capacity building policy making and implementation
TRANSCRIPT
Capacity Building Policy Making and Implementation
Processes: the case of the Pacific Youth Council
by
Vivian Jemima Koster
A thesis in fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Arts in Social Policy
Copyright (c) 2014 by Vivian Jemima Koster
School of Social Sciences Faculty of Arts, Law and Education The University of the South Pacific
2014
DECLARATION
Statement by Author
I, Vivian Jemima Koster, declare that this thesis is my own work and that, to the best of my
knowledge, it contains no material previously published, or substantially overlapping with
material submitted for the award of any other degree at any institution, except where due
acknowledgment is made in the text.
Signature …………………………… Date…………………………
Name …………………………………………………………………
Student I.D. No. ………………………………………………………
Statement by Supervisor
The research in this thesis was performed under my supervision and to my knowledge is the sole
work of Ms. Vivian Jemima Koster.
Signature…………………………….. Date ………………………..
Name..………………………………………………………………..
Designation ………………………………………………………….
i
Acknowledgements
This research has been a long journey, and there are many people to thank for their contributions
to its completion.
Firstly, I thank Tarusila Bradburgh and Jacqueline Koroivulaono for their gift of friendship. I am
grateful for their understanding, guidance and unwavering passion for young people in the
Pacific Islands region. They are examples to many including me and I am privileged to have
shared the Pacific Youth Council journey with them.
I am also thankful to Myjolynne Kim, Savali Matio, the Pacific Youth Council Executive Board,
and the Pacific Youth Council members for sharing their stories and allowing me to write about
their organisation.
I thank Avelina Rokoduru and Salanieta Vakalala for providing a listening ear to the challenges
of completing this research, many laughs to lighten the mood, and guidance on how to start and
how to finish a thesis including a great many things not to do.
I thank Maria Bereso Ah-Sam, Louise Bereso and Mary Rokonadravu for periodically checking
up on my progress and reminding me to finish the research; and I also thank the Fiji netball
executive committee members for respecting my wishes to ‘leave me alone’ in the last months of
completion so that I could in fact complete this thesis.
I thank Gaylene Osborne-Finekaso and Frances Koya-Vakauta for their quiet support...because
they know me well.
I thank my supervisor Dr. Bruce Yeates for his patience.
Most importantly I thank my family for their understanding and tolerance of a bad tempered and
financially challenged student. In particular I thank my parents, Romulus and Ethel Koster, for
their patience, monetary support, and love for a daughter that still worries them no matter her
age.
ii
Abstract
This research is a case study of the Pacific Youth Council and the processes involved in its
policy decision-making and implementation, specifically its capacity building policy of
leadership and governance training offered to its members, the National Youth Councils. It uses
a mixed method approach to gathering information. This ensures an in-depth understanding of
the processes involved. These methods are: archival research, case study, participant observation,
semi-structured interviews, and questionnaires.
The research has found that the Pacific Youth Council policy of capacity building is based on
legitimate, feasible and supportive grounds. Firstly, the continued endorsement by members of
the policy in a variety of organisational documents proves legitimacy. Secondly, the funding and
skilled trainers available for the training programmes have made the policy feasible. Finally, the
National Youth Councils have continually supported the policy through document endorsement,
needs analysis, and indications of readiness to undertake the training as required by the Pacific
Youth Council before the training can occur. The two-pronged content involving
transformational leadership training on one prong, and governance and administration on the
other has challenged participants to take a closer look at the way their organisations work and at
their leadership styles. It has also been an exercise in participatory citizenship as young people
have their voices strengthened individually and collectively through their national youth
councils. It is also transformative and empowering as young people are engaged in decision
making at the local, national and regional level through their national youth council and the
Pacific Youth Council.
iii
Acronyms
APTC Asia Pacific Technical College
AusAID Australian Agency for International Development
CLGF Commonwealth Local Government Forum
CYP Commonwealth Youth Programme
DFAT – Australian Aid Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade – Australian Aid
FSM Federated States of Micronesia
FSPI Foundation for the People of the South Pacific International
HIV/AIDS Human Immunodeficiency Virus/ Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome
ILO International Labour Organisation
NYC National Youth Council
OFC Oceania Football Confederation
PICs Pacific Island countries
PIFS Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat
PLP Pacific Leadership Programme
PYC Pacific Youth Council
SPBEA Secretariat of the Pacific Board for Educational Assessment
SPC Secretariat of the Pacific Community
UNAIDS United Nations Joint Programme on HIV/AIDS
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Culture Organisation
UNFPA United Nations Population Fund
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
USP University of the South Pacific
YEA Youth Employment Advocacy Initiative
YWCA Young Women’s Christian Association
iv
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- i
Abstract---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ii
Acronyms------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- iii
List of Tables and Figures----------------------------------------------------------------------------- vii
Chapter 1: An introduction to youth development in Pacific Island countries
1.0 Introduction----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
1.1 Focus and organisation of this study--------------------------------------- 5
1.2 Importance of the study------------------------------------------------------ 6
1.3 Thesis organisation ----------------------------------------------------------- 7
Chapter 2: Contextualising youth development in Pacific Island countries
2.0 Introduction----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8
2.1 Categorising the Pacific Islands--------------------------------------------- 8
2.1.1 The physical and social geography of the Pacific Islands
region ------------------------------------------------------------- 9
2.1.2 The economy in brief ----------------------------------------- 10
2.1.3 The political geography of the Pacific Islands region----- 11
2.1.4 Regional development organisations ----------------------- 12
2.2 Who are ‘youth’? ----------------------------------------------------------- 14
2.3 Youth development in PICs------------------------------------------------ 16
2.4 Pacific Youth Council------------------------------------------------------- 18
2.5 Conclusion ------------------------------------------------------------------- 19
Chapter 3: Theoretical Inspirations
3.0 Introduction---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20
3.1 Social policy------------------------------------------------------------------ 21
3.2 Participation in development work---------------------------------------- 24
3.2.1 Youth participation-------------------------------------------- 26
3.3 Power relations – a critique of participation----------------------------- 32
3.4 Participation as citizenship------------------------------------------------- 35
v
3.5 Conclusion-------------------------------------------------------------------- 38
Chapter 4: Methodology
4.0 Introduction---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 39
4.1 Approach---------------------------------------------------------------------- 39
4.2 Sample------------------------------------------------------------------------ 40
4.3 Ethical considerations------------------------------------------------------- 41
4.4 Methods----------------------------------------------------------------------- 42
4.5 Data analysis----------------------------------------------------------------- 47
4.6 Problems encountered in the research------------------------------------ 50
4.7 Conclusion-------------------------------------------------------------------- 51
Chapter 5: Revealing processes: a discussion of the research findings
5.0 Introduction---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 52
5.1 The National Youth Council – participants and participation--------- 54
5.2 Deciding on the policy agenda--------------------------------------------- 56
5.2.1 Legitimacy------------------------------------------------------ 56
5.2.2 Feasibility------------------------------------------------------- 58
5.2.3 Support---------------------------------------------------------- 59
5.2.4 Concluding remarks on policy decision-making----------- 60
5.3 Implementing policy-------------------------------------------------------- 62
5.3.1 NYC reasons for requesting the capacity building training--
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 63
5.3.2 NYC training preparations and challenges----------------- 63
5.3.3 The training programme--------------------------------------- 65
5.3.4 Participant reactions to the training-------------------------- 67
5.3.5 Benefits to the NYC------------------------------------------- 69
5.3.6 Concluding remarks on policy implementation------------ 72
5.4 An analysis of the capacity building policy – testing effectiveness
through the Capacity Building Framework (Kenny, 2011)------------ 72
5.4.1 Infrastructure (physical capital) ----------------------------- 73
vi
5.4.2 Skills and knowledge (human and cultural capital)------- 74
5.4.3 Networks (social capital) ------------------------------------- 77
5.4.4 Limitations of the PYC capacity building policy---------- 78
5.5 Conclusion-------------------------------------------------------------------- 79
Chapter 6: Recommendations and Conclusion
6.0 Introduction---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 81
6.1 Summary of findings-------------------------------------------------------- 81
6.2 Lessons Learned------------------------------------------------------------- 85
6.3 Recommendations----------------------------------------------------------- 86
6.4 Areas for further research-------------------------------------------------- 87
6.5 Concluding remarks--------------------------------------------------------- 88
Bibliography------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 89
Appendix 1: Persons consulted-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 100
Appendix 2: Emailed questionnaire to NYC Presidents--------------------------------------------- 101
Appendix 3: Training evaluation questionnaire------------------------------------------------------- 102
Appendix 4: Youth share (aged 15-24 years) of the populations in countries and territories in the
Pacific region, 2010--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 103
Appendix 5: Adolescent fertility, unmet need for family planning and contraceptive prevalence
rate ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 105
Appendix 6: Abridged version of the Pacific Youth Council Strategic Plan and Work Plan 2009-
2012--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 106
Appendix 7: Abridged version of the Pacific Youth Council Strategic Plan 2013-2016-------- 109
vii
List of Tables and Figures
Tables
Table 1: Capacity Building Framework---------------------------------------------------------- 50
Table 2: NYC training by country, date and number of participants------------------------- 55
Table A4: Youth share (aged 15-24 years) of the populations in countries and territories in
the Pacific region 2010----------------------------------------------------------------- 103
Table A5: Adolescent fertility, unmet need for family planning and contraceptive prevalence
rate----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 105
Figures
Figure 1: Hart’s Ladder of Participation----------------------------------------------------------- 27
Figure 2: Westhorpe’s Continuum of Participation --------------------------------------------- 28
Figure 3: Shier’s Pathways to Participation------------------------------------------------------- 29
1
CHAPTER 1
An introduction to youth development in Pacific Island countries
1.0 Introduction
This thesis is an analysis of the Pacific Youth Council’s (PYC) capacity building policy as a
form of youth development. It is an assessment of how and why the PYC developed its capacity
building policy. It also assesses how the policy was implemented; and what lessons can be learnt
from these processes. The research is also a means of contributing to the body of knowledge on
youth and youth work in Pacific island countries (PICs).
Young people are a vibrant community of individuals and groups with much to offer. In PICs
they can make up almost half of the total population. This high youth population is what is
commonly referred to in development circles as the ‘youth bulge’. The term “...refers to the
demographic phenomenon when the proportion of youths in the population is significantly larger
than other age groups, both older and younger” (Curtain and Vakaoti, 2011: 9). In 2011 the
Pacific Islands region had approximately two million young people aged between 15-24 years
which made up one fifth of the total regional population. Extending this age range to 15-30 years
translated into over a quarter of the total population (Curtain and Vakaoti, 2011: 7). Melanesian
countries were on the verge of what was described as a ‘youth explosion’. At that time 40% of
the Papua New Guinea population and 38% of the Solomon Islands population consisted of
children younger than 15 years of age. In Polynesia, Samoa and Tonga had 38% and in
Micronesia, the Marshall Islands had 42% of their population younger than 15 years of age
(SPC, 2011a). According to the World Population Prospects (UN Population cited in Curtain and
Vakaoti, 2011: 41) the estimated median age in 2011 per Pacific sub-region was as follows:
Melanesia – 21.6 years, Polynesia – 24.5 years, and Micronesia – 24.9 years. The youth share,
aged between 15-24 years, of the population was estimated between 16.2% and 22.7% of the
total population (see Appendix 4). The lowest proportions were in the Northern Mariana Islands
with 16.2% followed closely by Palau with 16.4%. The largest proportion was the Marshall
Islands with 22.7% followed by Nauru (21.1%), Kiribati (21.0%), and the Federated States of
Micronesia and American Samoa (20.6%). In terms of total overall share per sub regional
population, Polynesia had the lowest overall share of 19.3% followed by Micronesia on 19.5%
and Melanesia with the largest overall share of 19.6%. It is estimated that the overall youth share
2
for the region will remain high in the years to come (Curtain and Vakaoti, 2011: 41-42). The
adolescent fertility rate in 2010 based on births per 1000 women aged between 15-19 years (see
Appendix 5) attests to this with the highest being the Marshall Islands at 85.0, followed by the
Melanesian countries with Solomon Islands at 66.9, Papua New Guinea at 63.9, Vanuatu at 52.0
and Fiji at 43.8 (UNESCO, 2013: 12).
These numbers are large and spell increasing challenges for an already taut bag of government
and development agency resources and service provisions. Issues such as high youth
unemployment, limited access to education opportunities, inadequate health services, and high
costs of living are likely to increase along with the increasing populations. Currently,
government spending on youth is limited, and in most countries not even quantified. The national
minimum development indicators collated by SPC indicate that only six countries have data
available on government expenditure on youth (looking specifically at youth departments and
ministries), and for each country the allocation is less than 1% of the total budget. These
countries are Fiji, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and Niue. The highest
percentage is Vanuatu at 0.8%, and the lowest is Niue at 0% (SPC, 2011a). The limited data
speaks to a lack of substantial statistical indicators for youth. It also speaks to a prevailing belief
that young people are catered for in various sectors such as education and health, thus do not
require separate indicators. This belief however results in a gap in knowledge and translates into
service provision that can seem ad hoc as it caters for such a wide range of people (see
subsection 2.2 on defining youth).
In terms of education, the Secretariat of the Pacific Board for Educational Assessment (SPBEA)
reports that Pacific countries are in a dire situation with regard to literacy and numeracy rates,
and need urgent intervention and action (SPBEA, 2013: 5). They have measured the expected
literacy rate after six years of schooling at three out of every ten children, and the numeracy rate
at five out of every ten children. They also have girls performing better than boys in both literacy
and numeracy (SPBEA, 2013: 2). The consequences of these low rates is already seen in tertiary
education where the average pass rate range for The University of the South Pacific’s (USP)
English Language Skills Assessment is 52-54% with Kiribati having a range of only 12-14%
(Kiribati Ministry of Education 2008 cited in Kidd, 2012: 6). Given that literacy and numeracy
3
have strong relationships with both further studies and increased employment opportunities, the
future for young people is indeed dire (SPBEA, 2013: 3). This is compounded by the relatively
low rates of secondary education in the Pacific. There are three reasons for young people
dropping out of school. These are: the costs of education (World Bank 2006 cited in Kidd, 2012:
5), the need to pass an exam to enter secondary school, and the unavailability of enough
secondary school places (Slatter 2011, cited in Kidd, 2012: 6). The low quality of education in
relation to the low capacity of teachers, inadequate school infrastructures, and inadequate
funding are also contributing factors to poor performance and dropping out of the education
system (Kidd, 2012: 6).
A large youth population combined with low education and skills, inadequate services and
limited work opportunities increase the potential for conflict. Noble et.al (2011: 15) state
“...when large youth populations are combined with other factors such as high youth
unemployment, economic hardship, political instability and social deterioration, conflict has a
greater chance of breaking out.” Curtain and Vakaoti (2011:10) in turn argue that “...unstable
government, poorly performing economies and low secondary education levels are common to a
number of countries in the Pacific.” They also point out (citing Carling 2009) that a lack of work
opportunities creates dependency where a group of people, usually youth, become burdens on
their families and communities. This group depends on the support of working family members
and relatives which can cause resentment and a breakdown in the family relationship. Also this
group is at a higher risk of turning to crime to meet basic needs and an array of wants including
alcohol and drugs. This is particularly true for young men, who as seen above already lag behind
in literacy and numeracy skills. “Male youth between the ages of 15 and 34 perpetuate more than
three-quarters of all recorded violent crime worldwide and are a threat for the recurrence of
violence in post-conflict situations” (Curtain 2004 cited in Noble et.al, 2011:15).
The extent of the conflict will be determined by governments, development agencies and young
people themselves. In the later regard, one of the ways to ensure that the impact is manageable is
to increase youth participation in decision-making and implementation through capacity building
programmes. The idea being that a cadre of young people with leadership skills will positively
impact other young people to find solutions to their problems. The Pacific Youth Council (PYC),
4
which is the subject of this study, is undertaking this task through building the leadership
capacity of youth councils and youth leaders. This is an idea supported by a variety of national,
regional and international policies and strategies.
The Kiribati National Youth Policy refers to the promotion of a youth friendly environment that
nurtures youth participation, and to establishing a national youth council to act as a voice of
young people (Government of the Republic of Kiribati, 2011: 25-26). In Fiji strategy 6.2.2 of the
national youth policy seeks to “...promote the enhancement of youth capacity in various aspects
of leadership and good governance...” (Government of Fiji, 2011: 6). In Niue, three of the
guiding principles of the national youth policy are: youth participation, youth voice, and
leadership (Government of Niue, 2009: 11).
Regionally, Outcome 3 of the Pacific Youth Development Framework looks at governance
structures empowering young people to increase their influence in decision-making. It recognizes
that young people have “Low levels of awareness and knowledge of human rights, good
governance, and citizenship” (SPC, 2013: 18-19). While internationally UNESCO recognizes the
need to create or strengthen national youth structures such as youth councils to ensure the greater
participation of youth in policy formulation and implementation (UNESCO, n.d: 3).
In this thesis capacity building is regarded as the provision of strategies and resources to improve
the ability of individuals and organisations to carry out their functions. There are a range of
processes and mechanisms involved in developing capacities (Kenny, 2011: 194 and 197). These
involve developing “...skills, knowledge, attitudes, values, relationships, conditions and
behaviours that enable groups and individuals to generate benefits for stakeholders over time”
(Kenny, 2011: 194). Key elements include:
- Identifying and accessing opportunities
- Monitoring the context of those opportunities
- Developing a strategy
- Drawing on existing resources
- Drawing on existing experiences, skills and capacities
- Providing knowledge, workshops and training
5
- Learning problem solving skills
- Learning organization, planning, and evaluation skills
- Learning political acumen
- Learning advocacy skills
- Learning financial skills
- Developing and implementing strategies
- Having evidence that these strategies can work
- Establishing new community organisations
- Developing bonding social capital
- Developing bridging social capital
- Working on projects with governments and/ or business
(Kenny, 2011: 198).
1.1 Focus and organization of this study
This study is an analysis of the PYC’s capacity building policy as provided in their Pacific Youth
Council Strategic and Work Plan 2009 - 2012 (PYC, 2009). The aim of this study is to
understand the policy development and policy implementation process of the PYC. The
objectives of the study are:
i. To provide an overview of the background and context of youth development in the
Pacific Island Countries (PICs) region.
ii. To conduct a critical review of the literature related to participation specifically youth
participation.
iii. To conduct an analysis of the capacity building policy development and implementation
process of the Pacific Youth Council.
iv. To relate and contextualize findings to the literature review.
v. To reflect on the findings of the study, assessing the implications for youth organizations
in the Pacific region.
vi. To identify future research areas.
The research questions for this study are:
1. How did the Pacific Youth Council develop their capacity building policy?
6
2. Why did the Pacific Youth Council develop their capacity building policy?
3. How did the Pacific Youth Council implement their capacity building policy?
4. What lessons can be learnt from the Pacific Youth Council’s policy development and
implementation process?
1.2 Importance of the study
This study is important on a number of levels. In a regional sense this is an opportunity to
reinforce a PICs regional youth organization’s policy development and implementation
framework which in turn can provide insight and inform the policy-making processes of other
youth organizations. It also contributes to the body of knowledge on youth and youth work in the
PICs region. It has been stated in various forums’ and publications that there is insufficient and
inconsistent data on PICs youth and youth-related work (see Curtain and Vakaoti, 2011 and
Noble et.al, 2011). However there have been some strides in research and published works such
as Vakoti and Mishra’s (2009) research on youth leadership models in Fiji, Carling (2009) on the
citizenship role of young people in Fiji, Nobel et.al (2011) on urban youth and crime in the
Pacific, Vakaoti’s (2012) published paper on mapping young people’s participation in Fiji, and
Koster (2013) on the PYC youth employment advocacy project. There have also been State of
Pacific Youth reports (UNICEF et.al, 2005; and Curtain and Vakaoti, 2011). PYC has identified
the need to grow a body of knowledge of its own work in the region. This will be the first study
of its kind on PYC.
In a national sense, the greater understanding of an existing policy development and
implementation framework can allow for it to be transferred to nationally-based youth
organizations. This will be particularly helpful to those organizations that are newly established,
and those that are seeking to expand their programmes.
On a personal level, my interest in this area of study is grounded in my associations with youth-
related work including policy development and training. My experiences have illustrated to me
the importance of having relevant policy that will be applied to the benefit of the targeted group -
young people. It has also shown that policy development must be driven by young people
7
themselves or through youth-led organizations for there to be a ‘buy-in’ from young people and
thus greater likelihood for success.
1.3 Thesis organization
The thesis is organized in six chapters. The first chapter introduced the area of study, and its
aims, objectives and research questions. The second chapter locates the general area of study by
providing an overview of the Pacific islands region. It also provides definitions, an overview of
youth development in PICs, and also highlights the importance of the study to youth
development and to the specific organization being studied – the Pacific Youth Council. The
third chapter is a literature review. It situates this study in social policy then looks at
participation in general and youth participation specifically. It also looks at power as a critique to
participation, and citizenship as an answer to that critique. The fourth chapter discusses the
methods used to gather information, and any related limitations, strengths and weaknesses. The
fifth chapter is a discussion and analysis of research findings. The sixth and final chapter offers a
summary of findings, draws conclusions from these findings, and makes recommendations based
on these findings.
8
CHAPTER 2
Contextualizing youth development in Pacific Island countries
2.0 Introduction
This thesis investigates the policy formulation and implementation processes of the Pacific
Youth Council (PYC). It specifically analyses the PYC’s capacity building policy of governance
and leadership training. It seeks to understand how and why the PYC developed its capacity
building policy, how it was implemented, and what lessons can be learnt from these processes.
In this chapter, there are four main parts. In the first part there is a general introduction to the
Pacific islands region. Firstly, there is a discussion of how the region is categorized, looking
specifically at the concepts of Melanesia, Polynesia and Micronesia. This is followed by an
overview of the physical, social, economic, and political geography of the region. Finally, there
is a short explanation of the two prominent organisations in the region – the Pacific Community
and the Pacific Islands Forum – as key technical, policy making, and decision-making bodies. In
the second part there is discussion of definitions of youth. This is followed by a discussion on
youth development in Pacific Island countries. The final part is a brief on the Pacific Youth
Council.
2.1 Categorizing the Pacific Islands
The Pacific islands region is vast, covering the expanse of the Pacific Ocean. In many records,
references are made to three categories of Pacific island countries – Melanesia, Polynesia and
Micronesia. The French explorer Jules Dumont d’Urville is largely credited with the formulation
of this categorisation as expressed in his paper ‘Sur les îles du Grand Océan’ published in 1832,
even though the terms existed prior to the publication of the paper (Clark, 2003: 155; and
Tcherkezoff, 2003: 175-196). D’Urville’s categories were largely based on ideas of race, in
particular the expansion of the idea of two races in the region, Polynesia and Melanesia. These
races were distinguished by traits such as skin colour, hair and body form. Polynesia consisted of
a superior race with “...yellowish ‘coppery’ complexion, straight hair, and regular body form”
while the second, inferior, race of Melanesia consisted of “...very dark-brown complexion,
described as sooty, and almost black...curly, fizzy hair, with ugly facial features, and an
unpleasant body form...” (Tcherkezoff, 2003: 176). D’Urville also made the observation that the
9
Polynesians tended to form more stable nations usually under monarchies, whereas the
Melanesians lived in small tribes in barbaric conditions (Tcherkezoff, 2003: 176). Over time, an
amalgamation of d’Urville’s distinctions together with geographical elements observed by other
European navigators resulted in the categories being described according to physical island
landscapes and to skin colour. Thus Micronesia references small island atolls; Polynesia
references many islands; and Melanesia references black skin colour.
While the categorization is inaccurate, these terms have a long history of accepted usage (Lewis,
2010; see also the work of Campbell, 1989). In the contemporary Pacific islands region the
countries in Melanesia are: Fiji, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea, and New
Caledonia. In Micronesia the countries are: Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands,
Palau, Guam, Kiribati, Nauru and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas. While in
Polynesia the countries are: Tonga, Samoa, American Samoa, Niue, Tokelau, Tuvalu, Cook
Islands, Tahiti Nui/ French Polynesia, Pitcairn Island, Rapanui/ Easter Island, Wallis and Futuna,
Aotearoa/ New Zealand, and Hawaii.
