Youth Engagement in the Humanitarian Programme Cycle in the Context of Jordan

(1)

Youth Engagement in the

Humanitarian Programme Cycle

in the Context of Jordan

Clara Miralles Vila

June 2020

Supervised by Dr. Josje van der Linden

Faculty of Arts

University of Groningen

Netherlands

This thesis is submitted for obtaining the

Master’s Degree in International Humanitarian Action.

By submitting the thesis, the author certifies that the text is from his/her hand,

does not include the work of someone else unless clearly indicated, and that the thesis has been produced in accordance with proper academic practices.

(2)

Abstract

Engaging crisis-affected communities has become a central theme of discussion among the humanitarian community. At the same time, an increasing focus has been placed on the potential of young people to contribute to positive change in humanitarian settings. This research investigates the extent to which current humanitarian practices engage young people in Jordan. The research contributes to the knowledge on youth engagement in humanitarian work by bringing together theory and practice and providing lessons on how engagement practices could be improved in the future. Youth engagement encompasses a wide range of forms, which can be classified according to the degree of influence that crisis-affected youth have over decision-making processes, the reason to engage them, or the desired outcomes. The level of engagement is very influenced by issues of power, voice, and agency, which can limit or foster youth participation. The study employs a combination of qualitative methods, namely a document analysis and key-informant interviews with youth programme officers, to explore the types of engagement carried out by humanitarian organisations in the context of Jordan. The findings of the research show that the levels of youth engagement in Jordan vary considerably, ranging from good practices to tokenism. Meaningful forms of engagement have been developed and are increasingly used by humanitarian organisations, although those that involve a greater share in decision-making happen only sporadically and in an ad hoc manner. The research points out the need of institutionalising engagement practices among the humanitarian community and highlights the importance for humanitarian organisations to address the challenges and power dynamics surrounding youth engagement in a holistic way. If meaningful participation of young people in humanitarian projects is to be achieved, the various layers of power that limit their engagement need to be identified, reflected on and addressed. Only in that way will the humanitarian community be able to progress their commitment to put crisis-affected youth at the center of their work.

(3)

Acknowledgements

First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor, Josje van der Linden, for guiding me in this project and offering her support throughout the whole research process. I really value her commitment to the students and her readiness to help.

I would also like to thank Jude Sajdi and Aida Essaid from the Information and Research Center – King Hussein Foundation, for giving me the opportunity to join their team during my time in Jordan. My stay at the center has been an inspiration for this project and an invaluable experience.

I would like to thank all the research participants for offering their time and sharing their knowledge and experience. Without them, this research would not have been possible.

Finally, I would like to thank all those who have given me their support in a way or another in these months. Special thanks to Basti and to my family, for always being there for me.

(5)

Acronyms

ALNAP Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance HAP Humanitarian Accountability Partnership

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NRC Norwegian Refugee Council PYD Positive Youth Development UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund UNFPA United Nations Population Fund

(6)

1. Introduction

Becoming an adult is a challenging transition in every person’s life. Yet, coming of age in a situation of conflict or displacement poses additional challenges and has a substantial impact on youth’s lives and expectations. The potential negative effects that such contexts have on youth’s mental health and psychosocial well-being is well established in the literature (see e.g. Tol et al., 2013; Batniji et al., 2006; Tol et al., 2011). These can range from psychological distress, behavioural problems, and anxiety to posttraumatic stress disorder and depression. Furthermore, conflict also undermines family and community care networks, access to basic needs and education, and employment prospects. The deterioration of the environmental conditions can result in long lasting effects that may limit youth’s future socio-economic opportunities and hinder the transitioning of society out of crisis and into recovery. Conflict can also have spillover effects on neighbouring countries hosting refugees, affecting its educational system and labour market and thus affecting also youth in host communities (UNDP,2016).

These effects can be observed in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which has faced major challenges in its recent history as a refugee hosting country. Jordan has witnessed significant inflows of refugees since its independence in 1946, resulting from the various periods of political upheaval in its neighbouring countries. This includes refugees fleeing Palestine and Syria, as well as refugees from Iraq, Yemen and Sudan. It is estimated that every third person from its approximately 10 million inhabitants is a refugee (Jones et al., 2019). Despite the regional turmoil, Jordan continues to function as a buffer zone and is seen as a hub of stability and security in the Middle East (Chin et al.,2016). However, threats to the stability and development of the country abound, and long-standing issues have been exacerbated by the Syrian crisis (Comolet, 2014). The arrival of more than 1.3 million Syrian refugees since 2011 has placed significant social and economic strains on the country (JRP, 2019). Adolescents and youth in refugee and host communities have been greatly affected. The increased demand on educational services has resulted in overstretched school facilities and overcrowded classes, creating social tensions and an increase in school violence and school dropouts (Jones et al., 2019; JRP,2019).

(7)

Furthermore, the high unemployment rates, especially among youth, the poor job creation growth and the inability of the economy to absorb the increasing number of young adults entering the labour market are some of the major labour-oriented challenges faced by young people in the country (Comolet, 2014; JRP, 2019).

Despite the significant impact of the Syrian crisis on both Jordanian and refugee youth, this demographic group is often ignored (JRP, 2019). This is not particular to the Jordanian context. Historically, young people have received little attention in programming efforts within humanitarian settings. Caught between childhood and adulthood, their specific needs, vulnerabilities as well as capacities are easily overlooked (Cahill et al., 2010). Even so, initiatives that seek to bring attention to the importance of working for and with youth in humanitarian responses have emerged in recent years. UNICEF launched the No Lost Generation initiative in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region in 2013 to support children affected by the Syrian and Iraq crisis, being ‘adolescents and youth’ one of its three areas of work (No Lost Generation, n.d.). At global level, the launch of the Compact for Young People in Humanitarian Action (hereinafter Youth Compact) at the 2016 World Humanitarian Summit can be regarded as an important milestone. The Youth Compact, currently composed of over sixty organisations, recognises the ‘humanitarian responsibility to enable and protect the rights, address the specific needs and build on the strengths of all young people’ (‘Compact for Young People in Humanitarian Action’, 2016, p. 1). Organisations composing the compact have adopted a positive youth development approach, which sees young people as assets, partners and contributors, and in which youth programmes are framed to nurture existing potential rather than address supposed deficit (Damon, 2004).

While the increased focus on youth among humanitarian organisations is a significant step forward, it is important that youth programmes are meaningful and relevant for adolescents and young adults. To achieve this, youth voices must be taken into account. Case studies demonstrate that programmes can fail to address youth’s needs if they are not well informed about the nature of the constraints that young people face (Cahill et al.,2010). Conversely, their involvement can lead to better programming results. Therefore, it is fundamental that young people are given the tools and space to express their opinions, participate in decision-making processes and influence potential solutions. In this respect, a general tendency has evolved within the humanitarian community to recognise the active role that young people can and should play at every stage of the humanitarian programme cycle and to acknowledge that, despite the vulnerabilities associated with their age and identities, young people also have the power to be agents of change during

(8)

emergencies and protracted crises (Hoban et al., 2019). This commitment is embodied in the Youth Compact, which intends to ‘ensure that the priorities of young people are addressed and that they are informed, consulted, and meaningfully engaged throughout all stages of humanitarian action’ (‘Compact for Young People in Humanitarian Action’,2016, p. 1).

