www.eayw.net INNOVATION IN YOUTH WORK Study conducted in the framework of the European Academy on Youth Work by Dragan Atanasov, Michelangelo Belletti and Federica Demicheli EDITORIAL INFO Title: Innovation in Youth Work Publisher: MOVIT, Ljubljana, December 2021 CONTENTS Authors: Dragan Atanasov Michelangelo Belletti Federica Demicheli Editor: Sonja Mitter Škulj (coordinator EAYW) Design: AIKO, Maja Cerjak s.p. With many thanks to the youth workers and other representatives of organisations working with young people who participated in the Survey and the Focus Groups, which were a part of this study! Published in the frame of the European Academy on Youth Work (EAYW). The EAYW aims to support innovation in youth work. It is a long-term strategic cooperation of National Agencies of the Erasmus+ programme, youth field, and the European Solidarity Corps and SALTO-YOUTH Resource Centres. More information: www.eayw.net Free e-publication Kataložni zapis o publikaciji (CIP) pripravili v Narodni in univerzitetni knjižnici v Ljubljani COBISS.SI-ID 98356995 ISBN 978-961-92614-1-5 (PDF) This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). Table of CONTENTS 4 01. Foreword 6 02. Executive Summary 11 03. Introduction 14 04. Methodological Approach 15 4.1 Desk research 15 4.2. Focus groups 16 4.3. Survey 17 4.3.1. Structure of the survey 17 4.3.2. Profile of respondents 20 05. Outcomes 20 5.1. Definition of innovation in youth work 22 5.2. Innovation ecosystem 24 5.3. The process of innovation 29 5.4. Model of innovation in youth work 33 5.5. Factors that impact the process of innovation in youth work 33 5.5.1. Individual, organisational and contextual factors 34 5.5.2. Factors supporting innovation 37 5.5.3. Importance of triggers for supporting innovation 40 5.5.4. Importance of conditions for supporting innovation 43 5.5.5. Factors hindering innovation 46 06. Conclusions and recommendations 54 07. Selected bibliography 08. Annexes – available as separate documents here Desk research summary grid Focus groups report Survey report Focus groups and survey questions Form for examples of innovation 01 » Foreword The diversity of practices presented at the first European Academy on Youth Work event in 2019 impressively showed the in- novative potential of youth work in Europe. At the same time, the questions of how in- novation in youth work functions and how it could be better supported were not easily answered. On this background, the present study was initiated by the EAYW partnership in spring 2020. The need to further support innovation in youth work was confirmed in December 2020 by the 3rd European Youth Work Convention, which underlined that especially “in a post-pandemic Europe, youth work must seek to innovate and go further than the paths already known”*. The research for this study was carried out between summer 2020 and spring 2021, and the youth workers who participated in this study can be expected to have been influenced by the exceptional situation caused by the Corona pandemic. Nevertheless, while some studies carried out during this period intentionally focused on the impact of the pandemic on young people or youth work, this study on purpose took a general approach to exploring, which factors support or hinder innovations in youth work, and in which way they do so. During the study, it quickly became clear that it was necessary to define, first of all, the characteristics of innovation that are specific for the youth work context, as a basis for identifying diverse factors and explaining how they act and interact in a dynamic youth work innovation ecosystem in favour of or against innovations. Despite its comparatively small-scale approach, this research project can be considered fundamental, as it offers an entry point to understanding how innovation works in the youth work context, while suggesting directions for more targeted 5 and specific investigations, which could further specify needs and paths for action. Taking a fresh look at some of the policies, funding systems, organisational structures, training offers or the collaboration with other sectors in place, so the findings suggest, might lead to developing more effective measures enabling and supporting innovative initiatives taken by youth workers together with and for young people. We hope that this study will pave the way for further debates and steps following up on the investigated topics and conclusions among the diverse stakeholders in and connected to youth work. A big thank you goes to all the youth workers and organisations that took the time to contribute to this study! Sonja Mitter Škulj On behalf of the EAYW partnership * Final Declaration of the 3rd European Youth Work Convention, Signposts for the Future (Bonn, 10 December 2020) 02 » Executive Summary PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY This study was conducted in the framework of the European Academy on Youth Work. It was initiated to produce evidence and knowl- edge-based input into discussions of how to stimulate innovative developments in youth work and youth policy. The main purpose of this study was to develop a model that explores conditions and measures that youth workers need in order to be able to develop innovative approaches in their work. The research questions addressed by this study were: • What is the meaning of innovation in the context of youth work and what are its key characteristics? • Which are the main factors that can support or hinder innovation in youth work? • How does innovation in youth work happen? METHODOLOGY KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The methodological approach of this study incorporated two distinctive dimen- This study resulted in a definition of inno-sions: exploratory and explanatory. vation in youth work, a theoretical model of how innovations happen, and an anal- The exploratory aspect focused on un- ysis of the factors that have the greatest derstanding and clarifying the meaning roles in supporting or hindering innova-of innovation in youth work, as a fairly tions. Based on these outcomes, general new phenomenon that has not been well conclusions were drawn and some spe-researched before. This included desk cific recommendations for stakeholders research of existing literature, and seven were made. Furthermore, the research focus groups with thirty-five youth work team identified new questions that practitioners with experience in inno- should be explored further in the future. vation from eleven European countries (conducted in autumn 2020). Prior to the Defining innovation in youth work focus groups, the participants were asked to submit written examples of innovation We understand innovation in youth work in youth work. These contributions and to mean demonstrated methodologies, the reports of the focus groups were then practices, tools, ways of approaching tar-analysed using NVivo software. get groups, or organisational models that have novel elements, that are upgrades 7 The explanatory aspect was aimed at pro- of existing practices, or are completely posing and testing concepts and theoret- new to the youth field or to a particular ical models on innovation in youth work, context, and that enable youth work to as well as identifying causal relations be- support young people to make changes tween innovation examples and factors and positively affect their lives, and/or that can support or hinder innovation. contribute to a wider social change. This was covered by the focus groups and through a survey implemented with The value dimension, meaning that inno-youth work practitioners in spring 2021. vation is focused not only on the produc-In total, there were seventy-seven re- tion of novelty, but also on creating value, sponses to the survey. and the participation of young people as an active agency in the process of innova- Hence, this study combined quantitative tion are unique characteristics of innova-and qualitative research methods, in- tion in youth work. cluding desk research, focus groups and a survey. It was limited by the fairly small In addition, according to this definition, in-number of existing documents related to novation in youth work is context-specific, innovation in youth work, and the rela- can differ in scope and involves a variety of tively small number of youth workers in- stakeholders. Both the process of innova-volved in the focus groups and the survey. tion and the product are important. The ecosystem of innovation in which they act: individual, organisational youth work and contextual. Driven by the triggers, and supported by favourable conditions, The key elements of innovation in youth youth workers, young people and others work were taken up and developed into from the youth field can initiate and lead a model of an innovation ecosystem. successful processes of innovation. According to this model, innovation in youth work happens in an environment The study showed that innovation in that consists of various stakeholders, re- youth work is innovator-driven, with lations between them, and conditions youth workers and young people being created by their actions and interactions. the main innovators, and that it is often Altogether, they form an ecosystem. This initiated as a response to perceived un-ecosystem includes actors from the youth met needs of young people or the com-work field as well as many other actors, munity. At the same time, the findings such as stakeholders from other fields, indicated that innovation in youth work local and national governments, interna- is strongly dependent on the actions of tional organisations, donors, individuals many interrelated stakeholders and that and groups from the community; it also it requires the support of the whole sys-includes forces such as policies, econom- tem to be sustainable and successful. ic conditions, trends and social develop- ments. The innovation ecosystem is a dy- Some of the conditions and triggers that 8 namic and evolving environment. support innovation (e.g. types of funding available) are (or can be) controlled by Conditions and triggers of the stakeholders within the ecosystem, innovation while other factors (e.g. unexpected de- velopments, such as the Covid-19 pan- An important part of the system are trig- demic) are largely out of the stakehold-gers - forces that push or motivate the ers’ control. Knowing which factors can process of innovation. They can be intro- be controlled or impacted by different duced by actors or come unexpectedly. stakeholders is of key importance in sup-Triggers can be, for example, an original porting innovation in youth work. This is idea, unmet community needs, social particularly important for policy makers changes, or even crises. in the youth field, who have power over many of the contextual triggers and con- Another part of the ecosystem are condi- ditions and should ensure stable and un-tions - factors that provide the underlying conditioned funding and supportive poli-support and create a climate favourable cy. Also organisations have an important to innovation, such as supportive policies, role, as they could provide a framework flexible funding opportunities and time and safe space for innovation. and space to innovate. Youth workers having an innovative mind- Triggers and conditions can be divided set was perceived as the most important into three groups according to the level on condition for innovation to happen. The youth workers’ attitude to innovation was organisations named were lack of stable considered more important than their funding, and being dependent on funds competences. More measures might be that require concrete outcomes and in-needed for enabling that attitude and sup- dicators. Because of this, and considering porting behaviours based on it, rather than that most organisations from the youth programmes for competence building. field belong to this category, it could be worth developing policies and funding The findings further suggest that there is mechanisms that can better support them a gap between policy and practice. More in the innovation process, and remove the flexible and innovation-friendly youth obstacles to innovation. policy and more stable and uncondition- al funding opportunities might help to The current ecosystem seems to work trigger and support more innovations in much better for hierarchical organisa-youth work. tions, which are much less present in the youth work context. However, while Another gap was identified between in- more hierarchical organisations have the novations in the youth field, and what is potential to innovate and have less issues happening in other sectors. More meas- with funding, they seem to face challeng-ures should be taken to promote the es with the very process of innovation. collaboration and exchange of ideas be- Measures directed at informing those tween the youth field and other sectors. organisations about the value, benefits This is particularly important in smaller and characteristics of innovation in youth 9 communities, where according to the re- work could support them to use their in-sponses there is less influence between novation potential to a greater extent. the different sectors. Organisations from bigger communities This study did not manage to identify big seem to have the capacities to initiate in-differences in how different profiles of or- novations and a wider pool of diverse ex-ganisations see the process of innovation. periences to use, but do not have enough However, the responses indicate that the time and funds to innovate. These organ-size of the organisations’ working com- isations could benefit from more targeted munities and the type of organisational funding that can ensure the involvement structure have a certain influence on the of more youth workers with sufficient importance of different factors that sup-time to lead innovation processes. port or hinder innovation. Organisations from smaller and rural Horizontal organisations seem the most communities, on the other hand, report-concerned with the participation of ed more challenges with the lack of rel-young people, their needs and the feed- evant competences of the youth workers back coming from the wider community - and a significant lack of support from which are some of the most important el- public bodies. Still, those organisations ements of innovation in youth work. The assessed the ecosystem as more favour-main challenges to innovation that these able to innovation. Since those organisa- tions are obviously already in an environment that supports innovation, they could probably benefit from capacity building of their staff and more engagement with the policy makers. LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTED FOLLOW UP The explanatory aspect of this study was 03 limited by the lack of prior understand- ing of innovation in youth work. Another, more explanatory investigation using the conclusions from this study could pro- vide more concrete recommendations for measures and instruments that stake- holders could use to support more and more successful innovations in various youth work contexts. 