2.1.1 The physical and social geography of the Pacific Islands region
For the purposes of this thesis, reference will be made to the twenty two Pacific Island countries
and territories as identified by the Pacific Community, the largest regional development
organisation. These countries are: American Samoa, Cook Islands, Federated States of
Micronesia, Fiji, French Polynesia, Guam, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Caledonia,
Niue, Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Pitcairn Islands, Samoa, Solomon
Islands, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, and Wallis and Futuna (SPC, 2011b). While
technically Australia and New Zealand are also Pacific island countries they are generally
excluded from descriptions of the islands region given their statuses as more developed than
other countries in the region and being major aid donors. Both countries though are members of
the Pacific Community together with France and the United States of America (SPC, 2011b).
Physically, the region ranges from large volcanic islands to small atolls. The largest land mass of
the island groups is Papua New Guinea with 462,000 sq. km while the smallest land mass is
Tokelau with 12 sq. km. As all countries have sea borders, the 200 nautical mile exclusive
economic zones are a key component of economic life of countries in particular with regard to
10
fishing rights. Kiribati has the largest exclusive economic zone with 3.6 million sq. km (SPC,
2011c. and CIA, 2014).
With regard to population, the Melanesian countries have the larger proportions but population
density is a key concern for countries with limited land mass but growing populations. In 2013, it
was estimated that Papua New Guinea had 7,398,500 people making it the most populated of the
island groups. Tokelau with 1200 people had the smallest population as per collected data in
2013 followed closely by Niue with 1500 people (SPC, 2011c). These low numbers are reflective
of the high migration rates in both countries given their close association with New Zealand.
However, Pitcairn Island holds the distinction of the smallest permanent population in the region
with an estimated 48 people in 2014 (CIA, 2014).
High youth population rates (discussed in chapter 1), and the high urban population growth rates
are prominent features of the region. The latter impacts the social, political and environmental
life of countries such as household size, conflict prevention, and waste management (UNFPA,
2013: 18). High urbanization rates have also resulted in the expansion of informal settlements
especially in the larger Melanesian countries, but also in smaller countries such as Samoa,
Tonga, Tuvalu, the Federated States of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands (UNFPA, 2013: 18).
In terms of religion, the region is pre-dominantly Christian as a result of extensive missionary
work in the 18th century. There are mainstream denominations such as Catholicism, London
Missionary Society, Wesleyan, and Presbyterian. There are also ‘newer’ denominations such as
the Seventh Day Adventists and Mormonism. Newer still are the more evangelical
denominations which challenge the stronghold of the mainstream denominations (MaClellan,
2000). There are also other religions such as Islam and Hinduism, particularly in multi-ethnic
Fiji. Islam though is also establishing itself in other Pacific island countries such as Vanuatu.
2.1.2 The economy in brief
In general the economy of the region revolves around agriculture, tourism, and the extractive
industries such as fisheries, forestry and mining. The latter two more prominent in the larger
island groups of Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, New Caledonia and Fiji. There is also
limited manufacturing particularly in Fiji, Samoa, Solomon Islands, and Papua New Guinea
(SPC, 2011c). Countries tend to have few export products but high importation rates making
11
them more susceptible to trade fluctuations, this is especially true for fuel costs. Added to this is
their susceptibility to frequent natural disasters especially cyclones (Browne, 2006: 9). Other
challenges countries in the region face are:
slower economic growth, increased poverty, heightened governance concerns, lack of
private sector activity, limited regional integration (including labour markets), and
questions about aid effectiveness. In several parts of the region, there are additional
concerns about a lack of fiscal discipline and potential political uncertainties (Browne,
2006: 3).
While Browne’s 2006 report concerned the ten Pacific island International Monetary Fund
member countries - Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, Papua
New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, and Vanuatu – the same can be said for the
remaining twelve countries of the region.
2.1.3 The political geography of the Pacific Islands region
Pacific island countries have a long history of colonial rule. All countries - except Tonga - were
colonized and entered into a variety of colonial administrative arrangements. Tonga entered into
a treaty of friendship with Great Britain in 1900 which gave the latter control over foreign affairs
but it was not officially annexed thus maintained its own monarchial system (The
Commonwealth, 2014). The colonial powers included Spain, the Netherlands, Germany, Japan,
Great Britain, France, the United States of America, Australia, and New Zealand. Global conflict
between imperial powers often ended with the transfer of colonial rule, as shown with the
withdrawal of Spain from the northern Pacific after the 1898 Spanish-American War, Germany
after World War One, and Japan after World War Two (MaClellan, 2000). This transfer
translated into some Pacific Island countries having more than one colonial power rule over
them. Australia and New Zealand picked up the German spoils after World War Two in
particular Papua New Guinea for the former, and Samoa, Cook Islands, and Niue for the latter
(MaClellan, 2000).
France and the United States of America retain colonies in the region. France controls New
Caledonia, French Polynesia, and Wallis and Futuna. Whereas the United States of America
controls Guam and American Samoa. Both countries maintain strong military presences in the
12
region with the French navy having bases in New Caledonia and French Polynesia. The latter is
the site of France’s nuclear test programme for three decades from 1966 – 1996 (MaClellan,
2000). The United States of America maintains both a naval base and an air force base on Guam;
and holds an extensive lease arrangement on Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands where it
maintains its inter-continental ballistic missile base.
As well as territorial administration, there are also island states in Free Association with
their former colonial power (the Cook Islands, Niue and Tokelau with New Zealand; the
Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands and Palau with the United States). The
ongoing strategic interests of the US and France ensures a flow of cash to their colonies...
(MaClellan, 2000).
Colonial legacies have determined the types of governing systems that exist in Pacific island
countries. In general, there are three types – the British influenced Westminster system, the
American federal system, and the French system of laws. In the latter, New Caledonia, Wallis
and Futuna, and French Polynesia are deemed part of the French state and “...participate in
elections to the National Assembly in Paris and for the French President” (Frankel, 2013b: 197).
Other countries conduct national elections to determine their own independent governments to
varying degrees of success. The region has been relatively stable although Fiji has had three coup
de tats, Bougainville had a protracted civil war, and the Solomon Islands experienced civil unrest
to the brink of civil war in the latter part of the 1990s (See Frankel, 2013a: 29-50).
2.1.4 Regional development organizations
There are two main development organizations in the region – the Pacific Community and the
Pacific Islands Forum. The former is regarded as being a non-political, technical body whereas
the latter is a political body for independent countries together with invited associated members
and observers.
The Pacific Community, initially called the South Pacific Commission, is the oldest agency in
the region having been founded in 1947 by the then six remaining colonial powers in the region
– Australia, New Zealand, France, United Kingdom, the United States of America, and the
13
Netherlands. Their reasons were threefold: to restore stability to the region following the horrors
of World War Two, to assist in administering their territories, and to benefit the people of the
region (SPC, 2011b). Beginning in 1965 with Samoa, the countries of the region became
members of the organization usually upon independence or upon taking greater steps to self-
government. By 1983, all current twenty-two countries and territories were recognized as full
members of the organization together with four of the original members in Australia, New
Zealand, France and the United States of America. The United Kingdom and the Netherlands had
relinquished their membership upon relinquishing control over their colonies. In 1997 the name
of the organization was changed to Pacific Community to better reflect the geographical range of
its membership (SPC, 2011b).
The Pacific Community is administered by a secretariat, Secretariat of the Pacific Community
(SPC), headquartered in Noumea, New Caledonia with key offices in Suva, Fiji and in Kolonia,
Phonpei State, Federated States of Micronesia. It works in the following areas: energy, transport,
fisheries, land resources – agriculture, plant and animal health, plant genetics, forestry, and bio-
security and trade, public health, applied geosciences, statistics, climate change, education and
training – human rights resources and educational assessment, and human development – gender,
culture and youth (SPC, 2011d).
The Pacific Islands Forum, initially called the South Pacific Forum, was founded in 1971 by
Australia, New Zealand, Cook Islands, Fiji, Samoa, Nauru, and Tonga. Its aim was to foster
cooperation between the independent countries of region. This is done through: working in
support of Forum member governments, enhancing the economic and social well-being of the
people of the region by fostering cooperation between governments and between international
agencies, and by representing the interests of Forum members in ways agreed by the Forum
(PIFS, n.d). Currently it has sixteen members, two associate members, eleven observers, and one
special observer. The members are: Australia, Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji,
Kiribati, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Marshall Islands, Samoa,
Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu. The associate members are New Caledonia and
French Polynesia. The observers are: Tokelau, Wallis and Futuna, American Samoa, Guam, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, the United Nations, the Commonwealth, the World
14
Bank, the Asian Development Bank, Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, and the
African, Caribbean and Pacific Group. The Special Observer is Timor Leste. In 1999, the name
of the organisation was changed to the Pacific Islands Forum, like the Pacific Community, to
better reflect its membership (PIFS, n.d).
The Pacific Islands Forum is administered by a secretariat, Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat
(PIFS), headquartered in Suva, Fiji. The Tarawa Agreement that established PIFS states that its
purpose is to:
...facilitate, develop and maintain cooperation and consultation between member
government on economic development, trade, transport, tourism, energy,
telecommunications, legal, political, security, and such matters as the Forum may direct
(PIFS, n.d).
Importantly, the PIFS organizes the Forum Leaders Meeting which is regarded as the highest
level of policy and decision-making in the region. Also it coordinated the establishment and
implementation of the region’s development agenda, the Pacific Plan, which upon recent review
has been recast in the 2014 Forum Communique as the Framework for Pacific Regionalism
(PIFS, n.d).
2.2 Who are 'youth’?
Youth is usually defined as an age category as this is a reflection of the similar experiences
young people have at the same age. Governments, and other organizations, have also found it
easier to gather and analyze statistics when there is a specific cohort to review. However there
are limitations to using an age category. Firstly, there are different ranges used by countries and
organizations. For example, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) uses the 15-24 year
band whereas the Commonwealth Youth Programme (CYP) uses the 15-29 year band. Secondly,
the age category assumes that the experiences of young people in an age range are similar if not
the same regardless of gender, gender identity, class, location, sexual orientation or culture
(CYP, 2007a:44).
15
In recognizing the limitations stated above, youth is also being increasingly defined as a social
construct. This is a concept that takes into account the realities of young peoples’ experiences
and societal views of young people (CYP, 2007a: 48). It references inter-generational cultural
contexts, social and economic status, gender, and geographical locations. However, defining
youth as a social construct also has limitations especially for the provision of services.
Governments and organizations have difficulty matching programmes to a group of people if
membership of that group is mobile, and decisions on who is or is not a group member are made
in an unobvious way. Thus there is a general trend of using both an age category and recognizing
the social construction of youth.
In PICs this trend is illustrated by a cross section of national youth policies. Using the
demarcation categories of Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia we find that in Melanesia, Fiji
youth is young people between 15-35 years but services will be provided to those younger than
15 or older than 35 years as ‘...social and cultural perceptions dictate the status of youth in Fiji’
(Government of Fiji, 2011:4). Whereas in the Solomon Islands youth is people between 14-29
years but recognizes ‘that due to cultural and traditional contexts the policy can cover young
people less than 14 and above the age of 29’ (Noble et al, 2011: 98).
In Micronesia, the Federated States of Micronesia defines youth as 15-34 years but recognizes
that services may be provided to those under 15 years and above 34 years of age (Government of
the Federated States of Micronesia, 2004:17). Kiribati on the other hand lists four definitions of
youth: an age category of 15-29 years, a community definition of recognizing people who have
reached puberty (usually from 12 years) and older until marriage. The latter is irrespective of the
actual age of the married person (see below for legal consent) thus a married teenager is no
longer a youth. Also if a person remains unmarried until 35 years old they are classified youth
too. A third category is the law definition governing consent to marriage (16 years with
permission of parents), voter registration (18 years), and prohibiting young persons from being in
licensed premises (under 21 years); and finally a statistical definition of 15-24 years for use in
government statistical data gathering and representations (Government of the Republic of
Kiribati, 2011:12).
16
In Polynesia, Tonga defines youth as 15-34 years however official representation at national and
international levels can only be done by youth aged 26 and under whereas “…cultural definitions
of youth include people that are single, have no children, and are still living at home” (Noble et
al, 2011:140). Niue on the other hand, stands apart from the rest as it does not take account of the
social construction of youth and in fact states clearly that youth is defined as 15-34 years
‘regardless of marital status, family and personal background, religion, ethnicity or sex’
(Government of Niue, 2009:8). This may be a reflection of the country’s small and mobile
population, where the majority of Niue’s population travel for education or permanent settlement
to New Zealand, where they hold citizenship rights (Government of Niue, n.d).
Kiribati is the only country in the above examples that accounts for definitions of youth related
to legal requirements in its youth policy. The fact that other countries do not account for legal
definitions adds to the complexity and sometimes confusion of defining who is a young person.
This also has implications on data gathering as a variety of age ranges can be used in one
country.
With regard to the social construction of youth, in PICs this can relate to a variety of situations
such as being unmarried, unemployment, living with your parents, and financial dependency to
name a few. The combination of age and social status thus can see a 40 year old unmarried
person taking a leadership role in a youth-led organization. It is important to keep this in mind
when discussing youth participation as it can provide insight into the power relations at work
within youth groups.
2.3 Youth development in PICs
There are a variety of ways in which youth development has occurred in PICs. There have been
educational opportunities such as the Ola Fou programme which offers certificate and diploma
training to young leaders from six Pacific island countries – Fiji, Tonga, Solomon Islands,
Vanuatu, Samoa and Papua New Guinea - who work as community youth workers (New Zealand
Aid Programme, 2013), the Diploma in Youth in Development Work that was offered by the
CYP South Pacific Centre through USP (USP, 2008), and the Australia-Pacific Technical
College (APTC) funded by the Australian Government through the Department of Foreign
17
Affairs and Trade - Australia Aid (DFAT – Australian Aid; formerly AusAID) which offers
training in tourism, construction, electrical trades and community services to name a few (APTC,
n.d).
There are also an array of plans and strategies compiled by various regional development
agencies in consultation with national governments. The Pacific Youth Strategy 2010 (PYB SPC,
2006) and the Pacific Youth Development Framework (SPC, 2013) have been led by the
Secretariat of the Pacific Community in partnership with Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, PYC,
CYP and UN agencies such as International Labour Organization (ILO), United Nations
Children’s Fund (UNICEF), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and United
Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). There is also the Pacific Youth Agriculture Strategy 2011 –
2015 (PAFPNet and SPC LRD, 2010), and the Pacific Young Women’s Leadership Strategy
2011-2014 (World YWCA, n.d). National Youth Policies have also been developed with the
assistance of regional and international agencies.
A number of reports describing and analyzing youth in the Pacific Islands have been produced to
inform discussions and policy making. Some of these reports are the State of Pacific Youth
Report 2005 and 2011(UNICEF et al, 2005; Curtain and Vakaoti, 2011) and Urban Youth in the
Pacific (Noble et al, 2011).There have also been festivals and conferences that gather young
people together to discuss a variety of issues that concern them. Examples of these are the
Pacific Youth Festival in Suva in 2009, and the Pacific Youth and Sports Conference in
Auckland in 2010 and in New Caledonia in 2013 convened by the Oceania Football
Confederation (OFC).
There are also country initiatives such as positive mental attitude skills training in Fiji, enterprise
training in Vanuatu, leadership training in the Solomon Islands, and the setting up of the national
youth council in Samoa. These initiatives are usually financially supported by a development
agency.
18
2.4 Pacific Youth Council
The PYC is a regional non-governmental organization. It was established in 1996 and initially
housed within the then Pacific Youth Bureau at the SPC in Noumea, New Caledonia. Its goals at
the time were to ‘encourage and strengthen territorial and national youth organizations and
promote a regional identity for Pacific youth’ (Koroivulaono, 2008:1). However, its impact was
limited due to the unavailability of a full time executive secretary, lack of finance and a lack of
communication between executive members, and between the executive and national youth
organizations (PYC, 2006a:7).
In 2008 after extensive lobbying and ground work undertaken by then President Jacque
Koroivulaono, PYC experienced a re-birth. A Memorandum of Understanding was signed
between PYC, SPC and the Pacific Leadership Programme (PLP) establishing ‘a partnership
with the aim of strengthening PYC and its network of member youth councils’ (Brown, 2010:1).
Its initial task was the establishment of the PYC Secretariat including the hire of a full-time
Coordinator (PYC Secretariat, 2008: 1).
In 2014 PYC is the only PICs regional youth organization. Furthermore, it is an umbrella
organization that has gained recognition from young people, national youth-led organizations,
PICs leaders, and regional and international organizations. Its membership includes ten national
youth councils’ (NYC). These NYC are in the following countries: Cook Islands, Federated
States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu,
and Vanuatu. The PYC also supports the establishment of NYC in Samoa, Fiji, and Kiribati
through the provision of training or linkages to development agencies in anticipation of their
future membership (Bradburgh 2012, pers. comm.).
As a means of ensuring effective and accountable organizations, the PYC provides leadership
and basic governance training to its members. The decision to conduct such training was
identified by members at the 2009 General Assembly held in Suva, Fiji; and was included in the
PYC Strategic Plan and Work Plan 2009-2012 (PYC, 2009; see also appendix 6). This decision
was reiterated in the 2012 General Assembly and PYC Strategic Plan 2013-2016 (PYC, 2013;
see also appendix 7).
19
2.5 Conclusion
This chapter has provided a general introduction to the Pacific islands region, in particular its
categorization into Melanesia, Polynesia and Micronesia; and the physical, social, economic, and
political geography. There was also a short explanation of the two prominent organizations in the
region – the Pacific Community and the Pacific Islands Forum – as key technical, policy making,
and decision-making bodies. The second and third parts of the chapter discussed definitions of
youth, and youth development in Pacific Island countries. The final part was a brief on the
Pacific Youth Council, the case study of this research.
In the next chapter, there will be discussion on the theories that underlie this research. There will
be a discussion on social policy, participation in development work, and youth participation. This
will be followed by a critique of participation concentrating on power relations, and a reply to
this critique in terms of citizenship.
20
CHAPTER 3
Theoretical Inspirations
3.0 Introduction
As already stated this thesis is an analysis of the Pacific Youth Council’s (PYC) capacity
building policy. It specifically assesses how and why the PYC developed its capacity building
policy, how it was implemented, and what lessons can be learnt from these processes. The PYC
policy is part of what is broadly termed youth development. The latter is multi-faceted. It
encompasses a variety of elements such as participation, empowerment, citizenship,
entrepreneurial skills, and life skills to name a few. In this study, a key element is what is termed
‘active citizenship’ as espoused in the vision statement of the Pacific Youth Council, that is,
“…[to] empower young people to become active citizens and leaders” (PYC, 2009). The
elements however are intertwined. For example, to accomplish active citizenship, young people
must be empowered through participation in decision-making. This participation refers not only
to the public sphere of governmental bodies but also to the organisations that are youth-driven,
youth-led or youth oriented, and to the communities in which young people exist. It also refers to
the private sphere of families, and an individual’s decision-making about them self.
This research is guided by the concept of holistic social policy, the theory of participation, and
the concepts of power and of citizenship. These concepts and theory provide a critical lens for
discussions on the PYC policy of capacity building national youth councils through the provision
of leadership and administration training. Holistic social policy was selected for this study as it
accounts for the multiple stakeholders, target groups and goals involved in policy making and
implementation. It provides an explanation for how a variety of stakeholders (youth councils,
government, private business) with different goals could work together to implement a policy
such as capacity building to target groups that share some commonalities (youth, youth councils)
but also differences (locations, culture).
The theory of participation is used in this thesis as it is a key element for development, both in
general and in youth development; and it is regarded as a requirement of citizenship.
Participation provides an explanation for why, how and for whom development occurs. In
21
explaining youth participation, the research was guided by Naidoo’s (2001) three levels of
participation, and Mokwena’s (2003) four concepts of youth participation plus five features of
youth participation. These levels, concepts and features situate youth participation in the realm of
citizenship rights rather than simply explaining types of participation that occur or can occur. A
critique of participation is provided through a discussion of the concept of power. While we
might view participation as empowering we must also recognise that there are power relations
occurring in the decision-making over the type of participation taking place, and who is taking
part. These decisions can in fact be disempowering to individuals or groups involved in the
process. Lastly the concept of citizenship is discussed as a new way of looking at participation,
in particular the idea of active citizenship. That is where citizens are not simply users of services
but are shapers of policies and are decision-makers. This idea of active citizenship ties in with
Mokwena’s concepts of youth participation and citizenship.
This chapter will first situate this study in social policy specifically holistic social policy. It will
then track the idea of participation in development work including looking at definitions. This is
followed by a discussion on youth participation. It also looks at a critique of participation
concentrating on power relations, and a reply to this critique in terms of citizenship.
3.1 Social Policy
The purpose of social policy is twofold. In the first instance it looks at interventions or services
that impact on the wellbeing of people. In the second instance it looks at policies that impact
peoples’ livelihoods, looking specifically at how those policy interventions can bring about
change and improvement (Coles, 1995: 2; and Hall and Midgley, 2010: xiv, and 6-8). In this
thesis the second instance is most applicable as it is a study of how an organisation, the PYC, has
tried to bring about change through the provision of a capacity building programme. It looks at
the decision-making process through the value framework of participation, empowerment, and
active citizenship. This is a normative approach that takes its cue from populist ideology but
recognises that the different actors, target groups, and goals involved translate into a more
holistic social policy. The normative approach is used over the other approaches of
representational theory and analytical theory as the latter tend to look more at the types of service
provisions available and the reasons why these exist. This limits the scope of discussion and side
22
lines actual changes that occur as mere secondary consequences of the services provided. The
normative approach on the other hand takes a broader view of social policy as a mechanism for
achieving end goals that can lead to substantive, and sustainable, changes in society.
As stated above, the normative approach takes its cue from populist ideology. In particular the
idea that communities should be involved in programmes and projects that affect them. This
local involvement includes decision-making and service provision. To ensure that the
involvement can take place, people need to be empowered and this takes place through the
process of conscientization. It is important to note that while populist ideology emphasizes ‘the
people’ a definition of ‘the people’ is poorly articulated (Hall and Midgley, 2010: 33). The
assumption then is that ‘the people’ refers to individuals as well as communities. The latter can
be determined by collective living spaces (such as villages), locations (such as a district),
ethnicity, or shared belief systems to name a few. In terms of conscientization, a derivative of the
Portuguese ‘conscientizacao’, it means “...learning to perceive social, political, and economic
contradictions, and take action against the oppressive elements of reality” (Freire, 1996: 17).
That is, people become more aware of the forces that affect their lives whether they are political,
economic or social; or localised, regional, national or global. This awareness can be gathered
through a variety of means such as information sharing, critical discussions, and formal
education. Adversely, populism has also given rise to nationalism and traditionalism. That is, in
the first instance, the exalted belief that a country is made up of one nation of people whose
rights outweigh all others, for example, the Aryan nation of Nazi Germany. In the second
instance, the promotion of a fundamentalist approach to culture and traditions that dictate policy,
which includes the discarding of the idea of a separation of the state and religion, for example,
the use of Sharia laws to determine access to services (Hall and Midgley, 2010: 33-36).
A holistic social policy incorporates populist ideology together with statist and enterprise
ideologies. The latter two referring to the State as a collective body of citizens in social contract
with each other illustrated through the mechanisms of government; and in the enterprise
approach, the individual as the prime member of society with the promotion of survival of the
fittest as its key element. An element transferred to free market economics and individual profits.
23
In terms of the main actors’ involved in social policy, these are the state/ government and the
market respectively (Hall and Midgley, 2010: 28-32).
Ife (1997 cited in Beddoe and Maidment, 2009: 48) identified four major areas that underpin
discussions and decisions of/ on social policy. These areas have to do with ideas about
management, market, professions, and community. These ideas can “...affect the shape and
direction of social policy...” (Ife, 1997 cited in Beddoe and Maidment, 2009: 48). This affect can
be through influencing government and civil service advice (managerial), private sector and
institutions (market), large non-governmental organisations, professions, and universities
(professional), and advocacy groups and grassroots action (community) (Beddoe and Maidment,
2009: 48).
In holistic social policy, the government is recognised as a key social policy maker and regulator,
provider of social services, and provider/ maintainer of rights. Whereas the enterprise approach
encourages service efficiency, and anti-poverty measures such as through income generating
projects (Hall and Midgley, 2010: 36). The actors’ are more extensive in that there is the
government, civil society, private business, professional groups and international development
institutions. Also the target groups are much wider including the individual, household, and
community; while the goals include combating social exclusion, building social cohesion, and
increasing labour competitiveness (Hall and Midgley, 2010: 38).
The PYC policy of capacity building includes the government as a key stakeholder in NYCs
where many were initially set up by the government or are housed within government ministries.
