euth · name role date kerstin franzl project coordinator 23.12.15 all comments, additions or...

EUth 649594 Pilot framework D5.2

EUth

EUth – Tools and Tips for Mobile and Digital Youth

Participation in and across Europe

Project acronym: EUth

Project no: 649594

WP 5: Living Lab

Formal Deliverable D5.2 Pilot framework

Distribution: Public

Version 1

10.12.2015

Start date of project: 01.03.2015 Duration: 36 months

Authors:

Guillaume Petit & Antoine Vergne / Missions Publiques

Luis G. M. Ballesteros & Luis Konrad Tollmar / KTH

Version 1.0 Euth D.5.2 from 73


Change Control

Version # Date Author Organisation

0.1 16.09.2015 Guillaume Petit Missions Publiques

0.2 07.10.2015 Antoine Vergne Missions Publiques


0.4 25.11.2015 Luis G. M. Ballesteros KTH


0.6 27.11.2015 Andrea Ferrara AEGEE-Europe



1 10.12.2015 Antoine Vergne Missions Publiques

Change History

- Version 0.1 is the initial internal draft

- Version 0.2 takes in account all development of the pilots until October 7th

- Version 0.3 takes in account all development of the pilots until November 17th

- Version 0.4 takes in account all development of evaluation framework until November 25th

- Version 1.5 takes in account all development of the pilots and evaluation framework until

November 27th

- Version 0.6 is shared with the consortium members for improvement and proof-reading.

- Versions 0.7 & 0.8 take in account comments and improvements made by partners

- Version 1 Final version

Release Approval

Name Role Date

Kerstin Franzl Project coordinator 23.12.15

All comments, additions or changes should be addressed to:

[email protected]

[email protected]


mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


Table of contents

1Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................6

2General presentation of WP5......................................................................................................................................8

2.1Logic and spirit...................................................................................................................................................8

2.2Short presentation of pilots.................................................................................................................................8

2.2.1 Students Participation – AEGEE (WP6)....................................................................................................8

2.2.2 Conseil Parisien de la Jeunesse (CPJ) (WP7-1).......................................................................................10

2.2.3 Fédération des centres sociaux et socioculturels de France (FCSSF) (WP7-2).......................................13

2.2.4 Cross-border pilot, Italia-Slovenia (WP8-1)............................................................................................14

2.2.5 Development Centre of the Heart of Slovenia (WP8-2)..........................................................................18

2.3Iteration cycles..................................................................................................................................................20

2.3.1First iteration.............................................................................................................................................20

2.3.2Second iteration.........................................................................................................................................20

2.4Evaluation.........................................................................................................................................................20

2.4.1Introduction...............................................................................................................................................20

2.4.2Evaluation Framework components..........................................................................................................22

2.4.3Evaluation Tools and Methods..................................................................................................................24

3Innovation Strategy: Dissemination.........................................................................................................................31

4Annexes....................................................................................................................................................................32

4.1Annex 1: Results of European Design WS.......................................................................................................32

4.1.1Planning of pilots......................................................................................................................................32

4.1.2Evaluation: tools criteria and grids...........................................................................................................50

4.1.3Transferability...........................................................................................................................................51

4.2Annex 2: Detailed pilot planning......................................................................................................................52

4.2.1Students’ Participation - AEGEE..............................................................................................................54

4.2.2 Conseil Parisien de la Jeunesse (CPJ) (WP7-1).......................................................................................58

4.2.3 Fédération des centres sociaux et socioculturels de France (FCSSF) (WP7-2).......................................66

4.2.4 Cross-border pilot, Italia-Slovenia (WP8-1)............................................................................................72

4.2.5 Development Centre of the Heart of Slovenia (WP8-2)..........................................................................74



1 Introduction

The EUth project aims at developing a digital participation platform with complementary guidance and

services for decision makers and administrations in and across Europe who wish to increase the particip-

ation of youth in decision-making. The platform will provide a comprehensive package of software ap-

plications for web based and mobile participation, a tool to support end users in the creation of their own

process and guidelines for the use of the platform.

Work Package 5 (WP5) is set up as a living lab in which five pilots (WP6, WP7 and WP8) test and use

the participation platform and its attached tools. Their feedback will be gathered in an evaluation to sup-

port its improvement:

WP 6: AEGEE

WP 7-1: Conseil Parisien de la Jeunesse (CPJ - Youth Council of Paris)

WP 7-2: Fédération des centres sociaux et socioculturels de France (French federation of social

centres – FCSSF)

WP 8-1: Cross-border pilot, Italia-Slovenia

WP 8-2: Development Centre of the Heart of Slovenia

In order to ensure a smooth implementation of the pilots, high standards of participation and a fruitful

transferability to other WPs and more generally to the development of the EU th Platform, WP5 is in

charge of preparing with the pilots a pilot framework which is the product of:

1. The Kick-off Meeting of EUth held in March 2015 in Berlin

2. The European Design Workshop held in Paris in June 2015

3. The First Optimization Workshop held in Kamnic in September 2015

4. The on-going support activity of Missions Publiques, Liqd Democracy, Alfstore and KTH to the

partners in the pilots.

5. The Local Design Workshops held in Brussels (AEGEE pilot – 09th of November 2015) and Par-

is (CPJ Pilot – 16th of November and FSC Pilot – 17th of November).

The pilot Framework is thought as a general snapshot of activities that will be conducted in the pilots

after this first round of planning activities. The Framework aims at fixing the general architecture of the

pilots concerning:

1. Objectives

2. Main milestones and activities for the first iteration (September 15 until October 16)



3. Evaluation

4. Innovation Strategy

Nevertheless, as WP5 and the pilots work as a living lab and follow an agile and participatory approach,

concrete pilot activities may differ from the description of work entailed in this document. Furthermore

the pilot framework entailed in this deliverable is not covering the pilots activities until the end of EU th,

as later activities will build upon the first iteration of piloting and will aim at testing new functions of

the platform that are still not defined.



2 General presentation of WP5

2.1 Logic and spirit

Work package 5 aims at coordinating the EU th living lab. It provides an interface between the pilot pro-

jects (WP6, WP7, WP8) and the development of EU th (WP3, WP4, WP5), as well as an interface

between the development and the innovation strategy (WP9). In accordance with the global concept and

methodology of EUth WP5 is participative and iterative.

2.2 Short presentation of pilots

The general presentation is the result of the work done by each pilot in defining their objectives during theEuropean Design Workshop and Local Design Workshop.

2.2.1 Students Participation – AEGEE (WP6)

Description of the organization

AEGEE (Association des Etats Généraux des Etudiants de l’Europe / European Students) consists of

a broad and diverse Network of 13.000 students in 200 local groups in 40 different European countries.

AEGEE strives for a democratic, diverse and borderless Europe, which is socially, economically and

politically integrated, and values the participation of young people in its construction and development.

The association works at empowering students and young people in Europe to take an active role in soci-

ety by providing a space for dialogue and learning opportunities and by strengthening mutual under-

standing. Therefore we are organizing a wide range of projects targeting Intercultural exchange, Person-

al development and non-formal education, thematic conferences, Advocacy and policy and Discussion.

AEGEE supports mobility and encourages young people to cross borders and make new friends, to

break stereotypes and strengthen tolerance, respect and solidarity. We provide learning opportunities for

the development of our members through non-formal education and informal learning. Thematic pro-

jects, either local or international, are initiatives developed by members of AEGEE. They deal with cur-

rent challenges in the European society, create awareness among young people and propose solutions

from a student point of view. AEGEE gathers the opinions of European students and represents them to-

wards stakeholders through campaigns, lobby actions, conferences and membership in bigger advocacy

platforms. AEGEE provides a space for young Europeans to discuss and exchange different points of

view with a European perspective, in order to find a common ground. This exchange of ideas happens



in all our activities but a special place for them is our Working groups, conferences and General As-

semblies (European Planning Meeting & Agora).

Main actions in relation to youth participation

AEGEE encourages Youth Participation on the one hand in the local University groups by organizing

debates, exchanges and conferences about European relevant topics such as Youth Mobility, Youth

Employment, Sustainability, European democracy and elections, Civic Education and Spreading

Europtimism. As an example we have several Model European Union simulations in our network, we

organize several major European Conferences on these topics. Furthermore AEGEE is involved in a

variety of European Consultation Processes such as the Structured Dialogue where we include our mem-

bers to take an active role in the consultation. Also we discuss several consultations of the European

Commission mostly about the topics of Education and Mobility and we have been involved in the

European Citizen Initiative on putting civic Education more in the focus of school education. In all our

events we practice an open dialogue and encourage our members to exchange their views and thoughts

in an Open Forum which is also done online in our discussion Forum.

Most important is the mobi l izat ion of the target group in the beginning (promotion) and then the

follow-up of the reached conclusions.

Usual constraints when engaging young people

Lack of knowledge on the matters at hand

No long-term participation

User-Unfriendliness of Online tools

Real discussion mostly happening at international live meetings with less follow-up than ex-

pected

As a pilot in EUth project...

Main Objective At the end of the pilot we are striving to have EUth implemented as the

main consultation tool within our Network of 13,000 members for online

debate, electronic voting and discussion. By using the innovative options

of EUth we will motivate our members to be more involved in decision-

making processes and achieve a higher active participation of our mem-

bers at all levels of the organization. Also we want to provide our mem-

bers new skills to use e-participation tool and have experience in parti-

cipation process.



With t h i s strategy we want to provide evidence that youth participation

and youth empowerment can be increased by using the most efficient and

user-friendly tools.