10 03 » Introduction This study on innovation in youth work was conducted in the framework of the European Academy on Youth Work, in light of its forthcoming second edition in spring 2022. The EAYW was initiated in 2018 by a partnership of a group of Na- tional Agencies for Erasmus+, youth field, and the European Solidarity Corps, with the aim to support innovation in youth work and youth work policy and to pro- mote the development of quality youth work. One of the findings of the first edition of the EAYW was that knowledge about the meaning and role of innovation in youth work and its influencing factors was rel- atively limited. Assuming that innovative approaches are needed to effectively re- spond to young people's changing needs and interests in today's changing socie- ties, and aiming to produce evidence and knowledge-based input into discussions of how to stimulate innovative develop- ments in youth work and youth policy, the network of National Agencies launched this study to inform the second edition of the EAYW. The main purpose of this study was to hinder innovation in youth work? These develop a model that explores condi- factors were identified through desk re-tions and measures that youth workers search of existing documents, and by ana-need in order to be able to develop in- lysing examples of innovation submitted novative approaches in their work. The by youth workers. The factors were elab-model proposed was expected to visually orated and grouped according to estab-explain the causal relations between in- lished criteria, and were then presented novations in youth work and the most im- to a group of youth workers, who could portant factors that can support or hinder evaluate their relevance. innovation. Finally, the third question addressed by To this end, this study had three objec- this study was: How does innovation in tives. Firstly, it aimed to define what in- youth work happen? Taking into consid-novation in youth work meant. Through eration the context and characteristics of consulting existing literature, as well as innovation in youth work, as well as the youth workers, the study was expected factors identified, a theoretical model to come up with a specific definition of was developed that proposed how the innovation in the context of youth work, process of innovation in youth work is relevant for those active in the field. Sec- launched and sustained. The hypothetical ondly, this study aimed to explore the model also incorporated the factors pre-value dimension of innovation in youth viously identified. work, meaning that which drives inno- 12 vation processes and makes innovation Due to the limited scope of this study, cer-worthwhile, positive and needed in the tain aspects were deliberately omitted. context of youth work. Thirdly, this study For example, while this study confirmed looked to identify mechanisms that could the importance of the innovations' po-support dissemination of innovations in tential for multiplication, it did not go into identifying mechanisms that can youth work. support the dissemination and spread- Hence, the first research question ad- ing of innovations. The focus was rather dressed by this study was: What is the on understanding and explaining how meaning of innovation in the context of innovation processes are launched, sus-youth work and what are its key charac- tained and successfully completed. Also, teristics? To respond to this question, this this study did not explore potential dif-study looked at existing documents about ferences between regions and countries innovation in the youth work context, as in Europe, or other geographical or social well as in other fields. Based on the find- environments. Instead, it focused on de-ings, a definition of innovation was draft- veloping a model that would be relevant ed, which was then presented to a group for youth work in general, while leaving of youth workers with personal experi- room for further elaboration of any cul-ence of innovation. tural or geographical factors. In addition, the relation between innovation and the The second research question was: Which ethics and values of youth work was rath-are the main factors that can support or er superficially explored. These lines of inquiry remain to be investigated in a follow-up study. Methodologically, this study is explan- atory with exploratory elements. While its purpose was to explain innovation in youth work, it was constrained by the low level of prior understanding of the phenomenon. Hence, it was necessary to first understand what innovation in youth work means, before investigating how it works. More focused explanatory research could be conducted in the future using the findings from this study. This study is addressed at stakehold- ers from the youth field (youth workers, youth organisations) as well as institutions responsible for planning and implement- ing youth policies and youth programmes (National Agencies, policy makers on lo- cal, national and European levels). While its geographical coverage was focused on 13 eleven European countries, its relevance goes beyond and its findings are valid on a wider level in Europe and in the youth work field more generally. The main findings from the research are presented in this study, while more de- tailed information can be found in the reports of the different sections of this study, available as annexes. The conclu- sions and recommendations at the end of this study provide hints to specific meas- ures that could be taken by stakeholders in the youth field. However, additional re- search activities are needed for more con- crete recommendations on instruments, measures and actions that can be taken to support innovation in youth work. 04 » Methodological Approach To respond to the research purpose and objectives, the methodological approach of this study incorporated two distinctive dimensions: exploratory and explanatory. The exploratory aspect focused on un- derstanding and clarifying the meaning of innovation in youth work, as a fairly new phenomenon that has not been well researched before. This included desk research of existing literature, and focus groups with youth work practitioners ex- perienced in innovation. The purpose was to explore and understand the meaning of innovation in youth work and in related fields, and the specific characteristics of innovation in the context of youth work. The explanatory aspect was aimed at pro- posing and testing concepts and theoret- ical models on innovation in youth work, as well as identifying causal relations be- tween innovation examples and factors that can support or hinder innovation. This was covered by the focus groups and through a survey implemented with youth work practitioners. Hence, this study combined quantitative research, therefore, allowed the elabo-and qualitative research methods, in- ration of a first definition of innovation; cluding desk research, focus groups and to identify some factors that support in-a survey. It was limited by the fairly small novation; to identify some contexts of number of existing documents related to innovation at an individual, organisation-innovation in youth work, and the rela- al, and cultural level and to highlight the tively small number of youth workers in- importance of the value dimension in the volved in the focus groups and the survey. innovation process in the field of youth work. The documents taken into consid-4.1. DESK RESEARCH eration were analysed through a summa- ry grid that made it possible to highlight The understanding of innovation in youth for each text elements for the definition work elaborated upon in this study is of innovation, for the definition of the based on data obtained from desk and factors and of the different contexts. field research. The desk research con- sisted of analysing existing findings and In its final stage, this first investigation conclusions obtained from other studies, phase resulted in a draft definition of in-research, publications and articles linked novation in youth work and a proposal for to innovation in the field of youth work the major groups of factors that enable and related fields, such as educational or support innovation in youth work. This and social work. study lists the names of all authors whose writings inspired some of the ideas con- This research deliberately focused on the tained herein. When names of authors are 15 world of formal and non-formal educa- not mentioned, the ideas and concepts tion, while contributions relating to the come from discussions that happened world of innovation development in the within the development of this study, technological and/or similar fields were while in the later part of this study, data investigated only when they had a close from the focus groups is also integrated. link with the fields of research. In fact, The Summary of desk research, attached given the vastness of the meanings and as an annex, provides a detailed review of applications of innovation, an attempt all sources and relevant excerpts. was made to delimit the scope of desk re- search in order to be able to develop the 4.2. FOCUS GROUPS most significant bibliography. The desk research took into consideration mainly The hypotheses for a definition and fac-English language texts with a direct refer- tors that support innovation in youth ence to the areas identified, which could work were tested through the first phase support a definition of innovation in the of the field research, which consisted of field of non-formal education and identify seven focus groups with thirty-five youth the factors that support the creation of a workers from eleven European coun-favorable context to innovation. The desk tries1, identified by the National Agencies 1 Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden, the Netherlands. involved in this study. Prior to the focus cussion was structured into four parts: groups, the participants were asked to brief introduction to the examples of in-submit written examples of innovation novation, reflection on what was crucial in youth work, using a form provided by for innovation to happen and to be sus-the research team. These contributions tained in the concrete examples, discus-and the reports of the focus groups were sion about the importance of different then analysed using NVivo software2. factors for the process of innovation, and The questions for the focus groups and providing feedback on the concept of in-the form for examples of innovation are novation developed during the study. attached as annexes to this study. In the next section of this study, we have The focus groups participants were youth integrated the outcomes of the focus workers and youth work managers with groups with the findings that came from direct experience of innovation. Experi- the desk research. The findings from the ence with innovation was a key criterion desk research which did not receive con-for selection because the purpose of the firmation in the field research activities focus groups was to get feedback from are not included in the integrated find-the perspective of someone who has ings. Meanwhile, new elements which been directly involved in a specific in- appeared in the focus groups and in the novation process. The participants were written examples were added. Since the selected by the National Agencies imple- comparative analysis of the written ex-menting this study. In order to facilitate amples and focus groups reports showed 16 comparing and relating the experiences consistency, all findings listed below come with innovation to each other, all par- from both sources of data. An exception ticipants were youth work practitioners to this is when names of authors are listed. working in youth organisations or other organisations working with young people 4.3. SURVEY aged thirteen years or older. There were no researchers, policy makers or repre- The survey was the third step in the resentatives of public bodies involved as search process, following the desk re-participants. The groups were diverse in search and focus groups. It was conduct-terms of level of work, ranging from local, ed online from the 26th of February to through national to international levels. the 7th of April 2021. In total, there were seventy-seven responses to the survey. During the focus groups, the participants Detailed analysis of the results is provided were asked to discuss from the perspec- in the next chapter. tive of their own examples of innovation, which had already been shared with the team of researchers. The focus group dis- 2 NVivo is a qualitative data analysis (QDA) computer software package produced by QSR International. NVivo helps qualitative researchers to organise, analyse and find insights in unstructured or qualitative data like interviews, open-ended survey responses, journal articles, social media and web content, where deep levels of analysis on small or large volumes of data are required. 