There are also development agencies as funders and implementers of programmes in PYC and in
NYCs; and private business as partners of NYCs in resource provision either monetarily or in
kind. In terms of goals, the capacity building policy combats exclusion of young people from
decision-making processes by providing them with training in leadership, and council
administration. It also seeks to enhance the ability of individuals to access their own potential
and through that the opportunities available in the communities.
24
3.2 Participation in development work
As stated in the Introduction, there are a variety of elements involved in youth development. One
of those elements is participation. The idea of ‘participation’ is a key aspect of development
work in general, and has been used in a variety of ways to add credence to a programme or
policy. Nelson and Wright (1997: 1) argue that the term is ‘imbued with different ideologies or
given particular meanings by people situated differently within any organisation’. It can be used
as political co-option where individuals and groups take part in a political process through
consultation or voting where options are predetermined. In a sense a box ticking exercise. Or it is
used as a rallying call to economic development such as in the post-World War II period where
people took part in rebuilding their countries (Nelson and Wright, 1997: 2). Or it is used as a call
to self-sufficiency, that is, people participate in development by defining their own needs and
working towards those needs, for example, through income generation projects (Nelson and
Wright, 1997: 3).
In the 1970s and 1980s many donor governments’ and development agencies noticed a
prevailing trend of failed development projects. The consensus was that the failure was a result
of people being left out of the development process. This seemed to be backed up by the success
of those projects that had had the active involvement of local people (Rahnema, 1997: 117). In
1990 the Arusha Declaration introduced the idea of popular participation not only as a necessary
component of development but as a fundamental right, and as a transformative force (African
Charter for Popular Participation in Development and Transformation). Rahnema (1997: 123)
however argues that the problem with the idea of popular participation is that it ‘assumed that
people were powerless or had the wrong kind of power’. It did not take account of the already
existing power based on social and cultural norms; and the complexities of that power and the
power relations embedded in it (Cooke and Kothari, 2004: 14).
According to Rahnema (1997: 116) there are four forms of participation. It can be transitive
where it is ‘oriented towards a specific goal or target’ or intransitive where the subject takes part
in the process but does not know to what purpose. Another form is the moral aspect where the
goal of the participation has been ethically defined and therefore is seen to have a positive
connotation, as opposed to an amoral or immoral aspect. A third form is the perception that
25
participation is a free exercise as opposed to a forced one. This does not take account though of
the situations where people take part in projects and programmes that they have no interest in but
for which resources are available. The final form of participation is the manipulated as opposed
to the spontaneous form where people while not feeling forced to participate are led into it
through outside forces such as development agencies that have had a part in determining
programmes.
In 1994 the World Bank defined participation as ‘a process through which stakeholders’
influence and share control over development initiatives, decisions, and resources which affect
them’ (World Bank 1994, cited in Nelson and Wright, 1997:5). There were three levels of
stakeholders’:
primary stakeholders’ who were the poor and marginalised, lacking information and
power and excluded from the development process; borrowing stakeholders’ who were
the governments of borrowing countries; and secondary stakeholders’ who were those
with technical expertise, such as non-governmental organisations, and links to primary
stakeholders. The goal of participation was to reach and engage primary stakeholders’ in
ways that were transformational (World Bank 1994, cited in Nelson and Wright, 1997:
5).
The key point is that participation has multiple meanings depending on the context of its use and
who is using it. Lane (1997: 182-183) suggests that there are four questions to ask about
participation. The first is what type of participation is to take place? This refers to elements such
as decision-making, implementation, benefits and evaluation. The second question is who should
participate? The third is ‘how is participation to be achieved in practice’, and finally ‘what is the
purpose of participation’? The last question has to do with whether participation is a means or an
end. If it is a means than it has to do with accomplishing the aims of the project effectively,
where problems and needs are identified using local knowledge, and the reach of the project is
great. If it is an end than it has to do with the group or community establishing the process of
participation itself thus increasing its members confidence and sense of power (Lane, 1997: 183).
Both participation as a means and participation as an end ‘...imply different power relationships
26
between members of a community as well as between them and the state and agency institutions’
(Nelson and Wright, 1997: 1).
3.2.1 Youth participation
In terms of youth participation, this thesis uses Naidoo’s (2001) three levels of youth
participation (macro, meso, and micro); and Mokwena’s (2003) four concepts and five features
of youth participation as a guide to understanding the PYC capacity building policy. These
levels, concepts and features provide a broader base for understanding youth participation rather
than simply defining ways in which participation can take place. They account for participation
as an exercise in citizenship. That is the right to participate regardless of age or status, and a right
derived from the legal, political, civil, economic and social rights of citizens.
Youth participation is framed within the broader participation discussions explored in the
previous section, but has focused primarily on the types of participation that can occur, and
access to institutions or organisations. To this end youth participation models have been
developed to explain these types of participation and access to institutions. This thesis will
discuss three such models: the Hart model, the Westhorpe model, and the Shire model. This will
be followed by a discussion of Naidoo’s levels, and Mokwena’s concepts and features of youth
participation.
The most referenced youth participation model is Roger Hart’s ladder of participation (AYAC,
2010: 11). There are eight rungs on the ladder with ‘...each rung representing increasing degrees
of participation and different forms of cooperation with adults’ (NSW Commission for Children
and Young People, 2012: 2.2). The first, second and third rungs are what Hart termed the non-
participation rungs. The first rung, manipulation, refers to where young people are used/
manipulated by adults to put forward their ideas. The second rung, decoration, refers to the use
of young people to express the ideas of adults. The third rung, tokenism, refers to when young
people are invited to participate by being present but not necessarily contributing to decision-
making or if they do then in a minimal way. It is effectively a means of indicating youth
participation by number, that is, the number of young people present rather than content (CYP,
2007b:105). Rungs four to eight represent participation.
27
Figure 1: Hart’s Ladder of Participation
Source: Hart 1992, cited in NSW Commission for Children and Young People, 2012: 2.2; and
1997, cited in CYP, 2007b: 105
The major limitation of the Hart model is that it looks at the types of participation that occurs for
children and young people, and suggests project-based participation, rather than the reasons why
participation should occur and ways to have effective participation.
The Westhorpe model (1987, cited in NSW Commission for Children and Young People, 2012:
2.4) provides a variation in that they look at participation as a continuum that leads from ad hoc
contribution by young people to full control by young people over decision-making on all
aspects of an organisation. This continuum defines the types of participation that takes place and
explains what it should entail. Like the other models it is assumed that participation should take
place, and the necessary environment and skills are available for it to take place.
8 Youth-initiated participation and shared decision-making with adults
7 Participation is youth-initiated and directed
6 Young people's participation is adult-initiated and decision-making is shared
5 Young people being consulted and informed
4 Young people being assigned to participate and informed
3 Tokensim
2 Decoration
1 Manipulation
28
Figure 2: Westhorpe’s Continuum of Participation
Source: Westhorpe, 1987 cited in NSW Commission for Children and Young People, 2012: 2.4
The Shier model (2001 cited in NSW Commission for Children and Young People, 2012: 2.5)
takes a different approach in that it looks at five levels of participation and the pathways to each
level. These pathways are determined by three stages of commitment: a willingness to participate
(openings), support for participation (opportunities) and the policies that enable participation
(obligations).
The limitation of this model is that it looks at participation from an institutional stand point
rather than that of a young person. It provides a series of questions that can be asked to check
whether participation can occur in an institutional setting. It does not ask whether a young person
wants to participate or knows how to participate. Furthermore, the use of the term ‘children’ does
not capture the range of young people that can be involved in participation, and in fact can
exclude youth from the process.
1
Ad hoc input
An environment is established
which supports young people to contribute their
ideas or information about their
needs
2 Structured
Consultation
A deliberate strategy is
developed to seek young
people's opionions
about what they need or
what problems they face. It is a two way flow of information
and ideas
3 Influence
Involves some formal,
structured input in order to
ensure at least a minimal level of influence on
the organisation.
4 Delegation
Young people
are provided with real
responsibility
for undertaking particular
tasks within an
organisation.
5 Negotiation
Young people and the
organisation
each contribute
their ideas,
information and
perspectives. Decisions are
reached by
consensus and
compromise
6 Control
Young people
make all or many of the
crucial
decisions within
the organisation,
from policy and
programming
to financial
management
and hiring and
firing of staff.
29
Figure 3: Shier’s Pathways to Participation
Source: Shier 2001, cited in NSW Commission for Children and Young People, 2012: 2.5
Naidoo (2001: 106-109) on the other hand argues that participation is about young people being
treated as fully-fledged citizens. He states that there are three levels of youth participation - the
macro, the meso and the micro. At the macro level ‘Young people want to address the
fundamentals of governance, at the national and global levels’. At the meso level ‘Young people
want to engage with ongoing policy processes, and to influence outcomes to ensure that positive
social and economic change continues’. While at the micro level ‘Young people want to do real
things for real people through a range of innovative programmatic interventions.’ This study is
placed at all three levels of youth participation. It is at the macro level of policy decision-making
30
in the Pacific Youth Council as a regional organisation that also acts as a conduit to global
participation through information dissemination and partnerships with international agencies. It
is also at the meso level of informing policy making, and at the micro level of implementation
though the provision of leadership training to national youth councils.
A standard definition of youth participation is difficult given the many contexts in which it can
take place – in levels as above, in different countries, in local regions, in different organisations
and so forth. Mokwena (2003) argues that in the rush to jump on the bandwagon of youth
participation, the development of a theoretical base has taken a back seat. Therefore the
measurement for participation tends to be ad hoc, relevant to the project being undertaken. He
suggests that there are four key concepts to youth participation - power, the right to participate,
citizenship, and governance.
The first concept of power refers to the vertical or up-down power relations that tend to mark
youth-adult relationships. Thus participation would be “…an equalization of power relations and
the creation of more horizontal relationships between young people and adults in institutional
and non-institutional settings” (Mokwena, 2003: 90).
The second concept of the right to participate refers to the right of any young person to ‘have a
say’ in matters that affect them. It refers to legal frameworks and policies that provide for this
right. In many countries, this right is provided through the youth policy particularly through its
commitments to mainstreaming youth into the development process, and through structures such
as a national youth council (Mokwena, 2003: 91).
The third concept of citizenship refers to legal, civil, political, economic and social rights that
every person of a country is entitled too. In terms of youth, this refers to young people as citizens
now rather than in the future. It is the exercise of the rights listed above in their lives now
(Mokwena, 2003: 92). The fourth concept of governance is related to citizenship in that it is
‘…based on the notion that young people…have fundamental political rights to determine how
power [and resources] is allocated and exercised’ (Mokwena, 2003: 93).
31
From the four core concepts of youth participation Mokwena (2003: 97-98) argues that the
following features of youth participation can be derived. Firstly, youth participation is a
progressive way of looking at the role of young people in society. They are seen as stakeholders,
meaning they have an interest in what happens in society in their own right rather than as
subsidiaries to families and communities. The recognition of this ‘stake’ translates into further
participation.1 Secondly, that youth participation is inseparable from youth development. That is,
youth development depends on the capacity and willingness of young people to participate at the
micro, meso and macro levels of society. At the same time, as in the case with youth as
stakeholders, ‘Participation is an outcome of the youth development process’ (Mokwena, 2001:
22). Thirdly, that youth participation is a pre-condition for effectively working with young
people. Fourthly, that youth participation is a marker of a society’s development. Finally, youth
participation is about social transformation, that is, the creation of sustainable and equitable
societies.
For the most part youth participation is seen in the light of access to adult institutions and
activities. This implies that young people themselves are not participating independently, and are
in fact passively waiting for access. In reality this is not the case. There are many examples of
youth-led activities such as in faith-based groups, issue-based youth groups and community
youth groups. These activities tend to be at the micro-level and generally do not attract much
media coverage, or academic research for that matter. These activities often require and provide
critical youth leadership skills such as organizing, advocacy, fundraising, and communication
(Mokwena, 2001: 23 and 2003: 99). In the latter regard the access to and use of social media by
young people has proven an effective tool in disseminating information and encouraging
discussion on a variety of issues. The challenge then is to nurture, invest in and develop that
leadership (Naidoo, 2001: 112). This study is looking at how the PYC has taken up that
challenge through its capacity building policy of providing leadership training to national youth
councils.
1 See also Christian, C. 2003. Youth work education and training: from training to professional education. In Commonwealth Youth and Development, Volume 1, No.2, 2003, pp. 69-86 on stakeholder model for youth work and participation.
32
3.3 Power relations – a critique of participation
Questions of power have been at the heart of criticisms of participation whether general or
youth-specific. In practice, participation has generally taken the form of a technical project rather
than a transforming process that empowers people and communities, the main concern being the
implementation and completion of the project. This practice has led some critics to refer to
participation as cosmetic in nature, where the presence of local people in planning processes
lends credibility and legitimacy to pre-determined decisions – ‘a means of top-down planning to
be imposed from the bottom-up’ (Hildyard et al, 2004:59-60). Furthermore, where different
community stakeholders have been brought together to reach a consensus on what activities
should be undertaken and in what form, the dynamics and exercise of power within the grouping
is not fully explored. That is, where one group of stakeholders may have a voice within the
meeting setting, this may not be the case outside of that setting where their opinion may not be
listened too or even sought. In a sense letting the meeting convenors think that empowerment has
happened because it provides an avenue for resources (Hildyard et al, 2004:69). In terms of
young people, the provision of a space in discussions is generally a ‘one-off and at a superficial
level, that is, where young people’s voice is heard but their contributions do not affect core
decisions’ (Restless Development et.al, n. d: 8).
Kothari (2004: 139-140) argues that the use of dichotomies, which is prevalent within the
participation discourse, such as professional knowledge versus local knowledge or powerful
versus powerless, acts as an overall guide to development work. That is, the underlying aim of
the work is to reverse the situation to a positive outcome, what Rahnema (1997: 116) referred to
as the moral form of participation. The question though is who decides who belongs to which
side of the dichotomy? Also the act of making that decision is an exercise of power in itself and
thus assumes the position of powerful as opposed to the powerless.
Participation’s focus on empowering the powerless is a demonstration of the centre versus
periphery dichotomy. It assumes that power is based at a macro or central level in government/
institutional centres where experts reside and therefore the powerless are at the micro, local
levels. This has prompted the continued call to recognise and use local knowledge of local
people (Kothari, 2004:140). However, using Foucault’s analysis of power being everywhere and
33
exercised by everyone, Kothari (2004: 141-143) argues that the focus on empowering the so-
called powerless does not account for the everyday power that does exist in individuals lives
which may not be obviously visible because it is not structured in easily recognisable terms such
as a lack of access to resources. Gaventa (2003, cited in Powercube) states that Foucault
‘...recognised that power is not just negative, coercive or repressive but is also necessary,
productive and a positive force...’ thus if transformation is to occur in people’s lives then
recognition of the latter, positive elements is necessary in order to draw a true picture of peoples’
ability to participate and more importantly their reasons for participating in a programme.
Nelson and Wright (1997: 8) argue that there are three models of power in participation and
empowerment: power to, power over and decentred power. In the first model – power to – an
individual can grow their power by actively working at it through developing their confidence,
and changing their attitudes and behaviours. This in turn will allow those individuals to better
negotiate and influence their relationships, which in itself will encourage others to be more
confident and make changes too. Overall with the increase in individual power there will be an
increase in collective power. This will allow a group to be more assertive about what constitutes
their world and what is needed in it as opposed to a development agency for example telling it
what it needs. This process is empowering on an individual level and on a collective level
(Nelson and Wright, 1997: 8).
The second model of power over involves ‘gaining access to political decision-making often in
public forums’ (Nelson and Wright, 1997:9). Where people have developed/ recognised their
power to make their own decisions they can be stumped by the realisation that control over their
resources may rest in an institution such as a district or provincial council, or a ministry in the
national government. This group then must become equal partners with those in the institutions
so that they can participate in decision-making and have power over their resources. This
however is not an easy process as it entails the giving up of power by one group for another,
more so when that power is entrenched in an institution. Power in this context is coercive as it
involves conflict over who has the right to exercise power, and when centred in an institution the
latter tends to have mechanisms at its disposal to force acquiescence such as the police and the
judiciary (Nelson and Wright, 1997: 9).
34
The third model of power is decentred power. In the vein of Foucault, power is subject-less and
is not possessed or exercised by a person or institution (Ferguson 1990, cited in Nelson and
Wright, 1997: 9-10). It is instead an:
...apparatus consisting of discourse, institutions, actors, and a flow of events. These
interact invisibly with a logic that is only apparent afterwards, to tie in more and more
relations within the ambit of the state as in a tight knotting in the middle of a tangle of
string.
Ferguson (1990, cited in Nelson and Wright, 1997: 10) in his analysis of the development
apparatus in Lesotho, referenced the side effects of a failed large-scale technical rural
development project. These effects were two-fold but both involved the increase of state power.
Firstly, state departments such as the police and military became permanent fixtures in the rural
area concerned as they provided security for the project. Secondly, the presence of these state
departments increased state power but in a subversive way in that it was masked by the technical,
and therefore supposed apolitical, nature of the project. The result being that the rural community
lost power by ‘participating’ in a technical project.
The above scenario raises two questions about participation and empowerment. Firstly, with
development agencies attempting to empower marginalised groups/ local groups, will the
inadvertent and invisible side effect be the further incorporation of these groups into state power
and thus disempowering them further? Secondly, if development workers and their government
counterparts do not reflect on this process and instead simply apply its technical aspects, how can
they claim to empower others (Nelson and Wright, 1997: 11)?
With the above in mind Nelson and Wright (1997: 18) argue that participation requires that
...people are able to use their ‘power to’ to negotiate and transform those who have
institutional ‘power over’....Furthermore development officials need to accept their
35
political embedding in the development process and critique their work in terms of how
transformative it actually is.
In terms of PYC and its capacity building programme, it can be argued that PYC has decentred
power through its discourse of participation and empowerment. However, it has also identified
partners in government and development agencies who have ‘power over’ to work with NYC on
building the capacity of people to exercise ‘power to’. This empowerment in turn will lead to
better negotiations with those who have ‘power over’.
In summarising the critique of participation, Hickey and Mohan (2004:11-13) state that the
arguments are that there is insufficient appreciation of how power works, a fixation on the local/
micro level of work, and an over-emphasis on technical projects. They suggest therefore that
participation should be looked at in a new way – as multi-scaled citizenship. That is, a
citizenship that includes decision-making at community level extending along the spectrum to
exercising legal rights and responsibilities as provided by the state.
3.4 Participation as citizenship
Gaventa (2004: 29) argues that traditionally concepts of citizenship have centred on those legal
rights and responsibilities given to a person by the state. However new conceptualisations refer
more to the practise of citizenship or what is known as active citizenship. This recognises
citizens as “...makers and shapers rather than as users and choosers of interventions or services
designed by others” (Cornwell and Gaventa 2000 cited in Gaventa, 2004: 29). This is also known
as participatory citizenship and links participation in the political, community and social spheres
(Gaventa, 2004:29). It is based on the notion that every person has the right to participate in
every sphere – a citizenship right. Mohan and Hickey (2004:66) describe the same as where
“...people can extend their status and rights as member of particular political communities,
thereby increasing their control over socioeconomic resources”. It is important to remember at
this point that PYC’s vision, as earlier indicated, centres on active citizenship (PYC 2009-2012).
Thus its capacity building policy is providing young people the means to exercise their rights as
citizens. Furthermore, the idea of participatory citizenship captures Mokwena’s (2003: 91-93)
four key concepts of youth participation mentioned earlier, that is, the equalization of power, the
right to participate, citizenship, and governance.
36
Goetz and Gaventa (2001 cited in Gaventa, 2004: 30-31) argue that the mechanisms for
participatory citizenship are on a continuum ranging from strengthening peoples voices to
strengthening the institutional reception to these voices. In order to have the former, first there
must be awareness raising and capacity building of people - this applies to young people too as a
separate cohort of citizen. If people do not know that they have the right to voice their needs,
wants and opinions then they will not exercise that right. Likewise if people do not know how to
effectively voice their needs, wants and opinions they will not participate in decision-making.
Awareness raising and capacity building is followed by advocacy, lobbying, and monitoring of
performance – the exercise of the right to participate as a citizen. At the other end of the
spectrum, institutional strengthening can be done in the form of citizen consultations, for
example holding public meetings in local communities in their vernacular language; and policy
initiatives that set standards of accountability for institutions and responsiveness of officials, for
example the provision of telephone numbers to report abuse of office and a follow up mechanism
to ensure the citizen is kept informed of actions taken to deal with the situation.
The idea of strengthening voice however still requires questions of power relations to be
answered. That is, whose voice is heard, where is it heard, and when is it heard? Gaventa (2004:
34) argues that three continuums of power need to be looked at if we are to determine that
participation has empowered and transformed an individual or community. These are: how
spaces are created; the places and levels of engagement; and the degree of visibility of power
within them. In the first instance, on the creation of spaces, we need to acknowledge that there
are three types of spaces. There are closed spaces where decisions are made by an exclusive
small group. There are also invited spaces where the space is opened up and people are invited to
participate in decision-making or at least to inform the decision-making processes. Finally there
are claimed/ created spaces where people take over a closed space or create a new space to
discuss and decide on issues that concern them, for example, social media has been one avenue
where new spaces have been created by/ for young people, not only in disseminating information
but also as a discussion forum for a range of users in many locations (Gaventa, 2004: 35). Each
of these spaces is in a dynamic relationship:
37
...they are constantly opening and closing through struggles for legitimacy and resistance,
co-optation and transformation. Closed spaces may seek to restore legitimacy by creating
invited spaces; similarly, invited spaces may be created from [claimed spaces]
....Similarly, power gained in one space, through new skills and experiences, can be used
to enter and affect other spaces... [therefore] the transformative potential of spaces for
participation must always be assessed in relation to the other spaces which surround them
(Gaventa, 2004: 35-36).
In the second instance, on places and levels of engagement, these can be at the local, regional,
national or global stage. Like spaces, these places and levels are dynamic and interwoven
whereby local actors can participate on a global stage, likewise global actors can participate on a
local stage (Gaventa, 2004: 36). It is important therefore to understand where engagement takes
place and at what level. In the final instance, on the degree of visibility of power,
acknowledgement of the existence of hidden power is essential to ensuring all can participate.
This hidden power can be in the form of cultural norms, or access to educational resources or
economic resources. This can determine who participates and in what forum or space do they
participate. Thus establishing pre-conditions of participation for example awareness-building of
citizenship rights – the strengthening of peoples’ voices – is important to having transformative
participation (Gaventa, 2004:37).
Each instance of power analysis is linked to the others thus forming a dynamic and complex way
of looking at participation.
The local, national and global agenda affect the opening and closure of invited spaces;
the visibility of power is shaped by who creates the space; in turn, prior participatory
experiences which have helped to overcome forms of invisible and hidden power may
strengthen the possibilities for the success of new institutional designs for participation
(Gaventa, 2004:38).
38
3.5 Conclusion
This chapter has looked at the theoretical inspirations for this research. It first situated the study
in social policy specifically holistic social policy. The latter recognising the multiple actors and
groups involved. It also recognised the goals of combating exclusion, and enhancing potential
and opportunities. This was followed by a discussion of participation in development work. This
provided an overview of definitions and debates on participation, and led into a youth-specific
discussion, the latter looking specifically at levels, concepts and features of youth participation.
Following on from these discussions was a critique of participation looking at power relations.
This involved recognising that we have not fully appreciated how power works, for example, the
use of dichotomies as tool of power where the local community, as opposed to the central/
national community, is viewed as being powerless and in need of help. The critique also
recognised that development work in general and youth-specific tends to be project-based. The
final part of the chapter looked at turning the critique of participation on its head by discussing
citizenship as a new way of looking at participation, thus tying in the idea of active citizenship
stated in the PYC vision statement.
The next chapter discusses the methodology used in this research. There is an overview of the
qualitative approach followed by briefs on the sample, and the ethical considerations of the
research. There is also a discussion of the methods used to gather information, and the means of
analysing the data gathered. This is followed by a discussion on the problems encountered in the
research.
