Author Response to Youth Participation in Community Planning: A Framework for Youth Empowerment

Children, Youth and Environments Vol. 13 No. 1 (2003) ISSN: 1546-2250 Youth Participation in Community Planning (Community Advisory Service Report Number 486) Mullahey, Ramona and Susskind, Yve and Checkoway, Barry (1999). Chicago: American Planning Association; 70 pages. $32.00. ISBN 1884829325. Interest in and support for “child and youthparticipation” has increased significantly in recent years. But moreoften than not, attention has focused on young people’s participationin the arenas traditionally ascribed to them: schools, youth centers,youth employment programs, etc. Rarely are young people seen ascitizens who should be engaged in decisions that affect thecommunity as a whole. Land use planning and related policy-making-which have significant impacts on the lives of children and youth- havelargely remained the exclusive domain of adults. Youth Participation in Community Planning provides a valuableoverview of communities in the U.S. and Canada that are attempting tobroaden the range of issues in which young people are engaged,communities committed to providing meaningful opportunities for youthparticipation in community change. Developed as a Planning AdvisoryService Report for the American Planning Association (APA), the reportspeaks specifically to practicing planners and community decisionmakers in North America- those at the local level who are most criticalto opening doors for increased youth participation in communitydevelopment. However, the report will be useful to planners andcommunity decision makers elsewhere too, as well as others who areinterested in examples of youth participation in community development.Educators in particular may find the land-use planning case studies tobe of interest, as nearly all of them involved some form of schoolcurriculum or class-based activities (from third grade up). Youthorganizers will be particularly interested in the two detailed casestudies of youth-initiated, youth-directed programs in Seattle (seebelow). 226 The goal for the report, as stated by the authors, is “todevelop an informative guide that provides planners with practicaltools for their citizen participation tool box.” To achieve this end,the authors draw upon their extensive experience- Mullahey as a“Community Builder Fellow” with the U.S. Department of Housing andUrban Development and as the APA’s national advocate for involvingyoung people in planning; Susskind as a doctoral candidate at theUniversity of Michigan engaged in research on social changeorganizations where teenagers are in leadership roles; and Checkoway,Professor of Social Work and Urban Planning at the University ofMichigan and founder and director of the University’s Center forCommunity Service and Learning, well-known for his prior work andpublications in the fields of urban planning, youth, and communitychange. The case studies represent the bulk of the report’s content,and its most significant contribution to the literature on youthparticipation. Eleven case studies are presented, two in considerabledetail and the other nine in summary form with varying degrees ofsubstantive information regarding the specific methods and activities,helping to keep the report to a manageable 70 pages. Contact detailsare provided for each case study to obtain additional information. Organized according to three “forms” of youth participation incommunity planning (youth in community land-use planning, youth-basedinitiatives for social change, and youth in policy making), the casestudies are drawn from a variety of cities, all of them in the U.S.with the exception of Toronto. These range from small communities suchas Lemon Grove, California, to larger cities such as San Francisco,Seattle and Toronto. The geographic slant towards western U.S. citiesis likely due to the authors’ locations (Mullahey in Honolulu andSusskind in Seattle) than to any other factors. However, withoutexception the case study examples are, not surprisingly, fromcommunities with a strong culture of citizen participation. Youthparticipation in nearly all of the land-use planning examples tookplace as part of larger citywide, long-range 227 planning programs withsignificant community outreach and participation. The most extensive case studies describe two “youth-based initiativesfor youth empowerment” in Seattle: the Seattle Young People’s Project(SYPP) and Youth-N-Action (YNA). Drawing on Susskind’s doctoralresearch, these cases provide considerable detail regarding theorganizational structure and operations of both programs. Using youngpeople’s observations and reflections, each case study illustrates howyoung people developed their own initiatives to address issues ofimportance to them, and developed democratic structures to facilitatetheir group decision making processes. Both cases provide a very realportrait of the challenges and...