4.3.1. Structure of the survey operate (individual, organisational and contextual). A brief description of what The survey consisted of three types of was meant by “triggers” and “conditions” questions: preceded the questions. • Questions regarding the profile of The analysis of the results gave us an the organisations overview both of the absolute impor- • Questions regarding the importance tance of the factors, and their relative of the factors that support/hinder importance when compared to one an- innovation other. In addition, using the categories • Questions regarding the relevance explained above, we could identify any of the theoretical model describing significant differences in how different innovation in youth work organisations value factors that support/ hinder innovation. The first group of questions was aimed at In the third group of questions, we first classifying the responding organisations provided the respondents with a brief de-into a few categories that might have in- scription of the theoretical models devel-fluence on the results. These categories oped as part of this study, and then we were: size of working community, type asked them to assess their relevance. The of organisation, type of organisational responses were also analysed using the structure, and type and level of financial same criteria as described above. sustainability. In the survey analysis, all 17 received responses were disaggregated 4.3.2. Profile of respondents according to these criteria and comparison was made of how different profiles Primary respondents to the survey were of organisations responded. While the the youth workers and youth work man-organisations were also asked about the agers who participated in the focus country where they are based, because groups. The survey was also sent to those of the small sample this criterion was not participants who were originally identi-taken into consideration when analysing fied by the National Agencies and who the survey. provided written examples of innovation, but for different reasons could not attend The second group of questions asked the any of the focus groups. Furthermore, respondents to assess possible factors the participants were asked to share the that support innovation in youth work, survey with two to three more persons, grading them on a scale from 1 (not im- ideally one to two colleagues from their portant) to 5 (very important). The factors organisation and one person from anoth-proposed were identified from the desk er organisation from their network, either research and the focus groups. They were from their own or from a different coun-divided into groups according to their try, but only to those having some prior role in the innovation process as seen experience with innovation. Additionally, by this study (triggers and conditions) the survey was sent to participants from and according to the level on which they youth work practice who presented a pro- ject, tool or practice at the 1st edition of TYPE OF ORGANISATION the European Academy on Youth Work in 2019 in Slovenia. Since the survey was For this criterion, respondents were asked predominantly distributed to and through to choose a term which best describes the focus group participants, most re- their organisation’s profile. According to sponses came from countries the Nation- the responses, the organisations were di-al Agencies of which are involved in the vided into the following categories: European Academy on Youth Work. How- • ever, responses also came from countries Youth organisations that were not originally involved in the • Organisations working with young study, such as Bulgaria. people • Public Institutions Based on the first set of questions, organi- sational profiles were established accord- • Private Foundations ing to each of the criteria. • Other SIZE OF WORKING TYPE OF ORGANISATIONAL COMMUNITY STRUCTURE For this criterion, respondents were For this criterion, respondents were asked asked to fit their organisation’s working to choose a term which best describes community into one of the following cat- their organisational structure according 18 egories: to its hierarchy and the type of leadership which is practiced. According to the re- • Capital city sponses, the organisations were divided • Big city into the following categories: • Medium city • Organisations with a clear • Small town hierarchical structure with strong • Rural area leadership • Organisations with a combination of There was no guidance provided regard- hierarchical and horizontal structure ing the number of citizens or any other (e.g. hierarchical structure with criteria that could be used for classifying shared leadership) the communities under each of the cate- • Organisations with a mostly gories, so it was determined by the judge-horizontal structure with shared ment of the respondents. leadership TYPE AND LEVEL OF RELEVANCE OF CATEGORIES FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY ESTABLISHED For this criterion, organisations were Some of the categories established un-asked to choose a sentence which best der these different criteria had only a few describes their financial sustainability. respondents. Because of the very small According to the responses, the organi- sample size for those categories, it was sations were divided into the following impossible to establish any conclusions, categories: so any differences in responses were not taken into consideration, even if appear- • Organisations having guaranteed ing as significant. Categories with a small multi-annual funding mainly from sample size included: public sources • Public Institutions • Organisations having guaranteed • Organisations with multi-annual multi-annual funding mainly from funding mainly from private sources private sources • • Organisations having guaranteed Organisations having guaranteed annual funding annual funding • • Organisations dependent on Organisations depending on fundraising/self-sustaining activities different projects • Organisations depending on 19 fundraising/self-sustaining activities The number of respondents from or- ganisations with a clear hierarchical structure with strong leadership was also fairly small (about 10% of the total number of respondents), so they were taken into consideration only when ana- lysed together with the other responses, for the purpose of establishing trends in responses according to organisation- al structure, ranging from organisations with less to more hierarchical organisa- tion or vice-versa. Hence, when analysed in isolation, the responses of this group of organisations should be noted with cau- tion and conclusions should not be made. 05 » Outcomes 5.1. DEFINITION OF INNOVATION IN YOUTH WORK The definition of innovation elaborated on below is based on selected findings from the desk research which were con- firmed and completed by outcomes of the focus groups, which were organised within this study. Hence, the definition evolved throughout this study and this final version incorporates participants' feedback. We understand innovation in youth work to mean demonstrated methodologies, practices, tools, ways of approaching tar- get groups, or organisational models that have novel elements, that are upgrades of existing practices, or are completely new to the youth field or to a particular context, and that enable youth work to support young people to make changes and positively affect their lives, and/or contribute to a wider social change. For something to be considered as inno- Hence, innovation can be seen not only vative in youth work it does not have to in concrete outcomes (for instance ac-be completely new. Innovation can also tivities, methods), but also in processes, mean something that is upgraded and such as new forms of participation, new improved, or based on existing elements ways of approaching the target group, or (Dawe and Guthrie, 2004). Innovation in new organisational models. The process youth work can also mean building upon of innovation can also be an innovation practices from other sectors, adapted in itself. In any case, an actual outcome and applied to the youth field (Chell and needs to exist, even if as a process. Having Athayde, 2009). For something to be con- a new idea cannot be considered as inno-sidered as innovative it is also enough if vation and that is where the difference it is new only in a specific context, with lies between innovation and creativity. a particular target group or in a given ge- While creativity is about using imagina-ographical area, though not elsewhere tion and creative thinking skills to create (Silva, 2019). Applying existing tools and something new, innovation is when new approaches in new or different ways can ideas are turned into actual outputs (Sil-also be considered as innovation in youth va, 2019; Anderson, Potocnik and Zhou, work. Hence, it can be said that innova- 2014). tion in youth work is context-specific and whether something is considered as Innovation in youth work can differ in innovative does not depend only on the scope. Innovation can exist on the level of intrinsic characteristics of the innovation overall approaches, practices and meth-21 itself, but also on extrinsic factors related odologies for working with young peo-to the wider context. ple, as well as on the level of individual methods, tools and activities. But while The active involvement of young people there are no limitations in the scope, all in the process of innovation is one of its innovations need to be able to demon-key identifying elements. Young people strate impact and potential for replication are more than just passive recipients of (Crowley and Moxon, 2017), and add val-innovation. Rather, they always appear ue to youth work (Dawe, 2004). Bearing as an agency in the process. In certain in mind these requirements, innovations instances, innovation in youth work can that are wider in scope and more impact-be initiated by young people, and facili- ful have higher chances of being recog-tated and supported by youth workers. In nised, replicated by others in the field and other cases, innovation is carried out in sustained. partnerships between youth workers and young people. Even when it is the youth In youth work, the process of innovation workers bringing innovation to young should be concentrated on creating val-people, it is still a response to the needs ue as much as on production of novelty of young people. (Daniel and Klein, 2014). There are two dimensions to this: firstly, innovation In innovation in youth work, the process in youth work should be value-based, and the product are both important. meaning that it should encompass the values and principles that youth work is ecosystem, which besides actors from the based on (Cooper and White, 1994); and youth work field also includes a number secondly, it should strive towards making of other actors, such as stakeholders from social change. Innovation in youth work other fields (particularly from the educa-should try to bring new answers and new tion, social work, IT, business and other perspectives to existing issues and chal- related sectors), local and national gov-lenges, make a positive contribution to ernments, international organisations, the lives of young people, and/or respond donors, individuals and groups from the to the needs of young people, the local community; as well as forces such as poli-community or wider society. cies, economic conditions, trends and so- cial developments. Youth organisations, Since youth work encompasses a wide youth workers, young people and other eco-system, innovation in youth work stakeholders from the youth field are part involves a variety of stakeholders. This of that ecosystem, but they are not the includes, among others, youth workers, only determinants of innovation in youth young people, youth organisations, oth- work. er organisations, public institutions and policy makers. The involvement of young This innovation ecosystem is not stat-people should be based on the principles ic - on the contrary. There is a constant of participation and inclusion, while the movement caused by the actions of dif-involvement of other stakeholders comes ferent stakeholders, conducted jointly in the form of partnerships and cross-sec-22 or independently of one another. Some torial cooperation. Connections, exchang- of these actions directly impact others, es and personal contacts between indi- while some affect the overall ecosystem. viduals and organisations are essential to For example, policies and interventions the process of innovation in youth work. made by public bodies can affect individ- ual organisations or groups of organisa- 5.2. INNOVATION tions, but they can also bring significant changes that affect all. Such actions be- ECOSYSTEM come important forces in the ecosystem, which can either support or hinder inno- “The process of innovation can’t work vation. Cumulative actions by many stake- in a vacuum; it is related to the needs, holders over a longer period of time are interrelated with other fields of life, to behind the major forces, such