39
Chapter 4
Methodology
4.0 Introduction
It is important to state at the forefront that the researcher has an on-going relationship with the
PYC. The researcher has at different times been a facilitator, advisor, and an observer at various
PYC meetings including those involving policy making, in particular the development of the
PYC strategic plans where the capacity building policy is articulated. The researcher has also
facilitated one capacity building training session. The researcher’s involvement has been on a
voluntary basis, and at no time was she in the paid employment of the PYC. It should be noted
that as the training session referred to above was held outside the researcher’s home base the
researcher’s accommodation and per diems for facilitating the training session was paid for by
UNAIDS, a partner in delivering the training. This declaration of interest is important to the
reliability of the information gathered and analysed in this research. Every effort has been made
to ensure valid and reliable information. This is done through the use of more than one method
for data gathering.
This chapter includes six parts. It first provides an overview of the qualitative approach used,
followed by briefs on the sample, and the ethical considerations of the research. The fourth part
is a discussion of the four methods used to gather information. It provides an explanation of the
method used, the reason for its use, the strengths in using this method, and any disadvantages of
its use. The fifth part is a discussion of the means of analysing the data gathered. This is followed
by a discussion on the problems encountered in the research.
4.1 Approach
This study uses a qualitative research approach as it provides an in-depth understanding of
research issues through looking at the context and perspectives of the participants in the research
(Hennink et. al, 2011: 10-17; and Silverman, 2001: 32). It also allows for an in-depth search of
processes such as how people make decisions, and can unravel informal and unstructured links in
organisations (Burns, 1997: 295; and Hennink et. al., 2011: 10). In terms of fieldwork, a mixed
methods approach is used, or what Hennink et.al (2011) term ‘mixing research methods’, which
40
is the use of a combination of research methods. In this research, the following methods were
used: archival research, semi-structured interviews, case study, open-ended questionnaires, and
participant observation. These methods are discussed in more depth in section 4.4.
This research seeks to reveal, firstly, the processes used by members of the PYC General
Assembly in 2009 to determine the policy direction of the organisation. To do this I will refer to
information gathered from the PYC Secretariat Coordinator, both archival and through
discussions. I will also refer to personal meeting notes as I was present at the Assembly.
Secondly, the research will explore the processes used to put the policy of capacity building into
effect with the PYC membership. In the latter regard, references will be made to responses from
questionnaires, notes from personal observations of a training programme and the evaluation
questionnaire of that training programme. These are important to gain insight into and
understand the policy implementation process. They will also provide insight into the impact of
this process on the individual participants.
4.2 Sample
Information was gathered using purposeful sampling as it provides “…insight and understanding
into the phenomena being studied…” (Burns, 1997: 370). As the research is qualitative thus
seeking depth of information, only a few participants are needed, and are purposefully sought for
the information they possess (Hennink, 2011: 16-17). There were four key informants in this
study. The first key informant is the PYC Secretariat Coordinator as she was directly involved in
the formulation of policy. The Coordinator also holds the repository of PYC documentation
necessary for this study. Two NYC presidents were also key informants - all NYC Presidents’
were sent an emailed questionnaire but only two replied (discussed further in section 4.6). The
NYC presidents provided a general overview of the implementation process as they were
recipients of capacity building training. Finally the researcher was a key informant too as she
was present at the PYC General Assembly 20-24 July 2009 where the policy of capacity building
was developed, the PYC General Assembly 26-30 November 2012 where the policy was
reiterated as a need, the PYC Leaders Forum 1-4 February 2011, the PYC Consultations and
Training with Northern Pacific NYCs 17-18 March 2011, and at the Solomon Islands NYC
capacity building training held from 3-7 December, 2012. The researcher took extensive field
41
notes at these meetings. The research also had fifteen participants answer the Solomon Islands
NYC end of training evaluation questionnaire which provided insight into the content of the
training and participants initial reactions to the training.
4.3 Ethical Considerations
The first step in ensuring ethical conduct of research was the University of the South Pacific
(USP) ‘Screening for human ethics questionnaire’. It is a requirement of USP that this
questionnaire is completed by all researchers based at the University. In terms of research
students, the questionnaire is necessary for approval (or not) of research proposals. The
questionnaire for this research was approved.
There are three core principles involved in the ethical conduct of research; respect of persons,
benefice (the research should benefit a wide section of society), and justice. Implied in these
principles are the ideas that participants should have informed consent, the right to determine
their participation, be protected from harm, anonymity, and confidentiality (Hennink et. al. 2011:
63; and Braun and Clarke, 2013: 61-67). However, in qualitative research the ideas of informed
consent and determination can be blurry especially when covert observations are being made.
Lofland and Lofland (1995) argue that as long as a researcher is sensitive, thoughtful, and
knowledgeable to the context of the research and to the participants involved then decisions such
as conducting covert research is best judged by the researcher them self. They also point out
though the need to be familiar with the ethics required of the research discipline (Lofland and
Lofland, 1995: 35).
Scheyvens et. al. (2003: 140–141) state that there are two ethical models in social science
research: the absolutist traditional model and the flexibility model. In the former model, research
must follow the strict ethics guidelines where a researcher is a neutral observer. Whereas the
latter model recognises that a researcher must be able to make ethical decisions based on the
situations they find themselves in and therefore should consider ethical issues throughout the
research process. “…in the end ethical decisions should be based on reasoned beliefs regarding
the ‘goodness’ or ‘correctness’ of what to do” (Scheyvens et. al., 2003: 141).
42
In terms of this research, oral permission was secured from the Coordinator of the Pacific Youth
Council to conduct this research on the understanding that findings will be made available for the
PYC perusal and possible use in future work. This permission has been illustrated by the
Coordinator’s willingness to provide organizational documentation for the purposes of this
research, and her participation in on-going discussions including semi-structured interviews.
With the Solomon Islands training group, group work and reflection notes were displayed
publically, sometimes with participants attaching their names to the posters. The group was
informed orally that their posters would be collected at the end of the training, as is usual
practice at workshops. As the training participants did not know I was also a researcher, the
information used in this research is restricted to actual training discussions and publically
displayed notes as mentioned above (see discussion below on participant observation method). In
terms of the end of training questionnaire, confidentiality and anonymity is maintained by not
having classification questions such as name, age and gender. Furthermore, I have had a close
working relationship with the PYC for many years, and thus have built-up trust with the
organisation and with individuals associated with it.
4.4 Methods
In this research, five methods of gathering information have been used. These are archival
research, case study, face-to-face interview together with on-going discussions, open-ended
questionnaire, and participant observation. The use of five methods should “…explain more
fully, the richness and complexity of human behaviour by studying it from more than one
standpoint” (Burns, 1997:324-325). This improves the validity of the information and meets the
need for triangulation, which is “…the use of two or more methods of data collection in the study
of some aspect of human behaviour” (Burns, 1997:324).
Firstly, in the archival research, a general literature review on youth development work with a
focus on participation, and youth participation was conducted. This also included discussing the
nature of power relations in participation, and how this can be combated through citizenship. In
terms of research findings a review of PYC organizational documents was done to ascertain how
and why the PYC chose its capacity building policy. There was also a review of PYC
newsletters, ‘The Voice of Pacific Young People’, and two television interviews of the PYC
43
Coordinator in Niue and Palau where she was conducting training. There are potential problems
with archival research in particular questions of reliability and validity based on the age and
quality of the data, the authorship of articles specifically the stance taken by the author, closed
access to institutional documents, and the mismatch between what is analysed and the research
questions (Dane, 1990: 186-187; and May, 2011: 215-217). However, it is up to the reader to
systematically review work with a view to who wrote it and when. Also in terms of closed
information, the PYC Secretariat Coordinator made available any documents required, and also
provided direction to specific documents.
Secondly, the case study is of the PYC as an organisation. It is an intensive study of PYC to
provide in-depth understanding of how it makes decisions and implements policy (Brayman,
2004: 48-50). There are four types of cases: critical case to test a hypothesis, extreme case that is
common to clinical studies, revelatory case where a previously inaccessible phenomenon can be
studied, and an exemplifying case where key social processes can be examined and the case
provides a suitable context for research questions to be answered (Brayman, 2004: 51). The PYC
case study is an exemplifying case as seeks answers to policy decision-making and
implementation processes. A major criticism of the use of a case study is that it offers specific
findings to the case and therefore cannot be generalized to other cases (Brayman, 2004: 52).
However, when using an organisation as a case, lessons learnt can be found about what works
and what does not work, and these lessons shared as practical application in other cases. In this
way a case study can offer “…a vantage point from which to draw broader conclusions…” (May,
2011: 221).
Thirdly, a face-to-face interview to gather new information and on-going informal discussions to
clarify or delve in-depth into information gathered were conducted with the PYC Secretariat
Coordinator, Ms. Tarusila Bradburgh. The key questions were how the PYC capacity building
policy was developed, and why the policy was developed, how NYCs were chosen to receive the
training, and the content and length of the training. This method allowed for flexibility
particularly in terms of time, where the Coordinator was able to provide a time suitable to her
work schedule to answer questions in the face-to-face interview. She was also able to answer
questions via email or in informal face-to-face discussions when I met with her in other
44
capacities. Also, flexibility allowed for probing beyond the answers, including clarifying and
elaboration of answers. The disadvantage of this process was the timing and context of meetings
had to be constantly kept in mind to ensure that it was an appropriate time to have a discussion.
This required a subjective judgment on my part that may have resulted in some missed
opportunities to gather information (Burns, 1997: 484-485; and May, 2011: 134-135).
Fourthly, an open-ended questionnaire (see appendix 2) was used to gather information from the
presidents of NYCs that had received capacity building training. The questions included the
reasons the NYC requested the training, the NYC role in the training preparations including any
problems encountered, what was involved in the training, the reaction of participants to the
training, and the benefits of the training to the NYC. The questionnaire allowed for guided
questioning while at the same time allowing for flexibility (Burns, 1997: 482). This is
particularly important in this study given that the information from the NYC presidents was
gathered via email. Due to the distance between the researcher and the respondents, emails were
the most convenient means available to the researcher. Convenience to the respondent is also an
advantage in that people can take time to answer the questions. Braun and Clarke (2013: 98)
argue that participants are empowered by the process of email interviews “…because they can
reply to questions when they are ready and have time to reflect on and edit their responses…”.
The disadvantage of this however was that it was difficult to get responses, where people either
did not access their emails for long periods or indicated they received the questionnaire and
would reply later but did not do so. Email access has proven to be a problem for some NYC
given the nature of internet services in terms of slow connectivity and/ or high costs. Other
disadvantages are: there is no control over who actually answers the questionnaire, some people
are uncomfortable with technology and/ or reading and writing, some people express themselves
better when speaking, the ability to edit means the answers are more cultivated and could ensure
the respondent is shown in positive light, and the researcher is unaware of the setting/ context in
which the questions are being answered such as whether the respondent is multi-tasking or
concentrating fully on answering the questions (Burns, 1997: 483; Braun and Clarke, 2013:100;
and May, 2011: 103-104).
45
A further questionnaire used was the end of training evaluation form (see appendix 3) from the
Solomon Islands NYC training in 2012 which was made available to me by the PYC
Coordinator. The evaluation form included seven open questions however this study uses
information from only four of those questions as the others refer specifically to HIV/AIDS
information and prevention. This was included as UNAIDS was a both a funding and facilitation
partner in the training. The four questions are:
1. How did you find the training?
2. Identify 3 things from the training that made an impact on you personally.
3. How are you going to use the knowledge and skills from this seminar?
4. Any other comments?
The open question format is advantageous because the respondent is able to answer the questions
in a way that suits their interpretation of what happened in the training. It also allows for greater
explanation by the respondent if they wish to do so (May, 2011:110).
Finally, participant observation was used in relation to the PYC General Assembly from 20-24
July 2009, and from 26-30 November 2012; the PYC Leaders Forum 1-4 February 2011, the
PYC Consultations and Training with Northern Pacific NYCs 17-18 March 2011, and at the
capacity building training provided to the Solomon Islands NYC 3-7 December 2012. I was
present at the five events as a facilitator and an observer. There is a continuum of observation
ranging from the complete observer that is a non-participant role such as in lab experiments, the
observer as participant, the participant as observer, and the full participant. Where you sit on the
continuum is left to your best judgment in light of the context of your study (Glesne and
Peshkin.1992: 40-41; and Gold, 1969 cited in May, 2011: 171-173). Spradley (1980, cited in
Hennik et.al, 2011: 182) also identifies four levels of participation within participant observation:
passive where you do not participate in activities, moderate where some participation is done,
active where you participate in as many activities as you can, and complete participation where
you become completely involved in all activities. This research used participant as observer, and
had moderate levels of participation.
The participant observer generally makes their presence and intentions known. While the PYC
Secretariat Coordinator was aware of my presence as a researcher, the other participants in the
46
General Assemblies, meetings and the Solomon Islands training were only familiar with my role
as facilitator. This covertness was necessary to ensure that meaningful discussions and decisions
could take place in the meetings and training. Participants may have censored their commentary
if aware of my presence as a researcher. Also, rapport had been established over a number of
years through my involvement with the organisation; and the conscious decision to use
observations relating only to the research questions was made. While this is a grey area in terms
of ethics, best judgment of the researcher was exercised to ensure ‘correctness’ of the work
(Lofland and Lofland, 1995; and Schveyvens et. al. 2003).
In the General Assemblies, the Leaders Forum and the Northern Pacific consultations and
training I took general notes on content and of decision-making processes used. With regard to
the Solomon Islands training, there were two guiding questions for the observations: what are the
participants’ reactions to the training, and what benefits did the training bring to the NYC. These
questions were sourced directly from the emailed questionnaire to the presidents’ of NYC. They
provide further information on actual reactions of individual participants and benefits to the
NYC, rather than generalized statements from a President. This information was gathered from
group work undertaken and presented during the training, daily reflections written on posters,
general discussions, and personal observation notes. Other advantages of this method are:
flexibility in that the opportunity to go back and check answers or ask new questions, economy
in terms of money and equipment, ecological validity in that the fieldwork is conducted in a
natural setting thus the results are valid for the real world, and it compliments other methods of
data collection by providing a contextual understanding of the data (Herzog, 1996: 45-46;
Hennink et. al. 2011: 171; and May, 2011: 175).
A disadvantage of this method was that the management of my relationships with the participants
was sometimes tricky as I also conducted some of the training. This role conflict could affect the
information gathered, and also raises ethical issues. This was overcome in part by my rapport
with the participants as I have a long standing working relationship with PYC, my exercise of
‘best judgement’ referred to earlier, and by access to the confidential training evaluation sheets
of the Solomon Islands training group. Other disadvantages are: loss of recall in observation note
taking, time, and emotional involvement and the possible loss of objectivity. Paradoxically, the
47
more a researcher participates the more they are likely to learn (Glesne and Peshkin, 1992: 40;
Herzog, 1996: 45-46; Burns, 1997: 316-317; and May, 2011:171-175).
As stated earlier the use of five methods of gathering information enhances the validity of that
information. The case study of the PYC provides opportunity for an in-depth study of processes.
The search of documents allows connections between the broad literature on participation with
that of the PYC policy. The interviews and questionnaires on the other hand allowed for the
checking of information on the implementation of the policy. Finally the participant observation
provided contextual understanding of the PYC and its processes.
4.5 Data Analysis
This study uses a combination of approaches to analyse the policy making and implementation of
PYC. It first looks at how the agenda for the policy was set using the Hall model of legitimacy,
feasibility, and support (Walt, 2001). While the Hall model is government oriented, I have
adopted it to PYC as it asks important questions on how PYC decided on the capacity building
policy. These questions will be answered using documentation such as the PYC Strategic Plan
and Work Plan 2009-2012, interview notes from discussions with the PYC Coordinator, meeting
notes from the PYC Leadership Forum and the PYC Consultations and Training with Northern
Pacific NYCs in 2011, and the meeting notes from the PYC General Assembly in October 2012.
Note taking was an essential component of the research. This was particularly true for the
meetings, the capacity building training session in the Solomon Islands, the face-to-face
interview, and informal discussions. A systematic approach was used to ensure that necessary
and relevant information was captured. Information must be systematically arranged and
presented to make sense of it and to note issues, themes and concepts (Burns, 1997: 338-339).
The date, venue, title and purpose of each event were noted, followed by a list of participants and
their official designations. This notation was done to ensure that there was no confusion over
which events was referred to, and to ensure that the discussions were being held by people
knowledgeable of the capacity building policy making and/or implementation processes. The
latter was subjectively decided based on the researcher’s insider knowledge. These notes were
filed in a specific research folder to ensure that they were not lost. There was also a specific note
48
book for the collation of information from the Solomon Islands capacity building training
session. This was to ensure that all information gathered during the week of the training was in
one place. There was also an e-copy of these notes in case the note book was misplaced given
that the researcher had to travel to another country for the training session. As to the archival
research, a specific note book for those notes was kept with each reading material properly
referenced in its full bibliographical form at the top of the first page, and a shorter citation at the
top of each subsequent page. Page numbers were also inserted for each notation. This was to
ensure that the proper citation for each entry was available thus preventing extra work trying to
find a lost citation.
Once the information had been collected, classification was necessary to make sense of it and to
mete out any themes and issues. On policy making the following questions were used to guide
the analysis of the material:
1. How was the capacity building policy made?
2. Why was the capacity building policy made?
This was further broken down into Hall’s model of legitimacy, feasibility and support. The Hall
Model, on the question of legitimacy, ‘…refers to those issues which [PYC] feel they should be
concerned, and which they have a right to intervene’ (Walt, 2001: 54). In terms of feasibility, it
refers to PYCs potential to implement the policy through technical knowledge, funding,
availability of skilled personnel, capability of administrative structures and the existence of
necessary infrastructure. Support refers to the NYC support for the PYC policy, in this case the
training (Walt, 2001:55). It also asks how the implementers of the capacity building policy – the
PYC Secretariat and the NYC executive members – informed the policy making process. Walt
(2001: 157) states that ‘…policy formulation and implementation are in a continuous loop’, and
a ‘…bottom-up [approach] views implementers…as active participants in an extremely complex
process that informs policy upwards too’ (Walt, 2001: 155).
Summaries of the information gathered were placed on butcher paper and stuck to a wall for ease
of reading and discovery. Once all summaries were placed on the butcher paper, an analysis of
the materials was undertaken to determine which components fell under each of the Hall model
requirements, in particular legitimacy and feasibility. Questions of support were better answered
49
in the policy implementation component (see below). Stick-it notes placed on the butcher paper
were used to easily identify the Hall components.
In terms of policy implementation, the study carried on from the Hall Model in that it looked at
the support for the policy, and how that affected implementation. The information gathered was
predominantly from the questionnaires sent to the NYC presidents and the end of training
evaluation questionnaire responded to by the Solomon Islands training participants. The
information was categorised according to the questions asked, that is:
1. Why was the training requested?
2. What preparations did the NYC undertake for the training?
3. What problems, if any, did you have in preparing for the capacity building training?
4. What did the training involve?
5. What has been the reaction of your members to the training?
6. What benefits did the training bring to your organization?
7. What are some of the areas that you think the training could have covered more of?
As with the notes, summaries were made of the answers obtained from the questionnaires and
were placed on butcher paper under the appropriate headings. A notation was made of whether it
was an NYC president or a training participant who had provided a particular answer or insight.
Using information gathered from the questionnaires, there is a discussion in the next chapter of
the reasons the NYC requested the training, the NYC role in the training preparations, any
problems that were encountered, what the training involved, and general observations of the
training received in particular the reactions of participants, and the benefits to the organisation.
Furthermore, there is a discussion of actual reactions of participants and benefits in relation to
the training provided to the Solomon Islands NYC. Information gathered from observations
during the training were separated into two categories - reactions and benefits, and used in
findings discussions.
The study also used the capacity building framework developed by Kenny (2011: 198), and
referred to in section 1.0 of this thesis as key elements of capacity building. The purpose of using
this framework was to provide a further way of analysing information gathered. The framework
50
involves capturing the key elements under three forms of capital. These are physical capital or
infrastructure, human and cultural capital or skills and knowledge, and social capital or networks.
Table 1: Capacity Building Framework
Infrastructure
(physical capital)
Skills and Knowledge
(human and cultural capital)
Networks
(social capital)
Material resources: for
example; buildings, furniture,
computers, printers, paper
Examples are: knowledge,
democratic processes, open
information, internet,
confidence
Examples are: bridging and
bonding, solidarity and linkages
Non-material resources: for
example; money, credit,
policies, practices, active public
sphere
Examples are the capacity to
define own needs, prioritise
goals, identify facilitating and
hindering factors, implement
actions, problem solve,
advocate, communicate (with
reports and submissions), run
meetings, do public speaking
Examples are: reciprocity, trust,
mutuality, tolerance of diversity
Source: Kenny, 2011:198
The framework will be used as a means of summarising the effectiveness of the capacity
building policy of the Pacific Youth Council. It will provide examples of the key elements of
capacity building under each heading of infrastructure, skills and knowledge, and networks.
4.6 Problems encountered in the research
The major problem encountered in the research was the lack of response from NYC Presidents’
to the emailed questionnaire. Of the ten Presidents’ only two replied. As stated earlier,
Presidents’ either did not indicate they had received the emailed questionnaire, or even the
follow up emails, or they indicated they would reply later but did not do so. This problem was
overcome by having informal discussions with Presidents’ during the PYC General Assembly in
December 2012, and by reviewing the notes of discussions during the Assembly specifically on
the capacity building programme, and the work reports of the NYCs. This was further
51
consolidated by the Assembly agreeing unanimously to continue with the capacity building
policy when setting out their new Strategic Plan 2013-2016 (Field notes from PYC 5th General
Assembly, Suva, 26-30 Nov. 2012). The PYC website (pacificyouthcouncil.com) was also
utilized as it holds a record of attendance at the training programmes. Furthermore, discussions
were held with the PYC Coordinator on the requirements that NYC need to meet in order to
receive training. An opportunity to observe an actual training programme also presented itself in
December 2012 which provided insights into the conduct of and value of the training.
4.7 Conclusion
This chapter has tracked the methodology used in the research to gather information, and how it
has been analysed. It first established that the research uses a qualitative approach as it allows an
in-depth look at the PYC policy decision-making and implementation processes. It then provided
briefs on sampling specifically the PYC coordinator, NYC Presidents’ and representatives, and
the researcher as key informants; and on ethical considerations to be taken into account in the
research. A discussion of methods followed, a key component being that the use of five methods
meet triangulation requirements and thus add validity to the data gathered. Then a discussion on
data analysis specifically the Hall model of legitimacy, feasibility, and support to uncover the
policy decision-making processes; and the use of archival research, questionnaires, informal
discussions, and observation notes to uncover the policy implementation processes involved in
the PYC capacity building policy. There was also reference to the capacity building framework
as a means of summarising the effectiveness of the PYC capacity building policy. The final part
of the chapter discussed the major problem encountered in the research namely the lack of
response to the emailed questionnaire by NYC Presidents’, and the ways in which this problem
was overcome.
The next chapter will provide a brief explanation of the structures of NYCs, and how this reflects
on who participates in a training programme. It will also outline where and when the PYC
training occurred, and how many people were direct recipients of that training. This is followed
by a discussion of the decision-making processes involved in creating the PYC capacity building
policy, and a discussion on the implementation processes.
52
Chapter 5
Revealing Processes: A Discussion of the Research Findings
5.0 Introduction
Young people are creative and passionate but real training and skill-building is necessary for
sustainable youth participation, youth development and youth organisations (Ravindran and
Duggan, 2001: 89). In many instances the training provided to youth groups and to young people
revolves around an issue, and has to do with how they may advocate on that issue. Thus skills in
organizing and fundraising, for example, are in relation to ensuing that an awareness workshop is
conducted. The training therefore is in project proposal writing and funding acquittals. It is
difficult to find examples of training for strengthening the structure and processes of a youth
organisation which is why understanding the PYC capacity building programme is important.
The PYC training is geared towards a basic institutional strengthening through leadership and
council administration training to NYC participants. It involves high-brow components such as
having a constitution to ‘low-brow’ components such as meeting agenda setting and minute
taking.
This study looks firstly at the policy making processes of PYC; and secondly, its policy
implementation processes. The aim of the study is to understand the policy development and
policy implementation process of a regional youth organisation - the PYC. This is important as it
will provide an example to both regional and national organisations to adapt, and to grow
themselves.
Both governments and non-government organisations in Pacific Island countries are increasingly
recognizing national youth councils as “…helpful points of contact [with their member
organisations]…and a two-way channel of information sharing and resource mobilization”
(Shah, 2003: 112). The ‘Urban Youth in the Pacific Report’ (Noble et.al 2011, 20) recognises the
work that national youth councils do in fostering youth participation but also recognises that
“Special efforts need to be made to strengthen [their] capacity to operate effectively”. The PYC
policy on capacity building is about participation. It is about providing the basic leadership skills
53
to individuals as members of an organisation to strengthen that organisation, and in turn improve
and increase not only their own but others participation as well. Mokwena (2001: 20) states:
The role of policy is to deepen the expectation that young people have the right to acquire
the skills and resources they need to participate. Policy should also expand the political
space for young people to acquire control and share in the exercise of power.