The importance that youth engagement has gained among humanitarian or-ganisations highlights an incipient new paradigm that acknowledges the central and active role of young people in humanitarian contexts. Young people are now starting to be recognised not only as a target group that should be considered in humanitarian responses, but also as active actors that should be involved in decision-making processes – as opposed to passive recipients of aid. This is in line with the Grand Bargain’s pledge to a ‘participatory revolution’, which pursues to ‘include people receiving aid in making the decisions which affect their lives’ (p.

10).1 _{The focus on engagement and participation implies a fundamental change} in the approach that has governed humanitarian work for decades. As noted by Brown and Donini (2014), the current structure of the humanitarian system is characterised by being ‘top-down and externally driven, with a focus on rapid action and short-term project and funding cycles’, an approach that ‘does not provide incentives for engaging with crisis-affected people’ (Brown & Donini,2014, p. 56). Yet, the role of affected communities in humanitarian responses has be-come central in current debates around the future of humanitarian action. The consultations leading up to the 2016 World Humanitarian Summit emphasized that ‘[p]eople affected by crisis should be at the heart of humanitarian action’, that they ‘should be enabled to exercise greater voice and choice’, and that affected communities and local organisations ‘should be recognized as the primary agents of their preparedness, response and recovery’ (World Humanitarian Summit secre-tariat,2015, p. ix). This implies a radical transformation of how the humanitarian community understands and delivers humanitarian aid (Chatelet & Sattler, 2019). The question that arises at this point is whether humanitarian organisations are ready and willing to pursue such a change, and how the implementation of that change could look like.

The Youth Compact, together with the Grand Bargain and its call for a ‘partici-pation revolution’ is a realisation of the commitment to this change at the highest policy level. Yet, ‘commitments and compacts are not magic bullets; they are

1_{The Grand Bargain is an agreement between some of the largest donors and humanitarian} organisations committing to get more means into the hands of people in need. It was launched during the World Humanitarian Summit in Istanbul in May 2016. For further information see the Grand Bargain official website: https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/grand-bargain

(9)

simply frameworks paving the way for more tangible collective action’ (Chatelet & Sattler, 2019, p. 5). They need to be translated into workable strategies that can be brought into the field. Furthermore, as highlighted by Fluck and Barter (2019), ‘[e]fficient and successful community engagement mechanisms need buy-in from all levels, appropriate resources, and most importantly, a genuine commitment to put the people we [humanitarian organisations] serve at the centre of everything we do’ (p. 11). Thus, the success of this paradigm shift requires a systemic transformation

of the humanitarian sector’s way of working that must be realised not only at the policy level, but at all organisational levels. It also requires the commitment and support of donors to encourage and fund long-term youth engagement initiatives and to offer organisations enough flexibility to carry them out (Fluck & Barter,

2019).

The purpose of this research is to explore how the commitments to youth engagement are being put into practice in Jordan. More specifically, the goal is to analyse the current practices used by humanitarian organisations to engage young people and how youth voices shape organisations’ programmes as well as to explore how to improve them further. Understanding how and why youth programmes do or do not succeed in engaging young people is a necessary step to define the best ways to design and run youth interventions and to improve existing ones. Following this rationale, the study aims to answer the following research questions:

1. To what extent are youth meaningfully engaged in the humanitarian pro-gramme cycle in the context of Jordan?

2. How could organisations improve youth engagement in their programming to ensure meaningful participation?

To answer these questions, the research juxtaposes theory and practice concerning youth engagement and brings evidence on humanitarian engagement programmes in Jordan. Through the analysis of current youth programming practices, the research provides the basis for discussing how youth engagement initiatives could be improved in the future.

The thesis is structured as follows. Chapter 2 presents the theoretical concepts and frameworks used to ground and guide the research. Chapter 3 describes the research methodology used to answer the research questions. Chapter 4 details the results obtained from the empirical research. Chapter 5 presents a discussion on the results. Finally, Chapter 6 summarises the conclusions of this research.

(10)

2. Theoretical Framework

This following chapter presents the theoretical framework that serves as the theo-retical base for this research. Section 2.1 provides a brief review on the history of engagement of crisis-affected people in the development and humanitarian sectors and some of the most well-known typologies on engagement and participation. This is followed by a discussion on concepts of power, voice, and agency presented in Section 2.2. Finally, Section 2.3 describes the main characteristics of positive youth development and presents a framework to put the positive youth development approach into practice.

2.1. Engagement of crisis-affected communities

Many of the approaches to engagement with crisis-affected communities in hu-manitarian work have their origins in the development sector, where participatory methods hit the mainstream in the 1980s (Brown & Donini, 2014). These evolved from participatory innovation techniques in the field of agriculture in the late 1970s and 1980s, expanding to topics on poverty and community level in the 1990s, to applications in governance in 2000s, and to the use of participatory information and communication technologies in the last decade (Chambers,2017). The partici-patory development movement was complemented by the emergence of right-based approaches in the 1990s, which emphasize people’s rights and responsibilities to exert agency and claim rights as well as to demand accountability and transparency from duty bearers. Rights-based perspectives distantiate themselves from the conception of those in the receiving end as ‘clients’ or ‘beneficiaries’ to view them as ‘right-holders’ (Jupp et al., 2010).

In the humanitarian sector, ideas on how participation could inform humanitarian programmes started to be considered by the late 1980s, in view of a number of studies pointing out to the failure of humanitarian actors to take account of local attitudes and knowledge (Brown & Donini,2014). The commitment to increase the

(11)

engagement of crisis-affected people in humanitarian action crystallised with the creation of system-wide initiatives, such as Sphere, the Humanitarian Accountability Partnership (HAP), and the Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action (ALNAP), and the subsequent establishment of standards, codes of conduct, and guidelines.

The importance of engaging with crisis-affected people is nowadays significantly present in the literature and discussions on humanitarian action, development, human rights, governance, and peace building. Nonetheless, despite the growing interest and considerable rhetoric around the topic, there is little clarity on the concepts of engagement and participation (Brown & Donini, 2014). In words of Cornwall (2008, p. 269), participation is an ‘infinitely malleable concept’ that ‘can be used to evoke – and to signify – almost anything that involves people’. In a similar fashion, Brown and Donini (2014) define engagement in humanitarian settings as a ‘catch-all term to cover all instances of people in crisis-affected communities becoming involved in planning and implementing responses to the crises affecting them’ (p. 16).