as econom- the context in which it happens and to ic conditions, or social trends. how nurtured it is.” - one of the survey respondents. When taken together, all stakeholders in the innovation ecosystem, their actions Innovation in youth work happens in and the relations between them, create a an environment that consists of various climate that can be more or less favour-stakeholders, relations between them, able to the development of innovation. and conditions created by their actions This vision is close to the hypothesis of and interactions. Altogether, they form an an “innovative milieu”, which sees local environments as innovation incubators, as prisms through which innovations are catalysed (Ph. Aydalot, 1986). For innova- tion to happen, youth work practitioners need a fertile ecosystem with the right conditions to bolster their own creativity (Keuru, 2019). Figure 1: Youth work innovation ecosystem 23 Figure 1: Youth work innovation ecosystem The survey implemented as part of this Further analysis of responses according to study introduced the respondents to the the criteria established showed some dif-idea of an ecosystem that can enable a ferences in how different groups of organ-climate favourable to the development isations assessed their ecosystems. Most of innovation in youth work. Then, the notably, the ecosystem was assessed as respondents were asked to assess how more favourable to innovation by organ-much the youth work ecosystem that they isations working in smaller communities are part of is favourable to innovation, by than by those working in bigger commu-giving a grade between 1 (not favourable) nities (Figure 2). The trend in responses to 5 (very favourable). clearly showed the youth work ecosystem becoming less favourable to innovation as The average grade given by organisa- the organisation's working community be-tions was 3.4, meaning that respondents came larger. assessed the ecosystems they are part of slightly favourably. Figure 2: Extent to which the ecosystem is favourable to innovation according to the size of the organisations’ working community 4.50 vation 4.00 o inno 3.50 3.80 3.50 3.50 ourable t 3.00 3.20 3.20 av 2.50 tem fys 2.00 os t ec 1.50 ten Organisations’ Ex 1.00 working community size Capital Big city Medium Small town Rural city city area The analysis of responses also showed ly, by groups of youth workers or young that the ecosystem was assessed as more persons. Only in some cases other actors favourable to innovation by organisa- were seen as the drivers of innovation, 24 tions with a clear hierarchical structure such as an organisational leader. There (4) compared to organisations with com- were no cases in which the organisation bined (3.3) and horizontal structure (3.4). itself was seen as the initiator of the in-However, since a clear trend could not novation. be established and the number of organ- isations with a hierarchical structure is Thus it follows that innovation in youth relatively small, this outcome should be work is innovator-driven, with youth noted with caution and explored further. workers and young people being the main innovators. This resembles the pro- cess of innovation in other fields, which 5.3. THE PROCESS OF was confirmed by the desk research. This INNOVATION conclusion was also confirmed by the sur- vey responses, which gave higher signif- icance to individual factors compared to One of the key questions of this study was organisational and contextual ones (more related to the primary driver of innova- on this in the next section). This puts the tion in youth work, or to the way in which youth workers and young people, as driv-innovation happens. According to the ex- ers of innovation, in the centre of the in-amples shared by participants in the fo- novation process in youth work. cus groups, in most cases the process of innovation was started either by a youth As one of the respondents wrote: “In my worker, or by a young person; alternative- case, even without favourable conditions within my organisation or the outside understood as catalysts of the process system, I am able to lead innovation and of innovation. Conditions were seen as have an impact on developing such prac- the second group of factors that support tices. I only sometimes wish to have all innovation in youth work. Unlike the trig-favourable conditions available and see gers, they do not directly push innovation how I can unleash my personal potential to happen, but they are responsible for and scale our collective impact.” creating a climate favourable to innova- tion. These factors were seen as having a The fact that innovation in youth work crucial role in making innovation possible is innovator-driven does not mean that and in sustaining a process that leads to the outcomes of the innovation process an innovative outcome in youth work. depend solely on the individual who has initiated the process. As we saw in the The theoretical model proposed that previous section, innovation in youth both types of factors are needed for inno-work happens within a complex ecosys- vation in youth work to happen and to be tem where a myriad of stakeholders act sustained, and that the more supporting in different ways that either support or conditions and triggers exist in the eco-hinder the process of innovation. One of system, the higher is the probability that the main goals of this study was to identi- more and more impactful innovations fy in that complexity the factors that have will happen. the greatest impact on the innovation of youth work. The focus groups outcomes were aligned 25 with this hypothesis, as they showed Such potential factors were already iden- that the more conditions that support tified during the desk research. The initial innovation are present in the ecosystem, analysis of the roles that those factors the more supportive is the culture for played in the examples of innovation developing and sustaining innovation. showed that some of them were more The absence of these conditions, or the influential to the actual process of inno- presence of factors that have opposite vation, while others had more to do with effects, contributes to creating a climate the underlying climate. Based on that, a that hinders innovation. Meanwhile, the first theoretical model was developed examples of innovation showed that trig-which distinguished between two types gers for innovation occur independently of factors - triggers and conditions. This of the conditions. This means that the in-model showed innovation in youth work novation process could also be triggered as a function between the two different in a climate that is less supportive to inno-groups of factors (see figure 2). vation. At the same time, the ecosystem could have favourable conditions for sup- Triggers were seen as the factors that porting innovation, but concrete triggers provide the initial push to innovation may be missing. and motivate the youth worker or the organisation to launch the process of in- This model was tested through the survey novation. In youth work, they could be conducted as part of this study. The re- spondents were first presented with the theoretical model, and then they were asked to assess to what extent it is true for their concrete experience with inno- vation in youth work. They could respond to the question by giving a grade between 1 (not at all true) to 5 (fully true). Figure 3: The first theoretical model as it was presented to the survey respondents 26 The model proposed received a high ap- sights related to the theoretical model, proval rate, as the average grade given elaborated on below. by all organisations was 4. The analysis of data according to the criteria established Innovation in youth work cannot be pre-did not show any trends or major differ- sented as a linear model. Some of the re-ences between different profiles of or- spondents underlined that innovation in ganisations. Organisations from all groups the youth work field cannot be explained gave a favourable opinion of the model, as an outcome of a linear model, mean-with average grades ranging between 3.5 ing that it should not be presumed that and 4.2. certain circumstances and factors will al- ways lead to an innovative result. Many With an open question at the end, the responses mentioned the importance of respondents were given an opportunity different things coming together in a per-to briefly describe the reasons for their fect combination, creating a synergy or a rating of the theoretical model. Their momentum that can support innovation responses provided some important in- to appear. The moment of “randomness” was also mentioned, in that it cannot be predicted if and when innovation will happen. Below are some of the responses to illustrate this point: “It is true (i.e. the model), “Actually I agree with the model but not 100% per cent. suggested, but still think there There is also the “perfect are some interpersonal relations, coincidence”, the right time which can affect even ideal with the right people and the systems).” right ideas.” “Innovation sometimes happens ‘randomly’ and other times it could indeed be understood as a function (interaction of triggers and conditions).” Triggers as forces that put the system Here are a few more responses in relation 27 in motion. While respondents clearly to this point: supported the idea of triggers and conditions, the triggers were not seen so much as part of the ecosystem itself, but “Because when people don’t more as forces, as catalysts that are able have a choice they are more to put the system into motion and push likely to be innovative. And with youth work actors to innovate. Often re- more supporting conditions it is easier to use innovation.” spondents wrote of a “secret” or “magic” ingredient that makes the difference of whether innovation in a given ecosystem “Big ideas may occur will happen or not. spontaneously (as by magic) and depending on the mindset of the owner of the idea, this That ingredient, or trigger, was often may be successfully turned into seen as an essential catalyst - be it a innovation.” new original idea, or a crisis moment. “One does not innovate if nothing More examples of triggers follow in the pushes one.” next sections. According to one respond- ent, triggers can even affect the overall ecosystem, since “if triggers are strong enough, the environment and conditions are also prone to change and innovate”. Conditions provide the underlying sup- ble conditions do not affect the ability of port and are very important for inno-youth workers to innovate” and “people vation to happen. The survey responses will innovate regardless of money, sup-strongly confirmed the importance of port, premises etc“, thus reinforcing the conditions for the process of innovation importance of the innovator in the pro-to be successful. Nevertheless, some re- cess of innovation. However, most responses indicated that innovation can sponses, such as those listed below, sup-also happen without favourable condi- ported the significance of conditions. tions, as “sometimes the lack of favoura- “We have realised that when we have a stable funding aimed “Innovation requires at innovative projects and we supportive conditions and also have the support from resources as well as policy the local/national authorities, framework.” dreams can be true.” “As I see it, conditions are essential for making innovative ideas ‘stick’. “In my case there were existing Some projects or concrete actions needs on more levels (organisational, might be innovative in nature young people), there were people or approach, but will not last if competent to do it and there conditions do not grant them a 28 were funds to support that. long life... as long as new ideas and Also responsible persons in all projects are not embraced by the organisations (cross-sectorial) community and supported, they will supported the cooperation. If we had be one shot and die out quickly. “ more situations like this, we would do more innovative interventions.” “We know where we want to go, but we are not there yet since important conditions, e.g. stable funding, expectations of outcomes, hinder it.” 5.4. MODEL OF the stakeholders in the ecosystem (poli-INNOVATION IN YOUTH cies, funding opportunities, flexibility of donors), while others are beyond the con- WORK trol of individual actors and are products of the cumulative actions of many stake- Based on the feedback received from the holders (culture, social trends, economic focus groups and survey responses, a fi- conditions). nal version of the theoretical model was created, which is based on the idea of a As presented in Figure 4, such an ecosys-youth work innovation ecosystem com- tem is not a static collection of actors and posed of a variety of stakeholders, their circumstances. Rather, it is a constantly actions and interactions. evolving ecosystem where elements over- lap, interact and influence each other. As The model shows one of the types of fac- a result of all these forces, a given ecosys-tors, the conditions, as integral elements tem can become more or less favourable of the ecosystem. Some of these condi- to innovation in youth work. tions are directly created or impacted by Figure 4: Youth work innovation ecosystem with integrated conditions 29 To this picture, the second type of factors Some of the triggers can be intentional-needs to be added - the triggers. In the ly introduced by the actors that are part ecosystem described, a variety of triggers of the ecosystem (such as intentional ef-are popping in and out of existence. They forts to respond to a need or to change are not themselves permanent elements organisational practices, or policies and of the ecosystem, but rather