The purpose of this study is to reveal the policy making and policy implementation processes of
the PYC. It seeks to improve understanding of these processes as used by a regional youth
organisation, thus informing the policy processes of other regional and national organisations. In
order to reveal these processes, the Hall Model (Walt, 2001: 54-55) of policy agenda setting will
be used to ask questions about the legitimacy, feasibility, and support for the PYC policy of
capacity building towards strengthening NYCs. On the processes in implementing the policy, the
support part of the Hall Model is used to look at how it affected implementation. There is also
discussion of the preparations undertaken for the training programme, its content, immediate
reactions from participants, and the benefits of the training to the NYC.
This chapter is divided into four parts. In the first part, there is a brief explanation of the
structures of NYCs, and how this reflects on who participates in a training programme. There is
also an outline of where and when the PYC training occurred, and how many people were direct
recipients of that training. The second part is a discussion of the decision-making processes
involved in creating the PYC capacity building policy. This discussion is guided by the Hall
Model thus divided into four sub-parts on legitimacy, feasibility, support, and concluding
remarks. The latter connects discussions to the literature review. The third part is a discussion of
the implementation processes involved in the policy. This is also divided into sub-parts that
include: the reasons for the training, the NYC preparations involved and any problems arising
from this requirement, the content of the training, reactions to the training, the benefits of the
training, and finally concluding remarks. The final part is an analysis of the capacity building
policy using Kenny’s (2011: 198) capacity building framework. It uses three elements –
infrastructure, skills and knowledge, and networks – to illustrate the ways in which the training
54
programmes have impacted the PYC membership. There is also a discussion of the limitations of
the PYC capacity building policy as discovered through the research.
5.1 The National Youth Council – participants and participation
An NYC is an umbrella youth organisation in their country. Their membership consists of a
variety of groups ranging from state youth councils, provincial youth councils, municipal youth
councils, faith-based youth groups, island associations, village youth groups/ associations,
school/college associations, and youth –centred organisations (Brown, 2010:1). Where there are
island associations, such as in Tuvalu, a representative of each island, usually the President, will
attend NYC meetings. From this representative group, an executive board for the NYC is
elected. In countries with provincial councils, such as the Solomon Islands, there are different
levels of representation. There is the village or community association who elect members to a
ward youth council who in turn elect members to the provincial youth council. The Presidents of
each provincial youth council make up the NYC. In the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM),
the NYC consists of representatives from each of the four States - Phonpei, Chuuk, Yap, and
Kosrae. Each State has its own youth council whose membership includes youth groups and
youth oriented associations (Field notes from the Solomon Islands Youth Council capacity
building workshop, Honiara, 3-7 Dec. 2012; and PYC Consultations and Training with Northern
Pacific NYCs, Hagatna, 17-18 March 2011).
In terms of the PYC leadership and basic governance training programme, participants are drawn
from the NYC executive boards, and the NYC membership. In Tuvalu, for example, the NYC
member organisations and groups were consulted and invited to nominate participants (Matio
2012, pers. comm.). In Chuuk, the youth council worked with the State youth department to
enlist participants (Kim 2012, pers. comm.), whereas in the Solomon Islands the presidents of the
provincial youth councils were the participants as part of skill building for their roles (Field notes
from the Solomon Islands Youth Council capacity building workshop, Honiara, 3-7 Dec. 2012).
While on Nauru each of the country’s fourteen communities was represented at the training
(PYC Secretariat, 2010b: 8). The key element is that participants receive training that impacts
not just the NYC but also the groups/ associations/ organisations that they belong to. Thus the
capacity building training is what Naidoo (2001: 106-109) referred to as the micro level of
55
implementation for the participants themselves and at the meso level where the training can
influence the groups to which they belong that can in turn influence change. It is also an act of
participatory citizenship where young peoples’ voices are being strengthened individually and
collectively (Goetz and Gaventa 2001 cited in Gaventa, 2004: 30-31).
The PYC has conducted training in nine member countries with a total participant roll of 299
people. The training usually ran for five days with the exception of Tuvalu and Nauru where the
programme ran for two weeks. The latter NYCs were recipients of extended training because
they were part of an NYC-focused pilot project of the PLP (Bradburgh 2013, pers. comm.).
Table 2 indicates the NYC that received training, the dates the training was conducted, and the
number of participants per country.
Table 2: NYC Training by country, date and number of participants
Country Dates Number of
Participants
Tuvalu 27 May – 10 June 2010 33
Nauru 19 July – 2 August 2010 28
Palau 6-10 June 2011 24
FSM
- Yap
- Chuuk
- Phonpei
- Kosrae
13-17 June 2011
20-24 June 2011
11-15 July 2011
19-23 July 2011
30
36
31
27
Marshall Islands 26-29 July 2011 22
Niue 20-22 March 2012 20
Cook Islands 27-29 March 2012 9
Vanuatu 27-31 August 2012 24
Solomon Islands 3-7 December 2012 15
Sources: NYC n.d.; PYC Secretariat, 2010a: 8 and 2010b: 8; and Kalo, 2012: 10.
Note that in FSM the training was conducted in each of the states. In 2011 PYC in consultation
with the FSM NYC and the state youth councils decided that the most effective method of
56
providing training in the country would be through the latter councils (Field notes from PYC
Consultations and Training with Northern Pacific NYCs, Hagatna, 17-18 March 2011). Also
note that one member NYC, Tonga National Youth Congress, is not included in the list. Tonga
National Youth Congress is a well-established non-governmental organisation and is in fact the
largest in Tonga. Thus its training programme is based on other issues identified by itself and
PYC. For example, in May 2013 PYC held a two day media and communications workshop with
the Tonga National Youth Congress (Field notes from PYC 5th General Assembly, Suva, 26-30
Nov. 2012; and PYC Secretariat, 2013:16).
5.2 Deciding on the Policy Agenda
The Hall Model of policy agenda setting suggests that when the three elements of legitimacy,
feasibility, and support are met then the issue in question will be a policy agenda (Walt, 2001:
54). The research questions of how and why the PYC developed its capacity building policy will
be answered using the three elements of the Hall Model.
5.2.1 Legitimacy
In terms of legitimacy, the Hall Model ‘…refers to those issues which [PYC] feel they should be
concerned, and which they have a right to intervene’ (Walt, 2001: 54). In terms of the PYC
policy on leadership and administrative capacity building of NYCs, legitimacy was established
firstly through the PYC Constitution where Chapter 3, Article 2(b) and (d) states that the PYC
will:
Encourage and strengthen Territorial and National Youth Organisations in the Pacific by:
(b) Co-operating to develop existing Territorial and National Youth organisations, and (d)
Promoting and encouraging training programmes for voluntary staff of Territorial and
National youth organisations.
(PYC 1996: 2)
Even though this was a constitutional objective, by 2006 at the PYC 3rd General Assembly in
Tahiti it was readily recognised that many NYC were either defunct or ineffective to the point of
not having a recognisable presence in their home country (Field notes from PYC Leaders Forum,
Suva, 1-4 Feb. 2011). Furthermore, the PYC at this time was undergoing a massive restructure to
57
increase its own presence in the Pacific Islands region. Thus in Tahiti a work plan outlining key
initiatives for the next three-year cycle of the PYC Board was approved (PYC 2006b: 1). Taking
its cue from the PYC Constitution the second objective of the work plan was to ‘encourage and
strengthen Territorial and National Youth Organisations in the Pacific’ through conducting
leadership development training programmes (PYC 2006b: 3).
However, it was not until 2009 that a concentrated effort towards building the NYC members of
the PYC was undertaken. This was a result of a Memorandum of Understanding signed between
PYC, SPC and PLP that established ‘a partnership with the aim of strengthening PYC and its
network of member youth councils’ (Brown, 2010:1) including the set-up of the PYC Secretariat
and the hire of a full-time Coordinator (PYC Secretariat, 2008: 1). This partnership and staffing
of PYC allowed for the planning, logistics, and implementation support needed to fulfil
objectives.
In the PYC 4th General Assembly in 2009 in Suva, the theme was ‘Strengthening NYCs to
advance youth development in the Pacific’ with the intent of critically examining the status of
NYCs (PYC Nov. 2012, 1). On day one, the members reported on and discussed areas of
concern, challenges, and strengths of their NYC. The capacity of NYCs to be effective
organisations was a key area and a challenge discussed by the members (Field notes from PYC
4th General Assembly, Suva, 20-24 July 2009). On day two, the members underwent a board
training where their roles, responsibilities, functions, representation, and resources were
discussed in-depth. This set the platform for the call for a more effective policy on training of
NYCs which was reflected in day three strategic planning and work planning (Field notes from
PYC 4th General Assembly, Suva, 20-24 July 2009; and Bradburgh 2013, pers. comm.).
In the PYC Strategic and Work Plan 2009-2012, the members of PYC endorsed the inclusion of
three focus areas: capacity building, networking and advocacy. Under the first focus area, three
of the four goals had to do with leadership: strengthen NYCs, support active and potential young
leaders, and promote active citizenship amongst young people (PYC 2009: 2). Some of the key
activities planned in order to fulfil these goals were conducting a NYC needs analysis, board
58
training, transformational leadership training, and documentation/ record keeping training (PYC
2009:5).
The PYC Constitution, discussions at the 3rd and 4th General Assemblies, and the strategic plans
for the periods 2006-2009 and 2009-2012 indicate the legitimacy of PYC developing a capacity
building policy aimed at strengthening NYCs and the quality of leadership of its executive
boards. The fact that this is included in the Constitution of the organisation indicates the
fundamental value of the training to the success of PYC. This is further indicated by the
continued reference to this need in subsequent documents. In the most recent PYC Strategic Plan
2013-2016 endorsed in the PYC 5th General Assembly in 2012 in Suva capacity building
continues to be a focus area, and strengthening the capacity of PYC members and young people
is an objective. The latter provided through various training streams including leadership,
administration, constitutions and strategic planning, and new areas of lobbying and negotiation
skills (PYC 2013: 9-10).
5.2.2 Feasibility
The feasibility component of the Hall Model refers to PYCs potential to implement their capacity
building policy. It refers to funding, technical knowledge and availability of skilled personnel,
capability of administrative structures and the existence of necessary infrastructure (Walt, 2001:
55). In the first instance, on funding; under the Memorandum of Understanding between PYC,
SPC and PLP, the latter is the major funding partner of PYC. As part of this commitment, PLP
recognises the challenges of NYCs such as institutional capacity in terms of funding, financial
procedures, and human resources procedures, and wants to build leadership qualities in the
NYCs. It also recognises the importance of the NYCs owning the training process thus is a
partner that supports NYCs through PYC (Field notes from PYC Leaders Forum, Suva, 1-4 Feb.
2011). Funding is available via tranche to PYC for transportation, accommodation and per diem
of the trainer, and training logistics such as venue, materials, and resources (Bradburgh 2013,
pers. comm.). In Tuvalu and Nauru, the United States of America Embassy Pacific Islands Fund
for Small Development Grants also contributed funds to the training programmes (PYC
Secretariat, 2010a: 8 and 2010b: 8).
59
In terms of technical knowledge and availability of skilled personnel, the PYC Secretariat
coordinator as one of the trainers is highly qualified with over fourteen years of experience
working in training and development particularly with young people. She also conducts training
programmes with a variety of partners that offer their expertise and skill. In Tuvalu, the Regional
Governance Director of the Foundation for the People of the South Pacific International (FSPI)
and the Project Officer of the Commonwealth Local Government Forum (CLGF) were also
facilitators. Whereas in Nauru, instead of CLGF, the UNAIDS Programme Officer was a
facilitator (PYC Secretariat, 2010a: 8 and 2010b: 8). In the later training programmes, the co-
facilitators have been the PYC Secretariat Coordinator and the UNAIDS Programme Officer, the
latter as a trainer on transformational leadership.
In terms of administrative structures and infrastructure, the NYC that requests training is
required to provide the logistical support needed for the training programme. That is, they
organise participants, venue, refreshments and training resources. They usually work with the
local departments of youth that can provide some of the requirements in particular projectors,
white boards and stationery. This logistical support is an essential component of the training
programme as it provides practical experience in negotiations and activity presentations
(Bradburgh 2013, pers. comm.). Furthermore, the PYC Secretariat acts as an accountability
mechanism for the NYC work. It also acts as a source of funding and networking. For example,
in the case of the Tuvalu training, PYC connected the NYC with PLP who separately funded the
position of Tuvalu NYC coordinator following the training sessions (Matio 2012, pers. comm.).
The PYC has also connected NYCs with development agencies that offer a variety of activities
such as conferences, workshops, and in-country project-based work. Thus there is recognition of
the administrative structures and infrastructures by these organisations too.
5.2.3 Support
Using the Hall Model, support refers to the NYC support as a constituent of PYC for the PYC
policy, in this case the training (Walt, 2001:55). It also asks how the implementers of the
capacity building policy – the PYC Secretariat and the NYC executive members – informed the
policy making process. Support for the training is seen through the continued endorsement of the
60
capacity building policy in the PYC Constitution (1996) including its revisions in 2000 and
2006. It is also seen in the strategic plans spanning from 2006 to 2016 (PYC 2006b; PYC 2013).
Support is further seen in the needs analysis that PYC conducted with NYC where the latter
identified a number of gaps in making them and the PYC effective youth bodies. These gaps
were: lack of leadership, resources, questions over mandates and representation, and lack of
awareness of the roles and functions of the NYC and its executive board (Bradburgh 2013, pers.
comm.). The major challenge was that the NYC existed without having a proper understanding
of why they exist, and what was their vision and purpose (Broadcast Corporation of Niue, 2012).
The needs analysis was done via emailed questionnaire except in Nauru and Tuvalu. In October
2009 the PYC Secretariat Coordinator visited Nauru and conducted a training needs analysis of
the NYC. It was also an opportunity to strengthen networking with PYC partners on Nauru (PYC
Secretariat, 2009a: 6). In the following month, a one day consultation between PYC and Tuvalu
NYC was conducted to determine their training needs. This set the platform for planning the
capacity building training the following year (PYC Secretariat, 2009: 8).
A further sign of support was the requirement that NYCs had to indicate their readiness for
training by sending a request to PYC (Field notes from PYC 5th General Assembly, Suva, 26-30
Nov. 2012). The NYCs were informed of the training and invited to request the programme as an
indicator that they were ready to build their council (Bradburgh 2013, pers. comm.). As a result
nine of the ten members of PYC have received leadership and administration training.
5.2.4 Concluding remarks on policy decision-making
The research questions of how and why the PYC developed their capacity building policy have
been answered using the Hall Model of legitimacy, feasibility, and support. The discussion also
demonstrates youth participation and development. While it can be argued that participation is
limited to leaders as executive members of their NYC who are present at the PYC General
Assembly, the nature of the decisions made, specifically providing training to NYCs, and
requiring that the NYC indicate readiness and conduct all logistics for training includes a wider
group of youth in the process. The decision-making allows broader youth participation through
61
who participates in the training as discussed in part 5.1. Mokwena’s (2003: 98) argument that
the willingness and capacity of young people to participate at all levels of society is a marker of
youth development can be seen in the willingness of NYC members to recognise the need for
and undergo training. Also, Naidoo’s (2001: 106-109) macro level of youth engagement can be
seen in the policy making process where NYC as members decide and make policy at the
regional level through PYC.
In terms of citizenship, as stated earlier in the chapter, the capacity building is an act of
participatory citizenship where young peoples’ voices are being strengthened individually and
collectively (Goetz and Gaventa 2001 cited in Gaventa, 2004: 30-31). This process is both
transformative and empowering as it not only builds skills but creates opportunities for mobility
between spaces of decision-making, and levels of engagement (Gaventa, 2004: 34-38). That is,
while the PYC executive board together with its member representatives at the General
Assemblies existed in a closed space, an invited space was also opened through the NYC
consultations with their local members on whether the training was needed, and a space created
for those that were not familiar with the NYC. In terms of levels of engagement, three levels
exist in the regional, national and local discussions and decision-making on the capacity building
policy. On the degree of visibility of power, this is difficult to ascertain given that hidden power
is at play. Questions such as who is elected to executive boards, and how are representatives of
youth groups chosen, need to be answered but are outside the ambit of this study. However, it is
important to remember that there are issues of representation based on class, gender, educational
attainment, cultural status, sexuality, and disability. That is, on class and educational attainment,
is there a situation where those who are more economically stable and have greater access to
education are the representatives, and if so, are the needs of the more marginalised members of
youth groups who may have other concerns such as access to formal, informal and non-formal
education being met? Further on educational attainment, is there deferment to more educated
representatives as they are regarded as being better able to articulate group needs, irrespective of
whether that is actually the case? Another major question is the gender equity displayed in the
representation. For example, the Solomon Islands National Youth Council comprises the
presidents of each provincial council who are all male. Gender inequity raises questions about
the representation of views and needs of young women, and the conduct of programmes and
62
projects. That is, what role do young women play in these programmes and projects – are they
full participants or do they revert to the gendered role of organising refreshments and taking
notes? On cultural status, in some instances representation may have to negotiate between being
democratically elected and having ascribed traditional status. For example, Our Yap which is the
Yap State youth council comprises members of Yap proper rather than the outer islands, which
follows traditional considerations of power and marginalisation – the latter outer islands deemed
to be subservient to the point that they are not considered as being part of Yap (Bradburgh 2011,
pers. comm.). On questions of sexuality and disabilities, there tends to be no specific
considerations for either which most likely reflect prevailing prejudices, although this is an
assumption and requires more research. It can be argued though that the spaces and levels of
engagement are a starting point for providing or recognising power and thus participatory
citizenship is practiced, but with room for improvement.
5.3 Implementing Policy
The implementers of the PYC capacity building policy were the PYC Secretariat and the NYC.
As seen from the discussions above, the PYC Secretariat guided NYC in setting up the training
logistics, and its coordinator was a trainer. Both were, by the nature of PYC, very much a part of
the policy formulation process. The coordinator as the key administrator of PYC, including
arranging for speakers/ trainers for the General Assemblies, and setting the agenda for the
meetings in consultation with the PYC Board. While the NYCs make up the membership of
PYC, it is the NYC representatives that attend the General Assemblies, endorse the strategic
plans, and vote for the PYC Board.
This part of the chapter is a discussion of the implementation processes involved in the PYC
capacity building policy. It seeks to answer the research question of how the PYC implemented
its capacity building policy. It is divided into sub-sections that include: the reasons for the
training, the NYC preparations involved and any problems arising from this requirement, the
content of the training, reactions to the training, and finally, the benefits of the training. There
will also be concluding remarks to tie the discussions in with ideas arising out of the literature
review.
63
5.3.1 NYC reasons for requesting the capacity building training
As indicated in sub-sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.3, NYCs through endorsement of strategic plans and
the needs analysis have readily sought training initiatives that support their growth as
organisations and the growth of leaders. In Tuvalu, the lack of visibility of the NYC at the
national level was a major concern. While the Tuvalu NYC had been established in 1980 many
people and departments in government were unfamiliar with its work or even its existence
(Matio 2012, pers. comm.). Therefore the capacity training was an opportunity to make linkages
with stakeholders. One of the goals of the two week training programme in Tuvalu was the
strengthening of partnerships between the NYC and government, NYC and PYC, and NYC and
youth groups. There was also two days set aside for training on engaging young people in local
government decision-making processes (PYC Secretariat, 2010a: 8). Strengthening partnerships
was also a goal in the Nauru NYC training. Participants recognised that partnerships had to be
built in order to build themselves, their youth group and their community (PYC Secretariat,
2010b: 8). Another reason for requesting training was that Tuvalu NYC recognised that PYC had
the expertise and capacity to conduct the training, and they had a network of organisations that
the NYC could access (Matio 2012, pers. comm.). The latter proved fruitful for Tuvalu NYC as
the PYC applied for funding to PLP on their behalf to support a full time coordinator position at
the NYC (Matio 2012, pers. comm.).
In FSM the Chuuk State Youth Council requested training as they were newly formed and ‘had
no sense of direction’ (Kim 2012, pers. comm.). The training therefore was an opportunity to
strengthen their youth council. The fact that PYC had a training plan and the funding to put it
into action was also a key factor (Kim 2012, pers. comm.). In the Solomon Islands, the NYC
requested the training to up-skill their provincial youth council presidents. It was the first
opportunity for all the provincial presidents to sit together and discuss strengths and challenges
(Field notes from Solomon Islands Youth Council capacity building workshop, Honiara, 3-7
Dec. 2012).
5.3.2 NYC training preparations and challenges
NYCs are required to arrange the training venue, refreshments, resources, and participants for the
training programme. These arrangements are usually in consultation with their respective
64
government youth departments. In Chuuk, the state youth council worked closely with the State
Youth Department to get participants (Kim 2012, pers. comm.) whereas in Tuvalu, the NYC
negotiated with the Youth Department for use of their equipment for the training. They also met
with the Permanent Secretary and line Minister to organise the latter to open and close the
training programme (Matio 2012, pers. comm.). In Niue, four members of the Department of
Community Affairs, which oversees youth development, were participants in the training (NYC
n.d.). Likewise, in Solomon Islands three members of the Youth Development Division were
present at the training, two of whom had made all the preparations for the training. This is
reflective of the structure of the Solomon Islands NYC where the General Secretary is housed
within the Youth Development Division and the Permanent Secretary as head of that Division is
a contributing decision-maker on NYC business (Field notes from Solomon Islands Youth
Council capacity building workshop, Honiara, 3-7 Dec. 2012).
Furthermore, in Chuuk the state youth council drew up a budget, and a work plan to
systematically organise the training. They also worked closely with a variety of youth groups to
arrange refreshments and meals for the programme. Each youth group provided at least one meal
or refreshment ensuing that many groups put into practice organisational skills and earned a
small income for further activities (Kim 2012, pers. comm.; Bradburgh 2012, pers. comm.).
Likewise in Tuvalu, the NYC consulted with its members for participants. They also negotiated
special rates for the venue with a stakeholder – Tuvalu Family Health Association – and
organised catering (Matio 2012, pers. comm.). They also ensured that all the stakeholders
identified before and during the training were invited to the opening and closing of the training
programme. Strengthening partnerships was one of the goals of the training programme in
Tuvalu thus the invitations were an important way of creating and maintaining visibility within
the country (Matio 2012, pers. comm.).
In terms of challenges, for Chuuk State Youth Council it was the need to stay neutral and
therefore be as inclusive as possible. Some youth groups, in particular faith-based groups, were
reluctant to participate in the programme as they perceived the youth council as a government
entity. On the other hand, the State Department of Youth wanted to have some control over
processes as they were a key stakeholder. The council thus had to manage these relationships to
65
ensure their neutrality and inclusiveness (Kim 2012, pers. comm.). In Tuvalu, the intermittent
internet connectivity resulted in late submissions of participant names which affected initial
planning. The hospitalisation of the national youth officer also posed a major challenge to NYC
and government negotiations as a relieving officer was not appointed (Matio 2012, pers. comm.).
In the Solomon Islands, the two-person team tasked with preparations indicated that they were
not informed of what was needed for the training thus used their own experiences to organise
resources (Field notes from Solomon Islands Youth Council capacity building workshop,
Honiara, 3-7 Dec. 2012).
5.3.3 The Training Programme
In general the PYC training programme had two components: understanding the NYC
governance structure and administration, and transformational leadership. While Tuvalu and
Nauru had extended programmes, these two components were core to their training. The method
of delivery comprised a range of activities from facilitator-driven information sharing, open
discussions, group work, and ice breakers. In Chuuk, the President of the state youth council
remarked that the discussions were very deep and very good (Kim 2012, pers. comm.). In
Tuvalu, discussions clarified the relationship between the NYC and the government youth
department (Matio 2012, pers. comm.). In Palau, the training provided opportunity to
representatives from each of the eight states to connect with each other and to understand their
place within the Palau NYC (Oceania Television 2011). While in Niue the training asked key
questions about members understanding of the role of NYC and what it means to be an office
bearer (Broadcast Corporation of Niue 2012).
In order to better understand what was involved in the training programme, reference will be
made to the Solomon Islands NYC training at which I was both a co-facilitator and an observer.