Beyond tokenism: meaningful youth engagement in planetary health

Recent research shows that young people tend to be scarcely involved in political matters, thus remaining invisible. There are indeed forms of youth activism, but they tend to involve different ways of participation. Participation has gradually become a more central issue at the political level, but the question remains of its relevance from the point of view of young people. Youth work is a privileged setting for the analysis of youth involvement. The paper first reviews the Italian debate on youth participation and youth policies. Secondly, it focusses on two contexts of informal aggregation in the Emilia Romagna region, to assess their value in terms of participatory experience, non-formal education and youth work. The analysis highlights how youth work experiences enable young people to participate more actively in social life, as they promote critical awareness and empowerment. Collective motivation also plays an important role, since acting together allows more vulnerable individuals and groups to gain more strength and

Youth and Community work is a contested profession which, over several decades, has been reduced, challenged and required to adapt to address social and political priorities and emerging concerns around young people. Open Access Youth work, widely valued as ‘traditional’ youth work by many practitioners has faced most criticism and change in favour of target driven, results-based methods. Left thus in professional crisis, questions arise as to whether open access youth work can be meaningfully applied in a contemporary context. This thesis aims to investigate the practice of open access youth work and identify what the contribution of youth and community work is to the improvement of young people’s lives in contemporary urban settings. To determine how youth and community work practices aim to explore the difficulties and challenges experienced by young people, how young people potentially benefit from youth and community work, and how can these benefits be characterised and conceptualised. It explores and assesses how youth and community work contributes to improving the lived experiences of young people in those settings, and how these contributions can be identified. The study is a single case study; Hub67 in Hackney Wick, East London, focussed on the development and delivery of a unique youth and community space, generated as a result of the 2012 Olympic legacy to respond to community needs and concerns for young people during this period. It records, assesses, and critically evaluates the development of Hub67 in three phases; the period leading up to the Games in 2012, immediately following the event and the period in which neighbourhood structures and opportunities were reformed. Thus, it takes a chronological approach to understand the developments and challenges for youth workers, local and national supporting organisations, decision makers and young people. The author has a key role in developing the provision of Hub67, and therefore is both practitioner and researcher. The insider positioning is reflected in the methods, which applies an ethnographic approach bounded within a case study protocol. Multiple data sources were used; ethnographic fieldnotes, interviews, focus groups and minutes of meeting (in and about Hub67). The data was analysed using thematic analysis. The study identified two key themes; Civic engagement and Self-awareness, over the three time periods; and applies Bourdieu’s Concept of habitus, field, capital and doxa to inform how young people perceive and experience social geography, agency and interaction throughout the case study. Social capital, as perceived by Bourdieu, is central to this study which aims to identify the multi-faceted characteristics and qualities of open access youth work and how young people’s lived experiences are impacted by its interventions. The study contributes to the current and historical debates about open access youth work and its place and purpose in urban environments and beyond. The data provides enriching and frustrating questions about youth and community work and raises challenges to new and established youth and community workers in locating themselves and their work in a professional and relevant context as well as to funders, communities and decision makers as to the potential role which open access youth work can play in social and environmental dynamics and tensions. The study identifies the significance of ‘community’ in the foundations of youth work and demonstrates the therapeutic and developmental benefits offered to young people through this.

