Shaping the Post-2015 Conversation: A guide on sharing Youth Voices to shape ...
Oxfam AUS OIYP Study Report ENGLISH LOWRES
1. APRIL 2013
Oxfam International
Youth Partnerships (OIYP)
Retrospective Study Report
DLP
DEVELOPMENTAL LEADERSHIP PROGRAM
Policy and Practice for Developmental
Leaders, Elites and Coalitions
2.
3. O I Y PRetrospective Study Report
Writ ten by
Annabel Brown
with significant cont ribution f r om
Christine McMahon, Jennifer Smolak & Geoff Hazell
APRIL 2013
5. foreword
In the lead up to the new millennium, despite a world filled with injustice, there was a real sense of hope. I
believed that young people could create a new world, characterised by peace, environmental sustainability
and equity. This was the time before the War on Terror and the realities of climate change. Berlin had become a
unified global city and the tech revolution and email were still in their infancy.
For a brief moment there was a glimmer of possibility, and while the world’s attention was focused on the Sydney
Olympics, we were busy creating our own world the International Youth Parliament or IYP (later to be renamed – Oxfam
International Youth Program - OIYP). Young people from over 140 countries were invited to come to Sydney to develop
solutions to growing poverty, inequality and conflict through the development of their own Action Plans for change.
My ultimate vision was to convince the world that young people were not just important actors in the development
process, but that they are our best chance at achieving development. It was tough. Policy makers and traditional
aid and development practitioners were only starting to understand the scope and scale of young people affected
by unemployment, poverty and conflict. Rarely were they ever considered important stakeholders let alone
agents of positive change. We have begun to win this battle, the Arab Spring, the spread of technology and the
undeniable demographics of most developing countries, have demonstrated to politicians the world over that
young people must be regarded as stakeholders and therefore resourced and consulted as change actors.
Organising the International Youth Parliament was a mammoth task. The team, which included, Jane Higgins, Jo
Barr, Sanushka Mudaliar, Dameeli Coates, Sally McGeoch, Sofia Mackay and Ruth McCausland to name just a few,
designed the application forms, sent thousands of letters, emails and faxes to every island and every continent;
scouring the globe for a group of young individuals committed to changing the world. The applications soon
began to arrive in the hundreds. Applications forms had been photocopied and re-photocopied passed from hand
to hand. Many were in languages that our global, multicultural team simply didn’t recognise.
When selecting the delegates of the first International Youth Parliament we prioritized Indigenous youth, giving
those young leaders an opportunity to share the beauty of their culture and the oppression that their communities
were confronted with. Just a few weeks before the Parliament was due to start the second Intifada erupted, and the
Middle east crisis was at our door. The injustice faced by young people and their communities was raw and the
lack of education, employment and opportunity cut across the experiences of so many of the youth delegates.
The hard work didn’t start in Sydney during the International Youth Parliament; it started when everyone returned
home. Implementing their action plans, developing personal webpage’s, establishing the online learning project
and coordinating youth statements on globalization and terrorism were just some of steps that we took after the
first IYP. We were building a global community of empowered, disruptive and radical youth linked together with a
common vision.
More than a dozen years later, I take pride in the hundreds young people who benefited from the program. This
program began with an idea, but it has been built by the extraordinary work of dozens of staff and hundreds
of volunteers and mentors who share a common vision of young people creating an equitable and sustainable
world. I pinch myself when I think that the concept I had on the green couches of my apartment back in 1998 has
lasted for so long and impacted so many. I am so pleased that as this program comes to a close that Oxfam has
recommitted to working in partnership with young people in shaping and defining our world.
Brett Solomon, Founder, IYP
6. preface
In March 2013, Oxfam Australia’s Management Team met to review the recommendations presented by the Oxfam
International Youth Partnerships (OIYP) Change Process Steering Committee that outlined the future direction
of the OIYP program. The change process was informed by an intensive process of research and evaluation that
included extensive consultation with the OIYP network, Oxfam staff and external experts. The OIYP retrospective
study has been a key component of this change process.
The steering committee recommends that the OIYP program is discontinued on the 30th
of June 2013 and that
Oxfam Australia move to a new model of work. This new work would focus on a range of new strategies aimed at
supporting young people to create change, at the local/national, regional and global levels.
Even-though it is sad that the OIYP program is ending, new developments are needed to ensure that we can
empower young people to challenge the power structures, behaviours and beliefs that cause inequality. Through
partnerships with young people we hope to bring about real policy changes to ensure a just world without
poverty. Fundamental to our ongoing success with youth engagement, will be the principles and approaches to
working with young people that have been the foundation of the OIYP program.
In saying farewell to the OIYP program, I want to acknowledge those who have made an important contribution.
To Brett Solomon Founder of IYP, your vision, drive and passion has carved an important space through the OIYP
program; which has enabled young people to step forward and be part of the solutions of global inequality and
injustice. To the hundreds of volunteers who have been the backbone of the OIYP program; thank you for your
time, your dedication, your passion and your patience. You have all contributed a piece of yourselves to the pro-
gram to support the Action Partners in their work.
Thank you to the amazing team of Mentors and Motivators; and the Facilitators that have so generously given
their time, their knowledge and shared their skills with our Action Partners. You have grounded the program with
your understanding of what it’s like to be a young person trying to change the world.
I would like to acknowledge the enormous contribution that has been made by the dozens of OIYP staff past and
present, you have all dedicated yourselves to your work because of your passion and belief in supporting young
people to create a better world. You have powered the OIYP program to what it has achieved today. Thank you!!
Finally to the OIYP Action Partners, we have always been and will continue to be inspired by your energy, enthusi-
asm, passion and drive to create a just world. You have our hearts and our respect.
Geoff Hazell, OIYP Coordinator, Oxfam Australia
7. 1 executive Summary 9
2 Introduction 13
[A] Background to OIYP 13
[B] OIYP’s approach to creating change 14
[C] Context and purpose 16
[D] Study questions 16
[E] Study team 17
[F] Change process and contributing research 17
3 Methods and Limitations 19
[A] Data collection 19
[B] Data analysis 26
[C] Limitations 27
4 Findings 31
4.1 Who are the Action Partners? 31
[A] Gender 31
[B] Regional distribution 32
[C] Age 35
[D] Indigenous and Ethnic Minorities 37
[E] Education 38
[F] Employment 38
[G] Sector of work 39
[H] Work interests 40
[I] Experience out of Country and Community 42
[J] Strengths 44
[K] Positioning 45
table of contents
8. 4.2 What is the pattern of engagement of the Action Partners in the OIYP network? 46
[A] Program activity 46
[B] Overall participation and Kaleidoscope 48
[C] Grants 49
[D] eWorkshops 50
[E] Face-to-face workshops 53
[F] Contact with OIYP Sydney 54
[G] Facebook 55
[H] Contact with other Action Partners 55
[I] Internet connectivity 56
[J] A series of opportunities 56
4.3 What developmental changes have the Action Partners created or contributed to? 57
[A] Domains of change 57
[B] Region and sector 57
[C] Who’s changing? 59
[D] Community and local level change 60
[E] Who’s benefiting? 61
[F] Evolution of Action Partner’s influence 63
[G] Values and the hidden power domain 64
[H] Youth and power 64
[I] Institutional power, policy and practice 66
9. 4.4 How effective has the Oxfam support been in assisting the Action Partners
4.4 to create developmental change?
73
[A] OIYP/Oxfam’s necessity 73
[B] Personal Empowerment 74
[C] Motivation, inspiration and self-awareness 74
[D] Personal empowerment and broader developmental change 79
[E] Types of support 80
[F] OIYP grants program 81
[G] The Oxfam brand 84
[H] Benefitting particular groups 84
[I] Areas of change in which OIYP is more effective 85
4.5 Who and what (other than Oxfam have been critical in supporting and influencing
the developmental changes the Action Partners have created or contributed to?
89
[A] Networks and collective action 89
[B] Family 90
[C] Government 90
[D] Civil society, NGO actors, workplaces and colleagues 91
[E] Mentors 92
[F] Members of the community 92
[G] Influential factors 93
5 Conclusions 95
[A] Which young people? 95
[B] A leadership program or a series of opportunities? 96
[C] The critical importance of personal empowerment 96
[D] Support closer to the ground 97
[E] Power and dominant structures 97
References 101
Annex A. Countries classified as ‘Northern’ 103
10.
11. OIYP retrospective study report | 9
Oxfam International Youth Partnerships (OIYP) is a global network of over one thousand young leaders, known
as Action Partners, working with their communities to create positive, equitable and sustainable change.
Oxfam supports these Action Partners through a three-year program focusing on building knowledge, skills and
facilitating networks. OIYP is an Oxfam International initiative managed by Oxfam Australia.
The OIYP Retrospective Study was conducted between April 2012 and April 2013. The genesis of the study comes
from a desire to build on the twelve years of program learning to shape the future of Oxfam’s work to support
youth active citizenship.
The study consisted of an in-depth analysis of the OIYP program database, case study research in Southern
Africa, and a study of program outcomes using the Sensemaker software in order to answer a number of key
questions. These included:
(1) What developmental changes have the Action Partners created or contributed to?
(2) How effective has Oxfam’s support been in assisting the Action Partners to create developmental change?
