- Email: [email protected]
Why not ask them? Mapping and promoting youth participation
Children and Youth Services Review 33 (2011) 541–547
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Children and Youth Services Review j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / c h i l d yo u t h
Why not ask them? Mapping and promoting youth participation Brian W. Head ⁎ Institute for Social Science Research, The University of Queensland, St Lucia QLD 4072, Australia
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Available online 2 June 2010 Keywords: Youth participation Social inclusion Rationale for participation Policy engagement
a b s t r a c t Recent policy frameworks for addressing the well-being of young people have increasingly adopted a prevention framework that emphasises age-relevant support, a social inclusion approach, targeted assistance for the most disadvantaged, and more avenues for the voices of young people. However, despite the increased policy commitments to youth consultation and participation, there is confusion about the operational implications of such commitments, and implementation across different program areas has been patchy. This paper provides a conceptual framework for understanding the various forms of youth participation, ranging from information exchange to more open and self-managed participation; and the associated rationales for various forms of participation. It is argued that there are three main rationales for greater voice and participation of young people across a variety of institutional settings and policy areas. First is the argument that young people have the right to be nurtured, protected and treated with respect, and where appropriate be involved and consulted. Secondly, it is argued that improvement of services for young people requires their views and interests to be well articulated and represented. Thirdly, it is asserted that there are developmental benefits arising from participation, for both the individuals themselves and for civil society as a whole. © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction One hundred young Australians aged from 15 to 24 gathered in Canberra in April 2008 at the 2020 Youth Summit, a precursor to a national summit of 1000 experts called to discuss the future of the nation (Youth Summit, 2008). Young Australians want the vote at 16 and their own Medicare cards at 13 to give them a louder voice in public life as well as the ability to see a doctor without their parents present. The proposals were two of 40 presented to [Prime Minister] Kevin Rudd yesterday by the 100 delegates at the 2020 Youth Summit, the curtain raiser to this weekend's all-ages gathering of 1000 of the nation's ‘best and brightest’. …… ‘When we say we've opened the windows of government to hear what youth has to say, we're dead serious,’ he said. Mr Rudd accepted a communique from the summit, which challenged the Government to, among other things, lower age limits on voting and healthcare access. ‘Sixteen-year-olds work, pay income tax, pay GST, drive and can join the army. They must be enfranchised so they can have a say in government policies that affect them,’ the communique said (Ryan, 2008). This paper outlines the arguments concerning the nature and extent of participation by adolescents and young adults (focusing on those aged 12–24 years) in areas closely linked to their needs and ⁎ Tel.: + 61 7 3346 7450, + 61 418 710 531 (mobile). E-mail address: [email protected]. 0190-7409/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.05.015
interests — such as service delivery settings, matters relating to civil or legal status, and discussion of policy issues. (The focus here is on issues with a ‘public’ dimension rather than those that are primarily internal to families and households.) The paper suggests that despite a long period in which the national government provided scant encouragement for youth participation, there has been a gradually rising tide of opportunities for young people's participation created by new communications media, government agencies, and the community and business sectors1. 2. Social and policy background Young people in Australia (aged 12–24 years) numbered about 3.7 million in 2006, constituting 18% of the national population (although with the overall ageing of the national population this proportion has slipped from 22% in the early 1980s and will continue to decline). While the median age of the national population is about 36.6 years, the figure for the Indigenous population is sharply lower at around 21 years (ABS, 2008). The evidence about the well-being of young people, in Australia as in other advanced countries, shows considerable variability. Some young Australians are thriving and excelling, and many are leading satisfying lives (AIHW, 2007). However, significant numbers of the younger generation, across a 1 Revised presentation to Academy of Social Science in Australia Workshop “Seen and Heard”, University of New South Wales, 11–12 October 2007. The author thanks the workshop participants and the CYSR anonymous referees for numerous improvements.
542
B.W. Head / Children and Youth Services Review 33 (2011) 541–547
range of cultural and family circumstances, are troubled and may be disconnected from mainstream opportunities. In particular, there are large disparities in health status, social connectedness, educational attainment and life-skills (Eckersley et al., 2005, Patton et al., 2005). The number of reported cases of child abuse is increasing (AIHW, 2007). Some social groupings, most notably Indigenous people, are much more disadvantaged than other Australians (Productivity Commission, 2007). Broadly similar patterns of distress and disadvantage are evident in other OECD countries. According to a senior UK public servant, the patterns and trends among UK young people are also alarming, with high rates of youth suicide, substance abuse, teenage pregnancy, and binge drinking (Hughes, 2006). Patterns of this kind in Australia and the UK provide challenges for all concerned with research, policy development, service planning and delivery. There is increasing evidence to support a more collaborative and inclusive approach to tackling the complex issues underlying child and youth well-being. Such an approach situates the problems of individuals in the context of families, neighbourhoods and communities; it emphasises prevention services as well as targeted responses to crisis; and encourages service practitioners to build strong relationships with clients based on mutual trust and respect (Schorr, 1997; Schorr & Marchand, 2007). The cultural and ethical dimensions of successful and supportive interventions are consistent with a ‘social inclusion’ approach (Laidlaw, 2003). Social inclusion is about making sure that all people participate as valued members of society. It goes beyond bringing people on the outside ‘in’, or notions of the periphery vs. the centre, or ‘us’ and ‘ them’. It is a normative concept (i.e. value based) rather than a descriptive term. It is a way of ‘raising the bar’ — of understanding where we want to be and what needs to change. It helps to guide the development of forward-looking indicators, rather than merely documenting ‘what's wrong’. It suggests a transformative agenda that points to the changes that are necessary in public policies, attitudes, and institutional practices. Social inclusion requires more than the removal of barriers. It requires investments and action to bring about the conditions of inclusion. We know that inclusion does not ‘just happen’ when barriers are removed (Freiler, 2003). In this spirit, the Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth established a collaborative project to develop a ‘National Agenda for Youth’ (see Head & Stanley, 2007). There was wide support among the 80 participating organisations for adopting a social inclusion approach to agenda-building under five headings: 1. Involvement, engagement and rights: The active participation of young people is fundamental. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child sets out basic requirements for the treatment of children and young people, including their access to education, health, and their relations with workplaces and the justice system. 2. Respect and recognition: Acknowledging and respecting individual and group differences in terms of: racial, ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious backgrounds; sexual preferences; development and capability; age group (thus encouraging inter-generational exchange); and overall avoiding discrimination, victimisation or bullying on account of such factors. 3. Human development: Health, safety and human development are fundamental. Health includes physical, mental and emotional wellbeing. Healthy development includes fostering learning and development opportunities. Need for specific preventative and support services for children/youth, well resourced and properly supported through research. Education, training and satisfying employment are crucial. 4. Social integration: Social integration encompasses effective family support and parenting, community connections or networks, and
the sharing of social and cultural spaces. An inclusive community entails opportunities for meaningful participation in decisions and planning that affect the lives of young people. 5. Material well-being: Participating fully in community life requires sufficient material resources — housing, transport, financial independence, skills to avoid indebtedness, and living in a sustainable healthy environment (ARACY, 2006). Although it is evident that these dimensions are interactive, there is an ongoing debate about which themes are foundational for the wellbeing of young people. If young people are neither in employment nor in school, their material well-being and their future prospects may be in jeopardy. As the OECD has emphasised, those leaving school without adequate qualifications are highly unlikely to find jobs with good career prospects. The proportion of young people neither in employment nor in education is a predictor of those who become economically and socially ‘excluded’ — persons living on the poverty-line who lack the skills to improve their economic situation (OECD, 2008, McLaren, 2003). In Australia the school-retention rate to year 12 is around 75% and the proportion of 15–19 year-olds participating on a full-time basis in either education or work is around 85% (although the figures for Indigenous participation are generally about half these levels: AIHW, 2007). However a sole focus upon education and employment, as the foundational pathways into the adult world of productivity and responsibility, has been seen by many recent commentators as somewhat narrow — hence the appeal of the broader concepts of social inclusion noted above, in which respect for persons is central. Importantly for this discussion, one of the key features of this broader approach is encouragement of involvement and participation by young people in all matters affecting their interests.