Background/AimsA youth work approach to the delivery of additional support for young people and families has been used for the past 2 years within the paediatric rheumatology service in Glasgow. The approach takes into consideration that young people choose to participate, it's person-centred and built from where the young people are, young people and staff are all part of the journey and learning process. During the COVID-19 pandemic the support for young people went virtual, linking young people with peer support and online support. Dedicated service and delivery model in partnership with pediatric clinical services, ensure specific support needs are met. The approach to working with young people is bespoke and delivered by teams that understand the needs of young people.MethodsThe youth work approach recognises that young people choose to participate, it's person-centred and bespoke to the specific needs of young people. Young people and specialist staff are equal parts of the journey. Listening to unmet needs of young people as well as sector best practice - from intense 121 support for families to digital tools to meet growing expectations post-COVID-19. Support in clinic is youth and family led: with unique peer model, youth empowerment, communities of support and co-production. With staff delivering 121 support, and peer volunteers delivering and leading group work out with clinical settings. Third sector staff are integrated with the paediatric rheumatology team, working together to support young people and families holistically.ResultsThe youth work approach best fits with the unmet needs of the young people within clinical settings. Young people are supported to feel more confident, less isolated and more hopeful about the future. They are encouraged to build positive peer-to-peer relationships and feel they are taken seriously and supported through their journey alongside partners. The approach to delivery is based on well-grounded practical and experiential knowledge. This is proven to enhance the lives of young people and offers them effective tools to use throughout their development. Our approach is based on best practice youth work.ConclusionEarly youth work intervention and integration is highly valued by young people and families, offers holistic, person-centred, and developmentally appropriate care with lifelong benefits. Integrated and localised delivery creates unique insight, offering bespoke support to young people within clinical settings and beyond. Quality relationships with youth workers and clinicians can lead to improvements in holistic care and support for young people. An effective way to reach young people at key points - diagnosis, treatment and transition to adult services. Integration ensures that there is an ‘in house' expertise in youth work and joined-up services and support for young people and families.Disclosure K. Connor: None.

Children, Youth and Environments. Vol 16, No.2 (2006) ISSN 1546-2250 Pushing the Boundaries: Critical International Perspectives on Child and Youth Participation Series Introduction Caitlin Cahill University of Utah Roger A. Hart Children's Environments Research Group, Environmental Psychology Program Graduate School of the City University of New York Citation: Cahill, Caitlin and Roger A. Hart (2006). “Pushing the Boundaries: Critical International Perspectives on Child and Youth Participation—Series Introduction.” Children, Youth and Environments 16(2): i-iii. Participatory research and practice offers a promising new framework for researchers, youth workers and child rights advocates of all kinds who are committed to social justice and change around the world. In this international volume of Children, Youth and Environments we offer an opportunity to read about work on child and youth participation from nine regions of the world, each of which will be represented in its own installment published throughout this year: Africa (Dipak Naker and Rakesh Rajani, editors); Australia and New Zealand/Aotearoa (Anita Harris, editor); Europe (Barry Percy-Smith and Alison Clark, editors); Japan (Isami Kinoshita, editor); Latin and South America and the Caribbean (Yolanda Corona and Maru Linares, editors); Middle East and North Africa (Maha Damaj, editor); North America (Caitlin Cahill and Roger Hart, editors); Southeast Asia, East Asia and the Pacific (Joachim Theis, editor); and South and Central Asia (Claire O’Kane and Ravi Karkara, editors). Participatory approaches to community research, development and governance with children and youth have demonstrated that engaging the perspectives of young people challenges their social exclusion, and builds their capacity to analyze and transform their own lives and to partner in the building of more sound, democratic ix communities. However, not enough attention has been given to systematically evaluating and critiquing these participatory practices. This special issue of CYE offers an international forum to review and advance the field, developing its potential through crosscultural dialogue, self-reflexive critique, and critical synthesis. Forefronting contextualized knowledge and personal experiences, participatory research and practice has necessarily placed an emphasis upon the local, often failing to theorize connections to broader social processes. By contrast, this issue will offer a global perspective on participatory work with young people that is grounded in local practice. While the papers are divided into world regions, we hope this issue will stimulate a truly global crosscultural dialogue. To this end, we invite you to revisit this special issue at the end of the year where an epilogue, authored by all of the regional editors, will offer a critical lens across global participatory practice with young people. Both theoretical and practical insights are offered in the papers of this wide-ranging issue, addressing key critical questions including:  What are the different guiding theories of participatory practice that are in use?  How has the practice of young people's participation been developing in innovative ways in different cultures as a result of particular cultural views of the appropriate roles and activities for young people?  What different domains of research and action are young people involved in or excluded from?  At what ages do young people take an active role in development in different parts of the world?  How have gender-related considerations been incorporated in participatory approaches?  Is young peoples' research taken seriously by formal government and official agencies? What are the different strategies by which this has been achieved in different parts of the world?  For what types of issues has the research of young people been able to contribute to social change? viii  What is being done to help young people make deeper connections between their local research and action and broader global conditions?  What critical roles do adults play in supporting and facilitating youth participation?  What do we know about the significance of different institutional, governmental and legislative contexts at the local and national levels in supporting young people's participation?  What are the distinctive issues in young people's participation in planning and design?  What are the relevant historical antecedents in the evolution of participatory approaches involving children and youth? We invite you to read the dozens of papers in this issue, written by scholars and practitioners, as well as young people themselves, from over 37 countries around...