Trying to solve the clarity issue, different frameworks have been developed to differentiate degrees and kinds of engagement. This frameworks try to spell out what is meant by engagement, what is its purpose, who is being involved, and what is the rationale behind. This can help ‘distinguishing feel-good talk of ‘participation’ that has little substance to it in practice, from forms of genuine delegated control that enable people to exercise a meaningful part in making the decisions that affect their lives’ (Cornwall, 2008, p. 281). Pretty’s (1995) and White’s (1996) typologies of participation are some of the better known in the development field. ALNAP and URD (2003) presented a version of Pretty’s typology adapted to the humanitarian sector, which has been expanded by Brown and Donini (2014) in their recent global study on engagement of crises-affected people in humanitarian action. These typologies are described in the following.

2.1.1. Pretty (

1995

)’s framework

Pretty’s (1995) typology of participation (Table 2.1) classifies participation into seven types, which are graded according to the extent of power that people who participate have on decision-making. The lowest end of the spectrum corresponds to ‘bad’ forms of participation, labelled as ‘manipulative participation’, which are characterised by using token representatives with no real power. It then moves

(12)

to ‘passive participation’, in which people are informed of the decisions but do not have a say on them. Next is ‘participation by consultation’, where people are consulted although without being involved in the information gathering process or analysis and without guarantees that their responses will be taken on board. The following stages correspond to instrumental forms of participation, in which people contribute with resources such as labour in exchange of incentives –‘participation for material incentives’–, or to meet project objectives more effectively and reduce costs –‘functional participation’. The last two categories correspond to the more ‘genuine’

forms of participation, namely ‘interactive participation’ and ‘self-mobilisation’. The former is seen as a learning process where people collaborate in the analysis and development of action plans, which allows them to take control over decisions and resources. In the latter, initiatives are taken independently by the people or communities themselves, who may reach to organisations for the advice and resources that they need but retain control of how these are used.

Table 2.1.: Participation typology adapted from Pretty (1995, p. 1252).

Typology Characteristics of each type Manipulative

participation Participation is simply a pretence, with ‘people’s’ representatives onofficial boards but who are unelected and have no power. Passive participation People are told what has been decided or what has already

happened through unilateral announcements without any listening to people’s responses.

Participation by

consultation People are consulted or are asked to answer questions. Externalagents define problems and information gathering processes and control analysis. The consultative process does not concede any share in decision-making, and professionals are under no obligation to take on board people’s views.

Participation for

material incentives People participate by contributing with resources, e.g. labour, inreturn for food, cash or other material incentives. Functional

participation Participation is seen by external agencies as a means to achieveproject goals, especially reduced costs. People’s involvement may be interactive and involve shared decision-making, but tends to arise only after major decisions have been made by external agents. Interactive

participation People participate in joint analysis, development of action plans andformation or strengthening of local institutions. Participation is seen as a right, not just the means to achieve project goals. Groups take control over local decisions and determine how available resources are used, so they have a stake in maintaining structures or practices. Self-mobilisation People take initiatives independently of external institutions to

change systems. They develop contacts with external institutions for resources and technical advice they need, but retain control over how resources are used. Self-initiated mobilisation may or may not challenge existing distributions of wealth and power.

(13)

2.1.2. White (

1996

)’s framework

White (1996) puts forward a typology to analyse the diversity of forms, functions and interests that are encompassed within the term participation. She distinguishes between four types of participation, namely nominal, instrumental, representa-tive, and transformative (see Table 2.2). According to White (1996), ‘nominal participation’ is used with the function of display, for organisations to gain le-gitimation. This form resembles what Chambers (1994) calls ‘cosmetic label’, a participation practice used merely ‘to make whatever is proposed appear good’ (p. 2). ‘Instrumental participation’ serves as a means for cost-effectiveness, so that organisations are more efficient by utilising local labour and resources and reducing costs. ‘Representative participation’ has the function to allow local people to have a voice. It promotes the sustainability of a project and offers leverage for people to influence and shape it. However, as Cornwall (2008) points out, when ‘the voices of some are to be taken to represent others’ questions about representation and voice, and about the legitimacy of ‘defacto representatives’ may be raised (p. 277, emphasis in original). Last, ‘transformative participation’ accounts for forms of participations that are at the same time a means to empowerment and an end in itself. These are based on the idea that ‘the practical experience of being involved in considering options, making decisions, and taking collective action to fight injustice is itself transformative’ (White, 1996, p. 8).

Table 2.2.: Participation typology adapted by Cornwall (2008, p. 273) from White (1996).

Form What ‘participation’

means to the

implementing agency

What ‘participation’ means for those on the receiving end

Function of ‘participation’ Nominal Legitimisation – to show

they are doing something Inclusion – to retainsome access to potential benefits

Display Instrumental Efficiency – to limit

funders’ input, draw on community contribution and make projects more cost-effective

Cost – of time spent on project-related labour and other activities

A means to achieving cost-effectiveness and local facilities Representative Sustainability – to avoid

creating dependency Leverage – to influencethe shape that the project takes and its management To give people a voice in determining their own development Transformative Empowerment – to

enable people to make their own decisions and take action

Empowerment – to be able to decide and act for themselves

Both as a means and an end, a continuing dynamic

(14)

2.1.3. Brown and Donini (

2014

)’s framework

ALNAP/URD practitioners’ handbook (ALNAP and URD, 2003) adapted Pretty’s categories of participation to the humanitarian field. Brown and Donini (2014) expand on them in light of more recent approaches (see Table 2.3). The authors order the different forms of engagement in terms of the degree of influence and power of crisis-affected groups over the humanitarian response, so the spectrum is defined by the shift from control by the organisation to control by the crises-affected people. The forms of engagement that they enumerate range from providing information, and carrying out consultations or two-way communications, all the way to meaningful participation, partnership and ownership. The establishment of accountability frameworks, processes and mechanisms is also considered as an approach to engagement. Accountability may involve an array of other forms of engagement in itself, such as provision of information, consultations, and setting up feedback and complaints mechanisms.

Table 2.3.: Engagement typology adapted from Brown and Donini (2014, pp. 9–11).

Typology Description of each type

Providing information Information about the situation and the humanitarian response, such as the effects of the crisis or the assistance provided, is shared with crisis-affected population.

Consultation The affected population is asked for its input and perspective on various aspects related to the humanitarian needs and assistance. Two-way

communication Communication between humanitarian organisations andcrisis-affected population to both provide information and to listen to or obtain information from crisis-affected people and key stakeholders.

Direct involvement The crisis-affected population is directly involved in programme activities designed by humanitarian organisations or the government by, for example, providing materials and/or labour.

Accountability Establishment of accountability frameworks, processes and mechanisms that ensure that the power of humanitarian organisations is used responsibly.