(3) Who and what else has been critical in supporting the developmental changes the Action Partners have
created or contributed to?
Who are the Action Partners?
The OIYP Network consists of 1,165 Action Partners who are active across all regions of the world, with young people
active in Northern Countries, Asia and Africa making up almost 75% of the network. The OIYP program is more
attractive and/or accessible to young people in urban areas, and this is particularly the case for young women.
The program attracts young people in the later years of their ‘youth’, with a median age of twenty-three years at
application from a recruitment bracket of eighteen to twenty-five years. Relative to the populations in their countries,
Action Partners are well educated and their education has been evidenced as a factor in their successes.
Action Partners are predominantly active in the non-government/civil society sector and are a relatively well-
travelled group with reasonably high access to work and study opportunities outside of their communities.
OIYP’s Program Theory
OIYP’s program theory and domains of change guided the development of the retrospective study and the
evaluation framework, as discussed below.
OIYP seeks to influence change in five ‘domains’. The five domains currently guiding and framing OIYP’s work are:
• Personal empowerment
• Relationships, networks, coalitions and collective action
• Power in community environments
• Policy and institutions
• Positive change in people’s lives.
Section 1
executive summary
12. 10 | OIYP retrospective study report
It is acknowledged that these domains overlap with one another. Each Action Partner also has a unique journey
and seeks to engage, challenge and influence in different ways and over different periods of time. Action
Partners are active in every facet of the OIYP domains of change. Therefore, there is no implied ‘journey’ or
‘evolution’ through the domains.
Key findings
The Retrospective Study has found that:
Supporting personal development is crucial in supporting young people to take broader action to create change.
The vast majority of the changes described by Action Partners involved changes for themselves in the personal
development domain, making this domain critically important in understanding the change process as well as
OIYP’s value and impact. The consistent focus of OIYP on personal empowerment and the particular concentration
on the aspects of self-confidence, self-awareness, broadening one’s world view, motivation and inspiration
have led to great achievements in this domain of change.
Change in personal development is often then associated with changes in the more immediate and broader
environment. Many Action Partners have contributed to and created community and local level change.
OIYP can claim success in catalysing, inspiring and supporting Action Partners in bringing about those changes,
however beyond the initial push into action, it seems other actors, who are closer to the location of the change
processes, offer more critical support in this area.
There is a strong indication that the changes achieved by Action Partners are influenced by the people/
organisations they interact with on a professional level.
This begs the question of whether, in order to really support young people to create change in their own
environment, organisations need to assist with support closer to the ground and closer to the change processes.
It also highlights that different mentors are important to different aspects of the change journey; mentors
external to the working environment being more important to the personal empowerment and development of
Action Partners; and mentors close to the working environment of Action Partners being more important to the
community and country-based changes they are trying to bring about. There is an opportunity to help Action
Partners to make these connections at the local level.
Challenging values, norms, attitudes and power structures that are at the root cause of inequality is either hard
to talk about explicitly, hard to do, or both.
The reach of Action Partners when it comes to influencing attitudes and the way power is wielded seems to be
to themselves and to other young people with the potential extension to their families. Action Partner influence
weakens when attempting to change power structures in communities and societies; such as patriarchal power
structures that result in gender inequality.
The work of Action Partners is much less effective when it comes to policy and practice change.
Findings suggest that the policy and practice goals, and the required actions/strategies that will bring about the
realisation of these goals, are often unclear or ill-formed. Action Partner work is particularly weak when it comes
to influencing change in government and the private sector.
15. OIYP retrospective study report | 13
Section 2
introduction
The Oxfam International Youth Partnerships Program (OIYP) Retrospective Study was conducted between April
2012 and April 2013. The genesis of the study comes from an OIYP desire to build on the twelve years of program
learning to assist to shape the future.
[a] Background to OIYP
Oxfam International Youth Partnerships (OIYP) is a global network of over one thousand young people working
with their communities to create positive, equitable and sustainable change. OIYP is an Oxfam International
initiative managed by Oxfam Australia.
Every three years, the OIYP program introduces another 300 young men and women from around the world, aged
18-25, to the OIYP network. They are selected according to the following criteria:
• Commitment to finding new ways of creating positive equitable and sustainable change.
• Ability of applicant to explain their own understanding of the issues they are working on.
• A commitment to personal reflection and developing self awareness.
• Community or organisational support.
Throughout the three-year cycle, the OIYP program focuses on building skills and knowledge, supporting action
and facilitating networking. The first year of the OIYP cycle introduces Action Partners to the network and
focuses on supporting them to identify the support they need and the strengths they bring to realise their plans
to contribute to positive change in their communities and regions.
Action Partners are invited to come together at an eight-day forum called Kaleidoscope to launch the first year
of the OIYP cycle. During Kaleidoscope, 300 Action Partners live, learn and work together to deepen relationships,
share values and enhance mutual understanding across economic, cultural, thematic and geographic
boundaries. Formal and informal workshops and discussions bring about ideas for creating positive futures
in communities.
The second and third year of the OIYP program are focused on learning and action support through the activities
of e-workshops (online forums), a Grants Program, face-to-face workshops, program support, skill shares,
cultural exchanges and more.
17. OIYP retrospective study report | 15
Vision: Youth building a peaceful, equitable and sustainable world.
Mission: OIYP mobilises a global network of young leaders and activists to bring about positive and sustainable
change. It does this through supporting youth-led initiatives, facilitating skills and capacity building programs
and supporting young people to advocate for their rights and freedoms and those of their communities.
Objectives: Support youth-led initiatives; skills development and capacity building; and networking and
alliance building.
This new approach continued to focus on the importance of supporting young people to take action, but also
acknowledged the important role young people play in advocating for policy change and the role of networks and
‘alliances’ in this process.
The 2010–2013 OIYP Strategic Plan represented the first attempt by the program to articulate its theory of
change. The approach to change underpinning OIYP was the two Oxfam Australia central commitments of active
citizenship and accountability. OIYP sought to foster personal leadership and empowerment, which was intended
to lead to individuals positively influencing the lives of others; their own relationships and their surroundings.
The OIYP model at the time was expressed through five domains of change, represented as concentric circles:
• Personal empowerment of active citizens
• Expanding network of relationships and sphere of influence
• Developing enabling environment for active citizenship
• Capacity to engage with, challenge and influence power structures
• Changes toward more just communities, policies and practices.
In late 2012 the program theory was revised following the 10 year Impact Assessment in 2010 and after eighteen
months of learning from the Developmental Leadership Program (DLP) partnership. This iteration of the theory of
change has provided the framework for this retrospective study of the OIYP program.
OIYP seeks to influence change in five ‘domains’. The five domains currently guiding and framing OIYP’s work are:
• Personal empowerment
• Relationships, networks, coalitions and collective action
• Power in community environments
• Policy and institutions
• Positive change in people’s lives.
It is acknowledged that these domains overlap with one another. Each Action Partner also has a unique journey
and seeks to engage, challenge and influence in different ways and over different periods of time. Action
Partners are active in every facet of the OIYP domains of change. Therefore, there is no implied ‘journey’ or
‘evolution’ through the domains.
Each iteration of the program theory is the result of years of learning and reflection informed by the process of
developing, delivering and evaluating the OIYP program.
18. 16 | OIYP retrospective study report
[c] Context and purpose
In 2010, an impact assessment1
considered the extent to which the OIYP Program had contributed to building
the capacity of young people to influence change in their contexts. This assessment gave rise to a number of
questions regarding OIYP’s ongoing development that the program team and Oxfam were keen to answer. In
2011 and 2012, with the help of colleagues from the Developmental Leadership Program (DLP) and its partner
organisations, OIYP revisited its program theory2
. During this process OIYP identified a number of assumptions
regarding how change happens and how OIYP contributes to that change3
. This led to further questions OIYP
wanted to answer.
The focus and findings of DLP’s research program has further informed OIYP’s thinking and has prompted OIYP to
ask itself questions regarding, amongst other things: the social and political capital Action Partners bring to the
network; the engagement of Action Partners in coalitions; and the value add of a global network.
Within this context the purpose of the retrospective study was to:
• assist OIYP to understand the changes its program and network are contributing to;
• question and further inform OIYP’s program theory and the assumptions that underlie it;
• inform OIYP’s decision making regarding current and future development of programming, operations,
governance and management; and
• identify lessons from process and findings to contribute to the DLP and its partners.
The approach to the retrospective study aims to utilise the full set of program information and data available to
OIYP and paint a comprehensive picture of the OIYP network and the way that OIYP supports it.
The study has several components:
• database: a consolidation and upgrade to the OIYP program database(s);
• case study research: with Action Partners in Southern Africa; and
• Sensemaker study: of program outcomes using the Sensemaker software.
[d] Study questions
The retrospective study aims to answer five key questions. They are evaluative, in that they seek to help OIYP
understand the network and the program it has been building over the past twelve years. They were designed to
be answered predominantly by existing program information.
(1) What developmental changes have the Action Partners created or contributed to?
(2) Who are the Action Partners?
(Demographics and ‘positioning’)
(3) What is the pattern of engagement of the Action Partners in the OIYP network?