Target group

AEGEE is piloting the tool inside our organization with 1800 students at

several of our international events and in several of our 200 local Uni-

versity groups.

Desired outcomes

We would like to achieve a higher participation of our members in our de-

cision-making processes and in our consultations. Therefore we would

like to experiment with different forms of collective decision-making pro-

cesses such as collaborative text-writing for Activity Plans. Also we

would like to experiment with using EUth for elections of several import-

ant posts in our network such as Commissions and our board.

Main perceived risks

Lack of promotion among our members

Unfriendliness and complicated use of the tool

Lack of training and examples on how to use it

Main time constraint

The main constraint will be not to have enough time between February

and May to train our members to use the tool in training events and local

networks to be prepared for the big pilot at our General Assembly in May

2016.

2.2.2 Youth Empowerment – Conseil Parisien de la Jeunesse (CPJ - Youth Council ofParis) (WP7-1)

Presentation of the organization

The Mission Youth and Citizenship is a civil service of the City of Paris’s administration. It is in charge

of renewing the approach on youth policies on the basis of scientific diagnoses and with the involvement

of the youth. This approach is then implemented in connection with the General Secretary in a transvers-

al way throughout all services and departments of the city. The Mission also takes care of the animation

of the Parisian Council of the Youth (CPJ).




CPJ is the main instance in respect with youth participation. It is an instance of participative democracy,

chaired by the Mayor of Paris, dedicated to the young people from 15 to 30 years old who want to get

involved in the life of the city and to be associated to the elaboration of the municipal policies. The CPJ

favours the exchange and dialogue between the young people, the Parisian elected representatives and

the civil services and administration of the City. Most important feature is the strong belief that ideas

and proposals of the young people are useful for the City of Paris.


The main constraints are bound to the timing and to the planning of the work. It is difficult to harmonize

working moments between the elected representatives, the departments and services of the administra-

tion and the young people who make a commitment.


Main Objective

Participate completely in the experiment, contribute in development oftools for online/offline (face to face) democracy and, eventually, general-ize them in Paris to facilitate, improve and increase the participation ofthe young people.

Target group100 Parisian members of the CPJ but also the young users of Parisian in-frastructures aiming the Youth.

Desired outcomes

Test tools with a young audience which prefigures the generalization of alarge-scale use

Use a real current topic in Paris with a concerned and impacted public.

Main perceived risksThe youngest public find no interest.

The difficulty to convince them of the utility of the approach and of tools.

Main time constraint

It is necessary to test the tools on a small-scale first. A part from that thereis no immediate time constraint.

Organization of the CPJ

CPJ has the following organization:

100 members: 2 plenary sessions each year. CPJ gathers in smaller groups along the year, but

plenary sessions are linked with the meeting of the council of Paris.



Members choose to work on one or several subjects that are proposed by the city. Once a year

CPJ expresses a “wish” for Paris on an open subject.

These 100 young members don’t have the same availability. The idea is to allow them to work

online on the subjects to help all to keep in touch with the work done.

Young members of the CPJ find themselves illegitimate to represent the whole youth of Paris.

That’s why they want to be able to ask questions to the whole 15-30 y.o. in Paris.

All the opinions produced by the CPJ are annexed to the council of Paris’s official deliberation,

as the “youth opinion”. Results of the polls and debates would be added to this annex.

Every 1.5/2 months: council of Paris. 2 members of the CPJ are solicited to meet the elective

representatives and to prepare the councils.

Recruitment of new CPJ

This year (2015-2016), 700 young people were candidates for CPJ, only 47 have been randomly se-

lected (+53 old members). They are between 15 and 30 y.o. with an average age of 23 y.o.

20 cities from the Grand Paris area are represented in this assembly. CPJ is open to any young people

that have an activity in Paris: you don’t have to live in Paris to be member.

These 700 candidates have answered a large study: results can be shared and used to know better the

motivations of young people to get involved in such local assembly. Among the 700, at least 250 agreed

to be contacted and solicited by the city of Paris. This study will be analysed by an intern at the city of

Paris: to sum up all the collected data. City of Paris representatives and agents ask to have more know-

ledge about youth in Paris. Any opportunity to ask questions to young people samples is taken. Flashpoll

could be an interesting tool to do so. Answers will be used to choose subjects for youth participation.

Most of the candidates criticize the random selection. Why not a selection based on motivations? In-

formation on random selection and its reasons are actually missing. Need to explain that it’s the best

known way to guarantee the same chance to have an access. In order to keep in touch with these motiv-

ated young a first poll should be launch as soon as possible. Most new members of the CPJ asked to be

able to ask questions to the fellow candidates that were not selected.



2.2.3 Youth Empowerment - Fédération des centres sociaux et socioculturels de France(French federation of social centres – FCSSF) (WP7-2)

Description of the organization

The French Federation is a network of over 1000 Youth centres scattered all over France. The role of the

Federation is to coordinate the work of the centres and to provide them resources in terms of informa-

tion, training. The federation has also a role of representing the centres at national level.


FCSSF builds a programme to improve youth participation into local life and help them to have an

impact on local decisions. Most important is the possibility for young people to express their opinion,

debate pacifically and build actions together.


We have limited financial resources to gather young people. We can manage to gather 150 of them each

year but we would like to develop this meeting, both nationally and locally.


Main Objective Develop online participation.

Target group

The “réseau jeunes des centres sociaux” (network of youth of the social

centres): a group of 150 young people that gather each year in order to

discuss cross topics of the work in the centres

Desired outcomes

To offer young people a platform to easily connect and build projects na-

tionally and locally. Furthermore we want to build tools for young people,

with young people. If we want them to actually use them in an effective

we have to build them alongside with the young people.

Main perceived risksThe online platform won’t be used if it is too complex and doesn’t facilit-

ate the work or permit to gain time.

Main time constraintWe gather the youth network every year in October. We would like to be

able to test these tools in 2016.



2.2.4 European Young Citizens Participation – Cross-border pilot, Italia-Slovenia (WP8-1)

Presentation of partners

The cross-border pilot will be conducted by a consortium of 3 partners:

ISIS which is a partner in the consortium.

The University of Primorska (Koper), Faculty of Humanities (UP FHŠ). The main activity of the Uni-

versity of Primorska is to fostering quality in education and research process, especially in topics con-

cerning the western part of Slovenia (the Primorska region) and the Mediterranean. The Faculty of Hu-

manities at the University of Primorska offers both undergraduate and postgraduate degree courses as

well as engaging in scientific and specialist activities in the field of humanities, arts and social studies.

It is also actively involved in local environment. The Faculty enjoys the advantage of being situated in

the coastal area bordering on Italy and Croatia, providing the potential for drawing on positive cultural

and economic influences.

The University of Trieste, Department of Political and Social Sciences (DiSPeS). The Department of

Political and Social Sciences (DiSPeS) of the University of Trieste works on teaching, does scientific re-

search and takes care of the so called. "third mission", promoting the direct application, enhancement

and use of knowledge to contribute to the social, cultural and economic development of society. In this

perspective, DiSPeS is committed to communicate and disseminate knowledge through a direct rela-

tionship with the territory and all its actors.


As an educational institution, the main goal of the UP FHŠ is to educate and train young people and

therefore among others also to promote the values of active democracy and participation. This is imple-

mented through formal (study programmes) as well as informal education and trainings, such as organiz -

ation of conferences, seminars, events, publishing of educational materials etc. Within our institution

active participation of youth is realised particularly through the involvement of students in the Uni -

versity`s decision making (UP FHS Student Council). Students are also as actively involved in the local

community through the Student Organisation of the University of Primorska (ŠOUP) and their numer-

ous programmes in the field of culture, sport, welfare, volunteering etc. UP FHŠ also closely cooperates

with various local youth organisations, such as, for example, PINA - one of the important local youth

social development organisations in Koper. UP FHŠ is also involved in national and international re-

search projects in this field.



Most important is to ensure the participation of young people through various preparatory activities,

such as presentation of the benefits of the project, its promotion, involvement of relevant stakeholders

and youth organization.

At the University of Trieste, youth participation is fostered mainly through the activities of several

graduate and undergraduate students associations (e.g. Associazione degli Studenti di Scienze Politiche,

Associazione degli Studenti di Scienze Internazionali e Diplomatiche, Movimento Federalista Europeo,

Aiesec, Get in Touch).


Passivity, lack of ambitions and willingness to activate in various activities are some of the usual con-

straints. Research shows that this is a particularity of Slovenian youth who are on average more passive,

fatalistic, apathetic, hedonistic, conformist, less career-driven and goal oriented compared to others

(Klajnšek, 2014).

The main constraint is limited financial resources.


Main Objective

Activate young people and involve them to a greater extent in the decision-

making process of the local community. Try to alleviate the gap between the

local public administration youth policies and their actual implementation.

The general main motivation is to put into practice what is currently thought

in the Political Sciences courses and, specifically, was researched in several

research projects on deliberative democracy, participation and new forms of

governance.

The main objective is to assess needs and expectations of the youth in our loc-

al context and to define new ways to involve young people in the political de-

cision- making processes.

Understand why young people do not make the revolution, since the high

level of youth unemployment and lack of perspectives.

Place the municipalities to be at the service of young people (and citizens) as

civil servant.

Prove that digital tools to be effective must be at service of a strategy, other-

wise they are just expensive and harmful because they increase the risk of e.g.

fascism and disregard for the Res Publica.