The training in the Solomon Islands was provided by PYC in partnership with UNAIDS. Its
purpose was to:
- Strengthen understanding of the governance of the Solomon Islands National Youth
Council and the provincial youth councils,
- Clarify roles and responsibilities of members and board members in the Solomon Islands
NYC and the provincial youth councils, and
66
- To build capacity in the Solomon Islands NYC and the provincial youth councils to
enable them to plan for their further development.
(Field notes from the Solomon Islands Youth Council capacity building workshop, Honiara, 3-7
Dec. 2012)
On governance and administration, the training involved firstly understanding the governance
structure of the NYC. It looked at decision-making and the communication of decisions to
members. It also looked at board selection, and the direction of work of the NYC and who
undertakes the planned tasks. The participants were well aware of the structure of the NYC and
their provincial council’s place in it. However the decision-making structure was an eye-opener
for some as they were not aware that the Permanent Secretary of the youth line ministry was a
part of that process (Field notes from the Solomon Islands Youth Council capacity building
workshop, Honiara, 3-7 Dec. 2012).
The second part of the governance component concentrated on boards. It looked at the role and
importance of boards in youth organisations, and the role of general members and executive
members in the working of boards. It also looked at practical ways of strengthening the
effectiveness of boards. Participants were introduced to the 4S’s of Board Success – structure,
systems, skills, and soul. The structure component was in the first part of the training referred to
above. In systems, the participants looked at the importance of terms of reference, policies,
strategic plans, administrative systems and financial systems. In the skills component; leadership,
communication, financial knowledge, fundraising and organisational skills were discussed. The
soul component was reference to the commitment and time needed to be a member of a board. It
also refers to the independence and integrity that needs to be practised by members (Field notes
from the Solomon Islands Youth Council capacity building workshop, Honiara, 3-7 Dec. 2012).
Continuing with boards, the participants were introduced to the need for diversity and
inclusiveness in board representation. They also looked at a variety of board resources such as
terms of references for the chair, vice chair, secretary and treasurer positions. This proved very
practical and useful as participants requested copies of these templates for use in their provincial
youth councils, many indicating that they would hold workshops with their boards upon
67
returning to their provinces, although there has been no evidence collected to date to indicate that
this has happened. This was also true for the document listing key elements in meetings
including minute taking. The final part of the board discussions was on how to evaluate the
performance of a board (Field notes from the Solomon Islands Youth Council capacity building
workshop, Honiara, 3-7 Dec. 2012).
The second component of the training programme was on transformational leadership. It looked
at definitions of leadership and transformation, and what a leader should be concerned with. This
was followed by a discussion on decision-making, in particular how to separate fact from
interpretation, and how to make and choose empowering interpretations to make empowering
decisions. A much appreciated part of this component was the video and discussions on the
power of positive attitude. The discussions were lively, including many personal examples of
positivity in action. The final part of this component was on establishing breakthrough
initiatives. A breakthrough initiative has to do with confronting what does not work by
interpreting it in new ways to create a new way of working (PYC and UNAIDS Pacific, 2013:
51). This was an effective way of pulling all the information and discussions together into a
practical exercise where participants planned tasks that they would undertake in the six months
following the training (Field notes from the Solomon Islands Youth Council capacity building
workshop, Honiara, 3-7 Dec. 2012).
5.3.4 Participant reactions to the training
Overall there was a positive reaction from participants to the training programme. The President
of Chuuk State Youth Council was impressed by the very high level of participation, and the
increased levels of confidence seen in the participants (Kim 2012, pers. comm.). She also
commented that most of the participants continued to stay connected with the NYC even those
who have moved on to other opportunities (Kim 2012, pers. comm.). In Tuvalu, participants had
a clearer understanding of their roles and responsibilities (Matio 2012, pers. comm.). While in
Nauru, participants recognised that they had to build partnerships to build themselves, their
youth group, and their community (PYC Secretariat, 2010b:8). In terms of actual responses from
participants, reference will be made to the observations of group work activities and discussions
together with the training evaluation forms from the Solomon Islands NYC training programme.
68
The majority of the participants in the Solomon Islands indicated that the most important lesson
learned in training was the importance of boards and how they can be inclusive and successful.
Reference was made to board members knowing their roles and responsibilities via their terms of
references. As presidents of their respective provincial youth councils, the terms of reference
template for the board chair was particularly appreciated as it allowed them to check their own
work. The 4S’s of board success was also a good guide for the effective running of provincial
councils with one participant remarking that he had the soul part but hadn’t realised that he did
until the workshop. Other comments referred to how running effective meetings was a key
element in successful boards, the provision of up-to-date information, and the training providing
opportunity for meaningful dialogue and collaboration between the councils and with the NYC
(Field notes from the Solomon Islands Youth Council capacity building workshop, Honiara, 3-7
Dec. 2012).
On leadership, the participants responded well to the positive attitude discussions. One
participant stating that ‘our challenge is to be the leader, our attitude is to be a leader’.
Participants were also encouraged by the breakthrough initiatives as it made them think
strategically about their provincial councils and map out immediate to medium terms goals.
Overall the participants were challenged to be good leaders but acknowledged that they had a big
job to do and needed to ensure that they were strong and firm to achieve the vision of their
councils and communities. There was reference to choosing the right people for the job, but also
ensuring that up-skilling was done for those in positions of power (Field notes from the Solomon
Islands Youth Council capacity building workshop, Honiara, 3-7 Dec. 2012).
These reflections are an indication that the Board training challenged the Presidents’ to take a
good look at their councils and see what changes need to be made. They also recognised the key
role that they will play in those changes thus the need for them to exercise good leadership. Most
participants indicated that the training was helpful because it built their capacity to lead. Other
terms used were informative, useful and interesting. One participant summarised it best saying
that the training ‘equipped me with new tools to address existing issues and new issues’ (Field
69
notes from the Solomon Islands Youth Council capacity building workshop, Honiara, 3-7 Dec.
2012).
5.3.5 Benefits to the NYC
As in sub-section 5.3.4 the majority of the information in this sub-section is gathered from the
Solomon Islands NYC training. However, in discussions with the Tuvalu NYC vice president,
the benefits of the training were: the increased visibility of the NYC and thus greater recognition
nationally and regionally, realisation of the NYC responsibilities and what needs to be done to
ensure an effective organisation, and the increased stakeholder networking especially with PLP
that provided funding for a full-time NYC coordinator (Matio 2012, pers. comm.). In Chuuk, the
benefits were greater respect and commitment from members and the executive, leadership, and
friendship (Kim 2012, pers. comm.).
In the Solomon Islands, the benefits were discussed in relation to the provincial youth councils as
the site of work for the participants. This translates to the NYC as “PYCs strength lies in its
members being strong and vibrant and being able to effectively serve their young people” (PYC
Secretariat 2009b: 11). The PYC Coordinator has stated that:
One of the key learning’s I would like to see is that participants go away with the
realisation that they have a role to play in the NYC – strengthening it , to be passionate
about doing youth work in [their country] and in the region.
(Broadcast Corporation of Niue 2012)
Therefore we can use the information from the Solomon Islands as related to the strengthening of
NYCs through its membership base.
The breakthrough initiatives that were developed by participants at the end of the leadership
component of the training illustrate the benefits of the training to the organisations represented.
They also reflect the governance and administration component discussions. In an informal
discussion with the PYC Coordinator in Honiara, she indicated that the training programme
usually started with transformational leadership followed by the board training. In the Solomon
70
Islands however it was switched and was a better way of facilitating the programme because
participants were still fresh when learning about Boards thus better retained the knowledge
(Bradburgh 2012, pers. comm.).
The participants, either solely or as a duo, developed a series of breakthrough initiatives to be put
into effect in their respective provincial councils. They were however similar if not the same.
These initiatives were:
- Establish or equip an office space
- Open a bank account to encourage funding
- Conduct refresher courses for their provincial youth council boards using the information
gathered at the training
- Develop policies such as a finance policy and terms of references
- Identify partners
- Improve documentation such as record-keeping of affiliate names and fees
- Develop a work plan of activities including fundraising activities
- Develop a meeting schedule to improve attendance and communication with board
members
(Field notes from the Solomon Islands Youth Council capacity building workshop, Honiara, 3-7
Dec. 2012).
This list of initiatives show that the participants have absorbed the information provided and
used it to guide their ways of work. This is further demonstrated in participant reflections on the
board training where separate from the initiatives listed above, they indicated they would:
- call for an evaluation of the provincial youth council work plans and monitor the progress
of the work plan,
- review the structure of their working committees, and
- improve communications within the board, and with wards and village/community
associations.
(Field notes from the Solomon Islands Youth Council capacity building workshop, Honiara, 3-7
Dec. 2012)
71
In the end-of-training evaluation form, on the question of how will you use the knowledge and
skills learned in the training, the following comments were made:
- re-tailor resources from this training to suit the local context and put in place an
awareness/ training programme for the provincial youth council and any interested youth
groups in the community,
- use the breakthrough initiatives exercise to decide what needs to be done,
- have better organized planning to ensure better and effective implementation
Having strong, effective members should contribute to strong and effective NYCs. The list of
initiatives, reflections and comments indicate that the training was immediately beneficial in that
it challenged provincial youth council presidents to relook at the way they and the councils work.
It also challenged them to find new ways of working. This will in turn reflect on the NYC as the
provincial youth councils are key members and decision-makers. Whether these initiatives will
be put into action in the Solomon Islands is yet to be seen. However, each of the countries that
have undergone training has reported increased visibility within the country, with government,
and with development agencies. Governments such as Niue and the Cook Islands have included
NYC representatives on official delegations. Governments have also sought the views of the
NYCs on issues. In terms of funding agencies, many have worked through PYC or independently
with the NYC to fund representatives to a variety of international meetings (see sub-section
5.4.1). One member of the Solomon Islands NYC was invited to undergo facilitation training
with UNDP for the Small Islands Development meeting in Samoa in 2014 (Bradburgh 2014,
pers. comm.). While some may argue that this is individual participation, for the most part these
opportunities were not readily available prior to the governance and leadership strengthening
training. Also many NYC adopt a representation policy whereby representatives are
systematically chosen rather than having the same person attend all opportunities. This policy
may be based along provincial lines, gender, a rotation system and so forth (Bradburgh 2014,
pers. comm.). Thus, while issues of hidden power are still very real as discussed in sub-section
5.2.4, in roads can be seen in the thinking and practice of representation.
72
5.3.6 Concluding remarks on policy implementation
The discussions on implementation answer the research question of how PYC implemented its
policy. The reactions and benefits indicate the effectiveness of the methods of implementation.
In terms of participation and citizenship, it can be argued that Naidoo’s (2001: 106-109) meso
and micro levels of engagement are in play. At the meso level, the participants in the training are
engaging at a policy level in that they have recognised that the lack of policies or ineffective
policies require changes to be made. These changes are positive as they provide better ways of
working. At the micro level, the participants are learning new skills and knowledge to transfer to
practical on-the-ground work to make their organisations more effective. These new skills and
knowledge increase the ability of the participants to participate and improve the rights of
participation of the groups they represent especially with initiatives such as creating awareness
using localised materials as in the Solomon Islands (see Mokwena: 2003, 91 on the right to
participate).
In terms of active citizenship, taking Goetz and Gaventa’s (2001 cited in Gaventa 2004: 30-31)
argument that participatory citizenship is on a continuum from strengthening peoples voice to
strengthening institutional reception of that voice, it can be argued that the leaders at the training
programme have their voices strengthened which they in turn use to evaluate and improve
policies of the institutions that they lead. This in turns allows others to participate as their voices
are strengthened. These ‘others’ are the members of the youth groups, provincial councils and so
forth that make up the membership of an NYC. Thus the whole continuum of participatory
citizenship is in play. The groundwork so to speak of greater participation in influencing local
and national policies is laid. The idea being that a group of young people are confident and
skilled in engaging in discussions and decision-making.
5.4 An Analysis of the Capacity Building Policy – testing effectiveness through the
Capacity Building Framework (Kenny, 2011).
This section provides an analysis of the PYC capacity building policy using Kenny’s (2011)
capacity building framework (see Table 1 in section 4.5). The framework is a means of
establishing whether capacity building did take place; of checking the effectiveness of capacity
73
building policies (Kenny, 2011: 198). Using the framework, examples from a variety of NYC
will be briefly explained to highlight the key material and non-material elements of capacity
building under the headings of infrastructure, skills and knowledge, and networks. There is also a
discussion of the limitations of the policy as discovered through this research.
5.4.1 Infrastructure (physical capital)
The capacity building framework references both material and non-material resources. Under
infrastructure material resources include: buildings, furniture, computers, printers, and paper.
Non-material resources include: money, credit, policies, practices, and an active public sphere
(Kenny, 2011:198). In the Federated States of Micronesia, a direct result of the training provided
was the confidence of the Chuuk State Youth Council to negotiate an office space with the State
Youth department and with local business, and obtaining that space in Weno, the capital of
Chuuk State (Kim 2012, pers. comm.; and Bradburgh 2013, pers. comm.). In Tuvalu and Nauru,
the national youth councils’ negotiated and received office space with the Pacific Leadership
Programme (PLP) and their respective government youth departments as part of PLP’s pilot
project on strengthening NYCs (Bradburgh Oct. 2012, pers. comm.). In terms of non-material
resources, the development of a working constitution together with governance policies
including election and finance procedures have been a key result of the training (Bradburgh Oct.
2012, pers. comm.). In the PYC Member and Observer stock-take conducted at the PYC 2012
General Assembly, Palau NYC reported that it had developed a constitution with the help of the
PYC and held their first election of office bearers, while Nauru NYC reported making
amendments after identifying loopholes in its constitution. Kosrae State Youth Council reported
that they were working on the development of a constitution that better reflected their needs. The
Marshall Islands NYC reported that there had not been an election for 5 years and the PYC
governance training had spurred it into making moves to correct this situation (Field notes from
the PYC 5th General Assembly, Suva, 26-30 Nov. 2012). In terms of an active public sphere,
there are a number of examples:
- Cook Islands NYC represented the PYC at the Youth and Politics International
Workshop in Singapore in May 2013;
- Vanuatu, Tonga, Solomon Islands, and Cook Islands NYCs’ were part of the CSO
Dialogue on Conflict in May 2013
74
- PYC was represented by Fiji Board member Mr. Manasa Vatanitawake at the Pacific
Islands Private Sector Organization (PIPSO) Regional Meeting in June 2013
- NYCs such as Cook Islands and Niue were members of the government delegations to
the Pacific Women’s Minister’s Triennial Meeting in October 2013 (Bradburgh Apr.
2014, pers. comm.)
- NYCs’ collaborated on a PYC submission to the Pacific Plan Review in 2013
- Tonga National Youth Congress was a participant in Trade Pasifika 2014 in Suva where
it promoted and sold its organic products in particular Virgin Coconut Oil
- Fiji, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, and Marshall Islands NYCs’ were part of the Regional
Youth and Civil Society Organisations (CSO) Dialogue in June 2014
- Tuvalu, Nauru, Tonga, and Solomon Islands participated in the Partnerships to strengthen
gender, climate change response and sustainable development meeting in June 2014
- PYC was represented by Samoa Board member Ms. Tahere Siisiialafia at the UN General
Assembly Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals in June 2014
(PYC n.d)
5.4.2 Skills and Knowledge (human and cultural capital)
Material examples of skills and knowledge are: democratic processes, open information,
knowledge, internet, and confidence. Non-material examples are: the capacity to define own
needs, prioritise goals, identify facilitating and hindering factors, implement actions, problem
solve, advocate, communicate (with reports and submissions), conduct meetings, and public
speaking (Kenny, 2011: 198).
Democratic processes are seen in the earlier examples of staging elections and constitution
building. The same is true for confidence in terms of negotiating office spaces in Chuuk State,
Tuvalu and Nauru. In Chuuk, the opportunity to strengthen the newly formed youth council; and
managing the relationships between youth groups and organisations, and with the state youth
department is indicative of the confidence the executive members received from the basic
logistics work they had to do to get the training off the ground. This translated into confidence
building of the participants who, after the training, remained committed to the Chuuk State
Youth Council as demonstrated through their continued participation in activities, and
maintenance of contact after moving on to other associations and work (Kim 2012, pers. comm.).
75
In Tuvalu, confidence building also began in the logistics stage of the training programme. Due
to intermittent internet connectivity, the Tuvalu NYC was initially not able to receive participant
names by the due date they had set. The organisers however were confident enough to work
around this set back via the government’s youth department and through the use of the telephone
to ensure full representation of member groups. Prior to this activity collaboration between the
youth council and the government youth department had been minimal (Matio 2012, pers.
comm.).
In terms of knowledge, open information and the internet; in the Solomon Islands the training
was the first opportunity for all provincial youth council presidents to meet, discuss issues, and
receive governance and leadership skills training (Field notes from the Solomon Islands Youth
Council capacity building workshop, Honiara, 3-7 Dec. 2012). In Tuvalu, the training provided
clearer understanding of roles and responsibilities (Matio 2012, pers. comm.), likewise in Niue
and Palau the training provided information on youth councils in general and the members’ roles
in them (Niue Broadcast Corporation, 2012; and Oceania Television 2012). In Nauru and
Tuvalu, the training made participants aware that partnerships are a key element to work as seen
in their collaboration with the government youth departments and the PLP (Matio 2012, pers.
comm.; and PYC Secretariat, 2010b: 8). Furthermore, all training programmes included
knowledge on governance – roles and responsibilities, effective meetings, planning, structure –
and transformational leadership – decision-making, positive attitude, and breakthroughs. Finally
in terms of the internet, PYC members have been encouraged to maintain visibility and contact
through the use of social media and the PYC website. The former is seen to be more effective
both internally with the NYC and externally with the PYC membership. For example, Our Yap
which is the Yap State youth council maintains a regularly updated Face Book page that fosters a
great deal of discussion about a variety of issues affecting Yapese youth. It also advertises
upcoming activities for young people and keeps a record, via photographs, of activities that have
taken place. The PYC also maintains a Face Book page that has followers from within the
membership and those interested in youth in Pacific Island countries.
In terms of non-material examples of skills and knowledge, advocacy is a major area of work of
not just the PYC but the individual NYCs too. Sub-section 5.4.2 provides a number of examples
76
of representation at regional and international forums. The PYC has developed a package of
basic information and talking points about young people in the Pacific islands, the work of NYCs
and the work of PYC for all representatives to forums. It also encourages representatives to
conduct basic research on the topics to be discussed at these forums to inform their contributions.
This includes connecting the representatives to others within the PYC membership network who
may have knowledge on the issues, and to provide a cross-section of examples for use in
discussions (Bradburgh 2014, pers. comm.).
A major advocacy project undertaken by the PYC membership was the ‘Youth Employment
Advocacy Initiative’ or YEA! In late 2010 at a ‘Youth Partners’ Forum’ organised by PLP, the 6
NYCs’ present – Samoa, Niue, Vanuatu, Tonga, Tuvalu and Solomon Islands – determined that a
key issue for young people was employment. They also decided that the first step to getting
countries taking the issue seriously was to get the endorsement and support of leaders. In order to
do this, PYC was tasked with spearheading the advocacy by getting youth employment on the
Forum Leaders’ Meeting agenda. The Forum Leaders’ Meeting is the highest level of policy and
decision-making in the Pacific islands region (Koster, 2013: 11-12). Tuvalu NYC that had
received governance and leadership training earlier in the year was one of 4 NYC that
volunteered to be a flag country for the advocacy project. The others were Tonga, Vanuatu and
Solomon Islands. The fact that Tuvalu NYC volunteered so soon after the governance and
leadership training, where insights included the roles and responsibilities of members and the
value of partnerships, speaks to the new confidence the executive board had in its abilities. As
part of specific YEA training, Tuvalu NYC, and the other three flagship NYC, underwent
workshops on youth employment, public speaking and lobbying skills. This was put into effect
when in May 2011 the President of the Tuvalu NYC was part of a group of NYC representatives
that lobbied for the YEA with the Secretary General of the Pacific Islands Forum (PIFs), the
Director General of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) and members of the private
sector at the PLP Annual Partners’ Convention in Brisbane, Australia. Internally, Tuvalu NYC
lobbied the Prime Minister’s office, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Labour and the
Department of Youth on the YEA. This resulted in the Tuvalu government requesting in June
2011 that youth employment be included on the Forum Regional Security Committee meeting
77
agenda, which was one avenue to including youth employment on the Forum Leaders’ Meeting
agenda (Koster, 2013: 14-15).
5.4.3 Networks (social capital)
According to Kenny (2011: 198) material examples of networks involve bridging and bonding;
and solidarity and linkages. While the non-material examples are: reciprocity, trust, mutuality,
tolerance of diversity. In terms of the PYC, as a regional organisation it is a network of youth
council members. This in itself is a bonding mechanism in its own right, but also the
collaborative work on the organisation’s strategic plans; and on discussions points for
representatives at regional and international forums speaks to both material and non-material
examples of networking. Specific country NYC examples include:
- Tuvalu NYC linkages to government departments for work on logistics for the training
programme; and partnerships with youth groups as sources of participants, the Tuvalu
Family Health Association for the training venue, PYC, and with PLP for funding a full
time NYC coordinator.
- Nauru NYC linkages to government and PLP for the training logistics and pilot funding
respectively.
- Niue linkages were demonstrated through the participation of 4 members of the
Department of Community Development in the training. The Department oversees the
youth portfolio of the Niue government.
- Like Niue, in the Solomon Islands there were 3 representatives at the training from
government.
- In Chuuk, the NYC worked closely with the State Youth Department and a variety of
youth groups to ensure the training was held and completed.
A further example of networks, particularly in terms of reciprocity, trust, mutuality, and
tolerance of diversity is evidenced by the cordial and healthy discussions held during the PYC
General Assemblies; and the elections of an executive board that is a cross section of PYC
membership and of gender without deliberate moves to do so (Field notes from PYC 4th General
Assembly, 20-24 July 2009, Suva; and PYC 5th General Assembly, 26-30 Nov. 2012, Suva).
78
5.4.4 Limitations of the PYC Capacity Building Policy
While the examples of the effectiveness of the PYC capacity building policy are numerous as
discussed above there are also key limitations of the policy. Through the course of this research
three limitations can be determined through a reading and assessment of the material. These are:
the limited number of training sessions per NYC, the lack of follow up, and the power relations
that can exist within the PYC and NYC membership (as referred to in sub-section 5.2.4).
On the number of training sessions each NYC, with the exception of Tonga which did not
undergo the governance and leadership training, was provided with only one session. This means
that only those present at the training session received the training. These tended to be executive
board members of the NYC and the NYC member groups. Thus when these board members were
no longer in those positions the skills and knowledge could be lost, leaving a newer group of
board members in need of training. While the aim of the training was to improve governance and
leadership within the NYC and its membership, a major assumption was that knowledge would
be passed on to others, and structures put in place for the long life of the NYC. Whether this has
occurred to its fullest extent is still being discovered. This leads to the second limitation of the
lack of follow up on the training received.
Follow up on the training sessions has been ad hoc. Activities that have resulted from training
sessions (discussed above using the capacity building framework) have been the primary
measure of success for the training programme. However, there is little evidence of follow up on
breakthrough initiatives indicated in the training (see Solomon Islands training). This is a lost
opportunity for checking on progress or otherwise. There are possible reasons for this lack of
follow up mainly very limited personnel within PYC (one person – the PYC Secretariat
Coordinator) and the lack of reporting by the NYC members. Both these issues were key
concerns identified at the PYC 5th General Assembly and in Output 1.1.1 and Output 1.2.2 of the
PYC Strategic Plan 2013 - 2016 (Field Notes from the PYC 5th General Assembly, 26-30 Nov.
2012, Suva; and PYC, 2013). There is also the issue of funding for the follow up work. There is
a small pool of money relative to the many issues and types of work funders are interested in
thus follow up work may not be a priority.
79
The third limitation of the PYC capacity building policy is the issue of hidden power discussed
earlier in sub-section 5.2.4. That is the questions surrounding representation based on class,
gender, educational attainment, cultural status, sexuality, and disability. As discussed earlier
these are elements in determining who represents a group and the manner in which they conduct
their representation. This has to do with who might be excluded because of the their real or
perceived marginalisation based on one or a combination of class, gender, educational
attainment, cultural status, sexuality and disability. There is also a further question of power in
terms of solidifying a position particularly in light of having had only one governance and
leadership training session. That is where a recipient of the training seeks to keep the knowledge
and skills learned to them self as a means of cementing their place within the organisation and
continuing in their current position or attaining a higher one. This breeds opportunities for
increased power and corruption.
