95)
Four homogeneous groups of project leaders were identified, each with a specific pattern of scoring with reference to the items of the Empowerment sub-scales. The first group, made up of 27 respondents (28%), showed highest scores with reference to quite all items of the scale (group "Full Self Efficacy"). Nonetheless, this results should be
10
carefully investigated since it could be a strategic move to hidden possible lack of abilities or to show their team as perfectly competent and self confident. In fact, the questionnaire was not anonymous and all the organisations involved in the study have been selected with a public bid. Thus, some respondents could have had difficulties in indicating their weaknesses. A second sub-group of respondents tended to depict their team as competent in most of the tasks and challenges included in the scale. However, this group showed a higher rate of low self-efficacy with reference to the items related to a self-sustained management of the centre. (Sub-group "Low Sustainability", see chart no. 2). In fact, half of them attributed low scores in at least one of the items included in the "Fund-raising" sub-scale. Therefore, their current high self-confidence seemed to be based on flexibility skills, useful for a day-by-day management of the centre. Chart 2. Management Empowerment Scale: Sub-group "Low Sustainability" (N=34), % of responses with score 4-6
The third group tended to act in the opposite way with respect to the second group. In fact, all members of this group declared themselves to be able to face the challenges of sustainability, even if the growth of the Urban Lab seemed threatened by several ordinary problems, mainly related to team management (Sub-group "Threatened sustainability", see chart no 3). Chart 3. Management Empowerment Scale: Sub-group "Threatened Sustainability" (N=11), % of responses with score 4-6
11
Finally, the fourth group ("Low self-efficacy") showed lower level of self-efficacy in each dimension of the sub-scales of empowerment (see chart no. 4). More specifically, the percentage of responses showing low scores mostly concentrated on the dimension of fund raising and resources management (maintaining building, budgeting). The management strategy of this group appeared mainly based on planning projects and applying for public commissioning. In other words, it could be interpreted as a surviving strategy and, at the same time, as a way to temporary profit benefiting from public funding. Chart 4. Management Empowerment Scale: Sub-group "Low self-efficacy" (N=23), % of responses with score 4-6
6. Participation as an empowering process Evaluation question no. 2: did the participation process in the design of the youth centres contribute to incubate their current project-leaders? Most of the project leaders involved in the study took part to the designing phase of the youth centres (N=74, 78% of the whole sample). However, only a small group of them participated in each stage of the planning process (N=17). In fact, this process started with the first application to the regional call (in 2006) and continued with the executive planning after the project approval, the refurbishment of the building and the purchase of the facilities. conversely, a small group did not participate to any stage (N=12). About half of the project leaders who participated to the design have been also involved in youth-led meetings (N=41). In this case, the current project leader participated in meeting promoted by young people in order to take active part in the planning of the youth centre. Moreover, these meetings were initiated directly by N=25 project leaders. The association between participation in the planning and development of new relationships has been assessed with a specific tool, the Deliberative Quality Scale. Basing on the results of 12
this scale, almost each Urban Lab’s project leaders involved in the design of the centre started to cooperate with the other current partners (51 on 64), as well as with other groups and/or associations (56 on 64), as a consequence of the participation to the meetings for the planning of the youth centre. Evaluation question no. 3: do the project leaders perceive their team to be more competent to manage the youth centre after having participated also to the design of the centre? The Index of Participation in Design (IPD) was adopted to assess the association between participation during the planning phase of the centre and the degree of perceived empowerment. This index was created on the base of the following variables included in the questionnaire: participation to more than one stage of the planning process; participation in youth-led meetings; personal initiative shown in the organization of the meetings; cooperation with other groups of associations that participated in the planning process. Moving from the results found out with reference to this index, the sub-groups indicated in the table 3 were defined. The sub-group "Low Index" did not participate to any stage of the process (N=11) or only to one stage (N=9). A few of them only later cooperated with groups who were involved in the planning (N=4). Most of the project leaders in the sub-group "Intermediate Index" participated to only one planning stage, but their participation to the meetings showed significant effects on new cooperation actions (N=32). Finally, most of the project leaders in the sub-group "High Index" participated in more than one stage of the planning. This continuity in participation gave to all of them the opportunity to build new partnerships for the management of the centre. Table 3. Sub-groups of participation based on the Index of Participation in Design (IPD) Index of Participation in Participation in Participation in more than one Design one stage stage
Youth-led meeting
Initiative of youth-led meeting
Cooperation with who participated
Sub-group "Low Participation" 11 9 4 Tot. 24 Sub-group "Moderate participation" 11 14 9 8 Tot. 42 Sub-group "High Participation" 9 12 3 5 Tot. 29
The research results moderately confirmed the hypothesis of the association between participation in the design of the centre and current perceived empowerment about the management. As indicated in chart no. 5, half of the groups with a high index of participation in the design of the centre was also in the group with "full self-efficacy" (15 on 20). Such 13
result was found for the 33% of the group with a lower index (8 on 24). At the same time, only 4 of the 29 organisations with high participation index were also in the group with lower perceived empowerment.