Participatory

processes Participatory processes may include assessing needs, vulnerabilitiesand capacities, contributing to the design of programmes, as well as to its monitoring and evaluation. For participation to be ‘active’ and ‘meaningful’, affected people need to have power in the decision-making processes.

Partnership Humanitarian organisations work together with local civil society organisations to jointly design or implement a programme. The degree of decision-making power enjoyed by the partner organisation varies significantly from one context to another.

Local ownership Humanitarian responses are initiated by affected communities themselves rather than by aid agencies. The latter play only a supporting role.

(15)

Brown and Donini (2014) also emphasise the importance of being aware of the reasons why humanitarian organisations seek to engage with crisis-affected communities, as the type and degree of engagement is often determined by the goal they want to achieve. They identify three main rationales: value-based or normative, instrumental and emancipatory.

• Instrumental rationales argue that engagement with people affected by crises can enhance the effectiveness of humanitarian response by, for example, providing a better needs and capacity assessment through deeper understand-ing of the context, or improvunderstand-ing access to the affected area and security of humanitarian staff.

• Value-based rationales argue that engagement with people affected by crises is a right of people and a moral duty of humanitarian organisations to respect the dignity and fundamental rights of affected population.

• Emancipatory rationales argue that engagement with crisis-affected com-munities can strengthen society and help addressing underlying vulnerabilities and inequalities.

The use of engagement with affected populations to improve programmes’ design and implementation (instrumental rationales) is well settled as a common practice. Nonetheless, if manuals and toolkits are to be taken as an indicator, approaches that look at participation as being a fundamental right (value-based rationales), as well as others that focus on the empowerment of communities as the primary goal (emancipatory rationales) are gaining ground and becoming widespread in humanitarian work (Brokings Institution,2008).

It is worth noting that although the typology frameworks suggest a clear dis-tinction between different forms of participation and engagement, in practice they are far from being unambiguous. Indeed, the boundaries between them are often blurred, and typically any project or process will involve a mix of some at different stages (Cornwall, 2008). Also, the reasons for promoting engagement may not always be clear, and they may be different even among staff working in the same project (White,1996). Therefore, and as a note of caution, one should bear in mind that while frameworks can be a useful starting point to understand and analyse engagement practices and to bring ‘clarity through specificity’(Cohen & Uphoff,

1980, p. 213), matters are more complex than simply assigning them a label. Cornwall (2008) also draws attention to the importance of the question of who

(16)

participates, as well as who is excluded and who exclude themselves, which is not addressed in the aforementioned frameworks. As she points out, most participatory processes do not and cannot involve ‘everyone’. Thus, it is necessary to make choices – explicit or implicit – on who may take part, running the risk of excluding particular groups. As she further elaborates, ‘although the term itself evokes a warm ring of inclusion, ‘participatory’ processes can serve to deepen the exclusion of particular groups unless explicit efforts are made to include them’ (p. 277). Developing processes of inclusion may help to ensure that none are left out. Nonetheless, even the most ‘participatory’ initiatives may come to a dead-end when those that were to be involved choose not to take part. As Cornwall (2008) notes, participatory initiatives tend to assume that ‘everyone would want to participate if only they could’, while the ‘active choice not to participate is barely recognized’ (p. 279, emphasis in original). Among the many reasons for non-participation, ‘participation fatigue’ (Cornwall, 2008, p. 280) has come to be one of the common causes for active self-exclusion. Being involved in project after project without seeing any changes or improvements in the situation may likely result in participants regarding the initiatives as a waste of time and opting not to engage again.

All in all, the typologies presented show that engagement and participation is about sharing power, and particularly sharing power over decision-making (Brown & Donini, 2014). In practice, participation is rarely a smooth process, but rather a contested one (Cornwall, 2008). As VeneKlasen and Miller put it, ‘[r]arely does anyone give up power without a fight’ (as cited in Chambers, 2006, p. 103). Power relations between different actors involved, each of which with its own rationales, ideas, and interests, will eventually shape the actions and outcomes of any engagement enterprise. Power relations will also determine who is involved, in what they are involved and to what extent (Cornwall, 2008). Given its central role in the understanding of engagement, a further discussion on issues of power, as well as voice and agency, is presented in the following section.

2.2. Power, voice and agency

Engagement and participation are necessarily related to concepts of power, voice, and agency. As Chambers and Pettit (2004) argue, ‘[v]iewing aid as a complex system, power and relationships can be identified as governing dynamics that prevent the inclusion of weaker actors in decision-making’ (p. 137). Youth agency, seen as the ability of young people to act, make decisions, and express themselves,

(17)

is embedded in a relational context and bounded by existing dominant power structures (Secombe, 2010). Young people’s capacity to engage and participate is limited by different power relations, which are embodied in personal beliefs, attitudes and behaviours, in organisational norms and procedures, as well as in society (Chambers, 2017; Chambers & Pettit,2004).

Brown and Donini (2014) discuss three dimensions of power within humanitarian contexts:

• Power relations in the humanitarian activity. These include relation-ships between humanitarian actors and recipients of aid, as well as between donors, international agencies, local organisations, and local governments, among other stakeholders. Tensions between ‘outsiders’ and ‘insiders’ as well as concerns and criticism about unequal power dynamics, perceived arrogant behaviours, or lack of cultural sensitivity of humanitarian actors are well known. As will be discussed in the following, engagement is about sharing power. Yet, humanitarian agencies tend to hold back from transferring power to affected communities.

• Power inside aid agencies. Power relations are also present within insti-tutions and in the organisational culture. For example, power relationships between international aid agencies’ headquarters and field offices have proven to be sometimes problematic, particularly due to the tension between insti-tutionalisation and the individual agency of field staff. In addition, personal attitudes to power can also create conflictive situations within an organisation. • Power relations in the local context. Power relations exist in any

society. These can limit participatory processes (White,1996), and if they are not properly considered and addressed, aid agencies’ work may exacerbate pre-existing power inequalities (Cornwall,2008). Brown and Donini (2014) emphasise the importance for external organisations ‘to understand who wield power and how this may affect whose voices are heard and influence decision-making’ (p. 57). Understanding the power dynamics and power inequalities in affected communities is crucial in order to do no harm, although knowing how to manage them can be a challenge for external organisations.

According to Chambers (1994), ‘reversing power relations is the key, and the weak link, in achieving participation’ (p. 1). However, this may not be reached, or wanted, in all forms of participation. White (1996) notes that ‘[s]haring through participation does not necessarily mean sharing in power’ (p.1, emphasis in original).