Children, Youth and Environments 15(2), 2005 Youth with Influence: The Youth Planner Initiative in Hampton, Virginia Cindy Carlson Hampton Coalition for Youth Citation: Carlson, Cindy. (2005). “Youth with Influence: The Story of the Youth Planner Initiative in Hampton, Virginia.” Children, Youth and Environments 15(2): 211-226. Comment on This Article Abstract Young people are taking on important roles in civic life and public decision-making in Hampton, Virginia. This field report introduces Youth Planners—high school-aged young people who work as city planners creating policy, tackling issues important to the city’s youth, staffing a commission of young people who serve as the voice of local youth, and championing their own component of the Hampton Community Plan. Now in its tenth year, Hampton’s Youth Planner initiative has dramatically increased the opportunities for youth to have a voice in local government and the way community leaders and government officials view them. Lessons are shared on the benefits and challenges of working within such an extensive system of youth civic engagement, and within a youth and adult partnership. Keywords: youth planners, youth as resources, youth participation, youth civic engagement© 2005 Children, Youth and Environments Youth with Influence: The Youth Planner Initiative in Hampton, Virginia 212 It’s a typical day in the local government Planning Department in Hampton, VA. Planners Sarah and Will have a full docket of tasks and responsibilities. In addition to meetings and emails, they will be setting up a focus group on transportation issues, plotting some recently-surveyed businesses onto GIS maps, and preparing a report for City Council. But unlike the rest of the city planners, Sarah and Will have some additional work to do at the end of the day—at least two hours of homework. Sarah and Will are high-school students. Even though their workday begins after school, their responsibilities mirror those of their adult colleagues—to translate the needs of their peers into workable plans that improve the community. Their success depends on a comprehensive system of youth engagement in the community, and a local government willing to support meaningful roles for young people in decisionmaking . Figure 1. Hampton is located in the larger metropolitan area of Hampton Roads, Virginia Since 1996 the city of Hampton has employed young people in its Planning Department. Guided by their own component of the city’s Community Plan , these teens have drafted Youth with Influence: The Youth Planner Initiative in Hampton, Virginia 213 policy, developed and funded programs, and created a community expectation that young people will “weigh in” on decisions facing the city’s governing bodies. This report will trace the history of the Youth Planner initiative, describe its unique components, and explore some of the lessons learned from this extraordinary youth and adult partnership. Brief Background Hampton, VA , with a population of 148,000, sits at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay and is part of the larger metropolitan area of Hampton Roads. It is a diverse and working-class city; of the school-age population, approximately 60 percent are youth of color, predominantly AfricanAmerican . Four public high schools serve the teen population, while a small number of youth travel to independent schools in neighboring cities. Many families are connected to the military, or work in the seafood and tourism industries. Young people in Hampton did not always enjoy positions of influence within the governance functions of the city—and the city’s first foray into engaging youth as decision-makers happened quite by accident. In 1990, City Council commissioned a group of community leaders, the Coalition for Youth , to create recommendations that would improve outcomes for children and families. They challenged the group to find a way, in times of diminishing resources, to build a competitive workforce for Hampton’s economic development in the 21st century. They also wanted to ensure that young people and their families were contributing to the community instead of draining its resources. Through a community-wide strategic planning process, the Coalition contacted over 5,000 youth and adult citizens. Among the ongoing stakeholder groups charged with surveying their peers was a group of 25 young people who were recruited because they were facing a...