3. Forms and dimensions of participation There has been a wide debate concerning the diverse forms and appropriate scope of citizens' involvement and participation in public affairs (Head, 2007) and the applicability of these frameworks to young people. In relation to youth, the modern starting-point is Roger Hart's ‘ladder’ of participatory forms (Hart, 1992, 1997), which built upon earlier critiques of tokenistic consultation in the urban planning literature (Arnstein, 1969). Hart argued that governmental processes seldom take seriously the opportunities for participation by young people in matters affecting their own interests. He outlined an eightpoint scale (or ‘ladder’) about how projects or programs are organised, ranging from manipulation, ‘decoration’ and tokenism (all regarded as inauthentic participation); to situations where youth are assigned specific roles and consulted about projects devised by others; through to adult-initiated shared discussion and decisionmaking; and ultimately youth-initiated shared discussion and decision-making (Hart, 1992, 1997). These distinctions have proven to be instructive for those seeking to ‘push the boundaries’ of youth participation, and those seeking more creative options for youth involvement. This typology has often been interpreted, especially by those in the youth-rights tradition, as a normative framework encouraging and challenging stakeholders to drive youth participation where practicable towards the ‘higher’ forms of project design and management. In some recent reconsideration of options for youth participation, a less prescriptive and more flexible approach has been developed. For example, some have argued (Chawla, 2001; Francis & Lorenzo, 2002; Ewen, 1994; Sinclair, 2004) that the diversity of contexts and experiences requires a more nuanced situational approach. In their view, a focus on formal organisations and public policy tends to underplay the potential significance of everyday informal participation of young people in community life and in the construction of shared experience. The latter experiences may tend to be ignored by a formal
B.W. Head / Children and Youth Services Review 33 (2011) 541–547
typology of participation that focuses primarily on power and control over project management and direction. Taking a situational approach allows for a more complex empirical typology, such as that developed by the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2, 2005). Table 1 outlines a range of formats and underlying intentions for various modes of participation. Hart's eight categories are here reduced to five types of participatory relationships — informing, consulting, involving, collaborating and empowering. These categories can be deployed analytically to assist in the understanding both of current patterns and future possibilities. In regard to possible generational differences in behaviour, there is no apparent obstacle to utilising these categories in relation to the activities of adolescents and young adults as well as for older citizens.
543
the USA, is foundational for these rights-based principles (Hart, 1992; Lansdown, 2001). For example, article 12 (1) declares that: State parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express these views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child. Furthermore, according to article 13 (1): The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information of all kinds…[subject to certain lawful restrictions]. According to the National Children's and Youth Law Centre, the rights-based approach is beneficial because:
4. Three rationales for more participation This paper suggests there has been a gradually rising tide of recognition that opportunities and encouragement should be provided for young people's participation in matters they consider to be important to their own well-being. Some of the empirical dimensions of this trend in Australia, and the severe limitations on actual achievements, are outlined in a later section. Here, it is suggested there are three main rationales widely deployed to underpin and promote greater involvement of young people in matters affecting their interests. I will call these the arguments about rights, efficiency, and development. I believe these are mutually supportive arguments rather than alternatives. All three rationales may contribute to normative arguments about the need for respect and recognition of young people, utilising a broad social inclusion approach.
it ensures the integration and inclusion of an otherwise marginalised group (children) into policy-making and evaluation; and it does not demand uniformity of outcomes, but creates a principles-based approach which ensures that the individuality, differing maturity levels and best interests of each child is recognised and considered (NCYLC, 2007). Rights-based legal principles are sometimes (but not always) translated into regulatory form, e.g. into prescribed procedures for how and when to involve individual children and young people in legal proceedings (e.g. family court, child protection, juvenile justice). However, the prescription of legal obligations and duties is seldom the main reason for greater involvement of young people at a group or collective level. Providing ‘voice’ for young people is more often motivated by non-legal rationales.
4.1. Rights 4.2. Efficiency and better services First, there is the argument for the legal and moral rights of children and young people not only to be protected and nurtured but also to be involved in appropriate ways. Rights-based legal principles, when translated into regulatory form, can impose legal duties to follow prescribed procedures including consultation with young people in specific circumstances. These principles can also underpin a sense of moral respect for young people and for their voices to be taken seriously. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which came into force in 1990 and has been ratified by all countries except Somalia and
Second, there is a strong argument that services, programs and policies that have direct impacts on young people (and especially those intended to benefit them as ‘clients’) will be more efficient and effective if young people's perspectives are engaged in the planning, delivery and evaluation of services (Cavet & Sloper, 2004). Understanding the views and interests of service users is required for service improvement and therefore should also improve the cost-efficiency of services. This second rationale for greater youth participation is part of
Table 1 Levels of public participation and empowerment. Source: International Association for Public Participation (2005). Copyright IAP2, all rights reserved. Reproduced by permission. Inform
Consult
Involve
Collaborate
Empower
To work directly with the public throughout the process to ensure that public concerns and aspirations are consistently understood and considered.
To partner with the public in each aspect of the decision including the development of alternatives and the identification of the preferred solution.
To place final decision-making in the hands of the public.
We will keep you informed, listen to and acknowledge concerns and aspirations, and provide feedback on how public input influenced the decision
We will work with you to ensure that your concerns and aspirations are directly reflected in the alternatives developed and provide feedback on how public input influenced the decision
We will look to you for direct advice and We will implement innovation in formulating solutions and what you decide incorporate your advice and recommendations into the decisions to the maximum extent possible
Public comment Focus groups Surveys Public meetings
Workshops Deliberative polling
Citizen advisory committees Consensus-building Participatory decision-making
Public participation goal To obtain public feedback on To provide the public with analysis, alternatives and/or balanced and objective decisions. information to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives, opportunities and/ or solutions. Promise to the public We will keep you informed
Example techniques to consider Fact sheets Web sites Open houses
Citizens' juries Ballots Delegated decisions
544
B.W. Head / Children and Youth Services Review 33 (2011) 541–547
the more general claim that clients and customers will be well served only if their needs and views are understood and taken into account. Services and program plans that ‘miss the mark’ are neither efficient nor effective. Hence, services, programs and policies that directly impact on young people (and especially those intended to benefit them directly) will be more efficient and effective if young people's perspectives are engaged. Indeed, it has been demonstrated that young people can be involved directly in planning processes and the evaluation of program effectiveness (Checkoway & Richards-Schuster, 2003; Hill et al., 2004; Knowles-Yanez, 2005; Frank, 2006). While diversity and choice for individuals within a mix of services may also be desirable, this argument is essentially directed at programs designed to benefit large social groups. The same logic might apply to the decision-making approaches used by service providers in the business and non-for-profit sectors. Many businesses, media networks, community organisations and political parties have become very interested in relation to mapping, tracking, influencing and responding to the ‘voices’ of youth. Understanding the views and interests of a younger generation, with different views and with independent spending power, is highly relevant to businesses and political organisations. In the advertising and communications industries, tapping into the preferences of ‘Generation Y’ has become widespread. Government agencies, on the other hand, have generally been more conservative, stopping short of building youth consultation into every stage in the planning, product development, delivery and evaluation of services. 4.3. Developmental benefits The final argument in favour of enhanced youth participation centres on the developmental benefits which are claimed to emerge from the experience of young people being engaged in various forms of social participation. These benefits may be at the individual or the wider social levels. Firstly, there are direct benefits for individuals, in the form of particular skills, self-esteem and self-development outcomes (Sabo, 2001, 2003). Note that these benefits are sometimes seen as more pronounced where young people actively choose to take up or create opportunities rather than simply conform to an existing requirement. Secondly, increased levels of youth participation in wider social processes are also claimed to provide indirect benefits for society as a whole, arising from a broadening of civic activity and contributions to citizenship (Zeldin et al., 2003). A particular form of this argument is linked to enhancing democracy, and providing training and experience for active citizens and leaders of the future. It is notable that most Youth Conferences in Australia seem to call for establishment of permanent representative forums for youth at state and national levels. A possible concern about this focus on political forums for deliberation and advocacy is that only the more confident young people are likely to become involved, and that the vulnerable or hard-to-reach groups are overlooked. Thus, a focus on formal political or organisational forms of youth leadership could be seen as a rather traditional ‘adultengendered’ political goal. It has been suggested that many adolescents tend to be uninformed about public affairs and uninterested in standard forms of participation devised by adults (Mellor et al., 2002; Vromen, 2004; Fieldhouse et al., 2007). On the other hand, however, many adolescents are much more active in youth-engendered channels of activity, collective interest and communications (Vromen, 2008). 5. Recent trends in youth engagement From 1995–97 the Australian Law Reform Commission, in conjunction with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, undertook an inquiry into the legal rights and standing of children and young people. Their report, Seen and Heard: Priority for Children in the Legal Process, drew attention to a lack of coordination in the delivery of, and serious deficiencies in, much needed services to children. The report
called for the national government to provide policy direction and coordination of initiatives to implement national standards and models of best practice for services to children. The report canvassed the need for widespread reform to Australia's child protection, education and legal systems to ensure children's appropriate participation in decisionmaking concerning them. The report, delivered in 1997 to a new government that had not commissioned the inquiry, fell largely on deaf ears in relation to recommended systemic improvements and better coordination across agencies and jurisdictions. However, it remains of interest that the report recommended that a national children's summit involving heads of all Australian governments should be held urgently; a special national taskforce on children should be established; and that a federal Office for Children (OFC) should be created within the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, to advise on and coordinate national policy and programs. The report recommended that a Charter for Children in Care should be developed in conjunction with federal and state welfare agencies, and that it should be embodied in legislation so as to create a fiduciary duty in the relevant governments. Other recommendations included appropriate participation by children in family law and care and protection proceedings; measures to ensure improved procedures for child witnesses; child consumer protection strategies; and fair processes in schools when considering the expulsion of students (ALRC & HREOC, 1997). Wider opportunities for youth involvement in diverse issues have been created by new communications media, government agencies, and the community and business sectors. These widening spheres of engagement emerged ‘against the tide’, during a decade in which a conservative national government provided little encouragement for youth participation, tended to define ‘youth issues’ in a narrow problem-focused way, and gave rather more political attention to developing new programs focused on ‘early years’ development rather than the needs of young people more broadly. The potential scope of engagement (i.e. the arenas in which young people's interests and perspectives could be engaged), is very large indeed. This is confirmed by a preliminary examination of the literatures on social inclusion (Edwards, 2008), on ‘child-and-youth-friendly’ urban environments (summarised in Bartlett et al., 1999, NSW Parliament, 2006), and a brief consideration of the current extent of youth involvement in the wide range of programs undertaken by government or not-for-profit service providers in Australia. This paper does not undertake a detailed analysis but points to the need for a future research agenda that would pursue a systematic and comprehensive empirical and critical analysis2. Although a detailed overview is beyond the scope of this paper, it is relevant to sketch some examples of forums and bodies for youth participation established through government agencies. We also note some important initiatives from the NGO sector to map and respond to youth perspectives. 6. Diverse but limited forums By comparison with other Asia-Pacific countries (Gale & Fahey, 2005; Ngai et al., 2001), Australia's policy concerns for the well-being 2 Preliminary analysis of youth-relevant activities and programs by agencies has led us to suggest that a detailed examination would need to consider at least twelve domains or focus areas for closer analysis in relation to the patterns and scope of youth involvement, and the effects of youth involvement upon both processes and outcomes (‘making a difference’). These domains are: health issues, including mental health, sexual health, drugs and alcohol, etc; education, skills and training issues, including special needs groups; material poverty, including homelessness; sport and recreation, the arts, and entertainment; communications and multi-media; intercultural issues, including Indigenous and immigrant special needs; juvenile justice and policing issues; legal standing of children/youth in family court and child protection matters; environmental impacts (e.g. pollution, greenhouse) on health and wellbeing; the design of public spaces and urban infrastructure; involvement in public affairs debates and policy discussions; youth leadership development and training. The initiatives of business advertisers, retailers and political parties to better understand and influence youth, while important, are not separately considered.