Target group

The foreseen target groups are young people aged 16 - 25 in 3 segments: par-

ticularly students, and potentially workers and NEET (Not in Education, Em-

ployment or Training).

In promotion, we also aim at the other municipalities and Regional policy

makers, the virtuous community (e.g. Covenant of Majors, ANCI Italian

Smart City), the Regional Media, the social partners, young people, families,

grandparents

Desired outcomes

Involve young people to a larger extent in the decision-making process of the

municipalities in the long term.

Apply the method for qualification and validation of vocational competences

(define the scheme, qualify and validate the YCM, create the YC, young com-

munity).

Quantify youth participation by segments. Measure the increase in participa-

tion.

Define an Action Plan of Commons agreed with the young people and evalu-

ate the results for the Policy Maker and for young people.

Verify the change in the University based on the experiences of the Pilot

(guidance to young people and to the world of work)

Define the Model / Format QWC to be promoted in rural areas of Friuli

Venezia Giulia and Slovenia through HoS

Main perceived

risks

The main risk is the non-participation of young people, which will be allevi-

ated through premobilisation activities with the main stakeholders.

While university students are quite willing to participate, we do not know ex-

actly what to expect from the general youth in the City of Trieste, although we

are confident that the collaboration with the City administration and the Youth

associations in the territory will help in obtaining the results.

The project is strategic for the partner, interesting for Universities, potentially

attractive for young, marginal for municipalities. The risks therefore, in gener-

al, are: inadequate results than expected and statistically insufficient for poor

commitment, for a lot of leakage, for great approximation.

In particular the risks are:

- Self-reference and low commitment of mayors and councillors



- Poor concentration and great approximation in the search for solu-

tions by the University

- Lack of interest of the mass of young people (hopefully in some po-

tential young opinion leaders)

Main time con-

straint

We are still in the process of discussing the detailed activities and work plan

with the Municipality of Koper, University of Trieste and the Municipality of

Trieste.

The main time constraints are linked to young people in education, due to

their schedule of the school/academic year.

The success depends on the actions of municipalities and universities and,

then, the young (and of course by our actions). The pilot involves six different

organizations. Compliance with the objectives and constraints of time is crit-

ical. Young people, universities and municipalities have little experience in

working toward goals and to meet deadlines.

We must find other municipalities to be involved in any case being dissemina-

tion that can be substitutes if elected municipalities do not respect the time

and commitments.



2.2.5 European Young Citizen Participation – Development Centre of the Heart ofSlovenia (WP8-2)

Presentation of the Organization

We connect municipalities in central part of Slovenia and ensure a supportive development infrastructure

for entrepreneurs, farmers, youth, tourists, residents and other stakeholders of the area. We are posi -

tioned as a qualified development partner, particularly in the field of rural tourism and entrepreneurship

development.


Consortium of Kindergartens and Schools of the Heart of Slovenia area (11 members: 5 primary schools,

2 high schools and 4 kindergartens from the area) - within the consortium we are organizing workshops

and trainings with young people in the field of tourism (local area), entrepreneurship (and innovative-

ness) and environment (self-sufficiency with food/energy).

Most important is to have interesting content and appropriated methods: brainstorming, workshop, in-

dividual work, establishment of community circles etc.


The main constraint is the lack of interest… Young people feel that their ideas and opinion are not heard.


Main Objective Encourage young people to get the desire and strength to actively get in-

volved in the processes in communities and share their opinion and ideas.

We strive for youth friendly social conditions in the Heart of Slovenia.

Target group Municipalities in the area of the Heart of Slovenia, youth organiza-

tions, young people between 15 and 25 years.

Desired outcomes To get results with the use of new tools (digital and mobile application) on

real needs of young people. The research could later help their needs to be

heard among broader community.

Main perceived risks Lack of interest, lack of understanding, lack of awareness for participation

by young people and local communities and municipalities.

Main time constraint We think the timeline is appropriate. Our first step will be in autumn

2015, with the recruitment of a small group of potential young community

managers.



Iteration cycles

2.2.6 First iteration

The first iteration of the pilots will run from October 2015 until October 2016. During this phase, the five pilotswill:

Set up the global objectives and structure of their activities in the frame of EUth .

Set up the specific objectives and structure of their activities from October 2015 to October 2016

Deploy of the three workflows available in the first version of the platform.

Evaluate their activities and the platform

2.2.7 Second iteration

The second iteration will run from October 2016 until October 2017. During this phase, the five pilots will:

Set up the specific objectives and structure of their activities from October 2016 to October 2017

Deploy a new batch of workflows available in the second version of the platform.

Evaluate their activities and the platform

Prepare transferability and dissemination

2.3 Evaluation

2.3.1 Introduction

The overall goal of the EUth evaluation framework is to provide a systematic strategy to understand and

improve youth participation in the EUth pilots, i.e. how can EUth tools and tips support youth participa-

tory processes. This implies that the evaluation should grasp both quality of experience and quality of

participation.

EUth evaluation framework should, therefore, ensure that we gathering critical information feedback

from the pilots on the use of the tools and features, with an emphasis on co-creation and exploration of

emerging ideas, but also collect information about how the tips and support works and how the pilots

manage to set-up and run the specific pilot.

It should also be noted that evaluation is conducted while the action takes place. It is not an ex-post anal-

ysis but an accompanying observation and data gathering, aligned with the EUth internal development

cycle. The aim is to support the respective project development stages of all WPs (especially WP 1-4)

with the experiences of the pilots to ensure a positive outcome (see table below). The evaluation is thus

closely connected to all WPs, it gathers questions and answers from both sides – the pilots and the WPs



– and connects them for the purpose of mutual support. Based on a Future Workshop activity during the

joint Design Workshop in June 2015 the following key aspects of evaluation emerged:

Set-up: Which are the main barriers in launching a process of youth participation? How can the tools be

tailored to lower the threshold and overcome those barriers?

Inclusion: What motivates participants and what causes non-engagement? How can the bundle of the

digital and face-to-face offer be made attractive enough to reach the target group (youth on one side /

youth organizations on the other)?

User-experience: How to design a platform that is up-to-date regarding user experience and user inter-

face? How to make it accessible to users that are not used to participatory processes, e.g. “lay

initiators”?

These requirements suggest that both quantitative and qualitative data is needed and that the evaluation

framework should provide a clear organization through the lifetime of the pilots that facilitates both pi-

lots’ organizer, the evaluation team (task 5.3) and participants to participate in the evaluation. Moreover

to capture well the user's point of view self-evaluation and online methods stands as a good alternative

for stakeholders to honestly and objectively consider and document their performance.

2.3.2 EUth Evaluation Framework

The EUth evaluation framework is based on and adapted from the Centres for Disease Control Frame-

work for Program Evaluation in Public Health1 and the Toolkit for Monitoring and Evaluating children’s

participation developed by UNICEF2. We argue that this mix provides a solid foundation that ensures a

rigid evaluation that seize the lifetime of the pilots as well as targeting young participations. Our frame-

work is based on seven steps where each step comprises a series of evaluation methods and tools that

will be detailed bellow but first we will outline each step.

Step 1: Engage stakeholders. The first step of evaluation cycle will focus on the setting up of the par-

ticipatory process. What are the basic motivations of initiators to start a process? What are the problems

they encounter and the solutions they find? How do they involve stakeholders around them? This infor-

mation will, for example, help to design the decision support tool (WP3) or the guidelines (WP4).

Step 2: Promotion. During this step, the evaluation will focus on understanding how a process of par-

ticipation can be promoted internally (for example in the case of bigger organizations) and externally (to

gain participants to the process). The goal will also be to understand the goal(s), expected effects, activi-

ties, and resources involved to feed WP2 to WP4.

1 http://www.cdc.gov/eval/framework/2 http://resourcecentre.savethechildren.se/keyword/toolkit



Step 3: Process. This stage involves understanding how pilots plan their participatory processes and

which methodological bricks they choose in order to achieve their goals. This will allow for gaining

knowledge on relevant workflows and functionalities for the platform as well as learning about how the

support on the platform (decision support tool and guidelines) should be shaped to offer maximum bene-

fit to project initiators. This phase also includes identification and evaluation of what are the existing

tools, platforms, methods and resources that pilots already use / consider as useful, feasible, ethical and

accurate. This stage is iterative and continues until a focused approach is found to answer evaluation

questions and the proposed methods achieve an optimal match that facilitates their use by primary users.

Step 4: Configuration of Software tools. This stage involves gaining knowledge about the setting up of

the software tools. Software configuration requires evaluating, coordinating, approving or disapproving,

and implementing changes in the tools used during the pilots considering the specificities of the pilots.

Step 5: User Experience. User experience evaluation refers to a collection of methods and tools utilized

to identify and evaluate how a person perceives a product, service, process or a combination of them, be-

fore, during and after interacting with it. Evaluation of the quality of the user experience is non-trivial

since user experience is subjective, context-dependent and dynamic over time. Despite its complexity,

implementation of quality of experience evaluation allows people to either co-create with the engineers /

designers, or to use their imagination to express their ideal system. At the same time, user's experience

evaluation is a good tool to reach, from a holistic perspective, a good understanding of the requirements,

needs, reflections and results generated by the interaction between stakeholders and a system or tool. In

the present framework, user experience will help gain knowledge on the use of the Euth platform for it-

eration 2 and 3 of the product.

Step 6: Participation. This stage is oriented to evaluate the quality of the participatory process in the pi-

lots. In this case, the assessment should focus its attention in the identification of the level of fairness

and inclusion offered and perceived during the development of the activity, the interaction among the

participants, the level of deliberation and the relevance of the participation experienced along the activi -

ties to best calibrate the tools and tips.