(with Oxfam and with other Action Partners)
1 Oxfam International Youth Partnerships 10 Year Impact Assessment, Social Compass, July 2010
2 A program theory ideally explains both: the central processes or drivers by which change comes about for individuals, groups or communities (theory of change); and how interventions
are constructed to activate these theories of change (theory of action). See OIYP Program Theory, April 2012
3 See OIYP Program Theory: Assumptions and Curiosities, February 2012
19. OIYP retrospective study report | 17
(4) How effective has Oxfam support been in assisting Action Partners to create developmental change?
• Which components, and what aspects of those components, have been most and least effective?
• What other supports from Oxfam do Action Partners need?
(5) Who and what else has been critical in supporting the developmental changes the Action Partners have
created or contributed to?
(Oxfam, other Action Partners, others beyond the OIYP network)
[e] Study team
A large team including Oxfam employees, Oxfam volunteers and consultants undertook the study:
Research manager, Annabel Brown
Research officers, Christine McMahon and Jennifer Smolak
Research volunteers, Audrey Berry, Catherine Chan, Justine Aenishaenslin, Clare Fraser, Katrina McGowan,
Alejandra Lozano, Mercy Masta and Sylvie Keshishian
OIYP coordinator, Geoff Hazell
Advisor (approach, method and Sensemaker), Irene Guijt
Database consultant, Steven Garrett
The Retrospective Study benefitted from the advice and insights of a steering group, comprised of Geoff Hazell,
May Miller-Dawkins, Allan Mua and Chris Roche.
[f] Change process and contributing research
Concurrent with the Retrospective Study, Oxfam embarked on a change process, which aimed to explore with
the Oxfam International Secretariat and affiliates interested in global programs on active citizenship and youth
engagement, opportunities to directly or indirectly continue to invest in an evolution of OIYP.
The change process and the Retrospective Study informed one another substantially as they proceeded. To
inform the change process, three research papers were commissioned in late 2012:
• Youth active citizenship: an analysis of external and internal trends, barriers and strategies
• OIYP Program Information Paper
• Supporting Young People To Make Change Happen: A Review of Theories of Change, Synthesis Report.
The researchers involved in this work crossed over with some of the Retrospective Study team members and
these three pieces of research inform the Study’s analysis and findings. They are referenced throughout.
21. OIYP retrospective study report | 19
Section 3
methods and limitations
The following outlines the processes of data collection, data analysis and the limitations therein.
[a] Data Collection
The database component of the study drew on existing databases and spreadsheets holding the details of Action
Partners from each of the four OIYP cycles. Building on these existing resources, the OIYP coordinator, the research
manager and research officer, with the assistance of a database consultant, chose which fields would be of
importance in answering the Retrospective Study questions. A new, smaller, integrated and more reliable database
was developed, containing this limited number of fields.
New data was added to the database, the majority of which came from the application forms of Action Partners.
Data was also sourced from the OIYP team members regarding the involvement of Action Partners in OIYP activities
and contact details.
The Sensemaker component of the study involved a complex process of data collection and analysis. Sensemaker
is a software package with which you can collect and analyse qualitative information.
This component involved identifying fragments or stories from existing program information collected over the
past twelve years (reports, evaluations, newsletters, emails for instance). The focus of the fragment or story is the
description of an ‘outcome’ or ‘change’. The story is solicited/framed using the following question:
Please think about a specific experience or change that has happened since you became an OIYP Action Partner.
It could be positive, negative or a change you were hopeful about that did not happen. It could be about you
or someone else or something in your community, country or region. It could be about people, organisations,
relationships, actions, policies, practices or something else.
Describe what happened, who or what changed – or should have changed – when and where it happened, and
how it was influenced by OIYP?
That story was then ‘signified’ using a framework of questions. These questions were developed over six weeks
by the research manager, the research officer and a consultant specialising in the application of Sensemaker in
international development.
The framework had four sections:
(A) Type of experience/change, which covered the location, timing, ‘direction’ of the change, who the change
related to, the domain or area of change and how it related to personal development.
(B) Type of support, which covered the support from Oxfam related to the change and the influence of people
and factors over the change and the Action Partner(s) involved.
(C) About you, which covered demographic and positioning details of the primary Action Partner involved,
including their participation in OIYP activities.
(D) Only for OIYP staff who are external signifiers (i.e. not for Action Partners, Facilitators or M&Ms), which
covered the source of the story, who it was written by and identification of the study team member who
signified the story (otherwise called the external signifier).
22. 20 | OIYP retrospective study report
OIYP’s program theory and domains of change, the database fields and the Retrospective Study questions guided
the development of the framework of questions. Sensemaker is distinct in that some of those questions are in
the form of ‘dyads’ and ‘triads’, within which respondents are asked to place a dot. Below is an example of a triad:
This allows for answers that are more subtle and ambiguous than if they were multiple choice questions for
instance. Respondents can choose to place the dot in the middle of the triangle or between two of its points.
A total of 277 fragments or stories were collected and analysed in the Sensemaker component. Of those, 207
were found and signified by the study team (or ‘externally signified’) and seventy were signified by the Action
Partners (otherwise called ‘live capture’). Fragments or stories sourced from existing program information were
written by: Action Partners 192; Staff twelve; Other three; and there was no answer chosen for seven.
The fragments or stories came from the following sources:
Evaluations, reviews and impact assessments 85 Case Studies 10
Annual reflection/general reports 28 Profile of an Action Partner 7
OIYP database 25 Newsletter 7
Small grants program report 23 Other 2
Email 16 Facebook 1
Kaleidoscope/Parliament Report 10
When signifying their own stories, Action Partners entered their story and answered the framework of questions
regarding that story online or in an electronic document. Sometimes the study team provided the ‘beginnings’ of
the story and asked that the Action Partner elaborate on the story.
For those stories that were sourced and signified by the study team, extra information was needed to answer
all of the questions in the framework, particularly section C, which covered the demographic and ‘positioning’
information about the Action Partner. This information came from Action Partner application forms and the OIYP
database. Sometimes Action Partners were asked for this information directly via email, Facebook or phone.
Q13. The experience or change I have described relates to my capacity to...
(please click in the triangle or on any line to position the dot or in the ‘no answer’ box) VALUECHNG
Uphold my personal values in
the choices I made. UPHOLDVAL
Challenge norms, attitudes,
day-to-day inequalities in my
community. challnorm
No answer.
Expand my views of culture,
race & gender. expandvws
23. OIYP retrospective study report | 21
Regarding the sample of Action Partners that form part of the Sensemaker component, the respective intake
years of the Action Partners are: 2000 (20%); 2004 (31%); 2007 (28%) and 2010 (22%). The median age of Action
Partners, at the time the changes took place, is twenty-four, with the youngest median age of twenty-one in
Africa and the oldest median age of twenty-five in the Pacific.
The gender of Action Partners who have described the changes in the study is roughly 45% female and 55% male
in Africa, Asia, Northern Countries and the Pacific. These percentages are reversed in Latin America (LAC) with
53% female and 47% male Action Partners in that region. In the Magreb and Middle East (MENA) 68% of the Action
Partners are female and 14% are male.
Indigenous & Ethnic Minority by Global Region
Africa Asia LAC MENA
Northern
Countries
Pacific
Indigenous 27% 29% 7% 5% 27% 37%
Ethnic minority 22% 22% 7% 5% 19% 22%
NO 49% 49% 85% 89% 54% 41%
NA 1% 0 2% 0% 8% 4%
Total 67 55 41 19 52 27
Roughly half of the Action Partners in this component, from the regions of Africa, Asia, Northern countries and
the Pacific are not from an ethnic minority, nor are they Indigenous (see Table right). In Latin America and the
Maghreb and Middle East this is true for a larger majority (85% and 89% respectively). In all three regions of
Africa, Asia and the Pacific 22% of Action Partners are from an ethnic minority. In these regions 27%, 29% and
37% respectively are Indigenous. The Sensemaker component has therefore captured a slightly larger proportion
of Action Partners who identify as Indigenous and ‘ethnic minority’ than is found in the network as a whole,
particularly in the Pacific region.
The proportion of Action Partners living in rural areas and urban areas are identical for both the network as a
whole and those Action Partners included in the Sensemaker component: 74% urban, 26% rural.
education level, sensemaker data
[A: education completed at app / s: education completed at story]
60%
40%
20%
0%
colluni seconcompl seconstrt primcompl oth na
s
A
s
a
sa sa
sa
sa
24. 22 | OIYP retrospective study report
Action Partners whose stories are captured in the study are better educated than the OIYP network as a whole.
The Sensemaker data suggests this group of Action Partners are more likely to have completed tertiary studies
at the time they applied than the network as a whole. There is a visible evolution between the education level at
application and education at the time of the change described. The large proportion of unavailable information
is attributed to Action Partners from 2000 and 2004. The majority of ’other‘ responses are instances where a
Masters degree or other graduate degree was completed or underway.
The employment status of Action Partners in the Sensemaker data shows an evolution over time, mainly from
volunteer to paid employment.
The Action Partners that have contributed to the stories for the study have experience outside of their
communities consistent with the overall OIYP network (2007 and 2010 cohorts are the only Action Partners whom
we have data for in this field). However, the group of Action Partners in this component may have a little more
experience outside of their countries than the OIYP network does on average.