5.5 Conclusion
This chapter has situated the PYC capacity building policy within the NYC structures by offering
a brief explanation of those structures, and how this reflects on who participates in a training
programme. There is also an outline of where and when the PYC training occurred, and how
many people were direct recipients of that training. This is followed by a discussion of the
decision-making processes involved in creating the PYC capacity building policy using the Hall
Model of legitimacy, feasibility and support. This has answered the research questions of how
and why the policy was created. These findings have been linked to ideas of youth participation,
citizenship, transformation and empowerment as discussed in the literature review.
The third part of this chapter answers the research question of how the PYC capacity building
policy was implemented. It is a discussion of the implementation processes involved and looks at
the reasons for the training, the NYC preparations involved and any problems arising from this
requirement, the content of the training, reactions to the training, and the benefits of the training;
the latter two elements indicating the effectiveness of the policy process. This is followed by a
demonstration of the linkage between the findings from the study of the implementation process
to ideas of the right to participate, participation at the meso and micro levels of engagement, and
participatory citizenship.
80
The final part of this chapter was an analysis of the PYC capacity building policy using Kenny’s
(2011) capacity building framework which is a means to checking the effectiveness of capacity
building policies. It highlighted key elements of capacity building in PYC using the headings of
infrastructure, skills and knowledge, and networks. Using the framework, examples from a
variety of NYC were provided under each heading. These examples showed that PYC’s
governance and leadership training for its members has effected positively on NYCs’. This was
followed by a discussion of limitations of the PYC capacity building policy.
The next chapter is a summary of findings including linkages to the literature reviewed for this
research. It also discusses lessons learned from the PYC policy development and implementation
process. This is followed by a list of recommendations derived from the research, and
suggestions for further research.
81
Chapter 6
Recommendations and Conclusion
6.0 Introduction
The aim of this study was to understand the policy development and policy implementation
processes of the PYC. The research questions for this study were:
1. How did the Pacific Youth Council develop their capacity building policy?
2. Why did the Pacific Youth Council develop their capacity building policy?
3. How did the Pacific Youth Council implement their capacity building policy?
4. What lessons can be learnt from the Pacific Youth Council’s policy development and
implementation process?
This chapter has five parts. The first part is a summary of findings including linkages to the
literature reviewed for this research. The second part discusses lessons learned from the PYC
policy development and implementation process, which answers the final research question. The
third part is a list of recommendations derived from the research, while the fourth part is
suggestions for further research. This is followed by concluding remarks.
6.1 Summary of the Findings
As indicated in chapter 5, the research questions 1-3 have been answered through an analysis of
the policy development and policy implementation processes of PYC. In this analysis it was
found that PYC satisfied the Hall model requirements of legitimacy, feasibility, and support for
the development of their capacity building policy. Legitimacy was established through the
consistent policy directive of strengthening NYCs beginning with the PYC Constitution.
Subsequent strategic plans have reiterated this directive. An important element of this directive is
that it is the members of the PYC that have discussed, included and endorsed it. These members
are the NYCs who were in turn recipients of training under the capacity building policy.
In terms of feasibility, the study has shown that PYC had the funding to undertake the training
through its relationship with PLP, and with the United States of America Embassy Pacific
82
Islands Fund for Small Development Grants for Tuvalu and Nauru. It also had technical
knowledge and skilled personnel. The research has shown that the PYC Secretariat Coordinator
has over fourteen years’ experience in youth work including in delivering capacity building
training. Also partnerships with organisations such as FSPI, CLGF and most importantly
UNAIDS have provided skilled personnel with technical knowledge for the training
programmes. These partners have been co-facilitators for the training programmes. Furthermore
the administrative structures and infrastructure necessary for the training to occur have been
shown to exist through the requirement that NYCs provide logistical support for the training.
These NYC have worked in partnership with government youth departments to ensure the
training has a venue, participants, and training resources such as projectors, white boards, and
stationery for participants.
With regard to support, this is evident in the research from the continued placement of capacity
building in PYC documents such as the strategic plans which are discussed and endorsed by
members. It is also evident from the needs analysis conducted by the PYC Secretariat where the
NYC members indicated lack of leadership, and lack of awareness of roles and functions of the
NYCs and their executive boards as key concerns. Support is further evident from the
requirement that NYC must indicate their readiness for training by requesting such a programme.
The fact that nine of the ten members have made the request is a strong indicator of support.
The legitimacy, feasibility, and support for the PYC capacity building policy explain how and
why PYC developed the policy. In terms of how the policy was implemented, a variety of
questions were used to understand the process involved. The questions covered the reasons for
the training, the NYC preparations involved and any problems arising from this requirement, the
content of the training, reactions to the training, and finally, the benefits of the training. The
research found that the NYCs wanted training to improve and make their organisations more
effective. There was recognition that the training would provide a sense of direction, up-skill
leaders, and increase national visibility in particular with the government youth departments. The
NYCs saw an opportunity to have these needs met through PYCs training plan, expertise in
training young people, and access to funds.
83
In terms of preparations and challenges, the research tells us that NYCs were required to meet
the on-the-ground logistics of the training. That is, they had to organise participants, venue,
refreshments, and training resources. The NYC usually worked with the government youth
departments in particular on organising participants and arranging training resources such as
projectors and white boards. There were however some challenges particularly in
communications and perceptions of the NYC. That is, intermittent internet connectivity hindered
identifying participants in Tuvalu, and some youth groups in Chuuk perceived the state youth
council as a government entity thus did not want to participate in the programme. In the latter
case, the Chuuk State Youth Council assured their neutrality thus ensuring inclusive
participation.
With regard to content of the training programme, the research shows that two core elements
were involved, the governance structure of an NYC and leadership skills. The roles,
responsibilities and functions of boards were discussed in depth. Extensive reference was made
to a variety of necessary policies and governance systems such as finance, human resources,
strategic planning, and administrative requirements. In terms of leadership, the idea of
transformational leadership was explained, and a video on having a positive attitude shown. This
generated a lot of discussion including the use of personal examples by the participants.
Following this was the breakthrough initiatives sessions that proved the most important and
beneficial component of the training. It was also an excellent way of evaluating the training as
the initiatives were illustrations of building and/ or strengthening organisations.
In terms of reactions of participants and benefits of the training, the research has shown that
participants were challenged to relook at the way that their organisations work, and at their own
leadership. It made leaders realise that they play a key role in negotiating the challenges their
national/state/provincial youth councils will face. It also challenged leaders to find new ways of
work for themselves and for their organisations.
The research questions of how and why the PYC developed their capacity building policy, and
how they implemented the policy have been answered using the Hall Model of legitimacy,
feasibility, and support, and using a variety of questions to track implementation respectively. In
84
terms of key linkages to the literature review, the research discussion demonstrates holistic social
policy, and youth participation and development. As indicated in chapter 3 holistic social policy
involves a variety of actors, targets both individuals and communities, and seeks to combat social
exclusion through building social cohesion (Hall and Midgley, 2010: 38). The research has
shown that there are a variety of actors involved in the capacity building processes including
PYC, youth departments, the NYC, youth groups, and funding stakeholders. The capacity
building strategies are also targeting individuals and the community through leadership and
administration training which combats the exclusion of young people from decision-making
processes, and adds to social cohesion by empowering young people.
With regard to youth participation and development (as discussed in chapter 5), the willingness
of NYC members to recognise the need for training and undergo that training satisfies
Mokwena’s (2003: 98) argument that a society is said to have youth development when there is
the willingness and capacity of young people to participate at all levels of society. Naidoo’s
(2001: 106-109) macro, meso and micro levels of youth engagement can also be seen. At the
macro level, there is engagement in policy decision-making through PYC as a regional body.
While at the meso level, the NYC are informing PYC policy; and the participants in the training
are recognising that the lack of policies or ineffective policies require positive changes to be
made. At the micro level, the participants are learning new skills and knowledge which they will
transfer to their organisations to make them more effective. These new skills and knowledge
increase the ability of the participants to participate and improve the rights of participation of the
groups they represent.
With regard to citizenship, Goetz and Gaventa (2001 cited in Gaventa 2004: 30-31) argue that
participatory citizenship is on a continuum from strengthening peoples’ voice to strengthening
institutional reception of that voice. The PYC capacity building policy is an exercise in
participatory citizenship as young peoples’ voices are being strengthened individually and
collectively. As stated in chapter 5, the participants at the training programme have their voices
strengthened which they in turn use to evaluate and improve policies of the organisations that
they lead or belong to. The evaluation and improvements do not happen in isolation but with the
consultation and mandate of members. Thus the process strengthens the voice and participation
85
of more members of the organisations. This in turn strengthens collective voice which is then
reflected onto the NYC making it a more effective body. Thus the whole continuum of
participatory citizenship is in play.
The above process is both transformative and empowering. It not only builds skills but creates
opportunities for mobility between spaces of decision-making and levels of engagement
(Gaventa, 2004: 34-38). On spaces of decision-making, a closed space existed in the formulation
of the capacity building policy where the PYC executive board together with its member
representatives at the General Assemblies discussed and endorsed the policy. An invited space
was opened through the NYC consultations with their local members on whether the training was
needed; and a space was created for those that were not familiar with the NYC to learn more
about the organisation. It can also be argued that the closed space was the executive board that
set the meeting agenda for the General Assemblies, the invited space was the Assemblies
themselves where the NYC members were invited to discuss and endorse the policy; and the
created spaces were the NYC consultations with their members. Whichever way it is looked at,
the idea of spaces of decision-making is evident in the research findings.
In terms of levels of engagement, three levels exist in the regional, national and local discussions
and decision-making on the capacity building policy. At the regional level, the engagement is at
PYC General Assembly as the decision-making body for PYC work. At the national level,
engagement is with the NYC as the umbrella youth body in countries that consulted its
membership, and at the local level, engagement is with the youth groups, associations, councils
and so forth that make up the NYC membership.
6.2 Lessons learned
This subsection answers the final research question on what lessons are there to be learned from
the PYC policy development and implementation process. There are a variety of lessons to learn
from the PYC capacity building policy. On developing policy, it is important to have the
endorsement of members as it provides legitimacy and support to the policy. They will also have
a vested interest in its success. Another lesson is documentation is important as it establishes
precedent for a policy, for example, the PYC Constitution and its strategic plans. A third lesson
86
has to do with feasibility; a policy is ineffective if it cannot be implemented. Feasibility requires
planning and a realistic look at the resources available to carry out any policy programme.
Linked to feasibility is partnerships; a partnership can make a policy feasible through funding or
the provision of technical skill such as facilitators.
With regard to policy implementation, this study provides four lessons. The first has to do with
recognising that learning opportunities occur at all stages of implementation, for example, the
training logistics of the PYC programme teaches NYCs to plan and negotiate. Another lesson is
that policy implementation needs to be linked to practical activities that can be implemented in
the participants’ organisations, for example, the breakthrough initiatives in the PYC programme.
A third lesson is policy implementation should be structured, and should be contextualised to the
participants’ environment of work. This contextualisation allows for easier retention of
information and more importantly recognition of the worth of that information. A final lesson to
be learned from the PYC implementation process is the use of multiple methods of delivery. This
ensures the attention of the participants is maintained especially when dealing with issues that
may seem mundane such as governance systems.
6.3 Recommendations
The following recommendations are made based on the research findings, and general
observations:
Firstly, a governance manual should be created as a reference/ guide for NYCs. This manual
should include templates for board structures, terms of reference of the executive board
members, financial procedures/ policy, holding effective meetings, and policy making. The
purpose of the manual will be two-fold. That is, it will be a reminder to NYC leaders of the roles
and responsibilities that they have and must maintain. The manual will provide them with
references for how to fulfil their duties, which will lessen the opportunities for guess work or
outright neglect. The second purpose of the manual will be to provide reference points for any
other member of the NYC leadership or NYC membership groups who may not have received
the training. The manual could be disseminated to members for their use thus improving
governance and leadership throughout many organizations.
87
Secondly, the PYC Secretariat should monitor the breakthrough initiatives determined in the
training. It should encourage the NYC to evaluate their initiatives and report on their
implementation. This evaluation and reporting will ensure that the tasks are completed rather
than simply stated for the benefit of the training exercise only. It will also make the NYC
accountable for their work both to their members and to the PYC.
Thirdly, the PYC Secretariat should conduct follow-up training to reinforce the policy and the
content of the training. Furthermore, NYC boards exist for a specific time frame, usually
determined by elections. Thus there will be a turnover of board members therefore it is important
to build the capacity of these newer board members. The follow-up training will provide the
opportunity to work with these new board members.
Lastly, the PYC Secretariat should publish the evaluation findings mentioned in the second
recommendation as a best practice for other youth groups, youth organizations and youth-
oriented organizations. This publication will inform other organizations of the ways and means
of a capacity building policy which they may in turn use for their own work. It will also add to
the information on youth development in the Pacific region and in general.
6.4 Areas for further research
As mentioned in chapter 1 of this study, there is a dearth of academic material on youth
development in the Pacific Islands region thus more research in any youth-related/ youth specific
area would grow the information. In terms of this research, further research on the impact of the
PYC policy could be conducted looking at how the information has filtered to youth groups and
organisations within NYCs.
Further research can also be conducted on youth participation in Pacific Island countries. This
could be an exploration of the nature of participation in Pacific Island countries. The research
can look at how young people participate and/ or why young people participate in activities. This
research can be country specific or multi-country research.
88
Another research area can be on notions of capacity building. This research can explore the types
of capacity building available, and the types of capacity building that is wanted by young people.
It can also explore the ways in which these capacity building programmes are conducted, and the
ways in which young people want these programmes conducted. The premise in the research
being that what is offered and how it is offered may not necessarily be what is wanted.
A final research area suggestion is to explore the notion of hidden power in youth groups and
youth organisations. This is reference to Gaventa’s (2004: 34-38) degree of visibility of power as
an indicator of participatory citizenship. Understanding power relations is a key element in youth
development thus research in this area would grow the body knowledge not only regionally but
internationally too.
6.5 Concluding remarks
The PYC capacity building policy is ground breaking in that it set out to grow youth
organisations from the inside. That is, its concentration on governance issues ensures that strong
organisations are created/ maintained/ reinforced. Many programmes that involve young people
are project or issue based thus their sustainability is questionable. The PYC policy lays the
challenge at the feet of young people to develop their organisations by sharing skills and
knowledge that they can use for their own growth. To date 299 people have received governance
training from the PYC. These people have then taken that information and skills and shared it
with even more people. This sharing has occurred across the Pacific Islands region thus the
probability of the impact of the policy being large. For this alone the argument can be made that
this is a best practice for youth development. This argument though is advanced when analysing
the way in which the policy was developed, the reasons for the policy, and how the policy was
implemented.
This thesis has provided an overview of youth development in Pacific Island countries. It has
also reviewed literature relevant to participation, youth participation, power, and citizenship.
Following this review the research methods used in this study were discussed; then the findings
were analysed. The final chapter has summarised the findings of this research, provided lessons
learned, made recommendations for future work, and identified areas for further research.
89
Bibliography:
African Charter for Popular Participation in Development and Transformation. 1990. Arusha.
Accessed 29 July 2013 from
<http://www.afrimap.org/english/images/treaty/file4239ac8e921ed.pdf>
APTC (Australia-Pacific Technical College). N.d. About us. Accessed 24 November 2014 from
<http://www.aptc.edu.au/index.php/about-us>
AYAC (Australian Youth Affairs Coalition). 2010. Where are you going with that? Maximising
young people’s impact on organisational and public policy. Australian Youth Affairs Coalition,
Sydney.
Beddoe, L and Maidment, J. 2009. Mapping knowledge for social work practice: critical
intersections. Cengage Learning, South Melbourne.
Braun, V and Clarke, V. 2013. Successful qualitative research: a practical guide for beginners.
Sage Publications, London.
Brayman, A. 2004. Social research methods. 2nd edition. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Broadcast Corporation of Niue (BCN). 2012. BCN News – English [Television broadcast].
Broadcast Corporation of Niue, Alofi.
Brown, A. 2010. Issue Paper – Youth councils and leadership forum. Pacific Leadership
Programme, Suva.
Browne, C. 2006. Pacific Island economies. International Monetary Fund. Accessed on 9 July
from <https://www.imf.org/external/Pubs/NFT/2006/pie/eng/pie.pdf>
Burns, R.B. 1997. Introduction to research methods. 3rd edition. Longman, South Melbourne.
90
Campbell, I. 1989. A history of the Pacific Islands. University of California Press, Berkeley
Carling, M. 2009. Maximizing Potential: the citizenship role of young people in Fiji. MA thesis,
School of Government, Development Studies and International Affairs, The University of the
South Pacific, Suva.
CIA (Central Intelligence Agency). 2014. The World Factbook. Accessed 9 July 2014 from
<https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/pc.html>
Clark, G. 2003. Dumont d’Urville’s Oceania. The Journal of Pacific History, 38:2, 155-161
Coles, B. 1995. Youth and social policy: youth citizenship and young careers. UCL Press Ltd,
London.
Cooke, B and Kothari, U. 2004. The case for participation as tyranny. In Cooke, B and Kothari,
U (editors). 2004. Participation: the new tyranny? 3rd edition. Zed Books Ltd., London and New
York: 1-15
Curtain, R and Vakaoti, P. 2011. The State of Pacific Youth, 2011: Opportunities and Obstacles.
UNICEF and SPC, Suva.
CYP (Commonwealth Youth Programme). 2007a. Module 2: Young people and society.
Commonwealth Secretariat, London.
CYP (Commonwealth Youth Programme). 2007b. Module 4: Working with people in their
communities. Commonwealth Secretariat, London.
Dane, F. C. 1990. Research methods. Brooks/ Cole Publishing, Belmont.
91
Frankel, J. 2013a. Post-colonial institutions in the South Pacific Islands: a survey. In Hegarty, D
and Tryon, D (editors). 2013. Politics, development and security in Oceania. ANU E Press,
Canberra: 29-50.
Frankel, J. 2013b. How relevant are European models of government to Pacific island states? In
Hegarty, D and Tryon, D (editors). 2013. Politics, development and security in Oceania. ANU E
Press, Canberra: 195-204.
Freire, P. 1996. The Pedagogy of the Oppressed. 3rd edition. Penguin Books, London.
Gaventa, J. 2004. Towards participatory governance: assessing the transformative possibilities.
In Hickey, S and Mohan, G (editors). 2004. Participation: from tyranny to transformation?
Exploring new approaches to participation in development. Zed Books, London: 25-41.
Glesne, C. And Peshkin, A. 1992. Becoming qualitative researchers. Longman, White Plains.
Government of the Federated States of Micronesia. National Youth Policy 2004-2010, Phonpei.
Government of Fiji Islands. 2011. The National Youth Policy, Suva.
Government of Niue. National Youth Policy 2009-2013, Alofi.
Government of Niue. Systems of government. Accessed 11 October 2013 from
<http://www.gov.nu/wb/pages/system-of-government-fakatokaaga-he-fakatufono.php>
Government of the Republic of Kiribati. National Youth Policy 2011-2015, Tarawa.
Hall, A and Midgley, J. 2010. Social policy for development. SAGE Publications Ltd., London.
Hennink, M., Hutter, I. and Bailey, A. 2011. Qualitative research methods. Sage Publications,
London.
92
Herzog, T. 1996. Research methods in the social sciences. Harper Collins College Publishers,
New York.
Hildyard, N., Hedge, P., Wolvekamp, P. and Reddy, S. 2004. Pluralism, participation and power:
joint forest management in India. In Cooke, B and Kothari, U (editors). 2004. Participation: the
new tyranny? 3rd edition. Zed Books Ltd, London and New York: 56-71.
Hickey, S and Mohan, G. 2004. Towards participation as transformation: critical themes and
challenges. In Hickey, S and Mohan, G. (editors). 2004. Participation: from tyranny to
transformation? Exploring new approaches to participation in development. Zed Books,
London: 3-24.
Kalo, J. 2012. 2012 VNYC Accomplishment Report. An end-of-year report prepared for the
Vanuatu National Youth Council, Port Vila.
Kenny, S. 2011. Developing communities for the future. 4th edition. Cengage Learning, South
Melbourne.
Kidd, S. 2012. Achieving education and health outcomes in Pacific Island countries – is there a
role for social transfers? AusAID Pacific social protection series: poverty, vulnerability and
social protection in the Pacific. Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID),
Canberra.
Koroivulaono, J. 2008. Pacific Youth Council. Paper presented at the SPC Regional Youth
Stakeholders Meeting, Noumea, New Caledonia, 18-20 March.
Koster, V. 2013. Youth employment advocacy initiative: a guide for Pacific Island countries.
Pacific Youth Council, Suva.
93
Kothari, U. 2004. Power, knowledge and social control in participatory development. In Cooke,
B and Kothari, U (editors). 2004. Participation: the new tyranny? 3rd edition. Zed Books Ltd,
London and New York: 139-152
Lane, J. 1997. Non-governmental organisations and participatory development: the concept in
theory versus the concept in practice. In Nelson, N and Wright, S. (editors). 1997. Power and
Participatory Development: theory and practice. Intermediate Technology Publications, London:
181-191.
Lewis, M. 2010. Cultural disparity and political solidarity in the Melanesian world. Accessed 1
June 2014 from <http://geocurrents.info/geopolitics/cultural-disparity-and-political-solidarity-in-
the-melanesian-island-world >
Lofland, J and Lofland, L. H. 1995. Analyzing social settings: a guide to qualitative observation
and analysis. 3rd edition. Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont.
MaClellan, N. 2000. Case study on colonial history. Accessed on 9 July 2014 from
<www.abc.net.au/ra/carvingout/issues/colonial.htm#coloniesnow>
May, T. 2011. Social research: issues, methods and processes. 4th edition. Open University
Press, Berkshire.
Mohan, G and Hickey, S. 2004. Relocating participation within a radical politics of
development: critical modernism and citizenship. In Hickey, S and Mohan, G. (editors). 2004.
Participation: from tyranny to transformation? Exploring new approaches to participation in
development. Zed Books, London: 59-74.
Mokwena, S. 2001. Deepening democracy: meeting the challenge of youth citizenship. In Foster,
J and Naidoo, K (editors). 2001. Young people at the centre: participation and social change.
Commonwealth Secretariat, London: 15-30
94
Mokwena, S. 2003. Youth participation: taking the idea to the next level: a challenge to youth
ministries. Commonwealth Youth and Development, 1 (2): 87-107.
Naidoo, K. 2001. The challenge of youth citizenship: from the margins to the centre. In Foster, J
and Naidoo, K (editors). 2001. Young people at the centre: participation and social change.
Commonwealth Secretariat, London.
Nelson, N and Wright, S. 1997. Participation and Power. In Nelson, N and Wright, S. (editors).
1995. Power and participatory development: theory and practice. Intermediate Technology
Publications, London: 1-18.
New Zealand Aid Programme. 2013. Ola Fou – youth as agents of change. Accessed 24
November 2014 from <http://www.aid.govt.nz/media-and-publications/development-stories/july-
2013/ola-fou-youth-agents-change>
NSW Commission for Children and Young People. 2012. Citizen Me! Engaging children and
young people in your organisation. NSW Commission on Children and Young People, Surrey
Hills.
Noble, C; Pereira, N and Saune, N. 2011. Urban Youth in the Pacific: increasing resilience and
reducing risk for involvement in crime and violence. UNDP Pacific Centre and PIFS, Suva.
NYC (National Youth Council). n.d. NYC training lists. Accessed 23 April 2012 from
<http://www.pacificyouthcouncil.com>
Oceania Television. 2011. OTV News – Palau [Television broadcast]. Oceania Television,
Koror.
PAFPNet (Pacific Agricultural and Forestry Policy Network) and SPC LRD (Secretariat of the
Pacific Community, Land Resources Division). 2010. Pacific youth in agriculture strategy 2011-
2015: echoing the voices of Pacific young people. SPC, Noumea.