Chart 5. Association between Self-perceived Empowerment and participation in the design of the Lab (IPD groups). (N=95)
If two opposite groups of "no-participation" (project leaders who did not participate to the planning) and "Long-term participation" (project leaders who participated to more than one stage of the planning) were compared significant differences could be observed with reference to the specific challenges of the Empowerment participation. As shown in chart no. 6 participation played a very relevant role in influencing the perception of the challenges presented. Chart 6. % of responses with score 4-6, comparison between the group with "Low" and "High" value in Participation Index (N=95)
Chart 7.
14
Chart 7. % of responses with score 4-6 about the inter-personal component of Empowerment Scale (N=95)
Such evidences were further confirmed if the association between the current perceived empowerment and the deliberative quality of the participation during the planning of the centre was observed (see chart no. 8). In this case, those who participated to the meeting with a higher perceived deliberative quality, tended to be more confident in challenges related to team management and partnership building. Thus, a higher quality of participation tended to be associated mainly with a stronger confidence in building relationships, involving volunteers and cooperation. Chart 8. Items of Empowerment Scale in which the rate of responses with score 4-6 (N=74) changes with the
Deliberative Quality
15
7. Young people’s decision-making power Evaluation question no. 4: did participation in the design lead to higher young people’s decision-making power in the management? As shown by the results of the present study, both adult and young-adults had a direct responsibility in the management of the youth Labs. Young adults were involved especially as member of the staff, while adults were mainly involved as members of the board and/or directors (see chart no. 2). Therefore, even if young adults worked for the Urban Lab in two third of the organisations, adults kept important roles in decision-making. However, almost half of the organisations involved young adults in the executive board (for instance, in two cases young people aged under 26 had a role of manager). In these cases, youth participation in decision-making was based on the interaction with other adults. Table 4. Indicators of young people's involvement in the management of the Labs Staff of the Lab In the board of director
In the staff
Age range n
% (a)
Project leader of the Lab (respondent)
N
% (a)
Age range N
% (b)
Is the President n
% (b)
Is a formal member n
% (b)
up to 25
25
26,3
2
2,1
2
2,1
0
0,0
2
2,1
26-35
72
75,8
42
44,2
37
38,9
17
17,9
12
12,7
over 35
33
34,7
64
67,4
56
58,9
24
25,3
23
24,2
95
100,0
42
44,2
37
38,9
Total (a) % on total of respondents (multiple choice) (b) % on total of respondents (single choice)
As shown in chart no. 9, there was a moderate association between having participated in the design of the centre and the formal power exercised by young people in the decision-making processes characterising the management. In fact, there was a clear gap in young people’s decision-making power for the youth centres with a low participation index in the design. However, the gap was lower for those youth centres having a moderate or high level of participation in the design. In this regard, it worth highlighting that more than half of youth centres with an high level of participation in the design (55,20%) did not formally involve young people in the decisional processes.