Step 7: Capitalization. This last step will aim at ensuring that a) stakeholders are aware of the evalua-

tion procedures and findings; b) the findings are considered in decisions or actions that affect the second

iteration of the platform (i.e. findings use), and c) those who participated in the evaluation process have

had a beneficial experience (i.e. process use).

2.3.3 EUth Evaluation Tools and Methods

Given the differences that exist between adults and young in many socio-cultural contexts, special ef -

forts are needed within EUth to create an open environment to share positive and negative experiences



without interference or fear of negative repercussions. This was also very important to keep in mind

when implementing the specific evaluation methods and tools based the evaluation framework described

earlier.

We suggest hence using the UNICEF Monitoring and Evaluating Children´s Participation (M&E) toolkit

throughout the evaluation activities. These tools are developed for being used by practitioners and chil-

dren working in participatory programmes, as well as by governments, NGOs, civil society and chil -

dren’s organisations seeking to assess and strengthen children’s participation in society. The approach

we take in EUth is to develop further these tools, so they also match and works for self-evaluation and

online platforms. Next we outline the initial set of methods for each step. It should although be noted

that the adaption of the tools, to measure aspects such as the software development, the user experience

and the capitalization of the results are still work in progress.

1. Engagement of Stakeholders

Interviews

Group discussions.

Timeline of the programme.

2. Promotion


The “Comal” and the Tortilla.

3. Process


Red, amber, green traffic lights

4. Configuration of Software Tools

An ‘H’ assessment

Circle analysis

Red, amber, green traffic lights

5. User Experience

Circle analysis


6. Participation

Circle analysis

7. Capitalization


TBD



Description

A. GROUP DISCUSSIONS

Depending on the socio-cultural context and the nature of the programme being monitored, you may

want to consider organising large community or group meetings to inform and brief relevant adults and

children/young participants about the programme and the evaluation process. Alternatively, it may be

more appropriate to organise a series of meetings with stakeholders such as local authorities or commu-

nity elders to inform them about the process and to gain their permission and support.

Whether you choose smaller or larger group discussions, you should encourage opportunities for people

to identify and discuss the perceived benefits and risks of participating in the pilot. Stakeholders can be

encouraged to share their ideas and solutions for an inclusive participatory evaluation process involving

girls and boys of different ages and backgrounds.

The facilitator of the activity can then explore more about the role played by the stakeholders in the par-

ticipation process. Examples of questions and points to consider during this activity are presented in the

next section.

B. TIMELINE OF THE PROGRAMME

A timeline is a very useful tool that can provide a simple illustration of the history of the programme,

capturing major events, different phases of participation processes, successes and challenges over time,

and the extent to which the objectives have been met (or not).

Resources

flip chart paper

tape

coloured pens

What to do

Introduce the timeline activity to stakeholders who are involved in the programme. Explain that

preparing a visual timeline can allow them to share the history, successes and challenges

achieved through their programme over time; and to reflect on the nature and outcomes of

young’s participation.

Stick two or three flip charts together. Draw a vertical line up (or horizontal line along) the

length of the flip charts.

Using time as a reference point, encourage the participants to think about and document key

processes, responsible and initiatives in relation to the programme. For example, they can think



about when and why this programme started. The date (month/year) can represent the start of

the timeline on the top left-hand side of the vertical line. Key words can be used on the right-

hand side of the line to indicate key milestones or key phases in the participants have been in -

volved in the programme over time.

Along the timeline, participants can highlight key milestones and successful initiatives that have

taken place over time. At each point, highlight the date (month/year), as well as key words to in-

dicate the milestone or success.

Participants can also highlight key challenges faced at different points or periods in time.

Further dialogue and discussion can be facilitated during and following the production of the

timeline with regard to:

different phases or changes in the way young have been involved or have collaborated

with adults over time

the extent to which their programme objectives have been met or not met

concrete results that have been achieved through the programme and discussion about

which results may have been partially or significantly due to stakeholders active parti -

cipation in the programme

the strengths and benefits of young’s participation processes and initiatives

the weaknesses and challenges of young’s participation processes and initiatives

how the process has been promoted so far, and the type of content generated at the mo-

ment of the evaluation.

feedback on the communication channels used.

their ideas for the future – what ideas do they have to strengthen the quality and out-

comes of their participation?

The timeline can provide a useful record and visual documentation of the history of the programme. Par-

ticipants can be encouraged to develop and maintain updated versions of these timelines. Also, some

young may wish to develop more visual artistic versions of their timeline or to reproduce it on more dur-

able material.

C. THE ‘COMAL AND THE TORTILLA‘

A comal is a smooth, flat griddle typically used in Mexico and Central America to cook tortillas. The

idea of this tool is to help in the mapping of local youth organizations. This tool may also help to under-

take initial analysis relating to the scope, quality and outcomes of youth’s participation.



Resources

flip chart paper a real flat clay pan (‘comal’) is ideal but, if not available, could be substituted by

a round piece of paper.

smaller round-shaped pieces of paper cut to simulate the ‘tortillas’ (the flattened cakes of corn

dough)

What to do

The facilitator explains that the whole community is the ‘comal’; that the corn dough represents

all the young people in the community; and that when a group is organised, we get a ‘tortilla’.

Once a group is identified, the name is written on the tortilla and put on the ‘comal’.

At the end of the identification stage, an analysis is done of the existing youth organisations and

ways in which work could be coordinated with them.

D. AN ‘H’ ASSESSMENT

This is a very simple tool that can be used with young people or other stakeholders to explore strengths

and weaknesses of young’s participation, and suggestions to improve it. For the purpose of gathering in-

formation for the table dealing with the ‘scope’ of youth’s participation, it can focus on their participa-

tion in different stages of the programme cycle, and can bring together plenary discussions in the previ-

ous activity.

What to do

Make the shape of an H in the middle of a large sheet of flipchart paper and write the following head -

ings:

Name of the programme/project

Strengths and successes

Weaknesses, challenges and threats

Suggestions on how to improve



Ask the participant to fill in the name of the programme/project/pilot that is being evaluated in the top

middle panel. Add the date, and the number and background of stakeholders involved in the ‘H assess-

ment’ (eg, five boys and six girls and their ages). Under the smiley face symbol, ask them to think about

and list all the strengths regarding the ways in which girls and boys (of different ages or abilities) have

been involved in different stages of the programme cycle. Encourage them to discuss and share success

examples, and why these examples indicate strengths or successes.

Under the sad face symbol, ask them to think about and list the weaknesses, challenges or threats regard-

ing the ways in which girls and boys (of different ages or abilities) have been involved in different

stages of the programme cycle, and why they consider these to be weaknesses.

Under the light bulb symbol, ask children and young people to share and list their suggestions for how to

improve meaningful, inclusive participation in different stages of the pilot.

E. CIRCLE ANALYSIS

Circle analysis is a tool to explore patterns of inclusion and exclusion. It can help you identify which

groups of youth (girls, boys, age groups, backgrounds) are most actively involved in the participation

process, and which children are excluded from participating.

What to do

Introduce the circle analysis and explain that it will help participants explore patterns of inclu-

sion and exclusion in terms of the participation process.

Introduce the different circles and the meaning of each circle

With participants, identify different symbols or colours that can be used by girls and boys of dif-

ferent ages (eg, 8–12, 13–18) and/or girls and boys from different backgrounds (such as school-

going, out-of-school, different ethnic groups, with disabilities, etc.).

Give each girl and boy a pen or a sticker of the colour that represents their particular group.



Ask each participant to place their sticker or draw their symbol in whichever circle they think

represents them.

F. RED, AMBER, GREEN TRAFFIC LIGHTS

This tool is useful to monitor and evaluate effectiveness and implementation of an activity/project. Con-

ducting this tool over time can help to monitor and evaluate changes. This tool works better with people

involved in the specific project to explore process outcomes, or with random groups of people in the area

to explore external outcomes

What to do

Draw and shade three circles of red, amber and green on a flip chart.

Explain to the children and young people that they are going to have the chance to monitor and

evaluate how their participation in a specific project is progressing and the extent to which it is

or is not leading to any changes in outcomes for children.

Explain the use of ‘traffic lights’ and the three circle colours (red, amber, green) and ask parti -

cipants to choose which colour represents the progress and outcomes of the project, and why.

Red indicates that the project is not progressing well (for example, that there is limited

participation of young or limited improvements arising from young’s participation).

Amber indicates that the project is progressing fairly well, but there is room for im-

provement.

Green shows that the project is progressing really well and that there are positive out-

comes for young arising from their participation.

Young people are given Post-it notes to record their reasons, and they place one on the colour

circle that best represents their views on the progress and outcomes of children’s participation.

As participant stick on their Post-it notes, they are encouraged to share their reasons with the

group.