95
PIFS (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat). N.d. About us. Accessed 9 July 2014 from
<http://www.forumsec.org/pages.cfm/about-us/our-partners/member-countries/>
PIFS (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat). N.d. Agreement Establishing the Pacific Islands Forum
Secretariat, Tarawa, 30 October 2000. Accessed 9 July 2014 from
<http://www.forumsec.org/resources/uploads/attachments/documents/Agreement%20Establishin
g%20the%20PIFS,%202000.pdf>
PIFS (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat). N.d. 2014 Forum communiqué of the Forty-fifth
Pacific Islands Forum, Koror, Republic of Palau, 29 – 31 July 2014. Accessed 22 October 2014
from
http://www.forumsec.org.fj/resources/uploads/attachments/documents/2014_Forum_Communiq
ue_31Jul2014.pdf
Powercube. Foucault: Power is everywhere. Accessed 24 November 2013 from
<http://www.powercube.net/other-forms-of-power/foucault-power-is-everywhere/>
PYB SPC (Pacific Youth Bureau, Secretariat of the Pacific Community). 2006. Pacific youth
strategy 2010: youth empowerment for a secure, prosperous and sustainable future. SPC,
Noumea.
PYC (Pacific Youth Council). N.d. Latest News. Accessed 23 June 2014 from
<www.pacificyouthcouncil.com>
PYC (Pacific Youth Council). 1996. The Pacific Youth Council Constitution.
PYC (Pacific Youth Council). 2006a. Pacific Youth Council summary report 2001-2005. Paper
presented at the 3rd General Assembly, Papaete, Tahiti, 11-12 July.
PYC (Pacific Youth Council). 2006b. Pacific Youth Council Work Plan 2006-2009
96
PYC (Pacific Youth Council). 2009. Pacific Youth Council Strategic and Work Plan 2009-2012.
PYC (Pacific Youth Council). Concept Paper for the PYC 5th General Assembly, 26-30
November 2012, Suva.
PYC (Pacific Youth Council). 2013. Pacific Youth Council Strategic Plan 2013-2016
PYC (Pacific Youth Council) Secretariat. 2008. Revival of the Pacific Youth Council (PYC)
Secretariat. Pacific Youth Council Voice Volume 1 Issue 1 (October – December 2008):1.
PYC (Pacific Youth Council) Secretariat. 2009a. Nauru National Youth Council. Voice for
Pacific Young People Volume 2 Issue 3 (August-December 2009): 6.
PYC (Pacific Youth Council) Secretariat. 2009b. Tuvalu National Youth Council. Voice for
Pacific Young People Volume 2 Issue 3 (August-December 2009): 8.
PYC (Pacific Youth Council) Secretariat. 2010a. National youth council strengthened to advance
youth development. Voice for Pacific Young People Volume 3 Issue 5 (April-June 2010): 8.
PYC (Pacific Youth Council) Secretariat. 2010b. Strengthening Nauru Youth Council to advance
youth development. Voice for Pacific Young People Volume 3 Issue 6 (July-September 2010): 8.
PYC (Pacific Youth Council) Secretariat. 2013. Training in Tonga. Voice for Pacific Young
People Issue 1 (January-June 2013): 16.
PYC (Pacific Youth Council) and UNAIDS Pacific. 2013. Pacific Transformational Leadership
Programme Participant Manual. PYC and UNAIDS Pacific, Suva.
Rahnema, M. 1997. Participation. In Sachs, W (editor). 1997. The Development Dictionary: a
guide to knowledge as power. 6th edition. Zed Books Ltd., London and New Jersey: 116-131.
97
Ravindran, I and Duggan, L. 2001. Institutional pathways to empowerment. In Foster, J and
Naidoo, K (editors). 2001. Young people at the centre: participation and social change.
Commonwealth Secretariat, London: 31-90
Restless Development and UN Programme on Youth. N. d. Youth participation in development:
Summary guidelines for development partners. Accessed 12 October 2013 from
<www.restlessdevelopment.org>
Scheyvens, R., Nowak, B., and Scheyvens, H. 2003. Ethical issues. In Scheyvens, R. and Storey,
D. (editors). 2003. Development fieldwork: a practical guide. Sage Publications, London: 139-
166.
Shah, A. 2003. Youth network and governance. Commonwealth Youth and Development, 1 (2):
108-127.
Silverman, D. 2001. Interpretative qualitative data: methods for analysing talk, text and
interaction. 2nd edition. Sage Publications, London.
SPC (Secretariat of the Pacific Community). 2011a. National minimum development indicators –
Youth indicators. Accessed 9 July 2014 from
<http://www.spc.int/nmdi/mdiSummary2.uspx?minorGroup=8>
SPC (Secretariat of the Pacific Community). 2011b. About Us - History of the SPC. Accessed 9
July 2014 from <http://www.spc.int/en/about-spc/history.html>
SPC (Secretariat of the Pacific Community). 2011c. National minimum development indicators.
Accessed 9 July 2014 from <http://www.spc.int/nmdi/MdiSummary2.aspx?minorGroup=1>
98
SPC (Secretariat of the Pacific Community). 2011d. Pacific islands population tops 10 million.
Accessed 11 October 2013 from <www.spc.int/sdd/index.php
/en/component/content/article/1/74>
SPC (Secretariat of the Pacific Community). 2013. Policy paper for a coordinated approach to
youth-centred development in the Pacific 2014-2023: the Pacific Youth Development
Framework. SPC, Suva.
Tcherkezoff, S. 2003. A long and unfortunate voyage towards the ‘invention’ of the Melanesia/
Polynesia distinction 1595-1832* *Translated from French by Isabel Ollivier. The Journal of
Pacific History, 38:2, 175-196.
The Commonwealth. 2014. Tonga: History. Accessed 24 November 2014 from
<http://thecommonwealth.org/our-member-countries/tonga/history>
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation). 2013. Young
People and the Law in Asia and the Pacific: a review of laws and policies affecting young
people’s access to sexual and reproductive health and HIV services. UNESCO, Bangkok.
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation). N.d. Operational
Strategy on Youth 2014-2021. UNESCO, Paris.
UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund). 2013. Pacific regional ICPD review: review of the
Implementation of the International conference on Population and Development Programme of
Action Beyond 2014. UNFPA Pacific Sub-regional Office, Suva.
UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund) Pacific; SPC (Secretariat of the Pacific Community),
and UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund). 2005. The State of Pacific Youth Report 2005.
UNICEF Pacific and UNFPA, Suva; SPC, Noumea.
99
USP (The University of the South Pacific). 2008. USP, Commonwealth Youth Programme (CYP)
sign MOU. Accessed 24 November 2014 from <http://www.usp.ac.fj/news/story.php?id=277>
Vakaoti, P and Mishra, V. 2009. An exploration of youth leadership models in Fiji. Pacific
Leadership Programme, Suva.
Vakaoti, P. 2012. Mapping the landscape of young people’s participation in Fiji. SSGM
Discussion Paper 2012/6, Australia National University, Canberra.
Walt, G. 2001. Health policy: an introduction to process and power. 5th edition. Zed Books Ltd.,
London and New Jersey.
World YWCA (Young Women’s Christian Association). N.d. Pacific young women’s leadership
strategy 2011-2014.
100
Appendix 1: Persons Consulted
1. Ms. Tarusila Bradburgh, October 2012, December 2012, 30 January 2013, and April
2014, PYC Secretariat Coordinator, Pacific Youth Council, Honiara and Suva.
2. Ms. Savali Matio, August 2012, Vice President, Tuvalu National Youth Council, Suva.
3. Ms. Myjolynne M. Kim, February 2012, President, Chuuk State Youth Council -
Federated States of Micronesia, Suva.
101
Appendix 2: Emailed Questionnaire to NYC Presidents
I am conducting a survey into the Pacific Youth Council capacity building training with your
youth council. This survey is for my Master’s thesis which is studying the policy making and
implementation processes of the PYC.
I hope you could take some time to answer the following questions.
8. Why did your youth council request the PYC to conduct capacity building training?
9. When did you have the training?
10. What preparations did your youth council have to do for the training? This is reference to
venue, accommodation, equipment and so forth.
11. What problems, if any, did you have in preparing for the capacity building training?
12. What did the training involve?
13. How long was the training?
14. What has been the reaction of your members to the training?
15. What benefits did the training bring to your organization?
16. What are some of the areas that you think the training could have covered more of?
Thank you for sharing this information. Please note that the information you provide will be
treated with respect, and confidentiality will be maintained.
102
Appendix 3: Training Evaluation Questionnaire
SOLOMON ISLANDS NATIONAL YOUTH COUNCIL HIV AND TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP WORKSHOP
3-7 December 2012
PARTICIPANTS’ EVALUATION/ FEEDBACK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. How did you find the training?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Identify 3 things from the training that made an impact on you personally.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. As a leader, how can you assist in HIV prevention work?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. What were some of the new information on HIV/AIDS you learned?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. How are you going to use the knowledge and skills from this seminar?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. How useful is transformational leadership in HIV prevention?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Any other comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
103
Appendix 4: Youth share (aged 15–24 years) of the populations in countries and territories
in the Pacific region, 2010
Table A4: Youth share (aged 15–24 years) of the populations in countries and territories in the
Pacific region, 2010
Sub-region and country/territory Estimated population in mid 2010
Total 15-24 yrs 15-24 yrs as
prop of total
pop %
15-24 yrs as prop
of total adult
population 15-59
yrs %
MELANESIA
Fiji
New Caledonia
Papua New Guinea
Solomon Islands
Vanuatu
MICRONESIA
Federated States of Micronesia
Guam
Kiribati
Marshall Islands
Nauru
Northern Mariana Islands
Palau
POLYNESIA
American Samoa
Cook Islands
French Polynesia
Niue
Pitcairn Islands
Samoa
Tokelau
Tonga
8,641,883
847,793
254,525
6,744,955
549,574
234,023
547,345
102,624
187,140
100,835
54,439
9,976
63,072
20,518
663,795
65,896
15,529
268,767
1,479
66
183,123
1,165
103,365
1,695,272
155,555
44,853
1,337,953
104,910
45,423
106,838
12,170
32,134
21,222
12,384
2,106
10,191
3,365
127,871
13,602
2,937
50,088
253
35,899
228
20,281
19.6
18.3
17.6
19.8
19.1
19.4
19.5
20.6
17.2
21.0
22.7
21.1
16.2
16.4
19.3
20.6
18.9
18.6
17.1
19.6
19.6
19.6
33.7
28.9
27.5
34.4
35.0
35.1
32.1
35.1
27.5
35.6
42.1
34.2
23.9
23.3
32.3
35.8
31.5
28.3
28.9
36.0
35.9
36.5
104
Tuvalu
Wallis and Futuna
Total Population
11,149
13,256
9,853,024
2,152
2,432
1,929,981
19.3
18.3
19.6
32.3
31.0
33.5
Source: Curtain and Vakaoti, 2011: 41
105
Appendix 5: Adolescent fertility, unmet need for family planning and contraceptive
prevalence rate
Table A5: Adolescent fertility, unmet need for family planning and contraceptive prevalence rate
Country Adolescent fertility
rate, Births per 1000
women, age 15-19
(2010)
Unmet need for family
planning (% women
who want to stop or
delay childbearing but
who are not using any
method of
contraception to
prevent pregnancy)
(2010)
Contraceptive
prevalence rate (%
females, 15-49) (2010)
Cook Is 24.0 18.5 56.0
Fiji 43.8 18.5 51.7
Marshall Is 85.0 18.1 45.1
FSM 21.2 19.1 49.5
Palau 27.0 24.3 38.5
PNG 63.9 25.2 36.5
Samoa 26.6 46.4 29.0
Solomon Is 66.9 22.4 36.3
Tonga 19.7 No data 23.6
Tuvalu No data 29.4 31.5
Vanuatu 52.0 23.7 41.7
* Note: This table is an excerpt. The original included countries in the Asian region.
Source: UNESCO, 2013: 12
106
Appendix 6: Abridged Version of the Pacific Youth Council Strategic Plan and Work Plan
2009-2012
PACIFIC YOUTH COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN AND WORK PLAN 2009-2012
Vision: The Pacific Youth Council is a non-governmental regional organisation that empowers
young people to become active citizens and leaders.
Mission: We are platform for the interests, needs and development of young people of the
Pacific region.
Focus Areas for 2009-2012:
1. Capacity building
Goal 1: To strengthen the Pacific Youth Council Secretariat
Objective 1 – By August 2009 PYC will submit an application for volunteers from
VIDA, UNV and AYAD
Objective 2 – To obtain larger space and facilities for the Secretariat by the end of 2010
Objective 3 – To improve the management system of PYC Secretariat
Goal 2: To strengthen National Youth Councils’
Objective 1 – PYC to provide linkages to partners’ for in-country training
Activities identified:
� Board training
� Needs analysis
� Documentation, record keeping, database training
� UNAIDS Transformational leadership
Goal 3: To support active and potential young leaders
Objective 1 – To partner with groups, organisations, institutions that may deliver youth
based programs
Objective 2 – To promote youth related events
107
Goal 4: To promote active citizenship amongst young people
Objective 1 – To develop and distribute IEC materials
Objective 2 – To develop and distribute media programs
Objective 3 – To create links to organisations and institutions that are conducting training
programs on the promotion of active citizenship
2. Advocacy
Goal 1: To strengthen the functions of PYC
Objective 1 – To secure funding for the PYC Board meetings
Objective 2 – To improve communication links between PYC Board members
Objective 3 – To develop a terms of reference for Board members
Objective 4 – Improve communication links between PYC members and the PYC
Secretariat
Goal 2: To ensure representation at regional and international forums
Objective 1 – To lobby regional and international forums to engage with young people
Goal 3: To promote active citizenship amongst young people
Objective 1- To provide support to young people and to youth organisations that are
engaging with regional and international forums
Objective 2 – To establish linkages with regional and international forums on active
citizenship
Goal 4: To promote the establishment of NYCs
3. Networking
Goal 1: To maintain links with current partners
Goal 2: To identify and establish links with potential partners and members
108
Goal 3: To establish and maintain linkages between NYCs
Goal 4: To establish and maintain linkages with youth focused regional and international
forums
109
Appendix 7: Abridged Version of the Pacific Youth Council Strategic Plan 2013-2016
PACIFIC YOUTH COUNCIL STARATEGIC PLAN 2013-2016
VISION
To empower young people to become active citizens and leaders.
MISSION
The Pacific Youth Council is a platform for the interests, needs and development of young
people of the Pacific region.
Who We Are
The Pacific Youth Council (PYC) was established in 1996 in Noumea, New Caledonia at its first
General Assembly. It is an independent regional non-governmental organisation made up of
member national youth councils. It currently has ten members: Cook Islands, Federated States of
Micronesia, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Republic of the Marshall Islands, Solomon Islands, Tonga,
Tuvalu and Vanuatu. There are also three national youth councils with official observer status:
Fiji, Kiribati, and Samoa. This status was provided in recognition of these national youth
councils’ moves towards attaining full membership at the next General Assembly in 2016.
The PYC is governed by a six member board. The board is voted in at the General Assembly
which takes places every three years. It consists of a chairperson, vice chair, treasurer, secretary
and two executive members who collectively govern the PYC. The direction of the PYC is
steered by the strategic plan that is devised and endorsed by the members at the General
Assembly. The day-to-day business of the PYC is led by the PYC Secretariat which is funded by
AusAID Pacific Leadership Programme (PLP) and housed at the Secretariat of the Pacific
Community in Suva, Fiji Islands.
The Way We Work
To carry out its Mission, the PYC will
� Promote, at all levels, a regional youth identity which is sensitive to the spiritual, cultural,
social, economic and political diversities of the PYC member countries
110
� Enhance the common aspirations and welfare of Pacific youth
� Create a greater awareness and appreciation of issues affecting Pacific youth
� Assist in the promotion of a collective Pacific voice
� Foster goodwill and solidarity among Pacific youth
� Monitor prevailing and emerging territorial, national and regional youth issues and assist
member countries in developing appropriate programmes to address such issues
� Foster co-operation between non-government youth organisations in the Pacific with
governmental, regional and international organisations to promote engagement and
development.
� Action issues of concern to young people in the Pacific
� Promote a global understanding of issues affecting Pacific youth
PACIFIC YOUTH COUNCIL FOCUS AREAS:
1. Capacity Building
2. Networking
3. Advocacy
PYC also recognises that there are cross-cutting issues that impact young people in the Pacific
Islands region. These are:
- Employment
- Leadership and governance
- Climate change
- Health
- Gender
111
Focus Area 1: Capacity building
PYC recognises the need for continued capacity building for young people, and youth –led
organisations. It began work in this area in its last strategic planning cycle by providing training
in governance and administration processes, advocacy, and transformational leadership. Its
funding partners in these training activities were AusAID Pacific Leadership Programme and
UNFPA; and its advisory partners were SPC, PIFs, ILO, CYP, UNDP Pacific Centre, and
UNICEF.
There is still much work to be done. New areas of capacity building have emerged such as media
training which mark a movement towards greater and more effective publicity of the work NYCs
conduct. This training is important for the growth of the PYC as regional organisation that
advocates for young people.
Goal 1: To strengthen the capacity of PYC as a regional youth platform
Objective 1.1: Institutional strengthening of PYC Secretariat, and Governance (Board) and
Management
Output 1.1.1: Increased human resources in the Secretariat
Activities:
1.1.1.1 Establish, via constitutional by-laws, core positions for the Secretariat –
Coordinator, Finance Officer, and Communications Officer.
1.1.1.2 Encourage the use of volunteers including elevating their positions to
permanent when appropriate and if funding is available
1.1.1.3 Provide training opportunities for new staff, permanent or volunteer, in
advocacy work, and in monitoring and evaluation.
Output 1.1.2: Independent Office Space
Activities:
1.1.2.1 Source funding for the establishment of an office space independent of
SPC
112
1.1.2.2 Seek an available office space that provides easy access for members,
stakeholders and partners; and maintains the independence of the PYC
Output 1.1.3: Enhanced documentation of information on youth, and youth-related
programmes/ projects/ activities.
Activities:
1.1.3.1 Creation and maintenance of a library of youth relevant documents
1.1.3.2 Development and publication of materials on youth, in particular youth in
Pacific Island countries and territories.
1.1.3.3 Establish PYC as a publisher of materials through registration with a
recognised international registration body.
Output 1.1.4: Review of policies and processes of the PYC
Activities:
1.1.4.1 Review PYC mandate, constitution and the strategic plan
1.1.4.2 Review PYC operational policies and processes – including financial,
governance, meetings, project management, and communication strategies
1.1.4.3 Audit the performance of the Secretariat and Board
1.1.4.4 Provide relevant training for Board members in governance, standards for
good management, and policy development
Output 1.1.5: Monitoring and evaluation
Activities:
1.1.5.1. Develop and implement a work plan aligned to the strategic plan, policies
and processes
1.1.5.2 Develop an Annual Report on the activities of PYC relative to the work
plan and strategic plan
1.1.5.3 Develop and Implement a Monitoring and Evaluation Framework aligned
to programs
Objective 1.2: Strengthening the capacity of PYC members and of young people
Output 1.2.1: Provide training opportunities in the cross-cutting issues of employment,
governance and leadership, climate change, health, and gender.
Activities:
113
1.2.1.1 Source training opportunities from relevant organisations nationally,
regionally and internationally
1.2.1.2 Disseminate information on training opportunities to PYC members and
any other youth networks to encourage participation
1.2.1.3 Identify funding for training opportunities, and where possible provide
supporting documentation for applicants
Output 1.2.2: Provide training to PYC members in policy and processes development in
particular: financial reporting, proposal writing, strategic plans, constitutions, M&E of
youth policies, administration (record keeping, data base development), leadership,
advocacy, lobbying and negotiation skills
Activities:
1.2.2.1 Establish a training framework
1.2.2.2 Track training activities to ensure that as many members as possible
receive training
1.2.2.3 Identify partners to collaborate with on the provision of training
Output 1.2.3: Research on young people in Pacific Island countries and territories
Activities:
1.2.3.1 Encourage research into, and data collection and analysis of, youth related
activities, programmes and projects
1.2.3.2 Request reports on activities, programmes and projects conducted for and
by young people for archiving in the PYC library, and for dissemination to
other members and youth networks.
1.2.3.3 Where possible, publish research and reports on youth related activities,
programmes, and projects in Pacific Island countries and territories.
Output 1.2.4: Mentoring of young people
Activities:
1.2.4.1 Facilitate attachments and internships to put provide practical experiences
for young people, and to encourage the exchange of ideas
1.2.4.2 Establish a mentoring programme for PYC leaders either through face-to-
face contact or via e-communications.
114
Focus Area 2: Networking
PYC is a network of national youth councils across the Pacific Islands region. Thus, by its very
nature, it understands the importance of building and maintaining partnerships within itself and
with those that can contribute to the development of young people in the region.
A key factor in networking is ensuring that PYC members are aware of activities that are taking
place on a variety of issues at the national, regional and global level. Many times information
about an activity, programme or project is not easily accessible to all members; networking
ensures that information is disseminated. It also ensures that young people and NYCs are able to
participate in a variety of forums that seek to have discussions and promote programmes,
projects or activities that will impact on the lives of young people.
Goal 2: To strengthen partnerships and coalitions
Objective 2.1: Establish, strengthen and broaden PYC’s partnerships and coalitions
Output 2.1.1: The PYC Secretariat maintains a strong relationship between PYC and its
partners
Activities:
1.1.1.1 Provide regular updates to partners and other stakeholders through the
PYC newsletter - Youth voice, the PYC website –
www.pacificyouthcouncil.com, and through social media – the Pacific
Youth Council Facebook group page.
1.1.1.2 PYC attendance and participation at regional and international forums
addressing current and emerging issues
1.1.1.3 Encourage regular e-reports from PYC members on activities, programme
and projects for dissemination to partners, stakeholders and youth
networks
1.1.1.4 Creation and maintenance of a database of existing and potential partners
in youth development, and regional and international forums.
115
Output 2.1.2: The PYC members maintain a strong relationship with in-country partners, and with the PYC secretariat Activities:
2.1.2.1 Sustain a healthy working relationship with government and development agencies through regular updates of activities; and facilitating and assisting in national, regional, or international forums.
2.1.2.2 Engage in discussion on and implement relevant national, regional and
international frameworks such as national youth policies, the Pacific Youth Employment Strategy (PYES), and the Pacific Youth Development Framework (PYDF)
2.1.2.3 Create and maintain a database of networking opportunities, and share this
database with PYC to disseminate to members and other stakeholders 2.1.2.4 Gather information on youth-related activities, programmes and projects
within countries, and share these with PYC for archival documentation and further dissemination to members and other stakeholders.
Focus Area 3: Advocacy
Many times young people argue that their voice is not heard in decision-making and the
development of programmes, projects and activities. Advocacy skills are a means of ensuring
that youth voice is heard. PYC recognises that while young people and organisations have the
will to participate, the skills required for effective participation may be lacking. Therefore it is
important that these skills are shared and their use promoted to ensure effective and informed
participation. It is a way of empowering young people to take account of their own lives, make
decisions and put into action the decisions they have made.
Goal 3: To strengthen Pacific youth voice, engagement and participation
Objective3.1: Ensuring youth are at the centre of shaping development agendas
Output 3.1.1: The PYC Secretariat will develop systems and mechanisms to ensure the
voices of young people are heard.
Activities:
3.1.1.1 Create dialogue systems for youth such as having a discussion forum on
the PYC website, and encouraging discussions via social media.
3.1.1.2 Develop and publish an advocacy toolkit
116
3.1.1.3 PYC Secretariat to visit member country governments to advocate
stronger relationships with NYCs, open dialogue on emerging issues, and
to promote mainstreaming of youth issues
3.1.1.4 Advocate for the professionalising of youth work. This should be done in
conjunction with partners.
3.1.1.5 Continue the skills-based training provided to NYCs including policy and
processes, communications, and advocacy and lobbying.
3.1.1.6 Promote the establishment of NYCs in all 22 pacific island countries and
territories
3.1.1.7 Advocate of youth spaces for representation on documents and
committees at both national and regional levels, for example, the Pacific
Plan review committees and in the Pacific Plan document.
3.1.1.8 Enhance Pacific identity through Pacific development leadership training
(rethinking development in the Pacific concept)
3.1.1.9 Raise the standards and perceptions of the NYCs through the
establishment of Youth awards/ recognition
Output 3.1.2: The PYC members will increase their visibility within their countries
Activities:
3.1.2.1 Participate in advocacy and lobbing at national level
3.1.2.2 Identify and create national youth champions/ambassadors for national,
regional, and global youth advocacy
3.1.2.3 Create a brand of their NYC to provide greater recognition within their
country, regionally and internationally.
3.1.2.4 Use social media to publicise NYC activities
3.1.2.5 Inform PYC Secretariat of activities to be undertaken so that it may then
promote the NYC, and the activity on its website and through social
media.