B.W. Head / Children and Youth Services Review 33 (2011) 541–547
of youth are well developed, but there are large gaps between the theory and practice of youth involvement. Most of the forums and organisational arrangements for involving young people in policy and program issues in Australia are consultative and informational rather than concerned with program evaluation, policy review or other strategic initiatives. Of the large number of issue-areas (note 2 above), human service areas are those which are most likely to reflect some involvement by young people. In the federal structure of government, the eight States and Territories have historically had program administration responsibilities for most aspects of human services, while the national government (the Commonwealth) has constitutional responsibility for income-support payments and some aspects of medical services and insurance. However, because of the financial dominance of the Commonwealth, conditional grants and special services have been widely deployed to supplement and coordinate key areas. Thus, the Commonwealth has had a growing interest in broad policy fields where the interests of children and youth are paramount, including healthcare, education, workforce skills, and housing. Special funding initiatives have emerged around some ‘hot issues’ such as youth suicide, mental health, drugs and alcohol, and the well-being of Indigenous communities. The Council of Australian Governments (COAG) and several ministerial councils (e.g. those concerned with health, education and community services) have undertaken youth-related inquiries and commissioned reports on strategic issues. However, these ministerial councils, like the Commonwealth government itself, tend to have processes for policy development and program review that are expert-driven rather than heavily participative. For example, the National Youth Affairs Research Scheme (NYARS) is a co-operative funding program between all governments under the auspices of the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA). It facilitates nationally based research into factors affecting young people, on topics selected by the ministerial council. The previous conservative national government also sponsored a high-level National Youth Roundtable, a forum which had attracted a considerable measure of criticism from the participants for its lack of impact (Brigland Sorenson, 2007). The Roundtable had its final meeting in March 2008, when the new Labor government released a discussion paper concerning the scope of a replacement body, the Australian Youth Forum (Minister for Youth, 2008). As noted above, a one-off National Youth Summit was also held in April 2008 preceding the national 2020 Summit. There is a strong rhetorical commitment to youth participation in policy and program arenas in Australia, but the practices are less impressive. There are several policy spheres in which youth participation has increased, but most of these initiatives have been at the lower levels of empowerment. Opportunities for youth consultation have featured in several national reviews, such as those concerned with mental health and homelessness, but the processes have focused on information gathering rather than program design. The practical involvement of young people is most readily seen in local-level activities; within the governmental sector, municipal and State agencies are the most active providers of opportunities for involvement and consultation. Most of the human services and planning portfolios at State level have established participatory forums for young people around key issues. The use of focus group discussion to consider ‘hot topics’ is increasingly common. Many State agencies have established advisory committees and youth forums linked to specific clusters of issues at the portfolio level. Some of these are short-term or ad-hoc, but others involve continuity of membership over time. Websites to encourage feedback have been established in many areas. Some States also have a high-level youth advisory council with a whole-ofgovernment ambit (e.g. New South Wales: see http://www.youth. nsw.gov.au/yac), but these bodies meet infrequently. Some States have developed an integrated Youth Action Plan encompassing issues from many portfolios (e.g. Victorian Government, 2007), but the substantive
545
issues of education, health and other services remain largely organised in portfolio ‘silos’. The legal rights of vulnerable or at-risk children and young people have been the particular focus of new statutory roles in a number of States. Commissioners for Children and Young People have been established in New South Wales (see http://www.kids.nsw.gov.au) and Queensland (see http://www.ccypcg.qld.gov.au), with other governments likely to follow; these bodies have crucial roles in oversighting the child protection systems, foster care standards, and child guardian roles. These Commissions also play a broader leadership role in championing the voices of children and young people, especially in regard to the needs and expectations of vulnerable children concerning education and social care arrangements. Some of the most innovative and useful policy and program initiatives have emerged from the non-government sector. NGOs have many young clients, whether children in disadvantaged households or youth living independently and sometimes without shelter. NGOs and community groups are increasingly active in consulting closely and responding to the needs of young people. Three examples, initiated by the larger Australian NGOs, may be briefly noted. Firstly, a very useful development in mapping youth opinion in recent years has been the Mission Australia internet-based survey of youth perspectives. In 2006, for example, 14,700 respondents aged between 11 and 24 years reported that their three main concerns were family conflict, alcohol/ drugs issues, and body image (Mission Australia, 2006). Secondly, the Brotherhood of St Laurence has several programs aimed at young people and poor families with dependent children. The detailed feedback from these programs has been combined with social research to produce two scorecard frameworks (‘barometers’) for assessing the well-being of children and of young people (BSL, 2005, 2006). Thirdly, the Smith Family has developed a series of skills-based programs focusing on literacy in the new economy, equipping young people and disadvantaged families with the communications and financial management skills needed to survive and prosper. Many of these programs have been developed in conjunction with partners from business and philanthropy, taking a social enterprise approach that goes beyond the soup-kitchen charity model of a bygone era (Smith Family, 2008). 7. Conclusions: appropriate types of participation We have noted the wide debate concerning the forms and scope of citizens' involvement and participation in public affairs and the applicability of these frameworks to young people. We have seen that Roger Hart's ‘ladder’ of youth participation (Hart, 1992, 1997) implied that governmental processes seldom take seriously the opportunities for participation by young people in matters affecting their own interests. This ‘ladder’ was often interpreted as a normative framework for encouraging stakeholders to extend youth participation wherever practicable towards the ‘higher’ forms of project management and direction-setting. Other writers have adopted a more situational analysis influenced by a broader approach to experiences, resources and possibilities. More recently, Hart (2008) has stepped back from this prescriptive interpretation of the ‘ladder of participation’, in order to acknowledge that situational diversity and cultural differences make generalised recommendations hazardous. Moreover, he acknowledges that the everyday informal participation of young people in community life and in the construction of shared experience was not fully recognised in his earlier project-focused typology of participation (Hart, 2008). In a more nuanced approach, Schier (2001) has suggested that the various levels of involvement may be variously seen as providing ‘openings, opportunities and obligations’ (Schier, 2001 110). He argues that at each level of involvement, the process of commitment needs to pass through three stages. First is the embedding of awareness that involvement is desirable; second is the garnering of resources and skills
546
B.W. Head / Children and Youth Services Review 33 (2011) 541–547
to enable a particular form of involvement to be successfully undertaken; and third is the building of standard procedures that normalises these new ways of operating. In relation to young people aged under 18 years, Shier cautions that risks and responsibilities need to be weighed along with benefits of higher forms of participation: This model makes no suggestion that children should be pressed to take responsibility they do not want or that is inappropriate for their level of development and understanding. However, in practice, adults are more likely to deny children developmentally appropriate degrees of responsibility than to force too much responsibility on them. A sound policy is to look for areas where, weighing up all the potential risks and benefits, it is appropriate for children to share power and responsibility for decisions, then to make this happen in a supportive environment (Schier, 2001: 115). Thus, it is suggested that forms of participation that involve learning processes may have important effects over time — e.g. by raising awareness, exploring and creating opportunities, and routinising a standard expectation that processes for involvement will be created and maintained. Participation is more likely to be experienced as positive and worthwhile where individuals possess basic skills and confidence, and where social learning occurs for broad groups of participants. Adults are often poor judges of how best to involve young people. Some of the critical literature asserts that mainstream attempts to ‘involve youth’ in public affairs may sometimes be top-down, patronizing, tokenistic or unappreciative of the real interests and voices of youth (Vromen, 2003, Bessant, 2004). Young people already find expression through alternative channels (Vromen, 2008). However, it may also be true that full participatory roles and responsibilities are not feasible or necessary for every task or project. Another important concern is that the alreadyconfident young people (i.e. those who have knowledge, communication skills, and organisational navigation skills) are more likely to become involved, and that the vulnerable or hard-to-reach groups may be overlooked. This is an ongoing challenge for all the sectors – policy, practice and research – in all their work with children and young people. The way forward in both research and advocacy around ‘voice’ is likely to require action on several fronts. The first requirement, in dealing with people of all ages, is to be clear about the terms of engagement and discussion. Clarity about aims, purposes, methods and processes should ensure that the benefits and the limitations of participation in each case are explicit; and sometimes this improved clarity emerges only after a robust exchange of views. For example, if the purpose of the dialogue is primarily informational, it would be improper to ‘enhance’ its status by using the language of collaboration and empowerment. Secondly, in situations where wide participation is welcomed and agreed, it is important to optimise young people's informed contributions to the processes and the desired outcomes. This may require careful attention to youth-friendly processes, mentoring within the youth sector, and experimentation with partnerships across sectors. Finally, there seems little to be gained for society as a whole if youth participation largely develops as a separate enclave, disconnected from the mainstream aspects of public affairs. Some dual or parallel development is inevitable, but the interactive crossovers are likely to be highly energising for all concerned.