(18)

As discussed in the previous section, participation and engagement can serve many different purposes, and not all forms may aim to empower those that are being asked to engage. Furthermore, in humanitarian settings not all humanitarian actors may feel necessarily comfortable with more developmental approaches that have empowerment and social change as overt goals, and may rather pursue engagement for instrumental reasons (Brown & Donini, 2014). Nonetheless, the rhetoric of a people-driven humanitarian action and the use of words such as partnership, ownership, participation, accountability, and transparency imply changes in power and relationships (Chambers & Pettit, 2004; Konyndyk, 2019). However, words need to be matched in practice, otherwise they risk to become ‘little more than fashionable labels attached to the same underlying systems [...] easily abused to conceal and advance business as usual’ (Chambers & Pettit, 2004, p. 138). Indeed, while participation can have the potential to challenge patterns of dominance and influence, it can also be the means to reproduce them behind a facade of good intentions (White, 1996). Cornwall (2008) also points out that ‘[b]eing involved in a process is not equivalent to having a voice’ (p. 278). Fear of reprisals or expecting not to be listened to may prevent people from freely expressing themselves. She further argues that empowerment cannot be simply achieved ‘by waving a magic participation wand’ (Cornwall, 2008, p. 278). Reversals in power relations need to provide with the space and the conditions to nurture people’s voices, recognise them and act on them. They require investment, time, and persistence, as well as major changes of behaviour and relationships (Cornwall, 2008; White,1996).

Despite the relevance of power and relationships, these two words, and what they represent, are significantly absent from high-level discussions about how to achieve a people-centred aid work, as ‘an elephant in the room, so large, occupying so much space, that it is not seen’ (Chambers, 2006, p. 108). They may be regarded as not being important. Or they may be deemed to pose a threat and an embarrassment to the powerful, who may fear to be induced to a zero-sum situation in which they will inevitably loose if a discussion about power is opened up (Chambers, 2006). A first step to tackle the controversy and discomfort surrounding the topic of power is to talk about it openly (VeneKlasen & Miller, 2007). In its common usage, power has often negative connotations such as abuse, repression, exploitation, and corruption (Chambers, 2006). However, power is not intrinsically negative or positive – it may mean control and coercion, but also capacity to fight for justice (Chapman et al., 2005). As such, power can have many faces, it can be ‘both dynamic and multidimensional, changing according to context, circumstance and interest’(VeneKlasen & Miller, 2007, p. 39).

(19)

VeneKlasen and Miller (2007) acknowledge that, apart from its negative form, there are alternative ways to exercise and use power that allow to form more equitable relationships and structures (see also Chapman et al., 2005). They offer a framework that helps explore the various sources and expressions of power, distinguishing four types of power:

• Power over other people, referring to the power exerted by those in dominant or superior positions to those who are subordinate or in an inferior position in order to control resources and decision-making processes.

• Power with others, referring to collective power that can be achieved by finding common ground among different interests and building collective strength.

• Power to act, referring to the potential of every person or group to define, shape, and change their life.

• Power within ourselves, referring to a person self-confidence and sense of self-worth and self-knowledge.

‘Power to’ and ‘power within’ can be associated to the concept agency: the potential and ability of a person or a group to make decisions, act and bring change in the structures, discourses and environments in which he or she is embedded (Coffey & Farrugia,2014; VeneKlasen & Miller, 2007).

Typical bottom-up strategies for change often involve those who are marginalised and powerless to gain awareness and self-confidence – power within and power to – as well as collective strength – power with – to then use them to change or influence power over (Chambers,2006). In this sense, power over is often seen as a win-lose kind of relationship, where one’s gain is another’s loss (VeneKlasen & Miller, 2007). Chambers (2006) questions this assumption, stating that ‘there is nothing inherently bad about power over – it all depends on how it is used’ (p. 11). He argues that there can also be win-win solutions through which the powerful can use their power over to empower others by sharing or handing over power. According to him, these can bring three main gains to those with power: realism and knowledge, because it can prevent the concealment and mutual deception that is often provoked by punitive forms of control; efficiency and effectiveness; and responsible well-being resulting from fair and good actions and relationships. Coffey and Farrugia (2014) also critique the understanding of agency – power within and power to – as being associated only to actions that resist existing power

(20)

relationships. As they argue, this unfairly implies that those who do not resist power over lack active subjectivity and disregards people’s efforts to build lives in conditions that they have not chosen when they do not act against established power relations. These viewpoints take apart the assumption that power relations are necessarily oppressive, as well as the picture of agency as only the ability to resist power. Acknowledging these arguments provides the basis to explore ways in which those with power – NGOs and aid agencies, governments, and other actors – can use their power to empower, creating more equitable relationships that can benefit all parties involved.

2.3. Positive youth development

Young people are an important demographic segment among crisis-affected popula-tion, and are impacted by crises in many different ways. Addressing youth’s needs and supporting them to lead and drive solutions in humanitarian contexts can be regarded as two sides of the same coin (Hoban et al., 2019). Considering this, organisation’s approaches must recognise young people’s particular vulnerabilities, but also acknowledge youth’s agency and capacity to ‘build back better’, and shift power to them to allow them to engage in humanitarian action responses.

As a way to put these ideas into practice, various development and humanitarian organisations working with youth have adopted a positive youth development approach. USAID’s YouthPower Learning initiative provides the following definition of positive youth development:

Positive Youth Development (PYD) engages youth along with their families, communities and/or governments so that youth are empowered to reach their full potential. PYD approaches build skills, assets and competencies; foster healthy relationships; strengthen the environment; and transform systems. (Hinson et al.,2016)

The central aspect of positive youth development is that it emphasizes the manifest potentialities rather than the supposed incapacities of young people (Damon,2004). Thus, positive youth development takes a strength-based approach that focuses on the attributes, skills, competences, and potentials to succeed in the spheres of work, family, and civic life, and on how these can be promoted. This contrasts with traditional youth deficit models, which focus on reducing risk behaviours, such as alcohol and tobacco use, antisocial behaviour, violence, or school drop out. It is therefore a change of perspective that encourages looking at

(21)

young people as ‘resources to be nurtured’ rather than ‘problems to be managed’ (Benson et al., 2007, p. 902).

The theory of positive youth development acknowledges the dynamic interplay between an individual and the context, thus positioning youth development in a relational and contextual space (Benson et al.,2007). According to Benson et al. (2007), its core principles can be summarised as follow:

1. All youth have an inherent capacity for positive growth and develop-ment.

2. A positive youth development trajectory is enabled when youth are embedded in relationships, contexts, and ecologies that nurture their development.

3. The promotion of positive development is further enabled when youth participate in multiple, nutrient-rich relationships, contexts, and ecolo-gies.

4. All youth benefit from these relationships, contexts and ecologies. Support, empowerment, and engagement are, for example, important development assets for all youth [...]. However, the strategies and tactics for promoting these developmental assets can vary considerably as a function of the social location.