Youth Barometer Report - 2017

In the current era of peak youth, young people’s voices and authentic participation are needed more than ever. This article focuses on how youth participation in research can enhance wider understanding of young people’s experiences, perspectives and solutions, while also empowering young people. There is an established tradition of engaging young people and children with the qualitative research process, ranging from youth focussed research to youth-led participatory action research. Within this we occupy a middle ground, arguing for the need to create heterotopic spaces for participation in which both young researchers and professional researchers learn from one another’s expertise. Mindful of the roadblocks to authentic participation, this article systematically approaches engaging young people at six critical stages in the research process, namely: setting the framework; question design; data collection; analysis; validation; and sharing results for discussion and action. Youth co-research offers methodological rigour grounded in a reconceptualization of where expertise can be found, a committed approach to research training and youth empowerment, greater access to hard-to-reach groups of young people and data validity built upon close engagement with young researchers. To demonstrate our approach, we share in this article three youth co-research case studies, which focus on young people experiencing climate change disruptions in Uganda, young people impacted by COVID-19 in Indonesia and Nepal and a youth think tank convened between East, West and Southern Africa. The rigour and value of youth-engaged qualitative methodologies can benefit young people, as well as the academics, policymakers and NGOs with whom they work.

A roadmap for intergenerational leadership in planetary health

Participation in educational and social research helps to develop understanding of how young people learn and to consider wider aspects of their lives to enable their voices to be heard and acted upon. Research also facilitates the articulation and sharing of methodologies across a range of professional practices. We assert that theory and practice in educational youth work offers a position of strength from which to undertake research. In making this assertion, we suggest cross‐disciplinarity between youth work and research practices in order to build research mindedness among youth workers who, through this nexus, are well‐placed to engage in practice based research. Drawing on discourses about young people, youth work and youth participation, we identify five elements of youth work practice that can be aligned with research processes: reflexivity; positionality and bias; insider cultural competence; rapport and trust; power relationships. The article examines how these elements are present in youth work and a range of research settings. We identify youth work methods and dispositions as enhancing research capacity which could also be useful in building participatory research methods in disciplinary areas beyond education. Yet, in making these connections, we also identify a range of factors that show this nexus as complex and contestable. Reflecting on the lessons learned from our experiences as youth work practitioners and academic researchers, we propose that finding nexus, which in this instance is between youth work and research paradigms, could inform educational research practices and contributes to developing a meaningful praxis.

In the context of Germany's coal phase-out, substantial resources are allocated to transform coal regions economically and socially. This study examines the opportunities and aspirations of young people in shaping local spaces, focusing on four participatory processes in Lusatia, eastern Germany. Utilising document analysis and 17 interviews with youth service workers, participants, and politicians, the study combines Massey, Doreen. 2005. For Space. London: Sage concept of space with Cahill, Helen, and Babak Dadvand. 2018. “Re-conceptualising Youth Participation: A Framework to Inform Action.” Children and Youth Services Review 95:243–253 model for youth participation. It bridges the gap between young people's goals and motivations and the quality of participation formats, with a regional focus. Findings reveal that young people's aspirations align with adult-developed projects in transport, digital and business infrastructure, energy transition, and technology, but youth advocate for a more ambitious ecological transformation, digital solutions, and democratic decision-making. Despite well-designed participatory programmes demonstrating youth ability to contribute to transformation, their ideas are often publicly praised but rarely integrated into political decisions due to inadequate procedures. Some formats allowed youth to reposition themselves, highlighting the fluidity of power. The study calls for further research on youth participation from a spatial perspective, and emphasizes the need to better prepareyoung participants and policymakers to manage expectations and responsibilities in participatory processes.

This paper examines how collective capabilities at a neighbourhood level can support youth voice and empowerment. By applying Ibrahim’s 3C collective capabilities model in a new context with young people, we propose that it offers a useful framework to demonstrate the existing value and extend the social justice potential of youth work practice. Our findings aim to address the concern that youth work in Scotland supports individual but not collective transformation. They offer a framework to analyse the development of collective youth capabilities, with the potential to hold policy makers to account for commitments to youth decision-making such as The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill. The 3C model conceptualises three key processes in the development of collective agency as conscientisation, conciliation and collaboration. The model recognises the personal and group processes of engagement that lead to grassroots action, but also prompts analysis of power relations between grassroots actors and the institutions that govern public decision-making. Drawing on a case-study example, we highlight the ways in which youth work practice might extend its social justice potential, highlighting the need for collaboration and power sharing with policy institutions in order to support meaningful youth empowerment.