References ABS (2008). Year Book Australia 2008.Canberra: ABS Available at: http://www.abs.gov. au/AUSSTATS/. AIHW (2007). Young Australians: their health and wellbeing. Canberra: AIHW. ALRC & HREOC (1997). Seen and heard: priority for children in legal process, ALRC Report 84. Canberra: ALRC & HREOC. ARACY (2006). Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth.National Youth Agenda Available at: http://www.aracy.org.au/projects. Arnstein, S. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35, 216−224.
Bartlett, S., Hart, R., Satterthwaite, D., de la Barra, X., & Missair, A. (1999). Cities for children: children's rights, poverty and urban management. London: UNICEF and Earthscan. Bessant, J. (2004). Mixed messages: youth participation and democratic practice. Australian Journal of Political Science, 39(2), 387−404. Brigland Sorenson, J. (2007). ‘The Secret Life of the National Youth Roundtable’, presentation to the National Youth Affairs Conference. May: Melbourne. BSL (2005). The Brotherhood's Social Barometer: Monitoring Children's Chances. Available at: http://www.bsl.org.au/pdfs/BSL_social_barom_monitoring_childn_chances.pdf. BSL (2006). The Brotherhood's Social Barometer: Challenges Facing Australian Youth. Available at: http://www.bsl.org.au/pdfs/BSL_Social_Barometer_youth_challenges.pdf. Cavet, J., & Sloper, P. (2004). The participation of children and young people in decisions about UK service development. Child, 30(6), 613−621. Chawla, L. (2001). Evaluating children's participation: seeking areas of consensus. Participatory Learning and Action [PLA Notes], 42, 1−5. Checkoway, B., & Richards-Schuster, K. (2003). Youth participation in community evaluation research. American Journal of Evaluation, 24(1), 21−33. Eckersley, R. M., Wierenga, A., & Wyn, J. (2005). Life in a time of uncertainty. Medical Journal of Australia, 183(8), 402−404. Edwards, K. (2008). Youth participation and social inclusion: a new policy agenda? Social Policy Issue Brief No 1: University of Sydney. Ewen, J. (1994). Youth participation: concepts and structures. Youth Studies Australia, 13(3), 13−20. Fieldhouse, E., Tranmer, M., & Russsell, A. (2007). Something about young people or something about elections? European Journal of Political Research, 46(6), 797−822. Francis, M., & Lorenzo, R. (2002). Seven realms of children's participation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22(1–2), 157−169. Frank, K. J. (2006). The potential of youth participation in planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 20(4), 351−371. Freiler, C. (2003). From Experiences of Exclusion to a Vision of Inclusion. Available at: http: //www.ccsd.ca/subsites/inclusion/bp/cf2.htm. Gale, F., & Fahey, S. (2005). Youth in transition: the challenges of generational change in Asia. Bangkok: UNESCO and Association of Asian Social Science Research Councils. Hart, R. A. (1992). Children's participation: from tokenism to citizenship. Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Centre. Hart, R. A. (1997). Children's participation. New York: UNICEF. Hart, R. A. (2008). Stepping back from the ladder: reflections on a model of participatory work with children. pp. 19–31 in A. Reid et al, Participation and Learning. New York: Springer. Head, B. W. (2007). Community engagement: participation on whose terms? Australian Journal of Political Science, 42(3), 441−454. Head, B. W., & Stanley, F. J. (2007). Evidence-based advocacy. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 19(3), 255−262. Hill, M., Davis, J., Prout, A., & Tisdall, K. (2004). Moving the participation agenda forward. Children and Society, 18(2), 77−96. Hughes, A. (2006) ‘Transitions: Young Adults with Complex Needs’, presentation to ANZ Adolescent Health conference, Sydney, 13 November. Available at http:// www.caah.chw.edu.au/conference/ International Association for Public Participation (2005) ‘Public Participation Spectrum’. http://iap2.org Knowles-Yanez, K. L. (2005). Children's participation in planning processes. Journal of Planning Literature, 20(1), 3−14. Laidlaw Foundation (2003), Social Inclusion Working Paper Series. Available at: http:// www.laidlawfdn.org/ Lansdown, G. (2001). Promoting children's participation in democratic decision-making. Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre. McLaren, K. (2003). Reconnecting young people: a review of the risks. Remedies and Consequences of Youth Inactivity, Wellington: New Zealand Ministry for Social Development. Mellor, S., Kennedy, K., & Greenwood, L. (2002). Citizenship and democracy: Australian students' knowledge and beliefs. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research. Minister for Youth (2008). The Australian Youth Forum….a discussion paper, 17 March. Available at: http://www.thesource.gov.au/involve/ayf_discussion.pdf. Mission Australia (2006). National Youth Survey 2006.Sydney: Mission Australia Available at: http://www.missionaustralia.com.au. NCYLC (2007). National Children's and Youth Law Centre: Submission to Productivity Commission Inquiry into Consumer Policy Framework, 11 May. Available at: http:// www.pc.gov.au/data/assets/file/0004/63679/sub040.rtf. Ngai, N. -P., Cheung, C. -K., & Li, C. -K. (2001). China's youth policy formulation and youth participation. Children and Youth Services Review, 23(8), 651−669. NSW Parliament Committee on Children Young People (2006). Inquiry into children, young people and the built environment. Report 8/53 2006. Sydney: New South Wales Parliament. OECD (2008) OECD Factbook 2008. Section on ‘youth inactivity’. Available at http:// www.oecd.org/publications Patton, G. C., Bowes, G., Sawyer, S. M., Homel, R., & Stanley, F. J. (2005). Towards a National Youth Agenda? Medical Journal of Australia, 183(8), 394−395. Productivity Commission (2007). Overcoming indigenous disadvantage: key indicators 2007. Canberra: Productivity Commission (for the Steering Committee on Government Service Provision). Ryan, S. (2008). ‘Youth lists their demands to PM’, The Australian, 14 April. . Sabo, K. (2001). The benefits of participatory evaluation for children and youth. Participatory Learning and Action [PLA Notes], 42, 1−4. Sabo, K. (Ed.). (2003). Youth participatory evaluation: a field in the making, new directions for Evaluation No 98. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schorr, L. B. (1997). Common purpose: strengthening families and neighborhoods to rebuild America. New York: Anchor Books.