5. Community is a viable and critical “delivery system” for positive youth development.

6. Youth are the major actors in their own development and are a signifi-cant (and under-utilised) resource.

(p. 896)

In line with these principles and with the aim to operationalize them, USAID’s YouthPower Learning initiative has developed a Positive Youth Development Framework that can be applied in programmes, practices and policies whose vision is to achieve a healthy, productive, and engaged youth (see Hinson et al.,2016). The framework identifies four critical overarching domains – assets, agency, contribution and enabling environment –, which are defined as follows:

• Assets correspond to youth’s resources, skills and competencies that facilitate a positive development and optimal transition into adulthood.

(22)

• Agency refers to youth’s ability to use these assets to set their goals, make or influence decisions about their lives, and act upon those decisions. • Youth contribution stands for youth engagement in their communities as a

source of individual and community positive change and positive development. • Enabling environment describes an environment that enables and recog-nises youth and promotes their social and emotional capacity to thrive. The term environment should be understood broadly, including social (e.g. rela-tionships), normative (e.g. norms, attitudes and believes), structural (e.g. laws and policies), and physical (e.g. safe spaces) dimensions.

Figure 2.1 illustrates the relation between the four domains, represented as nested and interconnected layers around the young person. The different types of power introduced in the previous section can also be located in the representation. At the core is the young person’s agency, together with the power within the person, which are intimately connected to the individual. The closest layer corresponds to the assets with which the young person is equipped, which can also be seen as the means for the young person to have power to influence and change other domains. The outer layer is the environment, that is the socio-ecological system in which the young person is embedded. Here is where power over, which can work against the young person or be a source of empowerment, lays. Finally, the arrow represents the contribution of the young person to the community and society. It is two-directional, as the environment will also influence the young person’s agency and assets. Power with, seen as collective power, can be placed in this interconnection between the young person and others in their environment.

(23)

Figure 2.1.: Visualisation of the positive youth development domains and forms of power. AGENCY power within EN AB L I N G E N V I R O N_M E N T CONTRIBUTION power with power to power over ASSETS

The positive youth development framework illustrated in Figure 2.1, together with the engagement and power typologies presented in the previous sections, serve as theoretical tools to address the research questions of this study and analyse the results from the empirical part of the research. For the purpose of the study, this positive youth development framework will be used to analyse the organisations’ approach to youth work, and particularly to youth engagement. Brown and Donini’s (2014) typology will be used as the main framework for the analysis of current engagement practices, as it provides a comprehensive classification of different forms of engagement adapted to the specificities of humanitarian work. Pretty’s (1995) and White’s (1996) typologies will be used to complement Brown and Donini’s (2014) typology when necessary. Finally, VeneKlasen and Miller’s (2007) categories of power will serve as the theoretical basis for discussing issues of

(24)

3. Methodology

This research followed a qualitative research methodology to build up an in-depth picture of the current youth engagement practices in Jordan and of the potential areas of improvement. Qualitative evidence was drawn from a combination of methods that included a document inventory and analysis, key informant interviews, and a member checking. This chapter summarises the methodological design of the research. Section 3.1 presents how the documents and participants were selected. Section 3.2 describes how data was collected and analysed. Section 3.3 details the ethical considerations of the research. Finally, Section 3.4 explains the study limitations.

3.1. Sampling

In order to define the sample for the research, humanitarian organisations that work with refugee youth and youth in host communities in Jordan were identified. Given the relatively large number of organisations fitting the description, a more refined selection was conducted. To have a view of different approaches, a balance between UN agencies, international and local organisations was sought. To keep the focus on youth and youth work and capture practices with significant impact in terms of the number of young people involved, the following selection criteria was used:

1. Organisations that focus solely on youth or have a specific youth department. 2. Large organisations with a sound reputation for their work with youth in

Jordan.

3. Organisations that showed interest in participating in an interview and which be could conducted in English.

(25)

to find participants or organisations that were considered to be particularly relevant for the progress of data collection – and convenience and snowball sampling – given the limited time, the unavailability of some potential participants, and the added difficulties derived from the COVID-19 pandemic.

The selected organisations were: Mercy Corps, the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC), Save the Children, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). In addition, a Jordanian devel-opment organisation, I-Dare for Sustainable Develdevel-opment, was also included in the participant organisations’ list to add a local perspective from the development sector.

The participants of the key informant interviews were all staff members of the aforementioned organisations, in similar positions within the respective adolescent and youth programmes, which ranged from chief of programme and programme manager to programme advisor and programme analyst. For the sake of the anonymity of the participants and the ease of the reading, they will be referred as ‘youth programme officers’, ‘participants’, or ‘interviewees’ in this report.

3.2. Data collection and data analysis

This research employed three different qualitative methods for data collection and analysis, namely a document analysis, key informant interviews, and a member checking. They are explained in the following.

3.2.1. Document analysis

A structured document study was conducted in order to understand how humani-tarian organisations address their work with youth, and particularly which are the standards and practices put in place to engage young people in their programming. The desk review focused on grey literature and considered documents that were available online or were supplied by the organisations.

The sample of relevant documents related to the youth work of the selected organisations was identified through a targeted search of repositories and web-sites, which was supplemented by relevant papers sent by the organisations after request. The documents include web-page descriptions, factsheets, guides and

(26)

toolkits, strategic frameworks, research studies, and evaluation reports related to the organisations’ youth programming both at a global level, and specific to Jordan. Additionally, relevant inter-agency documents such as compacts and guidelines were also considered. During the screening process, documents that did not focus on youth engagement and participation or did not discuss interventions with an explicit engagement and participation element were excluded. Section 3.2.1 illustrates the document’s inclusion and exclusion process. Given the purpose and scope of the document analysis, the list aimed to be extensive but exhaustive. A full list of the 25 documents used for the document analysis can be found in Appendix A.1.

Figure 3.1.: Flow chart of the document inclusion and exclusion process. Step 1. Targeted search

Key words: youth, young people, adolescents, Jordan, <name of NGO/agency>

Preliminary list of poten-tial documents.

Step 2. Refined serach from documents selected in Step 1.

Key words: engagement, participation, consultation Final list of documents included for analysis.

Step 3

Additional documents pro-vided by organisations included if they satisfied Step 1 and 2 criteria.

The documents gathered were used for two different purposes. First, the language and terms used to describe youth and youth work were analysed using discourse analysis to reveal the way in which organisations portray youth and youth work. The dimensions of the positive youth conceptual framework introduced in the theoretical framework (Section 2.3) – agency, assets, contribution, and environment – were used as the themes for analysis. Second, the content of the documents was analysed to identify how organisations conceptualise engagement and the type of engagement practices that they carry out.

3.2.2. Key informant interviews

Six key informant interviews were conducted to complement the information obtained through the document analysis and add depth and richness to the research. The participants were youth programme officers of the selected organisations, as explained in the sampling section (Section 3.1).