The article analyzes the local self-government development programs in the field of youth policy (in the case of Dnipropetrovsk region), especially innovative forms and methods of cooperation with youth. The particularities of youth involvement to public administration activity on the city, restrict, rural territorial communities’ levels are investigated. It’s argued that the transformation of value approaches in the organization of public administration is depend on the realization of market-liberal and democratic values, which influences on the activities of public authorities, which is especially noticeable at the local level. Decentralization processes have opened a «window of opportunities» for the youth’s involvement to the public policy-making processes. Seeking the new mechanisms and generating new ideas to intensify the processes of involving young citizens in public local affairs and to solve particularly significant problems is a new challenge in the activities of local governments. There is a need to find appropriate innovative forms and methods of engagement with young people, in particular in youth development programs in the field of youth policy, as well as in the context of finding new organizational forms of activity.
 According to the concept of sustainable development, it most often refers to the activities and development of modern states, regions, communities for the sake of security and the capabilities of future generations of citizens. In this context youth participation in society is not limited to forming an active part of the public or building democracy in the future. It is about the need to create a level playing field for participation in socially important affairs in determining this future. For participation in society to be meaningful to young people and a justifiable part of their lives, living space, it is essential that they be able to influence decisions and take action at a young age, not just at a later stage in their lives.
 There are different approaches to understanding the level of youth participation in these processes: discussion and decision making. The institutional involvement of young people in local and regional affairs involves the introduction of appropriate structures or mechanisms that will enable young people to participate in the decision making and discussion of decisions that affect them and may affect their lives. Accordingly, forms of representative participation on a permanent basis are proposed, but are not limited to youth councils, youth parliaments, youth forums. This approach facilitates a rethinking of opportunities for youth policy implementation at the regional level and shifts the focus in terms of decentralization of the Ukrainian authorities from «youth work» to «active youth participation». Changes in the functions of public authorities in the sphere of youth policy implementation: dialogue and partnership; consultancy; active involvement in counseling. According to the author, one of these forms could be creation of regional councils of Youth Associations – a permanent advisory and advisory body.

Existing health services for young people (YP)(10-24years), which are predominantly designed for but not with young people, often do not meet YP's needs. The 2018 Global Consensus Statement on meaningful adolescent and youth engagement affirms that YP have a fundamental right to actively and meaningfully engage in all matters that affect their lives. We present four case studies from three countries in sub-Saharan Africa as practical examples of the engagement of young people as partners in health research. We critically reflect on best practices to inform and guide the increasing adoption of collaborative approaches. We developed a narrative summary of each case study through review of study documentation and discussions with research staff and young people. A youth engagement framework was used to describe partnership activities according to the following dimensions: purpose, process, positioning, perspective, power relations, place and protection. We reflected on innovative practices used, overall level of participation achieved and strategies to address ethical, logistical and/or financial barriers. In all case studies, we found evidence of engagement activities that aligned with the Global Consensus Statement on Meaningful Youth Engagement. However, access to participation was often uneven and despite efforts, marginalised young people continue to have insufficient opportunities to engage. Furthermore, although young people had some opportunity to influence the research methods, many of the key design decisions had been determined prior to their involvement. In our case studies, researchers had built in insufficient opportunities to evaluate the level and impact of youth engagement. We therefore recommend early involvement of young people in the research process so that they can contribute to setting the research agenda, the design of planned studies and thus increase the scope of their engagement from the beginning. Youth engagement activities need to be evaluated from the perspective of all stakeholders including young people themselves with a focus on opportunities to engage, the level of engagement achieved and impact of engagement. From the beginning, researchers should provide space for learning, and involve young people in encouraging critical reflection of what does not yet work, as well as what does, to enable improvements.