In the case study research component, interviews and surveys were conducted with Action Partners between
October 2012 and January 2013. The participants in the study were Action Partners and people who could speak
about them and their work – such as managers, mentors, colleagues or people who have benefited from their
community work. The task was to develop case studies on two or three Action Partners from at least three of the
countries in southern Africa. It was decided to focus on the 2007 intake cycle because these Action Partners
would have five years to reflect on since they joined the program and they were considered likely to have up-to-
date contact details at OIYP Sydney. Equal numbers of males and females would be approached.
It quickly became apparent that Action Partners were not easy to contact. It was then decided to open the
interview process to Action Partners from any of the Intake Years. Although there was a preference for personal
interviews, it was also agreed to use phone interviews or emailed surveys, particularly where participants were
in remote locations or contact was not established until after the interviewer had left the country. In addition,
there were some Action Partners who were not directly invited to participate in the study but who heard about it
employment, sensemaker sample
[A: employment at app / s: employment at story]
60%
40%
20%
0%
paid vol stud unempl na
s
A
s
a
sa
s
a
sa
26. 24 | OIYP retrospective study report
from someone else and volunteered to be interviewed (a ‘snowball’ effect). Although this had not originally been
anticipated, these Action Partners were a welcome addition to the study, including one Action Partner who had not
attended Youth Parliament/Kaleidoscope (which was one of the parameters for initial selection to be interviewed).
The process used is summarised in the table below:
Action Partners Mentors and Colleagues
Personal
Interview
Phone
Interview
Email
Survey
Personal
Interview
Phone
Interview
Email
Survey
14 1 4 4 7 6
Note: Some of the Mentors and Colleagues did not provide final consent for inclusion of their material and their information was therefore excluded.
Interviews focused on the following four areas:
• social positioning of the Action Partners and how that has impacted on their aspirations and work
• developmental changes that the Action Partners have created or contributed to, understood within the
political, economic and social context in which they occurred
• their pattern of engagement in the OIYP network and what part that has had in their ‘journey’ as an Action
Partner, and
• support around them, including people who have been influential in helping them.
The personal interviews with Action Partners generally took between one and two hours, phone interviews
tended to be shorter, and email surveys were completed through an iterative process. In contrast, the interviews
with the mentors and colleagues were often no more than fifteen minutes and it seemed that they mostly
regarded it as something akin to a work reference. All interviews and surveys took place in English and no
interpreting or translation was required. Video-recording equipment was carried to the personal interviews but,
as all interviews occurred in public places, it was decided not to record the interviews and to use notes instead.
In most cases, the initial ‘interview’ or ‘survey’ was followed up through a series of further emails, used to clarify
points or to explore areas that had not been addressed during the initial interview. One Action Partner did all the
follow-up work via mobile phone messages.
The individual interview reports contain both the reports from Action Partners and also those from the Mentors
and Colleagues who participated in the study. All of the interviews were typed into a standard report format and
sent to the participant for his/her review. Sometimes there were additional questions to be answered and the
report was passed back and forth a few times before it was completed.
The question which was the most challenging for Action Partners concerned the political, economic and social
context in which they were working and the interviewer assisted at times with research to support the general
comments provided by the interviewees.
Nineteen Action Partners participated in the study. Most were from the 2007 and 2010 OIYP intake cycles,
although all cycles were represented: two from 2000; one from 2004, eight from 2007; and eight from 2010. Not
surprisingly, it was easier to make contact with Action Partners from recent intakes compared with those from
the earlier years.
27. OIYP retrospective study report | 25
As the table below shows, the Action Partners came from seven countries in southern Africa and included eight
females and eleven males.
Country Female Male
Botswana 2 2
Malawi 1 5
Mozambique 2
Namibia 2
South Africa 2
Zambia 1
Zimbabwe 2
Total 8 11
Note: One male from Mozambique was interviewed in Australia just prior to his return from study to his home country
While a concerted effort was made to achieve an equal number of men and women, this was not possible.
This means that a proportionally lower number of women participating in the case study research than are
in the network overall although the male to female ratio of case study participants may be close to being
representative of the male to female ratio within African Action Partners in the network (see section 4.1).
The Action Partners were aged between nineteen years and twenty-eight years at the time they applied to
OIYP, with a median age of twenty-three years. At the time of interview, the Action Partners were aged between
twenty-four years and forty years, with a median age of twenty-seven years. The median age at application is
comparable with the network overall, however the current median age is two years younger than the current
median age in the network overall, which is accounted for by the over representation of Action Partners in the
research from the later intake cycles of 2007 and 2010.
At the time of application the Action Partners involved in the study were mostly interested/involved in the action
areas of Gender Justice (six) and Essential Services (five). Three chose Active Citizenship, two Economic Justice
and one Rights in Crisis. This represents a proportionally higher number of the group interested/involved in
Gender Justice work than the network as a whole and a proportionally lower number interested/involved in Active
Citizenship (note that Active Citizenship was not a choice for 2010 Action Partners).
Most of the participants in the case study research hold Bachelor degrees and most were employed at the
time of interview. Twelve are currently working in non-government organizations (NGOs) or community-based
organisations (CBOs), including six who are founders or co-founders of the organisation.
The group is comparatively very ‘involved’ in OIYP activities, which is also true of African Action Partners more
generally (see section 4.1). Cumulatively they had sixty-three activity involvements among eighteen of the
nineteen Action Partners in the research.
28. 26 | OIYP retrospective study report
OIYP INVOLVEMENT
20
15
5
10
0
kaleidascope f2fwkshp
attended
ewkshp f2fwkshp
declined
grant
accepted
grant
declined
men & motiv men & motiv
declined
facilitator
17 18
5
10
4
8
0 01
[B] data Analysis
The database information was analysed by the OIYP coordinator, research officer and a study team volunteer, and
reporting from this component was provided in a number of forums (detailed below) for further feedback and analysis.
The Sensemaker data was analysed in two stages: firstly by the research manager, research officer and
consultant, after the majority of the ‘externally signified’ data was collected, and secondly by the research
manager and research officer after the full dataset was collected. The Sensemaker software provides for the
story data to be analysed via a variety of functions, which allow visualisation and manipulation, as well as
allowing in-depth analysis of the story content.
The case study interview data was analysed primarily by the case study researcher and a summary report was
provided to the research manager, who analysed a sample of the case studies and asked for further refinement
of the analysis by the researcher for inclusion in the summary report.
The Retrospective Study steering group was able to analyse and feed back on the study findings twice. Firstly at
the Sensemaker data initial stage of analysis and secondly when a summary of findings from each of the three
components was available. Feedback was given via phone meetings and email.
A workshop for OIYP stakeholders was held towards the end of the Retrospective Study. It was focused on the
OIYP change process, however there was opportunity for analysis and feedback on the database and Sensemaker
information. Other research was commissioned to inform the OIYP change process, which was useful in informing,
guiding and framing the Retrospective Study analysis and reporting process.
The OIYP team was able to analyse and feedback on study findings when a summary of results from each of the
three components was available, via a facilitated workshop. This was particularly useful in contributing to the
triangulation and cross-component analysis.
The research manager completed the triangulation and cross-component analysis during the reporting process. This
was assisted by submitting the final draft of the report for feedback from the study team and the steering group.
29. OIYP retrospective study report | 27
[C] Limitations
Missing archives: The main limitation of the database component was that the main source document, the Action
Partner application form, was not available in full for 2000 and 2004 intake years. These paper archives were
misplaced and therefore some data was not available for those years. For instance the educational status of
Action Partners at the time of application or the extent to which they had travelled outside of their community
or country. Other data regarding Action Partners from those intakes had already been recorded in databases and
was therefore available to the study.
Terminology: Any changes in the application forms, for instance how things were termed or the choices Action
Partners were given later became difficulties for the database component of the study to navigate. For instance,
Active Citizenship was not available in 2010 as a choice of sectoral focus, although it had been in previous years.
However, the application forms over the twelve years of the program have remained very similar so this limitation
was minor.
Positive bias in stories: Due to the wording of the Sensemaker question and the source documentation used,
the Sensemaker stories were overwhelming positive and the Action Partners represented in the study relatively
‘involved’. It is very likely that those Action Partners that felt disgruntled marginalised or disengaged from the
OIYP program and network have been missed by the Sensemaker component of the study.
OIYP centrality: The fragments of stories were found in existing OIYP documentation, which has been a product
of OIYP activities or been solicited by OIYP. Therefore the change processes related necessarily reference OIYP
as a player and contributor. The role, necessity and support of OIYP is therefore emphasised and those change
processes that Action Partners are involved in that have very little or no relation to OIYP will not be captured in
the Sensemaker component, despite their possible significance.
External signification: There were inherent difficulties in people other than the Action Partner signifying
stories. The study team undertook three exercises to help understand the accuracy and biases of the external
signification process so they could be adjusted for in the collection and analysis processes. Firstly, we compared
a small number of stories that were signified by both the Action Partner and a member of the study team.
Secondly, we checked for any differences and discrepancies between the ‘externally signified’ story data and the
‘live capture’ (Action Partner signified) story data. Thirdly, in the first round of Sensemaker analysis we checked
the signifiers name as a variable in relation to all possible questions to see if certain signifiers answered
questions in distinctive ways. These tests yielded the following results:
• There are remarkably similar overall patterns between the two datasets, both in cases where distinctive
patterns emerge and where there are no distinctive patterns.