Interviews were undertaken between March and April 2020. The interviews followed a semi-structured approach using a guide developed for the purpose of

(27)

this research, based on the research question and informed by the literature and the advice of the thesis supervisor and the head of research of the Information and Research Centre King Hussein Foundation. Due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and following the national regulations and measures aiming at preventing the spread of the virus, the last four interviews were conducted online.

All interviews were recorded after obtaining informed consent from the par-ticipants and transcribed afterwards. Analysis was an iterative process starting near the beginning of the data collection and using the first interviews to develop the analytic strategy. A framework method approach was used to create and establish meaningful patterns following five steps: (1) familiarisation with the data, (2) constructing initial codes and inductively constructive an initial thematic framework, (3) indexing the data, (4) sorting the data into a framework matrix, and mapping of data, and (5) finally interpreting the data and re-defining and naming the final themes (Srivastava & Thomson, 2009). The codebook used can be found in Appendix A.2.

3.2.3. Member checking plus

After collecting and analysing the data from the key informant interviews, a process of member checking, also known as respondent validation, was conducted. The use of a member checking method is useful to ensure that the participant’s own perspective and meanings are adequately conveyed and not altered by the researcher’s own knowledge and judgements (Birt et al., 2016). Thus, the purpose of the member checking was to discuss and validate the findings from the first part of the research. In addition, the method was also aimed to provide the participants with the opportunity to engage and add to the interpreted data from the interviews, as well as to develop further the second research question on how to improve youth engagement practices in the humanitarian programme cycle based on the preliminary findings.

Originally, a focus group discussion had been planned for this purpose. However, the situation resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic made it impracticable. A member check of synthesised analysed data was chosen as an alternative validation method (see Birt et al., 2016). Following this method, a four-page summary with the preliminary results of the research was returned to the participants. They were asked to comment on whether the results reflected their experiences and opinions and were given the opportunity to add further comments. In order to encourage

(28)

participants to engage in the member check, the analysed data was presented in an accessible and visually attractive way, and accompanied with interview data quotes. The synthesised document that was sent to the participants can be found in Appendix A.3.

Four out of the six participants responded. All of them agreed with the summary results, and only few minor comments were made. None of them added new information to the question on how youth engagement practices could be improved. Therefore, it was not necessary to return to the data to undertake further analysis or to modify or incorporate disconfirming voices to the preliminary results.

3.3. Ethics

The key ethical principles underpinning the research approach were the respect for the rights and dignity of human research subjects, carefulness to minimise bias and error, honesty in the reporting of the results of the research, and social responsibility (Resnik, 2016). A series of measures were taken to ensure that participation in the research was voluntary and based on fully informed consent, and that all information provided was kept confidential and in a secure manner. Even though no direct interaction with vulnerable groups was planned in the design of the research, general ethical considerations still had to be considered throughout the research process, as specified in the following.

Formal approval Ethical support and formal approval were first sought at the institutional level, by ensuring to gain approval from the NOHA Ethics Commit-tee through existing formal structures within the Faculty of Arts, University of Groningen. The ethical approval letter can be found in Appendix A.4.

Confidentiality All data collected remained strictly confidential and specific details were encrypted to protect the identities of both participants and institutions. Identification numbers were assigned to the participants and used throughout the data analysis process and reporting. It was also ensured that in writing the outcomes of the research, the organisation and participants’ identity could not be identified by the readers unless agreed by the participant and organisation. Where quoted, any potentially sensitive statements were totally de-identified in this report.

(29)

Data management To avoid misuse of the data and ensure data protection, recordings were saved in a password-protected computer and deleted from the recording device right after the interview. All data collected, such as recordings, transcripts and field notes, were encrypted using identification numbers, and simi-larly stored in a password-protected computer. Following Groningen University’s Research Data Policy (‘University of Groningen Research Data Policy’, 2015) and the Research Data Management Protocols and Guidelines of the Faculty of Arts (‘Faculty of Arts: Research Data Management Protocol and Guidelines’, 2017),

raw data will be stored for at least ten years to meet the obligation to make the research verifiable. However, it will not be made available for access and reuse for academic research (no open access) in order to maintain confidentiality.

Obtaining informed consent It was ensured that all participants received structured information about the purpose and procedures of the research. Partic-ipation in the research was voluntary, and informed consent was discussed with all participants before the start of the interview. The research information sheet included contact information in case the participants needed additional information or wished to retract of withdraw participation at any point of the research. It also explained how data would be managed and confidentiality would be afforded.

3.4. Limitations

The research faced the following limitations:

No youth participants Due to ethical considerations, the language barrier and the scope of the research, no interviews with young people were conducted. The results were drawn from data collected from organisations’ documents and interviews with organisations’ staff. Therefore, the results can only show one side of the coin, as youth’s voices and perspectives are necessarily missing. In addition, since interviewees acted as representative of their organisation, critical opinions were difficult to obtain. Therefore, it would be reasonable to expect a positive bias in their answers.

Heterogeneous document inventory The diversity of documents found dur-ing the document analysis and the lack of specificity regarddur-ing the organisations’

(30)

engagement and participation practices were constraints to form a picture of the cur-rent engagement initiatives and identify trends. Nonetheless, this was compensated by the information provided during the key informant interviews.

COVID-19 Different limitations arouse as a consequence of the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic during the data collection stage. In first place, most organisations were occupied with emergency responses and contingency plans to face the unexpected situation, so the number of key informants that could be reached and interviewed was limited. In addition, it was not possible to conduct the focus group discussion that had been planned as a member checking. Even though an alternative validation method was used, the discussion and insights that could have been generated in a focus group were missed.

(31)

4. Results

This chapter presents the empirical results of the research. The first two sections summarise the findings of the document analysis: Section 4.1 describes how young people are conceptualised and portrayed through the organisations’ documents, while Section 4.2 zooms into the specific area of youth engagement and how it is spelled out (or not) in different organisations’ documents. Finally, Section 4.3 looks into how youth engagement is conducted in practice by presenting the results from the key-informant interviews.

4.1. A positive view of youth

The discourse analysis of the selected documents reveals that a positive vision of young people is shared across organisations. Some of them emphasise that they work with ‘the most marginalised’ and ‘the most vulnerable’. However, positive attributes accompanying the allusions to young people are more common. Young people are seen as active ‘agents of change’ (NRC, 2016) and ‘resources to be developed rather than problems to be managed’, emphasizing the need to focus on their ‘strengths instead of on their deficits’ (UNICEF Jordan, n.d.-a, p. 1). Expressions such as ‘people in need’ or ‘beneficiaries’, terms that are widely used in the humanitarian sector but which have been criticised for portraying those affected by crisis as passive actors (see Cornwall, 2000), are significantly absent when referring to young people.