temporary funding opportunities that encourage in-catalysts, or forces which provide ener- novation), while others happen random-gy that can put the system into motion. ly and cannot be predicted or controlled Hence, the triggers do not have an impact (such as a new idea, social changes or on the overall favourability of the ecosys- crisis situations). These unplanned and tem for innovation. Rather, they appear unexpected factors that can provide the within a given climate that is already energy needed are along the lines of the shaped by the conditions, and provide "randomness" in the process of innova-a push for the innovation process to be tion that some of the survey respondents launched. mentioned. Figure 5: Youth work innovation ecosystem with integrated conditions and triggers 30 As has already been explained, various • In a given ecosystem, the triggers triggers occur constantly in any given appear independently of the condi- ecosystem. When a trigger occurs and tions. This means that innovations provides energy to the system, three dif- in youth work can be initiated even ferent scenarios are possible: if there is a lack of supporting condi- tions and a climate that is less favour- • It may produce no effect on whether able for innovation. However, the youth work innovations happen or innovations originating in that kind not of environment are less likely to be • It may provoke innovation in youth successful and sustained. work to happen, but the innovation • In ecosystems that have a climate may not be sustained for a longer that is highly unsupportive of innova- period of time tion, even a large number of triggers • It may provoke innovation that is may not lead to innovations in youth sustained for a long period of time work. Meanwhile, in ecosystems that are more favourable to innovation, the same triggers may result in suc- What will happen as a result of the trigger cessful and sustainable innovations. depends on the actions of the innovators as drivers of innovation, and on the over- • Since some of the conditions and all climate within the ecosystem - which triggers can be controlled by some as we saw is created by the complexity of or all of the stakeholders in the eco- 31 stakeholders, their actions and interac- system, those stakeholders have the tions, and the conditions created thereof. ability both to initiate concrete in- In other words, all of the above plays a novations and to contribute to cre- role in whether the innovation in youth ating a climate that is more favoura- work will be successful and sustainable. ble to innovation. The knowledge of the triggers and conditions that can Considering all of the above, the theoret- be controlled or at least influenced ical model developed in this study and could enable stakeholders to act pro- described herein proposes several impor- actively in supporting them. tant hypotheses that could explain how • As the drivers of the process of inno-innovation in youth work happens: vation in youth work, youth workers and young people can make a differ- • The more favourable the climate is ence in the number of innovations in the ecosystem, and the more trig- that are initiated and sustained in a gers occur, the more successful and given ecosystem, even when the cli- sustainable innovations will happen. mate is not very favourable to inno- Hence, innovations can be under- vation. stood as a function between the number of triggers in an ecosystem and the degree to which an ecosys- tem is favourable to innovation. In conclusion, successful innovations tion, and there are enough supporting in youth work are products of complex conditions and triggers. Innovations can processes that occur in dynamic ecosys- also be initiated by innovators in less fa-tems comprised of different stakehold- vourable environments, but their poten-ers, their actions and interactions. The tial is often limited. chances for more successful and sustain- able innovations are higher when the This summary is supported by some of the overall climate is favourable for innova- comments from the survey respondents: “Of course a person and an organisation can be more innovative if both triggers and conditions are the best possible, although innovation can come anyway based on the needs for it; but it can be sustained and nurtured in a more favourable situation “Innovation can be instigated by with conditions and triggers in place.” youth workers, but requires support of the whole system to be sustainable.” 32 “In my case there were existing needs on more levels (organisational, young people), there were people competent to do it and there were funds to support that. Also responsible persons in all organisations (cross-sectorial) supported the cooperation. If we would have more situations like this, we would do more innovative interventions.” 5.5. FACTORS THAT were listed, and all of them could be clas- IMPACT THE PROCESS OF sified into the three broad groups estab- lished earlier: individual, organisational INNOVATION IN YOUTH and contextual factors. Hence, the classi- WORK fication of factors was confirmed through the focus groups. The original list of fac- tors in the three groups was revised and 5.5.1. Individual, organisational and expanded by incorporating participants’ contextual factors suggestions. Based on the desk research, three groups The list of factors was then divided ac-of factors were proposed according to the cording to their relation to the process level on which they act: innovator-driven, of innovation - factors that initiate the culture-driven and context-driven (Bas- process of innovation (triggers) and fac-karan and Mehtan, 2016). In this division, tors that contribute to creating a climate the culture-driven factors included both favourable to innovation (conditions). those related to the organisational cul- Based on this criterion, a distinction was ture, and to the social culture. Since the made between individual, organisational scope of this study was not wide enough and contextual triggers, and individual, to study the impact of the wider social organisational and contextual conditions. culture on innovation in youth work, we limited the second group of factors to the One of the key questions of this study was 33 organisational culture. Hence, the catego- about the importance of different factors ry was renamed, and the factors studied in supporting innovation in youth work. were divided into: individual, organisa- According to the participants in the focus tional and contextual factors. groups, all three groups of factors played a role in the process, and innovation was Individual factors are those that are in- a result of their combined impact. For trinsic to the innovator, in this case youth most of the focus group participants, it workers. Organisational factors are those was difficult to determine if any of the that are related to the youth organisation, factors was particularly crucial for innova-or a different type of youth work struc- tion to happen. ture. Contextual factors are those that are impacted by other actors, relations The survey conducted after the focus between them, processes and various groups looked more closely into this social and cultural phenomena, all part of question. The respondents could first the youth work innovation ecosystem. read a brief description of what is meant by triggers and conditions in the study. As part of the focus groups implemented Then, they were asked a set of ques-in this study, participants were asked to tions in which they could assess possible name factors that have supported inno- factors that support innovation in youth vation to happen in their concrete experi- work, grading them on a scale from 1 (not ences with innovation. A variety of factors important) to 5 (very important). Within the same survey, the respondents able to innovation, than for there to be were also asked to rank a group of fac- triggers to initiate the innovation process. tors that can hinder innovation in youth work from happening. These factors were The comparison between individual, identified based on the examples of in- organisational and contextual factors novation presented by participants in the showed that individual level factors are focus groups. assessed as slightly more important when compared to others. The differ- 5.5.2. Factors supporting innovation ence between individual and other fac- tors is more expressed in the triggers than The results of the survey conducted show in the conditions. This finding confirms that all three groups of triggers and con- the conclusion that innovation in youth ditions (individual, organisational and work is innovator-driven, with youth contextual) are important and have a role workers and young people having the in initiating and sustaining the process of greatest roles in initiating the process of innovation in youth work. All factors pro- innovation. posed, regardless of the type, received an overall average rating of at least 2.94 on However, the difference in grades given the scale from 1 to 5. to different factors is too small to con- clude that there is a big difference in their This outcome supports the finding from importance. This can also be seen from the focus groups that innovation in youth the five highest rated conditions and 34 work is influenced by a variety of factors triggers that support innovation in youth and hence it is difficult to point out one work, which include factors from all three that has a crucial role. It also supports the groups. idea of an innovation ecosystem consist- ing of various stakeholders, their actions and interactions. Based on the survey responses, everything that is happening in the ecosystem plays a role in initiating and sustaining innovation. The comparison between the grades giv- en to triggers and conditions showed that on average, conditions are assessed as more important than triggers, which is something that was also confirmed with the narrative comments. All organisa- tions, regardless of their profile, gave a higher average rating to conditions. This means that in a given ecosystem, it is more important that there are supportive factors that can create a climate favour- Figure 6: Conditions that support innovation in youth work with the highest grades: Factor Level of factor Average grade Youth workers have an innovative mindset – having Individual 4.6 an open mind and free spirit, being flexible, practicing divergent thinking Organisation provides frame, space and adequate time Organisational 4.3 for creativity and innovation Organisation supports experimentation and space to fail Organisational 4.3 without consequences Stable funding that is not conditioned upon concrete Contextual 4.3 outcomes Organisation nurturing a culture of sharing Organisational 4.2 Figure 7: Triggers that support innovation in youth work with the highest grades: Factor Level of factor Average grade Unmet individual or community needs, such as needs of Contextual 4.4 young people Desire of the youth worker to create something new Individual 4.3 Having a new idea, or an idea to do something differently Individual 4.3 Major social changes and developments Contextual 4.3 35 Crisis situations and unexpected events, such as the Contextual 4.2 Covid-19 pandemic or economic crisis These responses indicate that inno- vation in youth work is most often triggered by emerging needs or cir- cumstances in society, or by youth workers' own idea or initiative to innovate. Meanwhile, for innovation to be successful and sustained, youth workers need an innovative mindset, but also strong support from their or- ganisation and stable, unconditioned funding. The factors that received the lowest grades show the conditions and trig- gers that had the least impact on re- spondents' examples of innovation. Figure 8: Conditions that support innovation in youth work with the lowest grades: Factor Level of factor Average grade Support for innovation from parents, schools and other Contextual 3.4 social actors Organisation that has a horizontal structure and Organisational 3.6 management Youth workers having adequate experience in the area of Individual 3.7 work in which the innovation process is launched. Social trends that are supportive to the process of Contextual 3.9 innovation Figure 9: Triggers that support innovation in youth work with the lowest grades: Factor Level of factor Average grade Push for innovation coming from policy makers Contextual 2.9 Developments in other sectors Contextual 3.3 Conducting a structured process aimed at innovation Organisational 3.5 Receiving a grant that demands innovation from the Organisational 3.5 organisation 36 These responses show that examples So the data gathered represents a sum-of innovation in youth work are less fre- mary of opinions from youth workers and quently triggered by policies or grants to youth work managers influenced by con-organisations demanding innovation. De- crete experiences with innovation. velopments in other sectors and organi- sations' own initiatives also lead to in- Furthermore, the study does not go into novation less often. From the conditions the reasons for why certain factors are proposed, the least influential is support more or less important, and whether they coming from those outside of the youth could be more important if they were field, along with organisations' horizontal more present. For example, the fact that structure and youth workers' past expe- a "push for innovation coming from policy riences. makers" received the lowest rating does not explain whether there are no existing It should be noted that while the re- policies supporting innovation, or wheth-spondents rated the factors thinking from er current policies are not