B.W. Head / Children and Youth Services Review 33 (2011) 541–547 Schorr, L. B., & Marchand, V. (2007). Pathway to successful young adulthood.Harvard University: Pathways Mapping Initiative Available at http://pathwaystooutcomes.org/. Schier, H. (2001). Pathways to participation: openings, opportunities and obligations. Children and Society, 15(2), 107−117. Sinclair, R. (2004). Participation in practice: making it meaningful, effective and sustainable. Children and Society, 18(2), 106−118. Smith Family (2008) website at: http://www.thesmithfamily.com.au/index.cfm Victorian Government, Office for Youth (2007) Future Directions: An Action Agenda for Young Victorians. Available at http://www.youth.vic.gov.au
547
Vromen, A. (2003). “People Try to Put Us Down…”: participatory citizenship of “Generation X”. Australian Journal of Political Science, 38(1), 79−99. Vromen, A. (2004). ‘Three Political Myths about Young People’, Drawing Board: An Australian Review of Public Affairs, 24 March. Available at: http://www.australianreview.net. Vromen, A. (2008). Building virtual spaces: young people, participation and the internet. Australian Journal of Political Science, 43(1), 79−97. Youth Summit (2008) website at: http://www.australia2020.gov.au/youth Zeldin, S., Camino, L., & Calvert, M. (2003). Toward an understanding of youth in community governance. Social Policy Report, 17(3), 1−20.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Children and Youth Services Review j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / c h i l d yo u t h
Why not ask them? Mapping and promoting youth participation Brian W. Head ⁎ Institute for Social Science Research, The University of Queensland, St Lucia QLD 4072, Australia
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Available online 2 June 2010 Keywords: Youth participation Social inclusion Rationale for participation Policy engagement
a b s t r a c t Recent policy frameworks for addressing the well-being of young people have increasingly adopted a prevention framework that emphasises age-relevant support, a social inclusion approach, targeted assistance for the most disadvantaged, and more avenues for the voices of young people. However, despite the increased policy commitments to youth consultation and participation, there is confusion about the operational implications of such commitments, and implementation across different program areas has been patchy. This paper provides a conceptual framework for understanding the various forms of youth participation, ranging from information exchange to more open and self-managed participation; and the associated rationales for various forms of participation. It is argued that there are three main rationales for greater voice and participation of young people across a variety of institutional settings and policy areas. First is the argument that young people have the right to be nurtured, protected and treated with respect, and where appropriate be involved and consulted. Secondly, it is argued that improvement of services for young people requires their views and interests to be well articulated and represented. Thirdly, it is asserted that there are developmental benefits arising from participation, for both the individuals themselves and for civil society as a whole. © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction One hundred young Australians aged from 15 to 24 gathered in Canberra in April 2008 at the 2020 Youth Summit, a precursor to a national summit of 1000 experts called to discuss the future of the nation (Youth Summit, 2008). Young Australians want the vote at 16 and their own Medicare cards at 13 to give them a louder voice in public life as well as the ability to see a doctor without their parents present. The proposals were two of 40 presented to [Prime Minister] Kevin Rudd yesterday by the 100 delegates at the 2020 Youth Summit, the curtain raiser to this weekend's all-ages gathering of 1000 of the nation's ‘best and brightest’. …… ‘When we say we've opened the windows of government to hear what youth has to say, we're dead serious,’ he said. Mr Rudd accepted a communique from the summit, which challenged the Government to, among other things, lower age limits on voting and healthcare access. ‘Sixteen-year-olds work, pay income tax, pay GST, drive and can join the army. They must be enfranchised so they can have a say in government policies that affect them,’ the communique said (Ryan, 2008). This paper outlines the arguments concerning the nature and extent of participation by adolescents and young adults (focusing on those aged 12–24 years) in areas closely linked to their needs and ⁎ Tel.: + 61 7 3346 7450, + 61 418 710 531 (mobile). E-mail address: [email protected]. 0190-7409/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.05.015
interests — such as service delivery settings, matters relating to civil or legal status, and discussion of policy issues. (The focus here is on issues with a ‘public’ dimension rather than those that are primarily internal to families and households.) The paper suggests that despite a long period in which the national government provided scant encouragement for youth participation, there has been a gradually rising tide of opportunities for young people's participation created by new communications media, government agencies, and the community and business sectors1. 2. Social and policy background Young people in Australia (aged 12–24 years) numbered about 3.7 million in 2006, constituting 18% of the national population (although with the overall ageing of the national population this proportion has slipped from 22% in the early 1980s and will continue to decline). While the median age of the national population is about 36.6 years, the figure for the Indigenous population is sharply lower at around 21 years (ABS, 2008). The evidence about the well-being of young people, in Australia as in other advanced countries, shows considerable variability. Some young Australians are thriving and excelling, and many are leading satisfying lives (AIHW, 2007). However, significant numbers of the younger generation, across a 1 Revised presentation to Academy of Social Science in Australia Workshop “Seen and Heard”, University of New South Wales, 11–12 October 2007. The author thanks the workshop participants and the CYSR anonymous referees for numerous improvements.
542
B.W. Head / Children and Youth Services Review 33 (2011) 541–547
range of cultural and family circumstances, are troubled and may be disconnected from mainstream opportunities. In particular, there are large disparities in health status, social connectedness, educational attainment and life-skills (Eckersley et al., 2005, Patton et al., 2005). The number of reported cases of child abuse is increasing (AIHW, 2007). Some social groupings, most notably Indigenous people, are much more disadvantaged than other Australians (Productivity Commission, 2007). Broadly similar patterns of distress and disadvantage are evident in other OECD countries. According to a senior UK public servant, the patterns and trends among UK young people are also alarming, with high rates of youth suicide, substance abuse, teenage pregnancy, and binge drinking (Hughes, 2006). Patterns of this kind in Australia and the UK provide challenges for all concerned with research, policy development, service planning and delivery. There is increasing evidence to support a more collaborative and inclusive approach to tackling the complex issues underlying child and youth well-being. Such an approach situates the problems of individuals in the context of families, neighbourhoods and communities; it emphasises prevention services as well as targeted responses to crisis; and encourages service practitioners to build strong relationships with clients based on mutual trust and respect (Schorr, 1997; Schorr & Marchand, 2007). The cultural and ethical dimensions of successful and supportive interventions are consistent with a ‘social inclusion’ approach (Laidlaw, 2003). Social inclusion is about making sure that all people participate as valued members of society. It goes beyond bringing people on the outside ‘in’, or notions of the periphery vs. the centre, or ‘us’ and ‘ them’. It is a normative concept (i.e. value based) rather than a descriptive term. It is a way of ‘raising the bar’ — of understanding where we want to be and what needs to change. It helps to guide the development of forward-looking indicators, rather than merely documenting ‘what's wrong’. It suggests a transformative agenda that points to the changes that are necessary in public policies, attitudes, and institutional practices. Social inclusion requires more than the removal of barriers. It requires investments and action to bring about the conditions of inclusion. We know that inclusion does not ‘just happen’ when barriers are removed (Freiler, 2003). In this spirit, the Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth established a collaborative project to develop a ‘National Agenda for Youth’ (see Head & Stanley, 2007). There was wide support among the 80 participating organisations for adopting a social inclusion approach to agenda-building under five headings: 1. Involvement, engagement and rights: The active participation of young people is fundamental. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child sets out basic requirements for the treatment of children and young people, including their access to education, health, and their relations with workplaces and the justice system. 2. Respect and recognition: Acknowledging and respecting individual and group differences in terms of: racial, ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious backgrounds; sexual preferences; development and capability; age group (thus encouraging inter-generational exchange); and overall avoiding discrimination, victimisation or bullying on account of such factors. 3. Human development: Health, safety and human development are fundamental. Health includes physical, mental and emotional wellbeing. Healthy development includes fostering learning and development opportunities. Need for specific preventative and support services for children/youth, well resourced and properly supported through research. Education, training and satisfying employment are crucial. 4. Social integration: Social integration encompasses effective family support and parenting, community connections or networks, and
the sharing of social and cultural spaces. An inclusive community entails opportunities for meaningful participation in decisions and planning that affect the lives of young people. 5. Material well-being: Participating fully in community life requires sufficient material resources — housing, transport, financial independence, skills to avoid indebtedness, and living in a sustainable healthy environment (ARACY, 2006). Although it is evident that these dimensions are interactive, there is an ongoing debate about which themes are foundational for the wellbeing of young people. If young people are neither in employment nor in school, their material well-being and their future prospects may be in jeopardy. As the OECD has emphasised, those leaving school without adequate qualifications are highly unlikely to find jobs with good career prospects. The proportion of young people neither in employment nor in education is a predictor of those who become economically and socially ‘excluded’ — persons living on the poverty-line who lack the skills to improve their economic situation (OECD, 2008, McLaren, 2003). In Australia the school-retention rate to year 12 is around 75% and the proportion of 15–19 year-olds participating on a full-time basis in either education or work is around 85% (although the figures for Indigenous participation are generally about half these levels: AIHW, 2007). However a sole focus upon education and employment, as the foundational pathways into the adult world of productivity and responsibility, has been seen by many recent commentators as somewhat narrow — hence the appeal of the broader concepts of social inclusion noted above, in which respect for persons is central. Importantly for this discussion, one of the key features of this broader approach is encouragement of involvement and participation by young people in all matters affecting their interests.