• The overall patterns aside, there are some areas in which external signifiers found it particularly difficult to
understand what was at play in the stories and change processes. These are:
• the real influence of the family and friends of Action Partners as well as the extent to which they benefit
from change processes. This seems to have been consistently understated by the study team.
• who the Action Partners work/collaborate with, receive guidance from and are influenced by.
• changes in the capacities and perspectives of Action Partners. In these areas particularly, Action Partners
answer questions in a more nuanced way than the study team, rather than choosing one apex, they
answer in the middle of all three for instance.
30. 28 | OIYP retrospective study report
• There are some questions in which there was a consistent difference in responses between the two datasets
(note, these are discussed within the findings section as they come up, along with more analysis of the stories):
• “uphold my personal values in the choices I made” is consistently chosen more by Action Partners.
• “shifting community views about youth” is chosen more by Action Partners.
• “youth feeling safe and supported in their environment” is chosen more by Action Partners do.
• The intake year of the Action Partner is largely unreliable as a variable in the data due to the fact that each
study team member concentrated on a certain intake year. Therefore differences in patterns found between
intake years are affected by the way that study team member answered the questions.
It is the assessment of the study team that the limitations and difficulties of the external signification process
have not impacted significantly on the data or the findings of the Retrospective Study. Where discrepancies and
possible biases were found, data collection and analysis processes were adjusted. For instance, due to the issue
with intake years (see above), this was only used as a variable with the Action Partner signified data. When there
are differences between the externally signified and Action Partner signified data that are potentially significant
these have been discussed in the report and further in-depth analysis of the stories has been undertaken to get
to the bottom of these differences and understand the meaning of the stories.
Case study sample: Given the limited sample size, the case studies are not intended to be representative or
definitive. Instead, they are useful in identifying some of the similarities and differences amongst Action Partners
and the way they understand the circumstances in which they are working. Furthermore, the sampling could
have been more purposeful, and therefore potentially informative, if the criteria had been identified after the
Sensemaker and database components were further advanced. However, due to the scheduling and timing of the
study, this was not possible.
Bias in the case study sample group: The process of selecting and contacting the Action Partners for the case study
research had inherent bias in it. For example, they needed to speak English, to live within reasonable proximity
of the capital city in their country, and to have at least some access to email. This was done for convenience and
to keep expenses low, but it does imply a bias in the sample. The impact of this is unclear; however it would be
reasonable to suspect that Action Partners who lack internet access and do not receive the Voice newsletter feel
less connected to, and perhaps participate less in, OIYP than the group who participated in the research.
Detail in interview records: Some of the case studies are less complete than others. This reflects the amount of
time the Action Partner was able to give to an interview, what kinds of activities they have been involved in, and
whether they were able to follow up the interview by email and expand on the initial information they provided.
Selection of mentors and colleagues: The interviews with Mentors and Colleagues as part of the case study
research were designed to provide a different perspective on the Action Partners and their work. The names and
contact details were provided by the Action Partners and therefore it is to be expected that these people are
largely supportive of the Action Partners and their work. Six of the Action Partners were not able to nominate
anyone they thought could assist and some Action Partners provided contact details too late for their Mentors
and Colleagues to be included in the study. This means there was no independent verification for aspects of their
interview. In addition, no community beneficiaries were included in the group.
Beyond OIYP and Action Partners: Despite some initial planning and design around this, the Retrospective Study
has not been able to comprehensively verify findings with OIYP stakeholders, beyond the OIYP team, associates
and Action Partners. This limits the study and what can be said about impacts and outcomes of the network in
communities, organisations and countries.
33. OIYP retrospective study report | 31
Section 4
findings
Findings of the study are organised under the Retrospective Study questions. This section includes a description
of the findings as well as analysis to draw meaning from the results.
4.1 Who are the Action Partners?
It was a key intention of the Retrospective Study to use existing data to build a comprehensive picture of the OIYP
Network of Action Partners.
As well as the demographic characteristics of the Action Partners, the intention was also to understand the
‘positioning’ of Action Partners in their communities and societies. As the study works almost exclusively with
existing program information, particularly in the database component, proxy measures or factors were used to
understand positioning as best as possible. For instance, gender, education levels, frequency of travel outside
of community and country, indigenous or ethnic minority status, disability and whether Action Partners are living
in a rural or urban setting. See part j below for more discussion on this.
The OIYP Network is made up of 1,165 Action Partners.
[a] gender
The gender breakdown of the OIYP Network is 52% female (603) and 48% male (561) with one Action Partner
identifying as transgender. The gender balance was equal at 50/50 male/female in 2000 and 2004, with a gap
widening slightly to 48/52 male/female in 2007 and 45/55 in 2010.
Female Action Partners are more likely to come from urban areas, as compared to males, at application as well
as two years prior to application. Of Action Partners living in urban areas at application, 57% are female and 43%
male. Similarly, of Action Partners living in rural areas at application, 46% are female and 54% male.
Of the female Action Partners (for whom we have data), 78% live in urban areas at the moment of application
compared with 72% living in urban areas two years prior, suggesting 21%4
of female urban applicants migrated
from rural areas within the two years prior to applying to OIYP. Likewise for male Action Partners, 69% urban male
applicants versus 66% two years prior, also suggesting 20% migrated from rural areas prior to application.
The reasons for the migration of Action Partners from rural to urban settings in the two years prior to applying
to OIYP are not recorded at the time of application. Given the age bracket of eighteen to twenty-five and the
time of life that this age bracket implies, assumptions can be made that much of the migration was due to
following education and/or employment opportunities. The recent Youth Active Citizenship Context Analysis,
commissioned by Oxfam Australia (Powel, Brown and Hazell 2012) found that the current generation of young
people are the most urbanised ever seen and many are moving to urban centres in search of education and
employment opportunities, or because of forced migration. This urbanisation, brings with it potential freedoms
and also a dislocation from the support structures of family, community and culture.
4 Calculations ((294-232)/294)
34. 32 | OIYP retrospective study report
Although the circumstances are unknown, this could imply that OIYP is more accessible for female Action
Partners who have moved into an urban setting away from the more traditional obligations of family or community
life. The flipside of this finding is the suggestion that OIYP is less accessible to females living in rural areas,
particularly if they are without means or purpose to move to an urban centre.
The gender breakdown across global regions is balanced, with the exception of Africa and Asia where a majority
of Action Partners are male and female, respectively.
The case study research found that it was unclear what impact gender has had on the ability of Action Partners
to position themselves and achieve what they are trying to do. Both men and women in the group have been
successful and are confident in what they are doing; likewise, there are also men and women in the group who
are struggling to make a ‘breakthrough’ into the kind of work they want to do.
However, the research did find some evidence of structural barriers to women in some of the countries in which
Action Partners are working. Three of the female Action Partners (from Zambia and Zimbabwe) work on issues
related to women’s empowerment and all mentioned restrictions and difficulties for women in their countries.
In addition, of the ten Action Partners who have established their own organisations/businesses, only two are
women which may also indicate that there are some barriers for women in leadership roles – though this was not
explored further as part of the study.
[b] regional distribution
The OIYP network of Action Partners are active in countries and regions across the world, as outlined in the pie
graph. The category of Northern Countries groups together the countries from Europe as well as North America,
Canada, Australia and New Zealand (more detail is given in Annex 1).
It is interesting that although a relatively high percentage of all Action Partners
moved from a rural to an urban setting that being urban-based was more likely for
female Action Partners.
gender breakdown by region
[F: FEMALE / m: MALE]
M
F
M
F M
F
MF M
F
MF
30%
20%
10%
0%
northern
countries
africa asia magreb &
middle east
pacific latin
america
35. OIYP retrospective study report | 33
These percentages across regions change according to the OIYP cycle. The number of Action Partners from
Northern countries in each cycle has been decreasing over time, with 120 Action Partners accepted in 2000
and forty-three in 2010. As fewer Action Partners from Northern Countries were accepted, the number of Action
Partners from the Pacific region and also Magreb and Middle East increased. (Note that there were 251 Action
Partners in 2000, but approximately 300 in each of the following cycles.)
Breaking down this data into sub-regions provides more clarity.
5 Global income classification as per: http://data.worldbank.org/about/country-classifications/country-and-lending-groups
In 2000, Action Partners from Europe (29%) were by far the dominant group (see above). The European sub-
regions represented include the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), central Europe, and the former
Yugoslavia. While thirty-seven of the seventy-two ‘European’ Action Partners (51%) were active in high income
countries (including Germany, Spain, Ireland) when they applied to OIYP, thirty-five were not. This included
seventeen Action Partners (24% of the European group) in lower middle and low income countries (including
Tajikistan, Georgia, Ukraine)5
.
26%
northern countries
19%
africa
14%
Latin America
20%
asia
8%
magreb & middle east
14%
pacific
Network
48%
northern countries
17%
africa
12%
Latin America
14%
asia
5%
magreb & middle east
5%
pacific
2000
37. OIYP retrospective study report | 35
In 2004 there was a noticeable redistribution; no sub-region exceeds 12% of total. There were particular
increases in numbers of Action Partners from Melanesia and South Asia.
In 2007 there was a notable increase of Action Partners from Melanesia (17%). No other sub-region exceeds 9%.
This increase was in line with the greater focus on Oxfam priority countries, those being Melanesia, Southern
Africa and South Asia.