effective. Simi-the perspective of their own experiences larly, it cannot be concluded whether de-with innovation, they were not asked to velopments in other sectors and support assess the level to which those factors in- from those outside of the youth field are fluenced the actual innovation processes. not relevant or if they do not reach in- novators in the youth field. These are all All three groups of triggers (individual, questions for further analysis. What can organisational and contextual) were as-be concluded at this point is that there sessed as relatively high by all profiles of is an apparent gap between youth policy organisations. On average, the highest and practice, and between the actions grade was given to the individual level of policy makers and stakeholders from factors (4.10), followed by contextual other sectors on the one hand, and the (3.73) and organisational factors (3.60). process of innovation in youth work on This supports the hypothesis that inno-the other. vation in youth work is innovator-driven. However, the results also show that trig- 5.5.3. Importance of triggers for gers coming from the organisations (such supporting innovation as an organisational need to change prac- tices) or from the wider context (such as This section includes a more in-depth unexpected events and crises), are also overview of the role that various triggers very important for initiating innovation. have in the process of innovation. Figure 10: Comparison of the average grade for the different types of triggers 4.50 4.00 4.10 37 3.50 3.60 3.73 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 Grade 1.00 Trigger Individual Organisational Contextual In this part of the survey, the respond- ents were asked to rank three individual factors, four organisational factors and seven contextual factors. The following figures show the average ratings of the factors under each group. Figure 11: Importance of triggers on individual level Going through a certain experience, such as participation in a training 3.80 process Having a new idea, or an idea to do something differently 4.20 Desire of the youth worker to create something new 4.30 Trigger Grade 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 1.50 2.50 3.50 4.50 38 Figure 12: Importance of triggers on organisational level Receiving a grant that demands innovation from the organisation 3.50 Crisis in the organisation that requires innovation to be overcome 3.50 Conducting a structured process aimed at innovation 3.40 An organisational need to change practices or come up with new 4.00 approaches Trigger Grade 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 1.50 2.50 3.50 4.50 Figure 13: Importance of triggers on contextual level Ideas/proposals coming from community members outside of the youth field (teachers/parents) 3.50 Developments in other sectors 3.30 Funding opportunities that support or demand innovation 3.70 Push for innovation coming from policy makers 2.90 Crisis situations and unexpected events, such as Covid-19 pandemic or economic crisis 4.20 Major social changes and developments 4.20 Unmet individual or community needs, such as needs of young people 4.30 Trigger Grade 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 1.50 2.50 3.50 4.50 39 The responses to these questions give of organisations did not show very signif-a clear indication of the factors that are icant differences. Still, some interesting deemed the most important for triggering observations can be made, especially processes of innovation. According to the when analysing responses according to respondents, a significant impact on the organisations' working communities and innovation process can be made by inno- organisational structures. vators' new ideas and desires to create something new. Organisational needs to Organisations working in capital and big change practices or come up with new ap- cities value individual level triggers higher proaches also appear as significant, when than the average, which may mean that compared to other organisational factors. they put even more value on the actions And on a contextual level, major social of the individual innovator. For instance, changes, unexpected events and crisis the factor "having a new idea" received situations, as well as existing unmet indi- an average rating of 4.9 among organisa-vidual or community needs are clearly the tions from big cities. Another factor that most important. Actions by policy makers was assessed as significantly higher by and donors, and actions by actors in other this group of organisations was "develop-fields are obviously lagging behind. ments in other sectors" (4 compared to 2.9 to 3.4 by others), which may indicate The analysis of responses according to the a higher interaction between different criteria for establishing different profiles sectors in larger communities. When it comes to organisational struc- 5.5.4. Importance of conditions for ture, the more the organisation has a supporting innovation clear hierarchical structure and a strong leadership, the higher the grades given to This section includes a more in-depth all three groups of triggers. This trend is overview of the role that various condi-present in almost all triggers, with just a tions have in the process of innovation. few exceptions. The following contextu- al level factors show the opposite trend, Similar as in relation to triggers, all three gaining in importance as the organisa- groups of conditions (individual, organisations become less hierarchical, with more tional and contextual) were assessed rela-shared leadership: tively high by all profiles of organisations. On average, the highest grade was again • Unmet individual or community given to the individual level factors (4.10), need, such as needs of young people but now it was very closely followed by • Ideas/proposals coming from organisational (4.05) and contextual fac- community members outside of the tors (3.91). The fact that the differences youth field (teachers/parents) between the average grades of conditions are so small shows that all different types This could mean that more horizontal or- of factors play almost equally important ganisations are more concerned with the roles in creating a climate favourable to community needs and are more open to innovation. This supports the hypothesis of an ecosystem where a variety of inter-40 feedback by community members. related stakeholders, their actions and interactions impact the success and sus- tainability of innovations. Figure 14: Comparison of the average grade for the different types of conditions 4.50 4.00 4.10 3.50 4.05 3.91 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 Grade 1.00 Trigger Individual Organisational Contextual In this part of the survey, the respond- contextual factors. The following figures ents were asked to rank three individual show the average ratings of the factors factors, six organisational factors and 9 under each group. Figure 15: Importance of conditions on individual level Youth workers having adequate experience in the area of work in which the innovation 3.70 process is launched. Youth workers having an innovative mindset – having an open mind and free spirit, being 4.60 flexible, practicing divergent thinking. Youth workers possessing certain competencies that are needed for the 4.00 process of innovation. Grade Trigger 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 1.50 2.50 3.50 4.50 41 Figure 16: Importance of conditions on organisational level High level of participation of the young people in the organisational structure 4.00 Organisation nurturing a culture of sharing 4.10 Capacity building activities for the staff 4.00 Organisation supporting experimentation and space to fail without consequences 4.30 Organisation that has a horizontal structure and management 3.60 Organisation providing frame, space and adequate time for creativity and innovation 4.30 Trigger Grade 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 1.50 2.50 3.50 4.50 Figure 17: Importance of conditions on contextual level Support for innovation from parents, schools and other social actors 3.40 Cross-sectorial work and partnerships 4.00 Recognition from the community and the relevant institutions 3.80 Public bodies and policy makers that are supportive to innovation 3.70 Stable funding that is not conditioned upon 4.30 concrete outcomes International programs supportive to innovation 4.00 Social trends that are supportive to the process of innovation 4.00 Supportive youth work policy 4.00 Cultural aspects that are supportive to innovation 4.00 42 Trigger Grade 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 1.50 2.50 3.50 4.50 Clearly, the most important individual to stable funding that is not conditioned level condition is that youth workers have upon concrete outcomes. It is important an innovative mindset, which includes to note, however, that other contextual having an open mind and free spirit, level factors are also highly ranked and being flexible and practicing divergent thus considered very important, such as thinking. This factor received a higher "Cross-sectorial work and partnerships", grade than the factors that had to do with "International programs supportive to youth workers' knowledge, skills and ex- innovation", "Social trends that are sup-perience, meaning that the innovators' portive to the process of innovation" and attitude was deemed the most impor- "Supportive youth work policy", which all tant for supporting innovation. The most received an average rating of 4.0. important factors expected from organi- sations are that they provide the frame, The analysis of responses according to space and adequate time for creativity the criteria for establishing different and innovation, as well as support for ex- profiles of organisations showed that all perimentation and space to fail without groups of organisations gave quite similar consequences. Finally, on a contextual responses. level, the highest importance was given Some differences can be observed again 5.5.5. Factors hindering innovation between organisations that have a different organisational structure. Similarly as Under this question the respondents in relation to triggers, the more the organ- were presented with eight conditions that isation has a clear hierarchical structure could hinder innovation (make innovation and a strong leadership, the higher the difficult to happen). The factors proposed grades given to all three groups of con- were extrapolated from the examples of ditions. But the exceptions from this rule innovation and focus group discussions. are interesting, as the only factor with an They were not divided according to level, opposite trend is "Organisation that has but were assessed altogether. a horizontal structure and management", which shows that having a horizontal structure is more important for organisa- tions that already have a more horizontal structure. In addition, the factor "High level of participation of the young people in the organisational structure" also re- ceived the highest grade among organisa- tions that have a mostly horizontal struc- ture with shared leadership. Figure 18: Importance of factors that hinder innovation 43 Organisational culture not supportive to innovation 4.00 Resistance to change 3.80 Lack of support from public bodies 3.50 Being dependent on funds that require concrete outcomes and indicators 3.90 Lack of stable funding 4.00 Lack of time needed for innovation 3.80 Lack of understanding regarding the process of innovation 3.60 Lack of relevant competences of the youth workers 3.30 Trigger Grade 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 1.50 2.50 3.50 4.50 The responses to this question outlined relevant competences, or that the level four of the proposed factors as the most of youth workers' competences does not important for the respondents: impact the process of innovation in youth work. • Lack of stable funding (4.0) • Being dependent on funds that The analysis of responses according to require concrete outcomes and the criteria established revealed some indicators (3.9) differences, mostly related to organisa- • Lack of time needed for innovation tional structure and working community. (3.8) • Most notably, it is evident that organisa- Resistance to change (3.8) tions with clearer hierarchical structure and stronger leadership give more impor- It is evident that three out of the top four tance to the factors that hinder the pro-factors that hinder innovation are related cess of innovation. The more horizontal to the wider context. The two that are the organisational structure is and the considered as the most important are re- more the leadership is shared, the less lated to lack of funding and the type of challenges to innovation are reported. funding available. The difference is particularly visible in the following factors: "lack of time needed In contrast, the lack of relevant compe- for innovation", "resistance to change", tences of youth workers was assessed as "organisational culture not supportive 44 the least important factor that hinders to innovation" and "lack of understand-innovation in youth work. This should be ing regarding the process of innovation", further investigated, as it could mean ei- which are obviously the areas in which ther that youth workers already have the hierarchical organisations have the most challenges related to innovation. Figure 19: Importance of factors according to organisational structure Meanwhile, the analysis of the responses This could mean that available funding is according to the organisations' working more important in bigger communities, community shows that there are oppos- but also that organisations