3. Forms and dimensions of participation There has been a wide debate concerning the diverse forms and appropriate scope of citizens' involvement and participation in public affairs (Head, 2007) and the applicability of these frameworks to young people. In relation to youth, the modern starting-point is Roger Hart's ‘ladder’ of participatory forms (Hart, 1992, 1997), which built upon earlier critiques of tokenistic consultation in the urban planning literature (Arnstein, 1969). Hart argued that governmental processes seldom take seriously the opportunities for participation by young people in matters affecting their own interests. He outlined an eightpoint scale (or ‘ladder’) about how projects or programs are organised, ranging from manipulation, ‘decoration’ and tokenism (all regarded as inauthentic participation); to situations where youth are assigned specific roles and consulted about projects devised by others; through to adult-initiated shared discussion and decisionmaking; and ultimately youth-initiated shared discussion and decision-making (Hart, 1992, 1997). These distinctions have proven to be instructive for those seeking to ‘push the boundaries’ of youth participation, and those seeking more creative options for youth involvement. This typology has often been interpreted, especially by those in the youth-rights tradition, as a normative framework encouraging and challenging stakeholders to drive youth participation where practicable towards the ‘higher’ forms of project design and management. In some recent reconsideration of options for youth participation, a less prescriptive and more flexible approach has been developed. For example, some have argued (Chawla, 2001; Francis & Lorenzo, 2002; Ewen, 1994; Sinclair, 2004) that the diversity of contexts and experiences requires a more nuanced situational approach. In their view, a focus on formal organisations and public policy tends to underplay the potential significance of everyday informal participation of young people in community life and in the construction of shared experience. The latter experiences may tend to be ignored by a formal
B.W. Head / Children and Youth Services Review 33 (2011) 541–547
typology of participation that focuses primarily on power and control over project management and direction. Taking a situational approach allows for a more complex empirical typology, such as that developed by the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2, 2005). Table 1 outlines a range of formats and underlying intentions for various modes of participation. Hart's eight categories are here reduced to five types of participatory relationships — informing, consulting, involving, collaborating and empowering. These categories can be deployed analytically to assist in the understanding both of current patterns and future possibilities. In regard to possible generational differences in behaviour, there is no apparent obstacle to utilising these categories in relation to the activities of adolescents and young adults as well as for older citizens.
543
the USA, is foundational for these rights-based principles (Hart, 1992; Lansdown, 2001). For example, article 12 (1) declares that: State parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express these views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child. Furthermore, according to article 13 (1): The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information of all kinds…[subject to certain lawful restrictions]. According to the National Children's and Youth Law Centre, the rights-based approach is beneficial because:
4. Three rationales for more participation This paper suggests there has been a gradually rising tide of recognition that opportunities and encouragement should be provided for young people's participation in matters they consider to be important to their own well-being. Some of the empirical dimensions of this trend in Australia, and the severe limitations on actual achievements, are outlined in a later section. Here, it is suggested there are three main rationales widely deployed to underpin and promote greater involvement of young people in matters affecting their interests. I will call these the arguments about rights, efficiency, and development. I believe these are mutually supportive arguments rather than alternatives. All three rationales may contribute to normative arguments about the need for respect and recognition of young people, utilising a broad social inclusion approach.
it ensures the integration and inclusion of an otherwise marginalised group (children) into policy-making and evaluation; and it does not demand uniformity of outcomes, but creates a principles-based approach which ensures that the individuality, differing maturity levels and best interests of each child is recognised and considered (NCYLC, 2007). Rights-based legal principles are sometimes (but not always) translated into regulatory form, e.g. into prescribed procedures for how and when to involve individual children and young people in legal proceedings (e.g. family court, child protection, juvenile justice). However, the prescription of legal obligations and duties is seldom the main reason for greater involvement of young people at a group or collective level. Providing ‘voice’ for young people is more often motivated by non-legal rationales.
4.1. Rights 4.2. Efficiency and better services First, there is the argument for the legal and moral rights of children and young people not only to be protected and nurtured but also to be involved in appropriate ways. Rights-based legal principles, when translated into regulatory form, can impose legal duties to follow prescribed procedures including consultation with young people in specific circumstances. These principles can also underpin a sense of moral respect for young people and for their voices to be taken seriously. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which came into force in 1990 and has been ratified by all countries except Somalia and
Second, there is a strong argument that services, programs and policies that have direct impacts on young people (and especially those intended to benefit them as ‘clients’) will be more efficient and effective if young people's perspectives are engaged in the planning, delivery and evaluation of services (Cavet & Sloper, 2004). Understanding the views and interests of service users is required for service improvement and therefore should also improve the cost-efficiency of services. This second rationale for greater youth participation is part of
Table 1 Levels of public participation and empowerment. Source: International Association for Public Participation (2005). Copyright IAP2, all rights reserved. Reproduced by permission. Inform
Consult
Involve
Collaborate
Empower
To work directly with the public throughout the process to ensure that public concerns and aspirations are consistently understood and considered.
To partner with the public in each aspect of the decision including the development of alternatives and the identification of the preferred solution.
To place final decision-making in the hands of the public.
We will keep you informed, listen to and acknowledge concerns and aspirations, and provide feedback on how public input influenced the decision
We will work with you to ensure that your concerns and aspirations are directly reflected in the alternatives developed and provide feedback on how public input influenced the decision
We will look to you for direct advice and We will implement innovation in formulating solutions and what you decide incorporate your advice and recommendations into the decisions to the maximum extent possible
Public comment Focus groups Surveys Public meetings
Workshops Deliberative polling
Citizen advisory committees Consensus-building Participatory decision-making
Public participation goal To obtain public feedback on To provide the public with analysis, alternatives and/or balanced and objective decisions. information to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives, opportunities and/ or solutions. Promise to the public We will keep you informed
Example techniques to consider Fact sheets Web sites Open houses
Citizens' juries Ballots Delegated decisions
544
B.W. Head / Children and Youth Services Review 33 (2011) 541–547
the more general claim that clients and customers will be well served only if their needs and views are understood and taken into account. Services and program plans that ‘miss the mark’ are neither efficient nor effective. Hence, services, programs and policies that directly impact on young people (and especially those intended to benefit them directly) will be more efficient and effective if young people's perspectives are engaged. Indeed, it has been demonstrated that young people can be involved directly in planning processes and the evaluation of program effectiveness (Checkoway & Richards-Schuster, 2003; Hill et al., 2004; Knowles-Yanez, 2005; Frank, 2006). While diversity and choice for individuals within a mix of services may also be desirable, this argument is essentially directed at programs designed to benefit large social groups. The same logic might apply to the decision-making approaches used by service providers in the business and non-for-profit sectors. Many businesses, media networks, community organisations and political parties have become very interested in relation to mapping, tracking, influencing and responding to the ‘voices’ of youth. Understanding the views and interests of a younger generation, with different views and with independent spending power, is highly relevant to businesses and political organisations. In the advertising and communications industries, tapping into the preferences of ‘Generation Y’ has become widespread. Government agencies, on the other hand, have generally been more conservative, stopping short of building youth consultation into every stage in the planning, product development, delivery and evaluation of services. 4.3. Developmental benefits The final argument in favour of enhanced youth participation centres on the developmental benefits which are claimed to emerge from the experience of young people being engaged in various forms of social participation. These benefits may be at the individual or the wider social levels. Firstly, there are direct benefits for individuals, in the form of particular skills, self-esteem and self-development outcomes (Sabo, 2001, 2003). Note that these benefits are sometimes seen as more pronounced where young people actively choose to take up or create opportunities rather than simply conform to an existing requirement. Secondly, increased levels of youth participation in wider social processes are also claimed to provide indirect benefits for society as a whole, arising from a broadening of civic activity and contributions to citizenship (Zeldin et al., 2003). A particular form of this argument is linked to enhancing democracy, and providing training and experience for active citizens and leaders of the future. It is notable that most Youth Conferences in Australia seem to call for establishment of permanent representative forums for youth at state and national levels. A possible concern about this focus on political forums for deliberation and advocacy is that only the more confident young people are likely to become involved, and that the vulnerable or hard-to-reach groups are overlooked. Thus, a focus on formal political or organisational forms of youth leadership could be seen as a rather traditional ‘adultengendered’ political goal. It has been suggested that many adolescents tend to be uninformed about public affairs and uninterested in standard forms of participation devised by adults (Mellor et al., 2002; Vromen, 2004; Fieldhouse et al., 2007). On the other hand, however, many adolescents are much more active in youth-engendered channels of activity, collective interest and communications (Vromen, 2008). 5. Recent trends in youth engagement From 1995–97 the Australian Law Reform Commission, in conjunction with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, undertook an inquiry into the legal rights and standing of children and young people. Their report, Seen and Heard: Priority for Children in the Legal Process, drew attention to a lack of coordination in the delivery of, and serious deficiencies in, much needed services to children. The report
called for the national government to provide policy direction and coordination of initiatives to implement national standards and models of best practice for services to children. The report canvassed the need for widespread reform to Australia's child protection, education and legal systems to ensure children's appropriate participation in decisionmaking concerning them. The report, delivered in 1997 to a new government that had not commissioned the inquiry, fell largely on deaf ears in relation to recommended systemic improvements and better coordination across agencies and jurisdictions. However, it remains of interest that the report recommended that a national children's summit involving heads of all Australian governments should be held urgently; a special national taskforce on children should be established; and that a federal Office for Children (OFC) should be created within the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, to advise on and coordinate national policy and programs. The report recommended that a Charter for Children in Care should be developed in conjunction with federal and state welfare agencies, and that it should be embodied in legislation so as to create a fiduciary duty in the relevant governments. Other recommendations included appropriate participation by children in family law and care and protection proceedings; measures to ensure improved procedures for child witnesses; child consumer protection strategies; and fair processes in schools when considering the expulsion of students (ALRC & HREOC, 1997). Wider opportunities for youth involvement in diverse issues have been created by new communications media, government agencies, and the community and business sectors. These widening spheres of engagement emerged ‘against the tide’, during a decade in which a conservative national government provided little encouragement for youth participation, tended to define ‘youth issues’ in a narrow problem-focused way, and gave rather more political attention to developing new programs focused on ‘early years’ development rather than the needs of young people more broadly. The potential scope of engagement (i.e. the arenas in which young people's interests and perspectives could be engaged), is very large indeed. This is confirmed by a preliminary examination of the literatures on social inclusion (Edwards, 2008), on ‘child-and-youth-friendly’ urban environments (summarised in Bartlett et al., 1999, NSW Parliament, 2006), and a brief consideration of the current extent of youth involvement in the wide range of programs undertaken by government or not-for-profit service providers in Australia. This paper does not undertake a detailed analysis but points to the need for a future research agenda that would pursue a systematic and comprehensive empirical and critical analysis2. Although a detailed overview is beyond the scope of this paper, it is relevant to sketch some examples of forums and bodies for youth participation established through government agencies. We also note some important initiatives from the NGO sector to map and respond to youth perspectives. 6. Diverse but limited forums By comparison with other Asia-Pacific countries (Gale & Fahey, 2005; Ngai et al., 2001), Australia's policy concerns for the well-being 2 Preliminary analysis of youth-relevant activities and programs by agencies has led us to suggest that a detailed examination would need to consider at least twelve domains or focus areas for closer analysis in relation to the patterns and scope of youth involvement, and the effects of youth involvement upon both processes and outcomes (‘making a difference’). These domains are: health issues, including mental health, sexual health, drugs and alcohol, etc; education, skills and training issues, including special needs groups; material poverty, including homelessness; sport and recreation, the arts, and entertainment; communications and multi-media; intercultural issues, including Indigenous and immigrant special needs; juvenile justice and policing issues; legal standing of children/youth in family court and child protection matters; environmental impacts (e.g. pollution, greenhouse) on health and wellbeing; the design of public spaces and urban infrastructure; involvement in public affairs debates and policy discussions; youth leadership development and training. The initiatives of business advertisers, retailers and political parties to better understand and influence youth, while important, are not separately considered.