16
Chart 9. Association between participation in the design (IPD index iii) and young people’s decision-making power (up to 35 years old with a formal decisional role)
Evaluation question no. 5: is self-perceived team empowerment in the management higher when young people have a decision-making power? Finally, chart no.10 shows that involving young people in the decision-making processes did not produce a remarkable difference with regard to the level of team empowerment. The percentages of perceived self-efficacy did not change when crossed with young people's decision making power experienced through the exercise of a decisional role. Chart 10. Association between Self-perceived empowerment and young people’s decision power (up to 35 years old with a formal decisional role)
17
8. Conclusions The Urban Labs of Bollenti Spiriti appeared a case of new youth centres striving to become sustainable social enterprises in the youth-work field. In fact, project leaders tended to perceive their teams as more competent especially with reference to those challenges related to resources mobilization. Thus, differently from the traditional public funds-based management of youth centres in Italy (Bazzanella, 2010), they aimed at reducing the dependency on direct public funding. However, the evaluation results suggested that there was a general difficulty to integrate day-by-day management and sustainability strategies. In fact, in only 28% of cases project leaders felt their team to be competent in each of the management tasks and challenges required. This result confirmed one critical feature coming from the literature on the topic (Author & Author, 2012). In fact, the regional programme funded only the first year of activities and required to the youth centres to find new financial resources for at least other four years. At the same time, neither regional authorities nor town halls adopted any specific action to improve young people’s capabilities related to selfsustained management of the youth centre. Furthermore, all the enterprise risk has been attributed to the organisations entrusted to manage the youth centre for at least five years. Thus, the research results suggested to the regional policy maker to promote and support a continuous process of capabilities improvement for the managers of the youth centres and the youth organisations/groups involved in the implementation of services and activities. This could contribute to build a more balanced relationship between the Local Authorities and the manager of the youth centresiv. About the participatory planning of the youth centres, the research results confirmed that participation in the design was an empowering experience (Zimmerman, 1995; Wong, Zimmerman & Parker, 2010). In fact, managers’ self-efficacy was found to be higher when he/she participated in the initial planning of the centre together with other young people or adults. Furthermore, young people more frequently got a formal decision-making power. The participatory planning had an empowering especiially on the building of relationships between groups and organisations (youth and/or adults led). Particularly, self-efficacy about networking and cooperation skills was associated with a high deliberative quality of the participation experience. Furthermore, almost all the Urban Lab’s project leaders that were involved in the design of the centre started to cooperate with other current partners (51 on 64), as well as with other groups or associations (56 on 64), thanks to the meetings arranged during the planning of the youth centre. Thus, this research results suggested that deliberative youth participation experiences could contribute to improve the manager’s abilities and, at the same time, to build empowered management networks. Finally, this evaluation study warned against the risks or the undesired effects of the participation. For instance, participation processes was a form of decorative consultation (Hart, 1992; Bobbio, 2003) for half Urban Labs. For them, a high level of participation in the design did not lead to any young people’s involvement in the decision-making process. In addition, after six years from the launch of the regional programme, about half of the
18
organisations involved in the study were managing a Youth Lab in a completely refurbished and equipped building (N=54). A considerable number of them were still waiting for the completion of the refurbishment plans and for having all the planned facilities (N=36). This delay could weaken those participation processes that were initiated during the planning of the Lab. Thus, even if a youth participation action successfully started, this delay could weaken its decision-making power. As a result, the risk to generate distrust and deceive initial youth expectations is very high. Such a risk suggested to the regional and local policy maker to promote new youth participation experiences to give a voice to young people in the decisions about activities, services and management strategies of the youth centres. Particularly, the start-up of stable participation structures inside the centre was needed to avoid the risk of short-term participation processes without a real effect on decisions. With reference to the research studies