working in ing trends for different factors - some ap- those communities have less time to in-pear as more important for organisations novate. based in bigger communities, and others for organisations in smaller communi- There is an opposite trend for the factor ties. The following factors are assessed as "Lack of relevant competences of the more important for organisations work- youth workers", which appeared more ing in bigger communities than for those important for respondents coming from working in smaller ones: smaller communities. • Lack of time needed for innovation • Lack of stable funding 45 06 » Conclusions and recommendations This study resulted in a definition of inno- vation in youth work, a theoretical model of how innovations happen, and an anal- ysis of the factors that have the greatest roles in supporting or hindering innova- tions. Based on these outcomes, general conclusions were drawn and some spe- cific recommendations for stakeholders were made. Furthermore, the research team identified new questions that should be explored further in the future in order to gain a better understanding of how innovation in the youth work context happens and how it could be better sup- ported. This chapter highlights the main points established during the research, draw- ing relevant conclusions confirmed by all research methods, proposing measures based on them and setting directions for further analysis. DEFINING INNOVATION IN These include: YOUTH WORK • The active participation of young The desk research conducted at the be- people not only as passive recipients ginning of this study showed that there of innovation, but also as an active are not many existing documents specifi- agency in the process. In many of the cally addressing innovation in youth work. examples of innovation considered, Only a small part of the analysed studies, young people were seen in the role research, publications and articles were of innovators, alongside the youth related to this topic. Most of the analysed workers. documents touched on innovation while writing more generally about youth work, • The value dimension of innovation in or dealt with innovation in related fields, youth work, meaning that the process such as education or social work. of innovation should be focused not only on the production of novelty, but We could not find any definition that also on creating value. This value was explains what innovation in youth work expressed in the form of supporting means, so the definition composed at young people to make changes and the beginning of the study was mainly positively affect their lives, and/or inspired by concepts of innovation com- contribute to wider social change. ing from other fields. The definition pro- posed received a high level of approval 47 from the participants of the focus groups, These two, together with other elements but it was expanded with some elements that were already present in the original that came out of the discussions. As de- proposal, now form the core of the con-fined in section 4.1, our final definition of cept of innovation in youth work. The re-innovation is as follows: maining elements are: “We understand innovation in youth work • Innovation in youth work is con-to mean demonstrated methodologies, text-specific. In addition to some- practices, tools, ways of approaching tar- thing completely new, it can also get groups, or organisational models that be something that is upgraded, have novel elements, that are upgrades improved, based on existing ele- of existing practices, or are completely ments, or based on practices from new to the youth field or to a particular other sectors, adapted and applied context, and that enable youth work to in the youth field. Something can support young people to make changes also be considered as innovative if and positively affect their lives, and/or it is new only in a specific context, contribute to wider social change.” with a particular target group or in a given geographical area, or if it is This definition outlines some aspects of about applying existing tools and ap- innovation that are unique and specific proaches in new or different ways. for innovation in the field of youth work. • Innovation in youth work can differ ernments, international organisations, in scope. It can exist on the level of donors, individuals and groups from the overall approaches, practices and community. methodologies of working with young people, as well as on the level of indi- As elaborated on in section 4.2, the in-vidual methods, tools and activities. novation ecosystem is a dynamic and evolving environment, with a constant • Both the process and the product movement caused by the actions of dif-are important in innovation in youth ferent stakeholders, conducted jointly or work. Innovation can be found in independently of one another. Examples concrete outcomes (such as activi- of these include activities of organisaties or methods), but also in process- tions and policy makers, youth policies es (such as forms of participation and and funding schemes. Parts of the ecosys-new ways of approaching the target tem are also the needs of young people, group). The process of innovation as well as major forces such as economic could also be an innovation in itself. conditions, trends and social developments. • Innovation in youth work involves a variety of stakeholders. These in- CONDITIONS AND TRIGGERS clude, among others, youth workers, OF INNOVATION young people, youth organisations, 48 other organisations, public institu- Some of the stakeholders’ actions and tions, policy makers and others. interactions represent factors that can make the overall climate in the ecosystem THE ECOSYSTEM OF more or less favourable to innovation. We INNOVATION IN YOUTH call these factors conditions, and we di- vide them into three groups according to WORK the level on which they act: individual, organisational and contextual. The condi- The key elements of innovation in youth tions by themselves do not initiate inno-work were taken up and developed into vations, but they provide the underlying a model of an innovation ecosystem. Ac- support for innovations to be successful cording to this model, innovation in youth and sustained. There is another group of work happens in an environment that factors that bring energy to the ecosys-consists of various stakeholders, relations tem and act as catalysts of the process between them, and conditions created by of innovation. We call them triggers, and their actions and interactions. Youth or- they, too, can be individual, organisational ganisations, youth workers, young people and contextual. Driven by those triggers, and other stakeholders from the youth and supported by favourable conditions, field are part of that ecosystem, as are youth workers, young people and others a number of other actors, such as stake- from the youth field can initiate and lead holders from other fields (education, IT, successful processes of innovation. This business sector), local and national gov- makes innovation in youth work inno- vator-driven, but also strongly depend- to compile a list of conditions and triggers ent on the actions of many interrelated working on the three levels (individual, stakeholders. organisational and contextual) that could potentially support innovation in youth As shown in section 4.3, this model of work. Respondents were then asked to innovation received a high approval rate rate those factors according to their level from the respondents of the survey con- of importance. The results were analysed ducted as part of this study. The examples cumulatively, as well as by profiles of or-submitted of innovation and the focus ganisations differing by type, working group discussions also supported the idea community, organisational structure, and of innovations happening within a com- type and level of financial sustainability. plex ecosystem composed of a variety of stakeholders, where conditions create a All factors, regardless of their type, re-certain climate and triggers push the pro- ceived a high rating, with average grades cess of innovation. above 2.94 on a scale from 1 to 5. The ratings were consistently high among An important aspect of the model is organisations of all profiles. This indeed that some of the conditions and triggers shows that everything that happens in that support innovation are (or can be) the youth work ecosystem plays a role controlled by the stakeholders within in whether innovations will happen and the ecosystem. Examples include: types how successful they will be. of funding available, organisational ap- 49 proaches and policies in the youth field. Due to the high grades given to all fac-Other factors are out of the stakeholders’ tors, it was impossible to point out one, control, or take much more time and ef- or even a few factors that are of crucial fort to be impacted. Examples include: importance for innovation. However, the unexpected events (such as the Covid-19 conditions were evidently regarded as pandemic), or the attitude of a nation- more important than triggers. This means al culture towards innovation. Knowing that what is crucial for innovators in the which factors can be controlled or at youth field is that the overall system is least impacted by different stakeholders supportive to innovation. In other words, is of key importance in supporting inno- it is not enough just to spark innovation, vation in youth work. This is particularly but also to sustain it. important for policy makers in the youth field, who have power over many of the Not only organisations have an impor-contextual triggers and conditions. tant role in this, as they could provide a framework and safe space for innovation, To support innovation in youth work, but policy makers as well, as they should another important question is related ensure stable and unconditioned fund-to the main factors that can support or ing and supportive policy. The important hinder innovation. The desk research, role of policy makers and organisations in the examples of innovation and the focus sustaining innovation was also confirmed groups allowed the team of researchers by the factors that hinder innovation, as survey respondents listed a lack of stable workers’ attitude to innovation is more funding, being dependent on funds that important than their competences. More require outcomes and indicators, and lack measures might be needed for enabling of time needed for innovation as the key that attitude and supporting behaviours obstacles to innovation. based on it, rather than programs for competence building. While slightly less important than the conditions, the triggers also received a According to the respondents, innova-high overall rating. Individual level trig- tion is least frequently triggered by direct gers were assessed as more important pushes coming from policy makers. Fund-than others, thus confirming again that ing opportunities that support or demand innovation in youth work is most often innovation were also not recognised innovator-driven. Youth workers’ new among the top triggers, though they ap-ideas and desires to create something pear among the top conditions needed new were considered the most impor- to sustain innovation. The finding is com-tant, along with organisational needs to plementary with the factors hindering in-come up with new practices, and a few novation. Here, lack of stable and flexible contextual factors that had to do with funding appeared as the two main chal-unmet needs (such as needs of young lenges. All of this may be an indication people), major social changes and un- of a gap between policy and practice, expected events (such as the Covid-19 with policy makers introducing funding 50 pandemic). Though the important role schemes that push for innovation, while of youth workers was evident, the trig- what is seen as more effective is having ger that was seen as the most important more open funding streams that allow overall was “Unmet individual or com- for innovations that are driven by youth munity needs, such as needs of young workers' own initiative and the needs of people”. young people. More flexible and innova- tion-friendly youth policy and more stable Youth workers, as the key drivers of in- and unconditional funding opportunities novation in the youth field, received might help to trigger and support more much attention throughout the study. In innovations in youth work. fact, youth workers having an innovative mindset - having an open mind and free Another gap that can be identified is spirit, being flexible, practicing divergent between innovations in the youth field, thinking – was considered the most im- and what is happening in other sectors. portant condition for innovation to hap- While major social changes and develop-pen. However, the factors that were re- ments were listed among the key triggers lated to youth workers’ competences and that support innovation, developments in adequate experience in the area of work other sectors and ideas coming from indi-received lower grades. In addition, lack of viduals outside of the field were regarded competences of youth workers represent- as less influential. Meanwhile, cross-sec-ed the least important factor hindering torial work and partnerships were as-innovation. This may indicate that youth sessed as important conditions to sup- port innovation. More measures should The more hierarchical organisations are, be taken to promote the collaboration the more importance they give to all fac-and exchange of ideas between the youth tors that support innovation - both condi-field and other sectors. This is particularly tions and triggers. There are some excep-important in smaller