Overview of tools and their objective

Learning on

Learning for…

Living Lab Transferability Dissemination

AE-GEE

Paris FFSC ItalySlove-

niaWP2 WP3 WP4 WP9

Initiat-ors

E-demo-cracy

Stakehold-ers

TOOLA/B

TOOLA/B

TOOLA/B

TOOLA/B

TOOLA/B

TOOLA/B

TOOLA/B

TOOLA/B

TOOLA/B

TOOLA/B

TOOLA/B

ProcessPromotion

TOOLB/F

TOOLB/F

TOOLB/F

TOOLB/F

TOOLB/F

TOOLB/F

TOOLB/F

TOOLB/F

TOOLB/F

TOOLB/F

TOOLB/F

Config.SW Tools

TOOLD/E/F

TOOLD/E/F

TOOLD/E/F

TOOLD/E/F

TOOLD/E/F

TOOLD/E/F

TOOLD/E/F

TOOLD/E/F

TOOLD/E/F

TOOLD/E/F

TOOLD/E/F

User ex-perience

TOOLD/E

TOOLD/E

TOOLD/E

TOOLD/E

TOOLD/E

TOOLD/E

TOOLD/E

TOOLD/E

TOOLD/E

TOOLD/E

TOOLD/E

Participa-tion

TOOLC/E

TOOLC/E

TOOLC/E

TOOLC/E

TOOLC/E

TOOLC/E

TOOLC/E

TOOLC/E

TOOLC/E

TOOLC/E

TOOLC/E

Capitaliza-tion

TOOLD

TOOLD

TOOLD

TOOLD

TOOLD

TOOLD

TOOLD

TOOLD

TOOLD

TOOLD

TOOLD

TOOL A: Group Discussion

TOOL B: Timeline of the Programme

TOOL C: The ‘Comal And The Tortilla‘

TOOL D: An ‘H’ Assessment

TOOL E: Circle Analysis

TOOL F: Red, Amber, Green Traffic Lights



3 Innovation Strategy: Dissemination

The EUth project is dedicated not only to increase youth participation by delivering innovative tools and

supporting capacity building but also to incite further conduction of youth participation projects, espe-

cially the usage of the EUth platform. The goal is to go beyond the usual practice of disseminating the

results of a research project but to promote a technical and social innovation. The innovation strategy

thus encompasses classical dissemination - like the creation and maintenance of website, marketing ma-

terial, social media channels and the attendance of relevant events as well as various activities that sup -

port the practical deployment of the platform, such like the Open Call: Close to the end of the project

10 municipalities or youth organisations will obtain 10.000€ to realize their participatory processes on

the platform.

The pilots support the innovation strategies in two ways: First they support the deployment of the plat-

form simply by using it. Their participatory processes will be visible on the platform to any visitor 3 and

thus serve as practice example for persons that look for inspiration how to shape a participatory process

and how to make use of the platforms’ features.

Additionally the pilots pursue individual dissemination and deployment strategies that will be docu-

mented and streamlined in year two of the project.

3 Exceptions can occur due to the confidential nature of some participatory elements within the pilots. AEGEE forinstance is planning to use the EUth software for an internal voting that used to be a secret ballot. This practice willbe maintained also when using digital online tools.



4 Annexes

4.1 Annex 1: Results of European Design WS

4.1.1 Planning of pilots

N.B. : Most recent and accurate data regarding pilots’ processes will be found in the Annex2 :

LDW - Detailed pilot planning.

We resume here the production of each pilot during two workshops. The first one was a round of discus-

sion were pilots were asked about their objectives, target groups, envisaged methods and finally the risk

and solutions. For most of them it was mainly an opportunity to debate collectively what they had

thought about for their presentation.

The second workshop aimed at building a timeline for each pilots. They were also encouraged to think

about their requirements in terms of features and to clarify which were essential and which were “only”

additional.

This is what we have done and how you read the timeline…

Step by step, participants build a general timeline for their projects by answering questions.

1. What are the main actions/steps in your project? (yellow “Action” card)

2. Which offline methods do you want to apply in your project (i.e. Work-

shops, World Café, Open Space Conference, etc.)? (blue “Offline

method” card)

3. Who is supposed to do what in each step? (red “Role”card)

4. Which online functionalities or features would be helpful to use in the

project? (green “Feature”card)

5. Is it possible to cluster the single actions/ steps into phases? If so,

please give the phases and note down the results of each phase (white

sheets of paper)

6. Which other stakeholders would you like to involve? (Post-its)

7. Any other relevant factors in your project?



AEGEE

Objectives

Define new ways to involve

Implement and test the tool at the European and local level

In the context of event (live meeting) or online (for preparation or opinion)

Promote the package of students’ participation

2. Target groups for participation

Delegates at assembly, with weighed votes

All members online

Members of pilot locals

For dissemination / Other stakeholders

All local groups

Similar youth organisations / network

Methods

Use case 1: Assembly.

People that will be concerned are Delegates present in the room. These are elected with a mandate from

their local group. Each of them have a certain amount of votes according to the number of members of

the local group their represent.

Use case 2: Proposals

Three potential uses are foreseen:

- Amendments in sub-sessions, voting;

- Attendance: location, quick poll;

- Open space: ranking, timeline (slot allocation).

This general scheme could be applied with the help of online software:

Idea Norm / Proposal Collaboration (amendments, discussions, polls) Final proposal Indicat-

ive vote Assembly

Use case 3: Local groups

An open call is launched by AEGEE-Europe to find local groups (Antennae) interested to test the plat-

form in their local discussions. These groups will receive training on-line in January 2016 and a live



meeting during the European Planning Meeting in Leiden scheduled for February 2016. They will use

the platform to:

- Internal discussion;

- Prepare proposals to be submitted at the General Assembly of AEGEE-Europe in May 2016.

Risks and solutions

Type of risk Description Mitigation strategy

Timing of tools

Collaborative text writing

Pooling

Feb. 2016

Whole tool

April 2016

Authentication of users

Cut out functionalities

What is most critical?

Engaging OnlineUsers don’t care

Don’t want to use it

User-friendliness

Visual adaptation

Change management

Training

Legal constraintsElection online is not al-

lowed

Trust in online votingElection is black box

Data security

Inform in advance

Proof that it works

Clarify data use

Separate app / Clear sub-division



Timeline and requirements


PHASE 1 : Pre-Agora (Dec. 15 - May 16)

PART.2

PHASE 1 : Pre-Agora (Dec. 15- May 16)

PART.1


Conseil Parisien de la Jeunesse (CPJ)

Objectives

- Speak to, work with youth who are not engaged yet

- Getting insight in opinions

- Find simple way of participation

- Convince young ppl that municipality cares for them

- Opening up new, flexible ways of participating

Target groups

For participation

- Members of CPJ (1year)

- Youth structures

- City council members


- Animation centres

- Mayor of Paris

- Youth “Antennes”

- Schools, colleges

- Universities

Methods

First experiment with CPJ : Use a small and local consultation

Experiment with 2 or 3 youth structures, young citizens

Involve members of CPJ to start the participatory process with other young citizens



Risks and solutions


No interest … by the young citizens Meeting, presentations

Use concrete examples

Convince them about the importance of their

participation

Not enough “valorisation” The way the city communic-

ates

Share the… (?)




Fédération des centres sociaux et socioculturels de France (FFSSC)

Objectives



Target groups

For participation

- Community workers

- Young people from local groups

- Federation staff

- For dissemination / Other stakeholders

- Community workers

- Local federation

- Young people from local groups

Methods

- Organizing the meeting

- Preparation of the annual meeting is the best space to bring the tools to the organization

- Introduction in local groups

- Training

- Community centers

- Facebook

- Multiuser wordpress

Tools for annual meeting Training for local centers more impact locally co-cre-

ative development



Risks and solutions


Huge network of participants Big number of actors in-

volved in the federation

work

Work with local groups in

the annual meeting

Long time for dissemination Caused by the huge network

of participants

Annual meeting

No “central” authority Control of the / influence /

convince about use of the

tool can be difficult

Democratic approach

People as contributors not only as “testers” :

participatory approach

Simple, intuitive, well instructed tool

Complexity of the tool

Tools not being used

Either too complex, not us-

able, hard to dissemination

Case study : wordpress : be-

cause there was no time to

train people and support

Generational gap Not used to rely on online

tools

OR

Why wouldn’t we use Face-

book instead ?



Cross-border pilot, Italy and Slovenia (Coord. ISIS) and Rural Pilot : The Heart of Slovenia (HoS)(Coord. Development Centre of the HoS)

Objectives

- To find candidates to be young community managers.

- To recruit them

- A panel of 20 for participatory process

- Motivate them, train for new skills (fee training)

Select 2 young community managers

Interface between the process are communities (to involve broader communities in the process)

Topic : policies for youth employment with international aspect

- To establish strong connections, links between young people and local, community (municipalit-

ies) : real commitment by municipalities.

- To find candidates for young community managers, to train them (motivated people)

Topic : improve quality of “young life” (sports, events…)

Target groups

For participation

Pilot 1 : 2 target groups :

students from University of Primorska, University of Trieste

others, general young population : 15-20 y.o. and 20-30 y.o.

Pilot municipalities :

Pilot 1 : Koper (SLO), Trieste (ITA)

Pilot 2 : 10 municipalities in the HoS


- Other cross-border municipalities (Slo-Ita)

- Youth organisations

- Municipalities in Slovenia

- General public (engaging on events)

- Others universities

Methods



Offline Online

Workshops with young panel

Training of YCM

Conference, public events

Personal meetings

Polls, voting

Forum for discussion

Collecting ideas online

What connection between off and on line?

