Results From Transition Survey 1

The first Transition Survey focused on gleaning learnings from the experience of the General Assembly and Global Youth Forum and gauging the interest of how volunteers, youth, and staff from all levels of the Federation to participate in the ongoing reform process. While participation in the survey was low compared to the consultations during Phase I of the reform, there was a diversity of respondents in terms of their role within the IPPF and across regions, allowing the analysis to come to some broad conclusions.

Who responded?

Roughly half of the 47 respondents were volunteers, with the other half split evenly among MA Executive Directors and staff, and Secretariat staff; 28% all respondents were young people under the age of 25. Four regions (ARO, EN, ESEAOR, and WHR) made up the bulk (87%) of MA volunteer and staff respondents, with representation evenly divided among these four, while 11% came from AWR and 2% from SARO. About half of all respondents had participated in the meetings in New Delhi in person, while an additional 15% participated remotely.

What did they say about the Global Youth Forum and General Assembly?

Overwhelmingly, they said this was a positive experience that afforded a “great opportunity to discuss key issues around sustainability of the IPPF, for the first time in a long time” and to “increase motivation and advance the importance of solidarity.” Among those who ranked their experience of the Global Youth Forum, 69% said it was good or very good, 23% ranked it as ok, and just one person said it was not good, citing the lack of time to address more issues. Of those who ranked their experience participating in the General Assembly, 88% said it was good or very good, 8% said it was ok, and 4% said it was not good, primarily due to the choice of New Delhi as a location considering the pollution and high levels of sexual violence.

Looking to the future, respondents mentioned some common themes for the organization of General Assembly and Global Youth Forum meetings, including:

• Location: Several participants said that the location of the meetings should rotate among regions, with specific recommendations that the location should be chosen to minimize costs, environmental footprint, exposure to pollution, and areas where there are high safeguarding risks (i.e. sexual violence).
• Participation: Many asked that the meetings have greater representation of Secretariat staff, as they are key stakeholders in the IPPF. In addition, a few participants pointed to the need for a better process for deciding who gets to speak to ensure a greater diversity of voices, particularly youth voices.
• Virtual experience: While many participants appreciated the opportunity to participate virtually and recommended that this continue, they also pointed to connectivity challenges that need will need to be addressed. The need to establish a system to enable electronic voting was also mentioned.
• Agenda: Several respondents highlighted the importance of these meetings to facilitate MA-to-MA sharing, particularly across regions.
• Logistics: Respondents emphasized the need to ensure that translation is available in every room/breakout. A few respondents noted that the system for per diems posed logistical challenges.

What did they say about the reforms?

The vast majority of respondents (96%) said they either agreed or strongly agreed that the reforms agreed by the General Assembly would make IPPF more transparent, open, and accountable to its membership; two respondents said they neither agreed nor disagreed. With regard to whether the reforms would ensure that IPPF uses its resources more strategically and for the benefit of the whole Federation, however, the perception was less uniform: 83% said they agreed or strongly agreed, while 11% said they neither agreed nor disagreed, and 6% responded that they did not agree.

Overwhelmingly (87%), respondents said that they planned to be active in the further development of IPPF’s reforms, with 26% saying they were interested in participating in the Board or a Board committee. With regard to participation in the MA Governance Strengthening Pilot, 72% of all respondents said they were either somewhat or very interested.