communities, where tions to this trend though, and they can according to the responses there is less be telling of the organisations with more influence between the different sectors. horizontal structure and shared leader- ship. Namely, the only triggers that gain RELEVANCE OF importance as organisations are more ORGANISATIONAL horizontal are the following: STRUCTURE AND WORKING COMMUNITY • Unmet individual or community need, such as needs of young people This study did not manage to identify big • Ideas/proposals coming from differences in how different profiles of or-community members outside of the ganisations see the process of innovation. youth field (teachers/parents) The survey responses revealed quite uni- formed responses across organisations Similarly, mostly horizontal organisations of different types (youth organisations, give the greatest value to the following other organisations etc.) and across or- conditions: ganisations with different levels of and 51 types of financial sustainability. However, • Organisation that has a horizontal the responses indicate that the size of the structure and management organisations’ working communities and • High level of participation of the the type of organisational structure have young people in the organisational a certain influence on the importance of structure different factors that support or hinder innovation. This seems to indicate that horizontal or- ganisations are the most concerned with The division of organisations according to the participation of young people, their how hierarchical their structure is and how needs and the feedback coming from strong their leadership is produced some the wider community - which are some results that deserve attention. While only of the most important elements of in-a very small number of responses came novation in youth work. Meanwhile, the from organisations with a clear hierarchical main challenges to innovation that these structure and strong leadership (less than organisations named were lack of stable 10%), it was still possible to observe trends funding, and being dependent on funds in some factors becoming more important that require concrete outcomes and in-as the structure was becoming more hier- dicators. Because of this, and considering archical, or the other way around. that most organisations from the youth field belong to this category, it could be worth developing policies and funding mechanisms that can better support them munities. However, those organisations in the innovation process, and remove the also reported more challenges with lack obstacles to innovation. of time needed for innovation, and as- sessed the ecosystem as less favourable The need for more suitable interventions compared to organisations from smaller is supported by the fact that horizontal communities. organisations assessed their ecosystem as much less favourable to innovation This shows that organisations from bigger compared to hierarchical organisations. It communities have individual capacities seems then that the current ecosystem to initiate innovations and a wider pool works much better for hierarchical or- of diverse experiences to use, but do not ganisations, which are much less present have enough time and funds to innovate. in the youth work context. These organ- These organisations could benefit from isations report obstacles to innovation as more targeted funding that can ensure well, but completely different ones com- the involvement of more youth workers pared to horizontal organisations: lack with sufficient time to lead innovation of understanding regarding the process processes. of innovation, lack of time needed for innovation, resistance to change and an The situation is different with organisa-organisational culture not supportive to tions from smaller and rural communi-innovation. It seems from this that while ties, who reported higher than average 52 more hierarchical organisations have the challenges with the lack of relevant com-potential to innovate and have less issues petences of the youth workers. In addi-with funding, they have challenges with tion, organisations from rural communi-the very process of innovation. Measures ties face a significant lack of support from directed at informing those organisations public bodies. Still, those are also the or-about the value, benefits and character- ganisations that assessed the ecosystem istics of innovation in youth work could as more favourable to innovation. Since support them to use their innovation po- those organisations are obviously already tential to a greater extent. in an environment that supports innova- tion, they could probably benefit from The size of the organisations’ working capacity building of their staff and more community also produced some differing engagement with the policy makers. patterns, particularly when comparing bigger and smaller communities. Namely, organisations from bigger communities value individual level triggers higher than the average, thus putting even more im- portance on the actions of the individual innovator. These organisations also gave more importance to the developments in other sectors, indicating a higher level of cross-sectorial interaction in larger com- LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY These include, but are not limited to: AND SUGGESTIONS FOR • the influence of the wider cultural FURTHER RESEARCH and geographical environments on innovation in youth work It is important to note that this study is • the mechanisms behind too limited to make any final conclusions dissemination and multiplication of regarding the differences between organ- innovations isations in how innovation is initiated and sustained. The indications shared here • what kind of influence various and the reasons behind them should factors have and how they are be explored further by involving more influencing the process of innovation stakeholders. Furthermore, other factors • the value dimension of innovation in that could potentially make a difference youth work should be explored as well. Knowing the • the role of youth workers as drivers different factors which impact different of innovation and related needs profiles or organisations is important so for competence development in that organisations can be supported in a organisations more targeted and effective way. • the links between the structure of organisations in the youth field and As elaborated on in the introductory their capacities of innovation (linked chapter, the explanatory aspect of this to the above point) 53 study was limited by the lack of prior un- derstanding of innovation in youth work. Another, more explanatory investigation A great part of the research activities was using the conclusions from this study directed at understanding what innova- could provide more concrete recommen-tion in the youth work context means. dations for measures and instruments Hence, many important questions re- that stakeholders could use to support mained unanswered and require further more and more successful innovations in analysis in a follow-up study. various youth work contexts. 07 » Selected Bibliography This bibliography lists the studies, reports and magazines that were found to be the most relevant for this study. In addition, annex 1 to this report, which is available as a separate document, pre- sents the list of all documents that were consulted during the desk research and directly influenced its approach and find- ings. It summarizes information related to the author(s) and title, the purpose of the document, the definition of inno- vation, the factors of and obstacles to in- novation, and some additional elements (where relevant). Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., JiZhou, J. Marinova, D., Phillimore, J. (2003). (2014). Innovation and Creativity in Models of Innovation, The International Organizations: A State-of-the-Science Handbook on Innovation, pp. 44-53. Review, Prospective Commentary, and Guiding Framework, Journal of Manage- Morciano, D., Merico, M. (2017). Critical ment, Vol 5, pp. 1297–1333. Youth Work for Youth-Driven Innovation: A Theoretical Framework, Youth as Ar- Baldwin, M. (2008). Promoting and chitects of Social Change: Global Efforts Managing Innovation: Critical Reflection, to Advance Youth-Driven Innovation, pp. Organizational Learning and the Develop- 43-74. ment of Innovative Practice in National Children's Voluntary Organization, Quali- Reports: tative Social Work, Vol 7, pp. 330–348. Gavrielides, T. (2019). European Academy Baskaran, S., Mehta, K. (2016). What is on Youth Work - First edition: Innovation, innovation anyway? Youth perspectives Current Trends & Developments in Youth from resource-constrained environ- Work, final report, Ljubljana: MOVIT. ments, Technovation, Vol 52-53, pp. https://www.eayw.net/wp-content/up- 4-17. loads/2019/12/EAYW-final-report-WEB. pdf. Crowley, A., Moxon, D. (2017). New and innovative forms of youth participation in RAY (2020). Transnational strategic 55 decision-making processes, Strasbourg: partnerships bring new challenges, solu- Council of Europe. tions and practices to the youth sector (unpublished draft report). Further in- Dawe, S. (2004). Vocational education formation: https://www.researchyouth. and training and innovation: research net/projects/inno/#1588113607593-fa- readings, NCVER (National Centre for b71a85-cfb2. Vocational Education Research). Online Magazine: European Commission, Directorate-Gen- eral for Education, Youth, Sport and Stanton N. (ed.) (2019). Innovation in Culture (2016). Developing Digital Youth Youth Work: Thinking in Practice, YMCA Work. https://op.europa.eu/s/uiad. Georges Williams College. https://infed. org/mobi/innovation-in-youth-work- Kuczynska, O., Gonçalves, S., Guerri, L. thinking-in-practice. (2019). Developing Youth Work Innova- tion. E-Handbook, Humak University of Applied Sciences Publications, No. 82. Lisa, J., Daniel, J., Klein, A. (2014). Inno- vation agendas: the ambiguity of value creation, Prometheus, Vol 32, pp. 23-47. NOTES ABOUT THE AUTHORS Dragan Atanasov is a trainer, researcher, evaluator and author, specialized in youth work recognition, youth policy, cultural diversity and community development. He has over ten years of experience in conducting research and assessments in the field of youth work, designing and delivering non-formal education activities, developing policy documents, and monitoring and evaluating programmes. Michelangelo Belletti is a trainer, youth worker and social entre-preneur. He has been working on non-formal education, skills recognition and social innovation for more than 30 years. Active in educational research since 2016 with researches at national and international level, he has recently completed PhD studies in ped-agogy. He’s a member of Relint (research centre for intercultural relationships) of the Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore of Milan. Federica Demicheli is a trainer and expert in youth work and youth policy and vice president of NINFEA (Italian national association of youth workers) with a specialization in recognition of youth work, non-formal learning and volunteering. She has over 20 years of experience in international youth work projects, specially within SouthMed cooperation, and over 10 years of experience in conducting research in the field of youth work and supporting the design of monitoring and evaluation tools. MOVIT has been the Slovenian National Agency for EU programmes in the field of youth, currently Erasmus+, youth field, and the European Solidarity Corps, since May 1999. In this role, MOVIT manages indirectly centralised EU budget funds and supports different forms of learning mobility activities in youth work. It also runs activities to promote the development of (European) youth work, solidarity, and non-formal education. MOVIT also serves as an office of Eurodesk (www.eurodesk.si) and the SALTO South East Europe Resource Centre (SALTO SEE). SALTO SEE belongs to the network of SALTO-YOUTH Resource Centres (www.salto-youth.net). Since 2018, MOVIT has been coordinating the European Academy on Youth Work partnership, which in 2021 includes the Youth National Agencies of Austria, Belgium- FL, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden and SALTO-YOUTH Resource Centres. This publication was made with the support of the European Commission and the Office of the Republic of Slovenia for Youth. The information and views set out in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission or the Office of the Republic of Slovenia for Youth. The European Commission, the Office of the Republic of Slovenia for Youth or the National Agency cannot be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein. About this publication What is innovation in youth work and how does it happen? What can support or hinder innovation in the context of youth work? These were some of the MOVIT questions investigated in this study on National Agency of the EU Programmes innovation and youth work conducted by Erasmus+: Youth in Action and European the European Academy on Youth Work. Solidarity Corps Dunajska cesta 5 1000 Ljubljana The outcomes include a definition of Phone: +386 (0) 1 430 47 47 innovation in youth work, a theoretical Web: www.movit.si model of how innovations happen, and E-mail: info@movit.si some conclusions based on an analysis of the factors that play the greatest roles in supporting or hindering innovations in youth work. European Academy on Youth Work Document Outline _heading=h.1fob9te _heading=h.2et92p0 _heading=h.tyjcwt _heading=h.3dy6vkm _heading=h.1t3h5sf _heading=h.4d34og8 _heading=h.2s8eyo1 _heading=h.17dp8vu _heading=h.3rdcrjn _heading=h.26in1rg _heading=h.lnxbz9