Risks and solutions


Young ppl are not interest in

topics

Lack of real empowerment

of young ppl

Careful selection and shared topics something

relevant for young

Decision makers are not inter-

ested

They don’t see opportunities

in the project and youth par-

ticipation

Good connections with young ppl, to con-

vince them in opportunities, to get useful in-

formation

Decision makers are not com-

mitted

They start the process and

they leave it in the middle

To find topics that are connected with regula-

tions, to help them solve problem for them

To lose the interest, motiva-

tion of participants

The project will last for 3

years and participants could

lose focus and interest

To create events in proper period to keep

them updated and motivated, to think about

“scenario”




4.1.2 Evaluation: tools criteria and grids

Regarding the methods and tools to be considered in an evaluation process, participants expressed the

importance of gathering both quantitative and qualitative data. According to participants, although the

quantitative data is important to analyse information, understand trends and make some assumptions, if

the evaluation is only centred on predefined parameters it can oversimplify the analysis of the reality.

Qualitative information can be a good source to understand how the process/pilot is evolving and what

to do in case failures or problems are detected. In that sense, the evaluation framework should provide

insights on how to capture quantitative and qualitative information and further analysis.

About methods and tools, participants in the workshop suggested a combination of different techniques,

including questionnaires, self-evaluation, workshops, prototyping and interviews to make stronger the

evaluation output. Easy to understand questionnaires, interactive and dynamic workshops and the use of

Flashpoll and Adhocracy during the evaluation can contribute both in keeping the motivation in high

levels and facilitate the analysis of the obtained results. Finally, the evaluation results must be used as

feedback to improve/change/adjust the process evaluated.

In order to test the EUth-system under real conditions EUth conducts 5 pilot projects where youth parti-

cipation use the EUth toolkit. The EUth Living Lab provides an interface between the pilot projects (WP6,

WP7, WP8) and the development of the EUth -toolkit (WP3, WP4, WP5) as well as an interface between

the development and the innovation strategy (WP9).

The first step in defining the EUth Evaluation Framework is taken at the Design Workshop [DW]. Based

on this findings a draft document is shared and discussed at the first Optimization Workshop. This docu-

ment is refined in the local design workshops and finally presented in D5.2. A supporting toolkit is cre -

ated and used in the first evaluation, that will be reported in M13. A draft D5.3x will be shared on M15.

The second evaluation in M26 will be used to finalize D5.3 in M30.

2015 2016 2017 2018

Jan D5.2: Framework

March Start M13: Eval 1 End

June DW M26: Eval 2

Sept Draft D5.x: Evaluation Feedback

Dec DW-Px D5.3: Evaluation Report

Homework: how do you usually evaluate the outcomes of youth participation project ?



- We're not able to at this point.

- Occasionally specific online surveys or questionnaires are employed to monitor motivations,

expectations and attitudes. The activities can be evaluated depending on the scope of the pro-

jects: through questionnaires, regular internal and external evaluations, workshops etc.

- Generally the evaluation bases itself on the number of implied young people, on the way they

put a lot and on the result of the ideas which are produced.

- Criteria for evaluations can be: number of participants, gained knowledge, skills.

4.1.3 Transferability

Transferability of tools

- Which are the features that are needed in all pilots, in most of them, in only one?

- Which are the core features that should be available for everyone at the end of the project?

Categories Tools In allpilots

Inmostpilots

Injustone

Attheend

Polling andvoting

Answering poll 1 1

Weighted vote AE-GEE 1

Discussing and commenting 2 2Voting on proposals and comments 3 1Poll sharing 2 1

User Man-agement

Groups 2Moderation role 2 1Admin role 1 1Notifications for users / Mod and admin 3 3Public and private space 2 1Nominating people 1 1Profiles for organizations 1

Text writingCollaborative text writing 2 1 1

Map 1 1

ProposalsTopic management 1Making proposals 1 1

SecurityAuthentication layers 1 1Privacy 1 1

Multimedia Upload for pictures, movies, documents 3 1



Categories Tools In allpilots

Inmostpilots

Injustone

Attheend

User experi-ence

Common login 1 1Multiplatform App 1 1Feedback for users 1 1Decision wizard when starting a project 1 1Responsive design 3 3two levels of use (expert and simple view) 1 1simplicity of design 1 1Online training tools 1

Content man-agement

Editorial space for sharing the results of the decision making:how did addressee decides in the end and why 2 1

Crowd or machine based translations of user generated con-tent 2 1 1

Hot topics are visible 1 1

Analytics

Poll results presentation 1 1Export of results as cvs 1 1Arguments mapping 1Evaluation and analytics 1 1

Online andF2F interface Linking live event with collection of ideas and voting 1 1

Time man-agement

Calendar and event 1 1 2Agenda setting 1 1

Social media

Sharing contents on social medias 3 2

Connecting all projects on the EUth platform based on tags(countries, topics, structures,...) for experience sharing 1 1

Marketingand impact

Showcase 1

„Victories“ valorisation: showing the local impact of discus-sions and processes 1



4.2 Annex 2: Detailed pilot planning

In this part we describe the detail of the pilot activities as fixed during the Local Design Workshops

and / or the regular planning telcos that were held with pilot partners.

For each pilot, we present a table of activities planned in order to implement the first iteration of EU th.


4.2.1 Students’ Participation - AEGEE

Milestones and timeline of first Iteration (Oct 15 until October 16)

TimeActivities Output / Goal

General Local Antennae Agora process

Prepar-ation

10-15

Presentation at general assemblyKiev (14-18 / October)

Awareness raisingamong members

11-15 Local Design Workshop (09h Novem-ber)

Definitive planning

Presentation during NWMs (NetworkMeetings – see list below) and in-formation about the involvement ofAntennae in the pilot

Awareness raising andpreparation among re-gional leaders

15th November Open call starts for finding 3 to anten-nae that will use EUth for their internalprocess

12-15

15th December Deadline for application of antennae

01-16

25th January: Telco 2 Support for pilot

Evaluation of setting up (interviewwith AEGEE)

Follow-up on process

26th (week of) Information package for Membersabout EUth/ Uses of it: EUth for dum-mies


02-16

26th-29th February – EPM Leiden Workshop presenting EUth, the features of the platform and the pilot pro-cess.

Presentation of evaluation activities.

Evaluation of willingness of participants to give feedback / use an app forfeedback.

Feedback on use of soft-ware.

De-ploy-ment

03-16

01st March Start of piloting for local groups Start of use for Agora proposi-tion process

Report on use and bugs

04-16

01st April End of testing and Feedback:

Tool → Survey

10th April Feedback ready and preparing for Op-timization WS in Brussels

15th April Presentation during Optimization WSin Brussels

05-16

22nd to 26th May Use of EUth during Agora Ber-gamo

07-16

Survey at the end of Agora with ques-tions on the 6 topics as part of the gen-eral evaluation

Usability testing: Focus group duringAgora / Workshop

List of regional meetings.

24 – 27 September - Firenze / 29 Oct – 01 Nov –Athina / 05 – 08 Nov –Tartu / 05 – 08 Nov –Tbilisi / 12 – 15 Nov –Cluj-Napoca / 13 – 15 Nov – Valencia / 19 – 22 Nov – Berlin /20 – 23 Nov – Delft / 26 – 29 Nov – Kraków / 26 – 29 Nov – Sofia



Evaluation

As agreed during LDW, following evaluation activities are planned until October 2016.

Survey on setting up of the pilot

Form: Questionnaire filled by AEGEE core team (Andrea / Ander / ??)

Questions:

We would like to have a feedback on your experience as project initiator and core team of a EU th pilot.

1. You started the planning of the pilot in June 2015. Which were the most challenging activities /

elements of the planning until now?

2. What was the simplest, the most natural parts of the planning?

3. Which stakeholders (How many) played a role in the participation process?

4. Who was affected by the participation process (Target group)?

5. Were external experts involved in the process? Which role did they play?

6. Did stakeholders play an active role on the platform? If so, which activities did they perform?

7. Did external or internal stakeholders play a part in the moderation process?

8. Where stakeholders invited to give feedback on the participation method/process?

9. Where stakeholders invited to give feedback on the platform and tools?

Workshop during EPM Leiden

Form: Workshop with participants to European Planning Meeting in Leiden in February 2016. Members

of the three Antennae that are piloting EUth + Regional leaders that will act as multipliers for the piloting

until Bergamo

Planning of the WS: 1.5 hours

10 Minutes: Introduction

30 minutes: Digital democracy to improve the participation of members in AEGEE – The role of

the Antennae testing the application

30 minutes: The main features of the application

20 minutes: Q&A and wrap up

Focus group during Agora Bergamo

Form: Usability Workshop with AEGEE members

Planning and format: 2 hours WS



Survey at the end of Bergamo

Form: Online survey to be filled by as much users as possible

Questions:

Who participated? How interesting it was to participate (mandate and influence and incentives)?

How good and balanced is the presented information?

How “good” is discussion? What kind of aggregation and results?

What is the mandate? Is it useful for policy making? Which is the link to decision makers? How

much money and efforts invested in comparison to result?

Which level of transparency? Is the process open? Is the process sustainable?


4.2.2 Youth Empowerment - Conseil Parisien de la Jeunesse (Youth Council of Paris) (WP7-1)

Milestones and timeline of First iteration (October 15 – October 16)

Phase Time Activities Output / Goal Evaluation

Preparation September 15 – January 16

October Recruitment of new CPJ

Random selection of 47 new mem-bers + 53 that start their 2nd year ofmembership.

Keep in touch with the unselected

A questionnaire has been filled by700 candidates and will be ana-lyzed by an intern of the city.Questions will be w=share with WP5

NovemberLocal Design Workshop (16.11) Definitive Planning

Fixing Evaluation activities for Paris

End November :

CPJ receives its mission letter with 4 an-nual topics.