on youth participation in youth work services, the present contribution has given further insights on the policy makers' ability to involve youth third sector both in the design and in the realization phase of the programmes, as well as to support the managing and entrepreneurship abilities. Such abilities referred both to the pedagogical skills activated in the labs as non formal education agencies supporting young people's biographical transitions, as well as more technical skills in the firld of creative economy. In Italy, such a task was made more difficult also because of the cultural tradition of clear separation between profit and non profit (Provasi, 2002), differently from other cultural contexts, such as the English one for instance, which are more open to welcome a synergy between public sector, third sector and profit sector. Globally seen, the results from the present study invite to overcome a vision of participation as an involvement experience which is limited to a specific phase of the youth development programme. The case study considered allowed to develop design and research tools which could be precious to investigate how public institutions could create permanent youth participation processes aimed at designing and implementing educational services for leisure time. More simply, this means to evaluate the ability of public institutions to supply young people with resources which could best allow them to take on a leading role in decision making processes implied in public policies. Moreover, a particularly interesting area of investigation is that oriented to evaluate if participation in the advisory phase of public policies (as for instance within an advisory body promoted by the institution) could be a chance for young people to learn how to develop personally new services addressed to peers. Thus, advisory forms of participation or those limited to the life cycle of a public programme could thus be a privileged context where young people could develop motivations and abilities to create and manage new service enterprises addressed to youth.
References Arnstein, S.R (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35, 216-224 Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Bazzanella, A. (2010). Investire nelle nuove generazioni: modelli di politiche giovanili in Italia e in Europa. Editore Provincia Autonoma di Trento Bobbio, L. (2003), Building Social Capital Through Democratic Deliberation: the Rise of Deliberative Arenas, Social Epistemology, 17, 4, 343-357. Davies, B. (2005), Youth-work: A manifesto for our times, Youth & Policy, 88, 5-27.
19
Denault A.S. & Poulin F. (2009), Intensity and Breadth of Participation in Organized Activities During the Adolescent Years: Multiple Associations with Youth Outcomes, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38 (9), 1199 - 1213 Esping-Andersen G. (1990), The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press. European Commission (2009), An EU Strategy for Youth – Investing and Empowering. A renewed open method of coordination to address youth challenges and opportunities, COM(2009) 200. Fincardi M & Papa C. (2007), Dalle aggregazioni tradizionali alla società di massa, Storia e Ricerca, 25, 5-14 Funnell S.C. & Rogers P.J. (2011), Purposeful program theory. Effective use of theories of change and logic models, Jossey-Bass: Boston Gallie D., & Paugam S., (Eds) (2000), Welfare regimes and the experience of unemployement in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press Greetje T. (2009), Youth policy and participation,Children and Youth Services Review, 31 (5), 572-576 Hart, R. (1992), Children participation from tokenism to citizenship, Florence, Unicef, Innocenti Research Centre. IARD (2001), Study on the state of young people and youth policy in Europe, committed by European Commission, D.G. Education and Culture. Jakes, S., & Shannon, L. (2002). Community Assets Survey. http://ag.arizona.edu/ fcs/cyfernet/nowg/Scale.PDF Kieffer, C. (1984). Citizen Empowerment: A Developmental Perspective. Prevention in Human Services, 3 (2-3), 84-97 Lanzara G. F., (2005). La deliberazione come indagine pubblica. In L. Pellizzoni (Eds). La deliberazione pubblica (pp. 51-73), Meltemi Editore: Roma. Larson, R.W., & Angus, R.M. (2011). Adolescents’ development of skills for agency in youth programs: Learning to think strategically. Child Development, 82, 277–294. MacDonald, R. (1998). Youth, Transitions and Social Exclusion: Some Issues for Youth Research. Journal of Youth Studies, 1 (2), 163-177 Naima, T. Wong, Marc, A. Zimmerman, & Edith A. Parker (2010). A Typology of Youth Participation and Empowerment for Child and Adolescent Health Promotion. American Journal of Community Psychology, 46: 100–114 National Youth Agency (2008), Investing in Youth Facilities: Findings from Recent Experience. http://www.myplacesupport.co.uk/Running-a-youth-facility/investing-in-youthfacilities-findings-from-recent-experience.html National Youth Agency (2012), Mapping the involvement of businesses in supporting services for young people in out of school settings, www.nya.org.uk O’Donoghue, J.L., Kirshner, B., & McLaughlin, M. (2006). Youth participation: From myths to effective practice. The Prevention Researcher, 13, (1), 3–6.
