New evidence for #YouthVoice impact

The result is a significant contribution to the relatively small evidence base that is publicly available on the impact and influence of youth engagement on policy making. Previous evaluations are often internal or are a report according to funders criteria. They frequently focus on process or personal development outcomes in contrast to what young people want to change.

I’ve been calling for more research to be commissioned and the subsequent evidence to be collected, debated and used to inform and influence good practice in the sector going forward. I have shared examples on the Young Voices Heard website and the new Centre for Youth Impact may also prove to be opportunity to coordinate an archive as well as to facilitate debate and learning from them.

This study also marks official recognition of the increasingly popular and influential Lundy model of participation (it already underpins the Irish government’s engagement strategy). The report itself includes the government’s response with its own engagement ‘theory of change’ framework which was developed with reference to the findings of the study. This will, I hope, embed a framework that will survive a change of officials, ministers and government.

The study was undertaken by ECORYS UK in partnership with Participation People, aimed to “understand participant experiences and perceived outcome for participants and policy makers”.  The Lundy model for child participation based on Article 12 of the UN Convention for the Rights of the Child, which challenges governments to support a child’s (or their representatives) “right to express their views on all matters affecting them, and to have their views considered and taken seriously”.

Lundy articulates and expands this into four inter-related elements: Space (to express a view), voice (facilitated to share it), audience (relevant to hear it) and influence (to have it acted upon). The study tested participants experiences against these criteria.

The report, which I would recommend you read in full, helpfully summarises “stakeholder suggestions to enhance programme processes to add further value to future delivery, support more inclusive approaches and maximise youth-informed policy making”. The DCMS response was that the “evidence from stakeholders and the document review suggest the programmes influenced local and national government policy and decision making” but acknowledged that “participants wanted more opportunities to meet with ministers (over policy officials) and suggested a need to improve feedback on the outcomes of their policy recommendations”.

The report made a number of recommendations which I can feedback here:

1. Firstly, both programmes could benefit from greater promotion, particularly amongst young people and in areas that are currently less represented.

2. Both programmes should continue and do more to reduce barriers to participation, including continuation of a hybrid delivery and covering the costs of transport to events.

3.The UK Youth Parliament could benefit from a more consistent approach across the localised delivery model, to ensure that all participants have equal access to all opportunities available through the programme. Local youth voice infrastructures are critical to the success of the youth engagement programmes, and therefore need to be supported and maintained.

4.The UK Youth Parliament programme could better support alternative voices to be heard, like right-leaning MYPs or those from devolved nations.

5.Topic areas which the YPDG were consulted on had variable levels of interest from participants. To support meaningful representation of youth voice, participants recommended that, where possible, roundtables should match the interests of both policy makers and young people.

6.There could be greater awareness and use of the programmes from local and national policy officials. Participants across the programmes also felt that both programmes could benefit from “more regular activities that engage policy decision makers, such as ministers.”

The two programmes were recommissioned earlier this year before these recommendations were published, so it remains to be seen how they will be implemented and lessons learnt, such as how to construct feedback loops.

We need more studies like this to assess the impact of the recent wave of youth voice and influence programmes, not just to a set of minimum standards but to continue to build a strong evidence base that will attract more investment. The study has demonstrated that Lundy model is an adaptable tool for assessment, a more detailed successor to Harts Ladder of Participation, though Young Voices Heard has researched over 30 other models. The Centre for Youth Voice has also published a Youth Voice typology guide and Mapping study of a sample of Youth Voice initiatives. What is critical is that equal weight it given to the young people’s agenda, as to the decision-makers/commissioners/funders agenda, and whether they have agency or not. YVH has also provided a platform for young people’s models and good practice standards through the Youth Voice Charter 2020.

This study is a good example as it reports on the different perspectives of participants. It not only confirms the benefits of meaningful engagement but highlights the need to implement all of the elements of good practice in getting young voices heard and acted upon, such as access to relevant audiences with power and specific feedback on the difference their voices made.

James Cathcart is director of Young Voices Heard