In 2010, Melanesia and South Asia stand out as sub-regions. Action Partners from Europe have decreased to 4%
as well as Action Partners from Australia to 5% of total. This was due to the prioritisation of Action Partners from
South Asia in line with Kaleidoscope being held in India.
[c] age
The median age at intake is twenty-three for all cycles. Although the age criteria for Action Partners at intake is
between eighteen and twenty-five, actual intake is of older Action Partners within that bracket.
The ‘age mountain’ peak is to the right of centre across intake cycles 2004-2010 and across all regions (for all
intakes), with medians of twenty-two to twenty-three for all.
This has not happened by design. The bracket of ‘youth’ was set as a criterion for OIYP application, but age was
not used after that in the selection process. It does beg the question of whether 18-25 is the right age bracket if
the program seems particularly accessible and attractive to young people over twenty-two years old.
A deeper question is whether there is an argument for working with young activists
who are in their early twenties rather than late teens? Are there factors that
influence their interest and access – finishing secondary (or even tertiary studies),
volunteering, studying, looking for focus for their passion – that are age dependent
and influence a young person’s likely engagement and success in the program and
its objectives.
14%
northern countries
19%
africa
14%
Latin America
25%
asia
10%
magreb & middle east
17%
pacific
2010
38. 36 | OIYP retrospective study report
The study is able to give some insight into the role of education and experience outside of communities and
countries. The analysis around age however is less reliable. In the Sensemaker stories, the median age of the
Action Partners when the change took place was twenty-four years old, however this is a product of the sources
of the stories – program information peaking in the second year of an Action Partners three year cycle - rather
than an insight into a particularly ‘changeful’ time of life.
Given OIYP’s particular success in supporting personal empowerment in Action Partners (see section 4.4) there may be
something significant about the optimal age of a participant. Arguably OIYP can be seen as offering a formative
experience to young people at a time of their lives when they are particularly open to formative experiences.
The current age distribution of the entire network is as follows:
A significant proportion of the network are now between thirty and forty-five years
and their status and positioning within society are likely to have changed. Potentially
many of these Action Partners are now taking more formal leadership roles in
institutions and organisations and are shaping their environments and nations.
The median age of the network currently is twenty-nine and fifty Action Partners are over forty years old. Obviously the
network has aged. Legitimate questions can now be asked regarding whether the network is still a youth network
and whether the program focus continues to be youth empowerment and advocacy for youth-related issues.
As a large number of the 2,000 cycle of Action Partners were from Northern countries (see above) this group of
older Action Partners could still be located in middle to high income countries. If these are added to those from
the group who are from countries now considered to be ‘emerging economies’, there may well be an argument for
engaging those Action Partners quite differently – for instance as a campaigning force, as a part of leadership
coalitions and as agents of change within government and the private sector in their countries.
OIYP network age, january 2013
150
100
50
0
21 26 3422 313023 3224 3325 3527 3628 3729 38 39 40 more
age
frequency
39. OIYP retrospective study report | 37
[d] indigenous and Ethnic Minorities
Of the Action Partners in the OIYP network, 15% identify as indigenous and 9% identify as belonging to an
ethnic minorities.
The majority of Action Partners who identify as Indigenous are from Northern countries (43%), with the rest
splitting evenly over the remaining regions, with the exception of the Maghreb and the Middle East (2%). Those who
identify as ethnic minorities are predominantly from Asia (31%) and Africa (36%). In the Pacific, Indigenous Action
Partners are 15% of total Action Partners from that region and those from ethnic minorities are 6%. This is surprising
given Action Partners from the Pacific form a large portion of the network and issues surrounding indigenous culture
and identity are significant in the Pacific region. However, this is the way Action Partners themselves identified.
Upon closer inspection of the application forms of individual Pacific Action Partners, there was little consistency
in the way that they identified as Indigenous or of an ethnic minority. Furthermore, the fact that the majority
of Indigenous Action Partners are from Northern countries is due to the recruitment policies of OIYP favouring
those living with poverty and injustice, as well as that fact that the distinction between Indigenous and non-
Indigenous peoples in these countries are arguably clearer.
Of rural applicants, 44% identify as either indigenous or belonging to an ethnic minority, as compared to 22%
of urban applicants. Despite these percentages, given the greater number of urban Action Partners overall,
Indigenous and ethnic minority Action Partners from rural areas are fewer in number than those from urban areas.
There are a number of reasons why an Action Partner may identify as Indigenous or belonging to an ethnic minority or
indeed identify as not being from either group. These include whether they are living in a rural or urban setting, land
ownership, upbringing, family connections and societal/cultural norms around the terms. It is therefore an imperfect
demographic marker and few generalisations can be drawn about those that have identified or those that have not.
The case study participants, all from southern Africa, report that ethnicity is not a key factor in how they are
positioned in their community. Although there are a few exceptions, mostly they either did not identify as
being part of an ethnic or tribal group or they said that it does not impact on them day-to-day. In Botswana, for
example, a number of the Action Partners said that everyone in Botswana is from a tribe but it is not relevant in
working life or they prefer not to be assessed from that perspective.
URBAN rural
indigenous
ETHNIC MINORITY
40. 38 | OIYP retrospective study report
[e] education
In regards to education, of the 2007 and 2010 Action Partners (no data exists for 2000 and 2004 cycles); 48% had
completed tertiary education and 48% had completed secondary education at the time of their application for
the OIYP program. Less than 4% of Action Partners had completed primary education or less.
Relative to the populations in the majority of the world’s countries, the Action
Partners are a well educated group.
There is no significant difference in education attainment between rural/urban Action Partners, across intakes,
among Indigenous and ethnic minorities and non-minorities and by gender. This result is interesting itself in that
we would expect more variation, in particular across groups that are traditionally marginalised and/or excluded.
Given what is known about the unequal access to education for women and people of minority groups in many
countries, this leads us to ask whether the Action Partners from these marginalised groups are even better
educated in relation to the groups they come from (and thereby unrepresentative in that respect), than the rest
of the Action Partners are in relation to their societies generally.
The median age of those who had completed primary at Application, was twenty, those who had completed
secondary was twenty-two and those who had completed tertiary was twenty-four, which is to be expected. This
correlates to the age statistics above, suggesting that there are two points at which an Action Partners is likely
to be attracted and recruited to OIYP: after finishing secondary school, and after finishing their tertiary education.
All but three of the Action Partners who participated in the case study research have undertaken tertiary level
studies of some kind, with eight of them having already completed study at the time they joined OIYP. The
majority hold Bachelor degrees and two will commence Masters degrees in 2013. Six of the Action Partners
reported doing other short courses on topics including leadership and management, administration, financial
management, and training methodologies.
The case study research found that education is no doubt a factor in the success that many Action Partners
have. Through higher education, many have learned specific technical skills, met people who become long-term
colleagues (and even joined them in the work they are doing), and secured positions in the workforce that enable
them to pursue the work they want to do.
The Oxfam International Youth Parliament 10 Year Impact Assessment (Social Compass, 2010) also found that
education, and particularly tertiary education, was an important factor positively affecting the ability of the
Action Partners to participate in the OIYP program and their work towards developmental change.
[f] employment
In relation to Action Partners’ work at the time of application; 68% of Action Partners were in voluntary work, 27%
were in paid work and 5% were studying (from the 625 Action Partners for whom data is available). It is difficult to
surmise why there is such a dominance of voluntary work amongst the Action Partners when they apply to OIYP.
41. OIYP retrospective study report | 39
The case study research participants displayed a similar pattern, although higher percentages were working at
the time of application. At the time they joined OIYP, the majority of the Action Partners were working at NGOs –
approximately half in paid work and half as volunteers. The rest were either unemployed, studying or working in
the private sector or government. Almost all of them were involved in youth activism or some kind of community
development work.
At the time of interview, Action Partners were employed as follows:
• six were working in NGOs or CBOs that they established or co-founded
• six were working in other NGOs (both local and international)
• four were working in the private sector, including one who had established their own company
• two were full-time students, and
• one was working for the government.
Being in voluntary work gives young people relative freedom. It can be interpreted as a mark of privilege,
suggesting they are well supported financially. Or, perhaps the opposite is true and unemployment is an issue for
Action Partners. Voluntary work can often be an avenue for finding paid work. In 2012, youth unemployment stood
at 75 million people, a significant proportion of the total 200 million unemployed globally - a critical contributing
factor of economic inequality, social and cultural alienation and a symbolic breach of the contract between
citizen and the state (UNPD 2011 referenced in Powell, Brown and Hazell, 2012).
There is also the possibility that this finding relates to the sector within which Action Partners are seeking to work.
Given they are interested in social justice, perhaps the majority of opportunities within this area are within the
not-for-project, non-government or civil society sectors, which in many countries are predominantly voluntary.
[g] sector of work
Both the case study and the Sensemaker findings confirm that Action Partners
are overwhelmingly active in the NGO and civil society sectors, as opposed to
government and private sectors.
It is worth asking whether OIYP has (inadvertently) supported a sizeable cohort of
young development entrepreneurs.
The case studies suggest however that this can change overtime for Action Partners as the obligations on them
become greater to support themselves and their families. The Youth Active Citizenship Context Analysis confirms
that economic insecurity can be a challenge for young active citizens, particularly given the global youth
unemployment situation (Powell, Brown and Hazell 2012).