The used virtual participatory tools by theCPJ’s will be :

- Collecting ideas (about 4 topics)

- Collaborative text

- Timeline (not an EUth feature)

- Google drive

- Flashpoll- Social networks : old : facebook, twitter; new : instagram, snapchat

Topics for EUth Adaptation of the tools to the top-ics



December

CPJ renders elective representatives its annual report.2 topics from 2014-2015 are still to cover: Urban projects : Paris 3 Censier and Bastille Place

Announce of EUth tools : how the CPJ decides to increase its online participation capacity.

NA

Conference of Youth

Cop 21Members of CPJ will be mobilized as ob-servers and delegates.

? NA

January

Presentation of EUth to the new CPJ : an

handbook presenting Flashpoll and Adho-

cracy is put online and an announcement

is send to the CPJ members

Awareness Raising of future parti-cipants and presentation to elected representatives of Paris City Coun-cil

Recruitment of leaders (Community man-agers) in CPJ (online) who could have an access as soon as possible to the platform and tool

Group of CMBlog 1 : answer to a question : why I want to be a CM in EUth

Test January 16 – April 16

February Test of Flashpoll : Bastille place.An online survey about the renovation of Bastille place is send among the 700 unselected young people.

Keep in touch with the unselected.Make the CPJ members work on the questions they want to ask for this first use of FP.



March

Availability of Adhocracy: public plat-form, in French.

Early March : DATE TO CONFIRM (Saturday)

Kick-off Presentation Meeting.

Plenary session of the CPJPresentation and training about Adho-cracy for the CPJ members.

Test with CPJ members.

4 annual topics are put on adho-cracy: how do we want to organizeto work on these topics ?

Circle analysis

H Assessment

Use of these tools to end the

meeting : how confident are you with your capacity to use these tools ?

First feedback: 3 or 4 weeks after the launch of the platform.

Feed the first OWSQuestionnaire about the use of theplatform.

Deployment

April 16 – November 16

April 11 - 12 Optimization WS Brussels

Internal use of Adhocracy among the 100 members of CPJ from this date.

Group discussion

May 16 Open Poll Flashpoll : about Bastille PlaceFirst test for the general public with FP.

June 2016 Second feedback : Annual activity report of the CPJ with a section dedicated to the use of Flashpoll and Adhocracy

Evaluate and capitalize the experi-mentation.Think about an external use of Ad-hocracy after this time of internal use.



July 16 ?

August 16 ?

September - October 2016

Renewal of CPJLast chance to ask the 53 mem-bers that will leave the CPJ about their user experience



Participation beyond the CPJ ?

The main objective of CPJ is to extend the participation beyond the members of CPJ. Here are some tracks thatwere considered during LDW.

How to increase participation?

1. Gamification

2. Invitation to answer a poll by a friend [feature to add to Flashpoll]

3. Give utilitarian, social and political sense to participation.

4. Highlight the previous realizations made possible thanks to participatory devices and youth’s in-

volvement.

Subjects of participation?

Subjects will be known after receiving mission letter from the mayor of Paris. These subjects will be the

support of the use of Adhocracy by the 100 members of CPj for 2015-2016. As soon as Adhocracy is

available, it can be used with these subjects.

Nevertheless, some clues are already known: Grand-Paris and Olympics games 2024 may be part of this

letter.

Two or three topics from the previous year have to be terminated, before the new tests. There are about

two urban projects (destruction of university of Paris 3 Censier ; place of Bastille)

CPJ members have to imagine a new place dedicated to the youth in Paris.



“Réinventons nos places” (the same that has been done in Republic) : Bastille : help to decrease

the use of cars in this place ; touristic aspect ; opposition with a conservative view about the

place and the local electives who would like to go further in the change, imagine a new one : ve-

getalization, link with the river.

Test subject for Flashpoll : localized on Bastille place “DL Flashpoll and give your opinion”. This ex-

ample will be used to do the presentation to the new CPJ.

When can we launch the polls ? Long term view ? This subject can be reported in 2015-2016.

Early 2016 : Bastille Place : Call to the 700

Spring 2016 : Bastille Place : Open call

What questions to ask ?

Uses of the places, especially by the youth.

Target : 15-30 ans : open call with first filter question : age to select the answers.

Internal use of Adhocracy : replacements of Loomio

Currently, CPJ members use Loomio as an organizational and participatory tool. Adhocracy is supposed

to be able to replace this tool.

Some available features in Loomio should also be done by Adhocracy:

Possibility to vote on a collaborative text

Possibility to vote on a collaborative text, paragraph by paragraph

Receive a mobile or email notification when a new message is posted

What is expected from EUth is to allow and permit:

- A better organization

- An easier participation

- More debate, exchange of argument

- More collective exchange

CPJ also use google drive to share all their document. They would like to have a simpler alternative, for

example, something directly integrated in the Adhocracy platform to share documents without leaving

the system.



CPJ use an online timeline feature that will be kept, as Adhocracy doesn’t provide it: all the subjects,

projects and activities of the CPJ appear on this online timeline. Members can say when they are inter-

ested and available to get involved on a subject and join a meeting. It could be embedded in Adho-

cracy.

Info tools : email, sms, diffusion newsletter.

Facebook : exchanges, informal chat (most reactive and accessible way to do so according to the

youth). Rather active today.

How to publicize more the CPJ’s action? a more open facebook group, newsletter, etc. (Instagram,

Snapchat, Twitter).

Milestones for EUth first iteration :

1. November - December 2015 : 4-5 subjects given by the city.

2. First f2f meeting to discuss the new subjects : City hall of Paris (around 20 participants)

3. Online discussion to produce the planning of the year.

4. February 2016 : use of Flashpoll with the 700

5. March 2016 : Plenary session to present the software. Subjects are put on adhocracy

6. New F2F meeting.

7. Spring 2016 : Use of Flashpoll in an open poll

8. CPJ : End June 2016 : Answer to the questions asked in March.

9. CPJ : September 2016 : Final report to the elective representatives.

Evaluation


Plenary session of the CPJ

During the plenary session the evaluation activities will be focused on the use of Circle analysis and H

assessment. Questions to be addressed during the activities include:

Circle Analysis

Once everyone has placed their stickers or drawn their symbol, participants are encouraged to reflect on

the patterns of distribution:

Which participants are in the inner circle? What does it mean to be active? How are they

active?



Which participants are in the middle circle? What does it mean? Why are they only

sometimes active? What prevents them being very active?

Which participants are in the outer circle? Why? What prevents them from being active?

Are there some participants who choose not to participate? If so, why do they choose

not to?

What are the incentives to participate?

Are there other participants who are excluded/not reached? Think about the participants

who are not part of this meeting today. Who are they? What is their gender, age, back-

ground? Are participants with disabilities included? Are there other participants who are

often excluded/not reached? Who are they? Why are they excluded/not reached? What

can be done to involve them?

Can you observe any main gender or age or background differences relating to who is

most actively involved? Or most often excluded?

What other factors make a difference to which people are actively involved in participa-

tion and partnership initiatives?

What can be done to strengthen inclusive participatory processes?

H Assessment

This method can be an alternative to evaluate quality of participation, especially aspects related to the

deliberation and discussion of the presented information and the fairness levels during the development

of the tests. In that sense, the tool should focus on answering the following questions:


How “good” is discussion? What kind of aggregation and results?)

Which level of transparency do you perceive in the project? Is the process open? Is the process

sustainable?

The facilitator should create one “H Table” per question and proposing different sessions to evaluate

them in a separate way.

Survey at the end of the workshop

Form: Online survey to be filled by as much users as possible/Group discussion

Questions:



4.2.3 Youth Empowerment - Fédération des centres sociaux et socioculturels de France (French federation of social centres – FCSSF) (WP7-2)

Milestones and timeline of first Iteration (October 15 – October 16)

Phase Time Activities Output Evaluation

Prepara-tion

09-15

01-16

October

Test of Flashpoll during annual meeting in Strasbourg (20-24)

No actual test, because it took place in country side with no network!

But organizers had the opportunity to work with the software andlearn how it looks, how it works… The most interested in F.P. are theanimators, in charge of youth in social centers.

For this ineffective test 3 uses were planned and could work for thenext edition:

At the beginning: A poll about the feeling of participants

At the end: Same question

During meeting: A game/debate (role playing decision game) aboutrefugee issue: how to deal with this situation.

Awareness Raising of futureparticipants and convincinginternally

NovemberLocal Design Workshop (17th - Nov) Fixing Evaluation for

FFSC

December -January

Telco to specify the options discussed during LDW

In option: Training of young people doing a “service civique” (Volun-teering Year)

Definitive Planning



Test01-16

04-16

February

Between 7 and 21 of February (School Vacations):

1 - preparation with FP (open questions)

- What subjects are important currently?

- What makes you angry?

- What makes you happy?

2 - 2 days seminary to organize the annual meeting.

This seminary will be hold in the same place that the 2016 meeting :opportunity to test the material and network conditions for the actualtest.

Provide inputs for the 2 daysseminary.

Presentation of EUth toolsand process during the sem-inary and how it can be usedto prepare the annual meetingand during the meeting.

March

Opening of a first topic to prepare the annual meeting after the 2 daysseminary.

1st feedback on the platform

Online phase to discuss the chosen theme with the organization team(20 persons)

See how adhocracy can beused to prepare the annualmeeting.

Have a first feedback for theOptimization WS in Brussels

Circle analysis as aclosing sequence ofthe meeting

Online - Question-naire about first endusers experience(common for all pion-eer test users)

April

Optimization WS Brussels

Possibility: Training of young people doing a “service civique” (Vo-lunteering Year)



Deploy-ment

04-16

10-16

May

Local tests on any subject interesting members of the organizationteam or relatives.