The terminology used to refer to youth and youth work reflects a similar stand on young people to the one taken by the positive youth development approach, which some of the organisations have explicitly adopted. The documents’ content were studied and classified following the four domains of the positive youth development framework introduced in Section 2.3, namely agency, assets, contribution, and enabling environment. In the following, the current narrative around youth in the humanitarian sector is reconstructed by means of these four themes, which serve

(32)

as the thematic structure of the narrative analysis. Agency

A recurrent theme in the different documents is the acknowledgement of young people’s ‘potential’, which organisations aim to ’unleash’ and help to ‘develop’, ‘reach’ or ‘realise’. The term hints at an inner capacity of young people to bring ‘positive change’ in their developmental trajectories as well as to the society in general. The documents also emphasise youth’s ‘strengths’ and ‘assets’, which organisations should ‘acknowledge’ and ‘focus on’, as well as young people’s ‘voice’, which should be ‘listened to’. Furthermore, there are some remarks on the capacity of young people to act for themselves. However, they are usually accompanied by terms that indicate the role of the organisation, such as ‘promote self-development’ (UNICEF Jordan, n.d.-b, p. 1), or empower young people ‘to take control of

their future’ (UNICEF Jordan, n.d.-a, p. 1) and ‘to play a vital role in their own development and in that of their communities’ (UNFPA,n.d., p. 14).

Assets

Across all documents analysed, a significant emphasis is put on young people’s assets, that is their skills, capacities, and knowledge, and especially on how organisations can ‘equip’ young people with them. For example, some of the organisations’ goals are to ‘make sure they [young people] have the knowledge and skills to contribute to their communities’ (NRC, 2016), and ‘empower and equip them with skills to engage in their social, civic and economic opportunities’(UNICEF Jordan, n.d.-a, p. 1). Organisations aim to work with young people so that they can ‘confront the obstacles of adolescence with resiliency’ (Mercy Corps,2017, p. 1) and ‘successfully transition to adulthood’ (UNICEF Jordan, n.d.-a). Some of them also mention the organisation’s effort to create more opportunities to ‘build their [adolescents’] capacities to express their views, engage in decision-making processes and contribute to their communities’ (Save the Children, 2019, p. 7). Finally, in line with the specific traits of the Jordanian context, where youth unemployment is one of the major challenges and concerns among young people, many programmes work to ‘prepare students for the workforce’ (Save the Children Jordan, n.d., p. 1), provide ‘work readiness’ (NRC Jordan, n.d.), and ‘facilitate access to employment’ (UNICEF Jordan, n.d.-b).

Contribution

(33)

the different sources. Young people are seen as ‘transformative change agents’ (Mercy Corps,2017, p. 3) with ‘a role to play in driving their communities forward’ (NRC, 2016). They are conceptualised as productive members of society who ‘can play a central role in advocating for effective and sustainable development’ (Save the Children, 2018, p. 22), a ‘driving force towards development’ (I-Dare,

n.d.-c), and an ‘enormous opportunity to accelerate growth and positive change’ (UNICEF Jordan, 2019b, p. 1) that can ‘support the development towards a

tolerant and inclusive society’ (UNICEF Jordan, n.d.-a, p. 1). The documents show the will of organisations to ‘guide them [young people] [...] towards civic and social engagement’ (NRC,2016), provide ‘meaningful engagement and leadership experiences and opportunities’ (UNICEF Jordan, n.d.-a, p. 1), ‘promote youth participation, social activism, and active citizenship ’ (I-Dare, n.d.-a), and ‘connect young people to public and private stakeholders’ (UNICEF Jordan, 2019a, p. 2). They also aim to ‘mobilise’ young people and ‘empower’ them ‘to have a voice in the issues that matter to them’ (Save the Children, 2017, p. 3) and to exercise their rights ‘so that they can build a better future’ (NRC, 2016).

Enabling Environment

In relation to the environment, organisations mostly highlight the challenges that young people face and that prevent them from developing and contributing to society. In the documents, they refer to the unique struggles of transitioning to adulthood in situations of war and displacement, the limited access to vital services and opportunities, as well as the fact that adolescents and youth have long been ‘a neglected, underserved and misunderstood population’ (Mercy Corps, 2017, p. 4). They also mention their aim to ‘create an enabling environment’ (UNICEF Jordan,

n.d.-b) for meaningful engagement, although this domain is less present and less explicit than the support to young people’s assets and contributions. For example, organisations aim to ‘create safe and protective spaces where young adults can grow’ (NRC,2016), as well as give a ‘platform’ to express their views, make their voices

heard, and use their skills as participants and leaders. Nevertheless, issues related to the normative environment (attitudes, norms and beliefs) and the structural environment (policies, programmes services, and systems) and how they could be addressed to promote young people’s positive development are in general missing.

(34)

4.2. Engagement on paper

The considerable variety of documents available related to organisations’ youth work can be broadly classified into four categories: (1) general description of youth work or programmes, often available on the organisation’s webpage, (2) programme or project focused reports, such as research outputs or evaluations, (3) policies, frameworks, and strategic plans, (4) guidelines and toolkits. Some organisations have specific documents that focus on youth engagement and participation or have specific sections on it, while others only mention it within a broader description of their approaches and objectives. Specific definitions on engagement or participation are rare. Table 4.1 shows the definitions that were found in the documents analysed.

Table 4.1.: Definitions of adolescent and youth engagement and participation.

Adolescent and Youth Engagement Strategic Framework (UNICEF,2017) Adolescent and youth

engagement The rights-based inclusion of adolescents and youth in areas thataffect their lives and their communities, including dialogue, decisions, mechanisms, processes, events, campaigns, actions and programmes – across all stages, from identification, analysis and design to implementation, monitoring and evaluation (p. 1).

Guidelines for Working with and for Young People in Humanitarian Settings

(The Compact for Young People in Humanitarian Action,2019) Meaningful

participation Working with and for young people is not just about serving anunderserved population. They participate in planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation not only to make the programme more sustainable and relevant, but because participation is a basic right in itself (p. 10).

Meaningful participation, in accordance with ethical considerations, enables young people to acquire knowledge and skills, build

competencies, dream bigger, and gain confidence. It promotes young people’s capacities for civic engagement, collective organisation, tolerance and respect for others (p. 11).

Adolescent and Youth Engagement Toolkit MENA UN:NGO Group (Mendonca et al.,2018) Adolescent and youth

engagement The objective of adolescent and youth engagement is to give voiceand choice for young people to work with government and non-governmental organization (NGO) partners to develop

conducive environments that engage and empower young people to positively impact their lives, families, communities and societies (p. 10).

As can be noticed, the definitions adhere to a rights-based approach, in which the involvement of young people in matters that affect their lives is seen as a right. They also emphasise that their inclusion should happen across all stages of the humanitarian programme cycle, from the planning and design phases, to

Youth Engagement in the Humanitarian Programme Cycle in the Context of Jordan