The case studies also suggest that it is surprisingly common for Action Partners to initiate and start
organisations and projects. The case studies cannot be understood to be representative, but this is also
confirmed by the Sensemaker stories, in which descriptions of Action Partners initiating projects, groups and
organisations are also common.
42. 40 | OIYP retrospective study report
This spawns a set of questions regarding the kinds of changes this cohort are positioned to influence, and the
way that OIYP program supports their particular needs. These issues are explored more in sections 4.3 and 4.4.
[h] work Interests
Oxfam Australia uses four change goals and one central commitment to guide and make sense of its full body of
work. The change goals are: Economic Justice; Essential Services; Gender Justice and Rights in Crisis. The central
commitment is to Active Citizenship and Accountability. There is a large difference in work interests of Action
Partners across intake years (with the caveat that Active Citizenship was not a category on the application form
in 2010, and the difference is therefore absorbed across the other categories).
The breakdown of change goal focus is remarkably similar across global regions, with two exceptions: a higher
percentage of Action Partners from MENA working on Rights in Crisis; and a higher percentage of Action Partners
from Northern countries working on Active Citizenship. There is an even breakdown across gender, with slightly
fewer males working on Gender Justice, compensated by slightly more males working in Active Citizenship.
2000
0%
20%
40%
60%
citizenship econjust esserv genderjust rights
crisis
41%
14%
36%
1%
9%
2007
0%
20%
40%
60%
citizenship econjust esserv genderjust rights
crisis
18% 16%
40%
22%
4%
2004
0%
20%
40%
60%
citizenship econjust esserv genderjust rights
crisis
5%
23%
68%
3% 2%
2010
0%
20%
40%
60%
citizenship econjust esserv genderjust rights
crisis
0%
21%
40%
26%
13%
44. 42 | OIYP retrospective study report
[i] experience out of Country and Community
At the time of application, Action Partners were asked for the number of times they had travelled outside their
country and community (data exists for 2007 and 2010 Action Partners). Of the 2007 Action Partners 42% had never
travelled outside of their country, 17% had done so only once, 24% had travelled outside their countries two to
five times and 14% had travelled more than five times outside of their country, no data exists for 3%. For 2010
Action Partners, 34% had never travelled outside of their country, 15% had travelled outside their country only
once, 33% had travelled two to five times and 17% had travelled more than five times outside of their country.
Overall therefore, roughly 40% of Action Partners had not travelled outside of
their countries before applying to OIYP. Roughly 60% had travelled outside of their
country between one and over five times, with roughly 30% having travelled outside
of their country between two and five times.
The breakdown for all available Action Partners is as follows:
Females are slightly better-travelled out of their countries than males (19% and 10% respectively) although there
is no difference in travel out of their communities.
Fewer rural Action Partners have travelled out of their country, as compared to urban Action Partners and Pacific
Action Partners are less travelled outside of their country.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
more than
5 times
2-5 times once only never
out of community, network
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
more than
5 times
2-5 times once only never
out of country, network
73%
18%
4% 6%
16%
30%
16%
38%
45. OIYP retrospective study report | 43
Otherwise variables such as minority status, language and education do not yield any significant differences.
The main reasons for Action Partners travel are: conferences (27%); study (23%); tourism (18%); and visiting
friends and relatives (18%). Overall the Action Partners are a reasonably well travelled group with reasonably high
access to work and study opportunities outside of their communities.
While it was not a specific issue raised with all the Action Partners participating in the case study research, in
the course of conversation, quite a few of them mentioned that they had travelled internationally prior to joining
OIYP and since then – not including travel to attend Youth Parliament/Kaleidoscope. This included travel outside
the African continent. This may be an indicator of them being well positioned to apply for opportunities for
conferences and study abroad.
Interesting correlations emerge with an Action Partners’ experience outside of community and a variety of
factors. ‘A lot’ of travel outside of their community is positively correlated with feeling better supported. It is
negatively correlated with ‘changing community views about youth’. There was also a correlation between the
change Action Partners are contributing to being ‘human rights and cultural status’ and the Action Partners
having travelled outside of their country a lot. This may suggest that work on human rights and cultural status
of particular groups is often conducted in international environments and involves representation of that group
outside of an Action Partners’ own community/country.
‘Never’ having travelled outside of the community is positively correlated with policy and practice changes of
business, challenging power structures, improving existing relationships (and negatively correlated with forming
new relationships), changing community views about youth, and feeling alone and not supported. This could
be related to discussion around immediate community (community of position) versus a community of people
with common characteristics or interests (community of interest). If we assume a village environment for Action
Partners who have ‘never’ travelled outside of their community, then we envisage proximity to power structures,
existing relationships with much of the community, and the opportunity to impact upon community views of youth.
out of country, rural vs urban
[u: urban / r: rural]
60%
40%
20%
0%
more than 5 times 2-5 times once only never
R
R
R
R
U
U
U
U18%
33%
16%
33%
12%
20%
14%
54%
47. OIYP retrospective study report | 45
[k] positioning
There are a number of ways we have tried to understand the ‘positioning’ of Action Partners, in their societies
and communities. Findings suggest that the concept of ‘positioning’ is complicated. As discussed above, the
study tried to understand ‘positioning in society/community’ via general proxy measures or factors such as
gender, education levels, frequency of travel outside of community and country, indigenous or ethnic minority
status, disability and whether Action Partners are living in a rural or urban setting.
Positioning however is a contextually relative concept and as such it is only possible to make assumptions about what
a combination of these factors mean in terms of an Action Partners’ positioning in their community and society.
The case study research assists a better understanding of some of the factors that shape an Action Partners’
positioning, beyond the crude proxy measures mentioned above. It suggests that there is no clear pattern to
the positioning of Action Partners and their families in the community and what this means for them as young
leaders, though some observations can be made.
Half the Action Partners in the study describe their families as being average in terms of income and access to
opportunities. One identified as being from an above average financial background. Several come from very poor
families and live in disadvantaged circumstances themselves.
Nine of the nineteen Action Partners indicated that their parents were in influential positions in the community
– mainly associated with either the church or education. It is interesting that influential leadership positions
such as community councils were not mentioned, although this could be a reflection of the majority of the
participating Action Partners living in urban settings. Eight of the Action Partners have assumed significant
responsibility within the family, including feeding the family and educating some or all of their siblings. Four
of the Action Partners experienced great losses or challenges as children growing up – including losing their
parents – but have used it as motivation in their lives.
Although this cannot describe all of the Action Partners in the network, the case study research and OIYP
database analysis tell us a common story.
There is a sizeable proportion of Action Partners who are urban based, relatively well
educated, and relatively well travelled, suggesting they are from middle to higher
income families within their societies. In part this is a reflection of who it is possible
for an organisation like Oxfam and a program like OIYP to attract, access and engage.
These are the majority of people that hear about OIYP, are selected and able to take up the opportunity
to participate.
48. 46 | OIYP retrospective study report
4.2 What is the pattern of engagement of the Action Partners
in the OIYP network?
In the case studies, the majority of the Action Partners heard about OIYP through a professional contact, with
other referrals coming from family, friends or other Action Partners. Only three found information on the internet.
Strengthening the point made in the previous section regarding who has access to the OIYP opportunity, this
probably means that those young people who are already well-connected into networks of various kinds are
more likely to learn about the program and apply than the average young person. It may also indicate that they
have to know about Oxfam already to find the information on the internet.
What attracted them to OIYP varied, including: Oxfam’s philosophy on social justice and approach to community
development; the concept of a ‘Youth Parliament’ or something specifically for young people and driven by them;
the opportunity to be a change agent; wanting to develop project management and community development
skills; and the opportunity to broaden their knowledge about other places, people and cultures. Some of the
Action Partners have promoted the program to other young people although that did not seem to be common
amongst the case study research participants.
[a] program activity
Since the OIYP program was launched in 2000, the program has delivered forty-seven different program activities
including workshops, grants programs, online workshops and skills shares. The overall program activity, from
2000 to 2013 is represented below in tabular format.