Start to think about the testand use beyond the organiza-tion of annual meeting

Offline (locally)

Group discussion

Circle analysis

H Assessment

June Online phase to anticipate the annual meeting (1) Survey-2

July

August

Low level of activity: how can we adapt to it?

Possibility: International Youth Meeting in Stockholm (July)

September

Online phase to anticipate the annual meeting (2)

Inscription for the annual meeting: first to apply get the slots

What can we propose to the un-selected?

October

Annual meeting of the federation:

1 Use of Flashpoll (cf. supra)

2 Use of Adhocracy during the meeting (Use case not clarified yet.The decision on using it will derive from the organization of theconference in early 2016).

Offline / Online

H Assessment



Overall observations

Spreading new tools in a network

FFCS is a roof organization: Each level is independent.

The federation has intuitions about the importance of digital application for social centers in the future in

improving the work they do with the general population and the youth.

At the same time they see that the local teams need to be trained and to get more involved in this field.

Digital tools are seen as a cost by most of the partners. So in a first steps those applications are really

needed as:

Support for internal promotion

Modules within existing activities, with a focus on their adaptation to the present situation

Add-ons to F2F participation

Tools to identify crucial people to work with

Proof that it works and brings something more

At the moment the use of these tools represent an effort which return on investment is not clear. The

goal is to prove that it can bring more participation from the youth with less efforts than now.

Today there is a good level of activity on facebook, but directly with the centers, with no actual effects

on the federal level.

FSC annual meeting

The annual meeting consists of 3-4 days of gathering with 200 young people that belong to a social cen-

ter. It is the 5th edition this year. Previous topics were: “how to live together?” ; “digital social network”;

“travel”.

Social centers work mostly with young people from popular neighbourhood, most of them are not at

ease with scholar system (some of them are), they come from very different ethnic, cultural and social

backgrounds.

Aim of this annual meeting is not formally to be a place to prepare actions or projects. it is more about

meeting, discovering others, learn to get involved, to be engaged: a school of democracy. Naturally

some young people decide to work together, to organize themselves, but it is on their own, it is not co-

ordinated.



Targets groups

The main question to solve in regard to the first iteration is following:

How do we work efficiently with the group of 20? The timeframe from March to October 2016

is a long and call for precise sequences that will feed participation with content and meaning

How do we involve the group of 200 participants before and after the annual meeting?

What can be proposed to the others? Especially the ones that would like to come but cannot be-

cause there is no more room for them?

Others test and deployment opportunities (beyond annual meeting)

During LDW, further options for testing EUth were assessed. These options will be confirmed/infirmed

until the first launch of the platform:



Local tests: The possibility to use Flashpoll and Adhocracy will be offered to the members of or -

ganization team. They will able to use them for local projects. The details of these local tests

have to be discussed from February 2016 once the team are constituted.

July 2016: International Youth meeting (FR, SW, UK, GER) in Stockholm: Participants could

use EUth to organize themselves or discuss subjects.

Service civique: On a regular basis, every 2 or 3 months, FFSC holds trainings for young

people involved in “service civique” programme (Voluntary Year). These trainings could be an

opportunity to present EUth tools and launch and hold on a permanent digital participation about

the service civique. It could be done regularly starting with the first launch (i.e. from March

2016).

Evaluation


Survey on setting up of the pilot

Form: Questionnaire filled by team.

Questions: We would like to have a feedback on your experience as project initiator and core team of a

EUth pilot.

1. You started the planning of the pilot in June 2015. Which were the most challenging activities /

elements of the planning until now?

2. What was the simplest, the most natural parts of the planning?

3. Which stakeholders (How many) played a role in the participation process?

4. Who was affected by the participation process (Target group)?

5. Were external experts involved in the process? Which role did they play?

6. Did stakeholders play an active role on the platform? If so, which activities did they perform?

7. Did external or internal stakeholders play a part in the moderation process?

8. Where stakeholders invited to give feedback on the participation method/process?

9. Where stakeholders invited to give feedback on the platform and tools?

Local tests

During the local tests the evaluation activities will be focused on the use of Circle analysis and H assess -

ment. Questions to be addressed during the activities include:



Circle Analysis

Once everyone has placed their stickers or drawn their symbol, participants are encouraged to reflect on

the patterns of distribution:

Which participants are in the inner circle? What does it mean to be active? How are they

active?

Which participants are in the middle circle? What does it mean? Why are they only

sometimes active? What prevents them being very active?

Which participants are in the outer circle? Why? What prevents them from being active?

Are there some participants who choose not to participate? If so, why do they choose

not to?

What are the incentives to participate?

Are there other participants who are excluded/not reached? Think about the participants

who are not part of this meeting today. Who are they? What is their gender, age, back-

ground? Are participants with disabilities included? Are there other participants who are

often excluded/not reached? Who are they? Why are they excluded/not reached? What

can be done to involve them?

Can you observe any main gender or age or background differences relating to who is

most actively involved? Or most often excluded?

What other factors make a difference to which people are actively involved in participa-

tion and partnership initiatives?

What can be done to strengthen inclusive participatory processes?

H Assessment

This method can be an alternative to evaluate quality of participation, especially aspects related to the

deliberation and discussion of the presented information and the fairness levels during the development

of the tests. In that sense, the tool should focus on answering the following questions:


How “good” is discussion? What kind of aggregation and results?)

Which level of transparency do you perceive in the project? Is the process open? Is the process

sustainable?

The facilitator should create one “H Table” per question and proposing different sessions to evaluate

them in a separate way.



Survey at the end of the pilot

Form: Online survey to be filled by as much users as possible

Questions:








4.2.4 European Young Citizens Participation - Cross-border pilot, Italia-Slovenia (WP8-1)



General Trieste Koper

Prepara-tion

10-15

11-15

November 13th

November 24th Telco WP2,5 and pilot Italy Slovenia Planning

November 25th Publication of the call for young applications online

November 30th Publication and dissemination of the Vocational Master programme online

12-15 Recruitment of YCM and Young Fellows for the pilot

01-16January 11th and 12th

2016Trieste focus groups for ages 20-24 and25-34

Koper focus groups for ages 20-24 and25-34

Follow-up on process

January 13th 2016 Trieste-Koper pilot meeting, hosted by the University of Trieste

January 27th and 28th

2016Trieste focus group for age 15-19 Koper focus group for age 15-19

02-16First and secondweek

Selection of the YCMs and start of the YCM Vocational Master programme

Deploy-ment

03-16 March 29th – April 1st Local Design Workshop in Trieste Final planning

04-16 Start of the qualification and validation of YCM competences with the Vocational Edu-tion Training programme (“doing by coach-ing”) in Trieste and in Koper

Start of the young community building andimprovement in Trieste and Koper:


05-16 Tutoring

Analysis of needs and expectations of theyoung community (per segments)

06-16 Training on the EUth tools and assistance towork in progress

Define the Promotion Action Plan (PAP)

Start recruitment of young in the community

Feedback on use of EUth soft-ware.

07-16Tutoring (face-to-face meetings + online) Implementation and control of the PAP

Young recruitment continues

08-16 Summer break Summer break

09-16 Tutoring (face-to-face activities + online) Implementation and control of the PAP


10-16Tutoring Implementation and control of the PAP


Evaluation

Evaluation activities of cross boarder pilot will be finalized during Local Design Workshop and are therefore not relevant at this point.


4.2.5 European Young Citizen Participation - Development Centre of the Heart of Slovenia (WP8-2)



General The Heart of Slovenia Area

Prepara-tion

10-15

11-15

November 16th Informing Youth Centres and Municipalities in the Heart of Slovenia Area about the EUth pi-lot project and Young Community Manager

Planning

November 30 th Dissemination of the call for young and dissemination of the vocational master program toYouth Centres

12-15

December 7th Publication for the call for young applications online

December 30th Collecting proposals for the young community managers (Youth Centres themselves recom-mend the best candidates) - two of them will be selected on the basis of a questionnaire andCV)

Recruitment of YCM and Young Fellows for the pilot

01-16January 15th Focus groups for ages 15-19, 20-24 and 25-34 in Municipalities Kamnik and Mengeš Follow-up on process

January 19th Focus groups for ages 15-19, 20-24 and 25-34 in Municipalities Litija and Šmartno pri Litiji

02-16First and secondweek

Selection of the YCMs (Two young community managers will be selected ) and start of theYCM Vocational Master program

Deploy-ment

03-16March 29th – April1st

Local Design Workshop in Trieste Final planning

04-16

11th-12th April Optimization Workshop in Brussels

Start of qualification and validation of YCM competences with the vocational Educationtraining program; starst of the young community building and improvement in the Heart ofSlovenia area

05-16 Tutoring and Analysis of needs and expectations of the young community


06-16 Training on the EUth tools and assistance to work in progress; Define the Promotion ActionPlan, Start recruitment of young in the community

Feedback on use of software.

07-16Tutoring (face-to-face meetings + online); Implementation and control of the PAP


08-16Tutoring (face-to-face meetings + online); Implementation and control of the PAP


09-16Tutoring; Implementation and control of the PAP


10-16Tutoring; Implementation and control of the PAP


Evaluation

Evaluation activities of cross boarder pilot will be finalized during Local Design Workshop and are therefore not relevant at this point.


euth · name role date kerstin franzl project coordinator 23.12.15 all comments, additions or...

Documents