20
Peterson, N.A., Peterson, C.H., Agre, L., Christens, B.D., & Morton, C.M. (2011). Measuring youth empowerment: Validation of a sociopolitical control scale for youth in an urban community context. Journal of Community Psychology, 39, 592–605. Podestà, N., & Chiari, A. (2011). La qualità dei processi deliberativi. POLIS Working Papers 179, http://polis.unipmn.it/pubbl/index.php?cosa=ricerca,polis&paper=2969&collana=13 Sapin K. (2009), Essential skills for youth work practice. Sage: London Seyle, D. C., McGlohen, M., Ryan, P., Durham-Fowler, J., & Skiadas T. (2008). Deliberative quality across time and gender: An introduction to the Effectiveness of Deliberation Scale Poster presented at the annual meeting of the ISPP 31st Annual Scientific Meeting, Sciences Po, Paris, France. Shier, H. (2001). Pathways to participation: Openings, opportunities, and obligations. Children and Society, 15, 107–117. Smith M.K. (1988). Developing Youth-work. Informal education, mutual aid and popular practice. Milton: Keynes: Open University Press Steenbergen, M.R., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M., & Steiner, J. (2003). Measuring political deliberation: A Discourse Quality Index. Comparative European Politics, 1, 21-48 Tiffany J.S., Exner-Cortens D., & Eckenrode J., (2012). A new measure for assessing Youth program Participation, Journal of Community Psychology, 40 (3), 277–291 Tyler, M., Hoggarth, L., & Merton B. (2010). Managing Modern Youth Work, Exeter: Learning Matters. Verschelden, G., Coussée, F., Van de Walle, T. & Williamson, H. (2009). The history of youth-work in Europe and its relevance for youth policy today, Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg Cedex. Villarruel F.A., Perkins D.F., Borden L.M., & Keith J.G. (2003), Community Youth Development: Programs, Policies, and Practices, Sage: London. Walthers, A. (2006), Regimes of youth transitions. Choice, flexibility and security in young people’s experiences across different European contexts, Young, 14 (2): 119-139. Weiss, C. (1997). How can Theory-Based Evaluation make greater head-way? Evaluation Review, 21, 4-16. Williamson, H. (1995). At the crossroads: youth-work in Wales. Welsh Journal of Education, 10 (2), 34-54. Wong N.T., Zimmerman M.A., & Parker E. A. (2010), A Typology of Youth Participation and Empowerment for Child and Adolescent Health Promotion, American Journal of Community Psychology, 46: 100–114. Zimmerman, M. A. (1995). Psychological empowerment: Issues and illustrations. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23(5) 581-599. Special issue: Empowerment theory, research, and application. Zimmerman, M.A., & Rappaport, J. (1998). Citizen participation, perceived control, and psychological empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16(5), 725-750
21
i
The authors presented a first draft of this paper at the Conference “Young People & Societies in Europe and Mediterranean”, Barcelona, 7-9 June 2012 ii
Chart legend: FUNDS: Fund raising; PLANS: Planning; MEANS: maintaining building and managing money; TEAM: human resource management. Also in the other following charts where legend appears. iii
IPD: Index of Participation in Design (see table 3)
iv
Most of the organisations involved (N= 75) were running a Lab already open, most of them since more than one year (N=48). This latter group had already spent public funds that the regional programme provided for the first year. Thus, they have started to face the challenge of finding new financial resources.
22