Program Activity Frequency Participants
Grants Program 10 173
Workshops 13 275
Online Workshops 18 640
Mentor & Motivator Program 2 62
Kaleidoscope/Youth Parliaments 4 1121
2000 – 2003 Program Cycle
Year Activity Participants
Unsuccessful
Applicants
2000 IYP Youth Parliament (Sydney) 251
2003 Project Management e-Workshop 14
2002 Small grants Round 1 13 26
2003 Small Grants Round 2 14 18
2001 Project Management e–Workshop No data
2001 Online Facilitation e–Workshop No Data
2002 Building Partnerships e–Workshop 13
2003 Public Action e-Workshop 6
49. OIYP retrospective study report | 47
2004 – 2007 Program Cycle
year Activity Participants
Unsuccessful
Applicants
2004 Youth Parliament (Sydney) 304
2004 Indigenous Peoples Rights Workshop 29
2004 Small Grants Round 1 30 30
2004 Small Grants Round 2 25 32
2005 Pacific Regional F2F Workshop (Fiji) 18
2004 Small Grants Round 3 16 8
2005 Gender Skills Share 36
2005 MDG Skills Share 8
2005 Trade Justice Workshop Hong Kong 8
2005 Online Facilitation e-Workshop 4
2005 Project Management e-Workshop 79
2005 Trade and Human Rights Workshop (Cambodia) 18
2006 Africa Regional Workshop (Zambia) 25
2006 Online Facilitation e-Workshop 0
2006 Global Review F2F Workshop - attended 24
2006 Small Grants - Round 4 17 15
2007 – 2010 Program Cycle
year Activity Participants
Unsuccessful
Applicants
2007 Kaleidoscope (Sydney) 279
2007 Mentor & Motivator Program (M&M) 26
2007 Mentor & Motivator Prep Workshop 26
2008 HIV & AIDS Workshop (Mexico) 16
2008 Online Facilitation e-Workshop 78
2008 Organising Campaigns e-Workshop 71
2008 Project Management e-Workshop 83
2008 Gender Skills Share No Data
2009 Gender & Culture Workshop (South Africa) 19
2009 YPMM Cultural Workshop (Israel/Palestine) 14
2009 Human Rights and Advocacy e-Workshop 47
2008 Small Grants Round 1 17 30
2008 Small Grants Round 2 11 38
50. 48 | OIYP retrospective study report
2010 – 2013 Program Cycle
year Activity Participants
Unsuccessful
Applicants
2010 Kaleidoscope (Delhi) 287
2010 Mentor & Motivator Program (M&M) 36
2010 Mentor & Motivator Prep Workshop 39
2011 Grants Round 1 14 89
2011 Organising Campaigns e-Workshop 87
2011 Project Management e-Workshop 120
2012 Grants Round 2 16 40
2012 Community Engagement e-Workshop 27
2012 Rio+20 Food justice Workshop (Brazil) 16
2013 Gender Justice Workshop (Tunisia) delivered in May 23
[b] overall participation and Kaleidoscope
Participation rates in OIYP activities suggest that male Action Partners tend to be involved in more activities than
female Action Partners. Given that activities happen in succession rather than at the same time, this suggests
that males also stay involved in the program for longer. Significantly higher levels of male Action Partner
involvement than females for the 2004 intake is balanced by equal gender participation for 2000 and 2007 Action
Partners, and slightly higher female participation in 2010.
The case studies report that the International Youth Parliament or Kaleidoscope event is a critical element of the
OIYP process for Action Partners and has an enormous impact on them, not only at the time but years later.
Youth Parliament or Kaleidoscope is described by Action Partners as an expansive,
eye-opening and transformative experience. It encourages and inspires them, gives
them a space for self-reflection and growth, and fosters hope for some of them.
It also helps them to realise there is a bigger platform that they can contribute to and benefit from – and part of
this is the opportunity to develop a network of contacts at a global level.
This is also confirmed in the Sensemaker stories. It has both a cross-cultural learning dimension, which in
no small part occurs through meeting hundreds of other young people from around the world and learning
about their cultures and beliefs, as well as the political and civil environment in their countries. Parliament/
Kaleidoscope also has a technical development dimension for Action Partners, which concerns learning new
skills at the various workshops that are held – particularly in project management, community development,
gender and development, and relevant sectoral issues. Parliament/Kaleidoscope is found to be particularly
important in creating change in the personal empowerment of Action Partners, a point explored further in
section 4.4.
51. OIYP retrospective study report | 49
If we add the 155 Action Partners who were uniquely refused to the 471 who did not
participate, this makes it 626 Action Partners (54%) who had no involvement in OIYP
activities beyond the Kaleidoscope/Youth Parliament event.
Of the network, 471 Action Partners, or 41% did not participate beyond the International Youth Parliament or
Kaleidoscope event. In other words there is no record of participation in a program activity for this group. Note
that program support in other ways such as letters of support or ad hoc email inquiries are not captured here.
The median age of the Action Partners who have not engaged in program activities is twenty-two. Their overall
numbers are decreasing as intake years progress: in 2000 there were 178; in 2004, 107; in 2007, 93; and in 2010,
93. Age, education levels, rural/urban location and region breakdowns for this group are consistent with the
overall network.
Of those who attended Kaleidoscope, 155 were uniquely declined from participating in activities. In other
words, 155 Action Partners attended Kaleidoscope and applied to at least one program activity which involved
an application process (i.e. grant, F2F, or conference) and were refused, and did not participate in any other
program activity (i.e. e-Workshop, skill share). Ten applied to three activities, twenty-three to two activities, and
119 Action Partners applied to one.
[c] Grants
Within the network, 174 grants were awarded, which equates to 15%.
Of total grant applications, 326 were declined and therefore 231 individual Action Partners (20% of the network)
applied and never received a grant (this excludes those who submitted several applications and were awarded at
least one).
The case study research suggests that while there is no doubt that Youth Parliament/Kaleidoscope is by far the
most important component of the program for most of those who participated in this study, the grant scheme
probably ranked second. Grants were received by a few of the Action Partners in the case study research (all
from Malawi) and assisted them to develop the organisations and teams they were establishing. Missing out on a
grant can be a significant disappointment for Action Partners. There is more analysis of the grants program and
its value in section 4.4.
In the 2010 cycle there was a 20% cut in the funding to the grants program. There was little impact on the
number of recipients in part due to the fact that for the first time in 2010, in an effort to encourage collective
action, Action Partners were able to submit joint grants proposals (with other Action Partners). This represents
four grants that engaged ten Action Partners.
The proportion of grant recipients who identify as either Indigenous or ethnic minority corresponds to their
proportion of the network in each intake except 2010 when 19% of grants were allocated to minorities Action
Partners, who comprised 32% of the network.
Fewer female Action Partners received grants than male Action Partners (in relation to their percentage in the
network as a whole) in 2000 and 2004 cycles. In 2007 male Action Partners received fewer grants in proportion to
their population in the network and in 2010 the gender breakdown of grant recipients was proportionate to the
overall network percentages.
52. 50 | OIYP retrospective study report
On aggregate, proportionately more Action Partners from Africa, Asia and Latin America have received grants.
The breakdown per intake provides more insight, particularly for Pacific Action Partners who, as a group, have
received fewer grants as their numbers have increased (across cycles). Likewise for Action Partners from Magreb
and the Middle East.
Therefore, as a group, those awarded grants are more educated (have had a higher
level of education) than the average across the network.
With regards to the Pacific, the key barrier to Action Partners applying for an OIYP grant was the inaccessibility of
the application form for people with less developed ideas or those working in less formal partnerships. Changes
to the forms resulted in more Pacific Action Partners applying for grants however, again a disproportionately low
number of Pacific Action Partners were successful.
Regarding education, of the Action Partners who were awarded grants, proportionately more had attained tertiary
qualifications and thus proportionately fewer list secondary as their highest level of education completed, than
the network as a whole.
Participation according to age, language, rural/urban are not different from overall network balances.
[d] e-Workshops
It is worth noting that the following figures show enrolment in e-Workshops rather than completion of
e-Workshops, which is not easily tracked through program data. The case study research suggests this is an
important point, as several of the Action Partners in the cases started but did not complete e-Workshops. That
said, in the 2010 cycle ‘completion’ was very high, with a 100% rate for 2012 community engagement e-Workshop,
and a high rate of completion for both the campaigns and project management e-Workshops in 2011.
14%
northern countries
26%
africa
18%
Latin America
24%
asia
6%
magreb & middle east
12%
pacific
grant recipient distribution across global region (all intakes)
53. OIYP retrospective study report | 51
Of individual Action Partners, 414 (35%) attended workshops, often multiple times, with a total of 700 enrolments
in e-Workshops. There was a gender imbalance in 2000 and 2004, with more males participating than females
(proportionate to their percentages in the network). Participation rates in 2007 and 2010 reflect the network
gender balance for those years.
On aggregate, the participation rate of Indigenous and ethnic minority Action Partners in e-Workshops (27%)
corresponds to their overall presence in the network (24%) although there is slight variation in participation
within cycles. Participation according to age, language, education, rural/urban are not different from overall
network balances.
Since Action Partners could participate in multiple e-Workshops for the regional breakdown there are two lots
of analysis: a) full participation (700 enrolments); and b) with duplicates removed (414 Action Partners). The
‘duplicates removed’ analysis helps us understand the interest around participation. Additionally, the ‘full
participation’ provides some nuance around access.
The standout in this analysis is participation by African Action Partners in e-Workshops (109 of 222 in the
network), and as compared to the network (overall network pie shown below).
The enrolments data also suggest that African Action Partners were more likely to participate multiple times (109
Action Partners enrolled in 212 workshops).
In contrast, the participation rate of Action Partners from Northern countries is much lower than their overall
share of the network (11% versus 26%, or 47 versus 297).
Of the forty-seven Action Partners from Northern countries who participated in e-Workshops, thirty-two are non-
minorities and fifteen are either indigenous or ethnic minorities, representing 8% and 3% of the total e-Workshop
participants, respectively. Since 30% of Northern Action Partners are Indigenous or ethnic minority, the 47%
participation rate of Indigenous/ethnic minority Action Partners from Northern Countries in e-Workshops is greater.
This begs the question of whether there are more opportunities for young people from Northern countries to
participate in other learning activities external to OIYP, with the exception of those from Indigenous or ethnic
minority groups.
26%
northern countries
19%
africa
14%
Latin America
20%
asia
8%
magreb & middle east
14%
pacific
network