B.W. Head / Children and Youth Services Review 33 (2011) 541–547
of youth are well developed, but there are large gaps between the theory and practice of youth involvement. Most of the forums and organisational arrangements for involving young people in policy and program issues in Australia are consultative and informational rather than concerned with program evaluation, policy review or other strategic initiatives. Of the large number of issue-areas (note 2 above), human service areas are those which are most likely to reflect some involvement by young people. In the federal structure of government, the eight States and Territories have historically had program administration responsibilities for most aspects of human services, while the national government (the Commonwealth) has constitutional responsibility for income-support payments and some aspects of medical services and insurance. However, because of the financial dominance of the Commonwealth, conditional grants and special services have been widely deployed to supplement and coordinate key areas. Thus, the Commonwealth has had a growing interest in broad policy fields where the interests of children and youth are paramount, including healthcare, education, workforce skills, and housing. Special funding initiatives have emerged around some ‘hot issues’ such as youth suicide, mental health, drugs and alcohol, and the well-being of Indigenous communities. The Council of Australian Governments (COAG) and several ministerial councils (e.g. those concerned with health, education and community services) have undertaken youth-related inquiries and commissioned reports on strategic issues. However, these ministerial councils, like the Commonwealth government itself, tend to have processes for policy development and program review that are expert-driven rather than heavily participative. For example, the National Youth Affairs Research Scheme (NYARS) is a co-operative funding program between all governments under the auspices of the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA). It facilitates nationally based research into factors affecting young people, on topics selected by the ministerial council. The previous conservative national government also sponsored a high-level National Youth Roundtable, a forum which had attracted a considerable measure of criticism from the participants for its lack of impact (Brigland Sorenson, 2007). The Roundtable had its final meeting in March 2008, when the new Labor government released a discussion paper concerning the scope of a replacement body, the Australian Youth Forum (Minister for Youth, 2008). As noted above, a one-off National Youth Summit was also held in April 2008 preceding the national 2020 Summit. There is a strong rhetorical commitment to youth participation in policy and program arenas in Australia, but the practices are less impressive. There are several policy spheres in which youth participation has increased, but most of these initiatives have been at the lower levels of empowerment. Opportunities for youth consultation have featured in several national reviews, such as those concerned with mental health and homelessness, but the processes have focused on information gathering rather than program design. The practical involvement of young people is most readily seen in local-level activities; within the governmental sector, municipal and State agencies are the most active providers of opportunities for involvement and consultation. Most of the human services and planning portfolios at State level have established participatory forums for young people around key issues. The use of focus group discussion to consider ‘hot topics’ is increasingly common. Many State agencies have established advisory committees and youth forums linked to specific clusters of issues at the portfolio level. Some of these are short-term or ad-hoc, but others involve continuity of membership over time. Websites to encourage feedback have been established in many areas. Some States also have a high-level youth advisory council with a whole-ofgovernment ambit (e.g. New South Wales: see http://www.youth. nsw.gov.au/yac), but these bodies meet infrequently. Some States have developed an integrated Youth Action Plan encompassing issues from many portfolios (e.g. Victorian Government, 2007), but the substantive
545
issues of education, health and other services remain largely organised in portfolio ‘silos’. The legal rights of vulnerable or at-risk children and young people have been the particular focus of new statutory roles in a number of States. Commissioners for Children and Young People have been established in New South Wales (see http://www.kids.nsw.gov.au) and Queensland (see http://www.ccypcg.qld.gov.au), with other governments likely to follow; these bodies have crucial roles in oversighting the child protection systems, foster care standards, and child guardian roles. These Commissions also play a broader leadership role in championing the voices of children and young people, especially in regard to the needs and expectations of vulnerable children concerning education and social care arrangements. Some of the most innovative and useful policy and program initiatives have emerged from the non-government sector. NGOs have many young clients, whether children in disadvantaged households or youth living independently and sometimes without shelter. NGOs and community groups are increasingly active in consulting closely and responding to the needs of young people. Three examples, initiated by the larger Australian NGOs, may be briefly noted. Firstly, a very useful development in mapping youth opinion in recent years has been the Mission Australia internet-based survey of youth perspectives. In 2006, for example, 14,700 respondents aged between 11 and 24 years reported that their three main concerns were family conflict, alcohol/ drugs issues, and body image (Mission Australia, 2006). Secondly, the Brotherhood of St Laurence has several programs aimed at young people and poor families with dependent children. The detailed feedback from these programs has been combined with social research to produce two scorecard frameworks (‘barometers’) for assessing the well-being of children and of young people (BSL, 2005, 2006). Thirdly, the Smith Family has developed a series of skills-based programs focusing on literacy in the new economy, equipping young people and disadvantaged families with the communications and financial management skills needed to survive and prosper. Many of these programs have been developed in conjunction with partners from business and philanthropy, taking a social enterprise approach that goes beyond the soup-kitchen charity model of a bygone era (Smith Family, 2008). 7. Conclusions: appropriate types of participation We have noted the wide debate concerning the forms and scope of citizens' involvement and participation in public affairs and the applicability of these frameworks to young people. We have seen that Roger Hart's ‘ladder’ of youth participation (Hart, 1992, 1997) implied that governmental processes seldom take seriously the opportunities for participation by young people in matters affecting their own interests. This ‘ladder’ was often interpreted as a normative framework for encouraging stakeholders to extend youth participation wherever practicable towards the ‘higher’ forms of project management and direction-setting. Other writers have adopted a more situational analysis influenced by a broader approach to experiences, resources and possibilities. More recently, Hart (2008) has stepped back from this prescriptive interpretation of the ‘ladder of participation’, in order to acknowledge that situational diversity and cultural differences make generalised recommendations hazardous. Moreover, he acknowledges that the everyday informal participation of young people in community life and in the construction of shared experience was not fully recognised in his earlier project-focused typology of participation (Hart, 2008). In a more nuanced approach, Schier (2001) has suggested that the various levels of involvement may be variously seen as providing ‘openings, opportunities and obligations’ (Schier, 2001 110). He argues that at each level of involvement, the process of commitment needs to pass through three stages. First is the embedding of awareness that involvement is desirable; second is the garnering of resources and skills
546
B.W. Head / Children and Youth Services Review 33 (2011) 541–547
to enable a particular form of involvement to be successfully undertaken; and third is the building of standard procedures that normalises these new ways of operating. In relation to young people aged under 18 years, Shier cautions that risks and responsibilities need to be weighed along with benefits of higher forms of participation: This model makes no suggestion that children should be pressed to take responsibility they do not want or that is inappropriate for their level of development and understanding. However, in practice, adults are more likely to deny children developmentally appropriate degrees of responsibility than to force too much responsibility on them. A sound policy is to look for areas where, weighing up all the potential risks and benefits, it is appropriate for children to share power and responsibility for decisions, then to make this happen in a supportive environment (Schier, 2001: 115). Thus, it is suggested that forms of participation that involve learning processes may have important effects over time — e.g. by raising awareness, exploring and creating opportunities, and routinising a standard expectation that processes for involvement will be created and maintained. Participation is more likely to be experienced as positive and worthwhile where individuals possess basic skills and confidence, and where social learning occurs for broad groups of participants. Adults are often poor judges of how best to involve young people. Some of the critical literature asserts that mainstream attempts to ‘involve youth’ in public affairs may sometimes be top-down, patronizing, tokenistic or unappreciative of the real interests and voices of youth (Vromen, 2003, Bessant, 2004). Young people already find expression through alternative channels (Vromen, 2008). However, it may also be true that full participatory roles and responsibilities are not feasible or necessary for every task or project. Another important concern is that the alreadyconfident young people (i.e. those who have knowledge, communication skills, and organisational navigation skills) are more likely to become involved, and that the vulnerable or hard-to-reach groups may be overlooked. This is an ongoing challenge for all the sectors – policy, practice and research – in all their work with children and young people. The way forward in both research and advocacy around ‘voice’ is likely to require action on several fronts. The first requirement, in dealing with people of all ages, is to be clear about the terms of engagement and discussion. Clarity about aims, purposes, methods and processes should ensure that the benefits and the limitations of participation in each case are explicit; and sometimes this improved clarity emerges only after a robust exchange of views. For example, if the purpose of the dialogue is primarily informational, it would be improper to ‘enhance’ its status by using the language of collaboration and empowerment. Secondly, in situations where wide participation is welcomed and agreed, it is important to optimise young people's informed contributions to the processes and the desired outcomes. This may require careful attention to youth-friendly processes, mentoring within the youth sector, and experimentation with partnerships across sectors. Finally, there seems little to be gained for society as a whole if youth participation largely develops as a separate enclave, disconnected from the mainstream aspects of public affairs. Some dual or parallel development is inevitable, but the interactive crossovers are likely to be highly energising for all concerned.
References ABS (2008). Year Book Australia 2008.Canberra: ABS Available at: http://www.abs.gov. au/AUSSTATS/. AIHW (2007). Young Australians: their health and wellbeing. Canberra: AIHW. ALRC & HREOC (1997). Seen and heard: priority for children in legal process, ALRC Report 84. Canberra: ALRC & HREOC. ARACY (2006). Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth.National Youth Agenda Available at: http://www.aracy.org.au/projects. Arnstein, S. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35, 216−224.
Bartlett, S., Hart, R., Satterthwaite, D., de la Barra, X., & Missair, A. (1999). Cities for children: children's rights, poverty and urban management. London: UNICEF and Earthscan. Bessant, J. (2004). Mixed messages: youth participation and democratic practice. Australian Journal of Political Science, 39(2), 387−404. Brigland Sorenson, J. (2007). ‘The Secret Life of the National Youth Roundtable’, presentation to the National Youth Affairs Conference. May: Melbourne. BSL (2005). The Brotherhood's Social Barometer: Monitoring Children's Chances. Available at: http://www.bsl.org.au/pdfs/BSL_social_barom_monitoring_childn_chances.pdf. BSL (2006). The Brotherhood's Social Barometer: Challenges Facing Australian Youth. Available at: http://www.bsl.org.au/pdfs/BSL_Social_Barometer_youth_challenges.pdf. Cavet, J., & Sloper, P. (2004). The participation of children and young people in decisions about UK service development. Child, 30(6), 613−621. Chawla, L. (2001). Evaluating children's participation: seeking areas of consensus. Participatory Learning and Action [PLA Notes], 42, 1−5. Checkoway, B., & Richards-Schuster, K. (2003). Youth participation in community evaluation research. American Journal of Evaluation, 24(1), 21−33. Eckersley, R. M., Wierenga, A., & Wyn, J. (2005). Life in a time of uncertainty. Medical Journal of Australia, 183(8), 402−404. Edwards, K. (2008). Youth participation and social inclusion: a new policy agenda? Social Policy Issue Brief No 1: University of Sydney. Ewen, J. (1994). Youth participation: concepts and structures. Youth Studies Australia, 13(3), 13−20. Fieldhouse, E., Tranmer, M., & Russsell, A. (2007). Something about young people or something about elections? European Journal of Political Research, 46(6), 797−822. Francis, M., & Lorenzo, R. (2002). Seven realms of children's participation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22(1–2), 157−169. Frank, K. J. (2006). The potential of youth participation in planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 20(4), 351−371. Freiler, C. (2003). From Experiences of Exclusion to a Vision of Inclusion. Available at: http: //www.ccsd.ca/subsites/inclusion/bp/cf2.htm. Gale, F., & Fahey, S. (2005). Youth in transition: the challenges of generational change in Asia. Bangkok: UNESCO and Association of Asian Social Science Research Councils. Hart, R. A. (1992). Children's participation: from tokenism to citizenship. Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Centre. Hart, R. A. (1997). Children's participation. New York: UNICEF. Hart, R. A. (2008). Stepping back from the ladder: reflections on a model of participatory work with children. pp. 19–31 in A. Reid et al, Participation and Learning. New York: Springer. Head, B. W. (2007). Community engagement: participation on whose terms? Australian Journal of Political Science, 42(3), 441−454. Head, B. W., & Stanley, F. J. (2007). Evidence-based advocacy. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 19(3), 255−262. Hill, M., Davis, J., Prout, A., & Tisdall, K. (2004). Moving the participation agenda forward. Children and Society, 18(2), 77−96. Hughes, A. (2006) ‘Transitions: Young Adults with Complex Needs’, presentation to ANZ Adolescent Health conference, Sydney, 13 November. Available at http:// www.caah.chw.edu.au/conference/ International Association for Public Participation (2005) ‘Public Participation Spectrum’. http://iap2.org Knowles-Yanez, K. L. (2005). Children's participation in planning processes. Journal of Planning Literature, 20(1), 3−14. Laidlaw Foundation (2003), Social Inclusion Working Paper Series. Available at: http:// www.laidlawfdn.org/ Lansdown, G. (2001). Promoting children's participation in democratic decision-making. Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre. McLaren, K. (2003). Reconnecting young people: a review of the risks. Remedies and Consequences of Youth Inactivity, Wellington: New Zealand Ministry for Social Development. Mellor, S., Kennedy, K., & Greenwood, L. (2002). Citizenship and democracy: Australian students' knowledge and beliefs. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research. Minister for Youth (2008). The Australian Youth Forum….a discussion paper, 17 March. Available at: http://www.thesource.gov.au/involve/ayf_discussion.pdf. Mission Australia (2006). National Youth Survey 2006.Sydney: Mission Australia Available at: http://www.missionaustralia.com.au. NCYLC (2007). National Children's and Youth Law Centre: Submission to Productivity Commission Inquiry into Consumer Policy Framework, 11 May. Available at: http:// www.pc.gov.au/data/assets/file/0004/63679/sub040.rtf. Ngai, N. -P., Cheung, C. -K., & Li, C. -K. (2001). China's youth policy formulation and youth participation. Children and Youth Services Review, 23(8), 651−669. NSW Parliament Committee on Children Young People (2006). Inquiry into children, young people and the built environment. Report 8/53 2006. Sydney: New South Wales Parliament. OECD (2008) OECD Factbook 2008. Section on ‘youth inactivity’. Available at http:// www.oecd.org/publications Patton, G. C., Bowes, G., Sawyer, S. M., Homel, R., & Stanley, F. J. (2005). Towards a National Youth Agenda? Medical Journal of Australia, 183(8), 394−395. Productivity Commission (2007). Overcoming indigenous disadvantage: key indicators 2007. Canberra: Productivity Commission (for the Steering Committee on Government Service Provision). Ryan, S. (2008). ‘Youth lists their demands to PM’, The Australian, 14 April. . Sabo, K. (2001). The benefits of participatory evaluation for children and youth. Participatory Learning and Action [PLA Notes], 42, 1−4. Sabo, K. (Ed.). (2003). Youth participatory evaluation: a field in the making, new directions for Evaluation No 98. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schorr, L. B. (1997). Common purpose: strengthening families and neighborhoods to rebuild America. New York: Anchor Books.
B.W. Head / Children and Youth Services Review 33 (2011) 541–547 Schorr, L. B., & Marchand, V. (2007). Pathway to successful young adulthood.Harvard University: Pathways Mapping Initiative Available at http://pathwaystooutcomes.org/. Schier, H. (2001). Pathways to participation: openings, opportunities and obligations. Children and Society, 15(2), 107−117. Sinclair, R. (2004). Participation in practice: making it meaningful, effective and sustainable. Children and Society, 18(2), 106−118. Smith Family (2008) website at: http://www.thesmithfamily.com.au/index.cfm Victorian Government, Office for Youth (2007) Future Directions: An Action Agenda for Young Victorians. Available at http://www.youth.vic.gov.au
547
Vromen, A. (2003). “People Try to Put Us Down…”: participatory citizenship of “Generation X”. Australian Journal of Political Science, 38(1), 79−99. Vromen, A. (2004). ‘Three Political Myths about Young People’, Drawing Board: An Australian Review of Public Affairs, 24 March. Available at: http://www.australianreview.net. Vromen, A. (2008). Building virtual spaces: young people, participation and the internet. Australian Journal of Political Science, 43(1), 79−97. Youth Summit (2008) website at: http://www.australia2020.gov.au/youth Zeldin, S., Camino, L., & Calvert, M. (2003). Toward an understanding of youth in community governance. Social Policy Report, 17(3), 1−20.