Sign in or 
| Version | User | Scope of changes |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 16 2009, 4:42 PM EST (current) | YouthLaw | 12 words deleted |
| Dec 8 2008, 9:57 PM EST | YouthLaw |
Changes
Key: Additions Deletions
Promoting Participation by children and young peopleWhy should we involve children in decision-making?
Historical development of the principle of participation
Different levels of participation
New Zealand laws which give explicit recognition to child’s views
The child’s right to have a say
Rhetoric and reality
How can organizations involve children in decision-making?
Rewards of child participation
Why should we involve children in decision-making?
There are three basic reasons why children should be given the opportunity to participate in decisions which affect them:
*Children have rights: Children have to live with the consequences of decisions that affect them and it is only fair and reasonable that they should have some input and influence on the decision that is made.
*Children have something special to contribute: Children have a different perspective and different life experiences from adults and their views will help decision-makers reach a decision which will best meet children’s needs.
*A better decision will be reached if children contribute: If children are denied the opportunity to make direct input into decisions which affect them they are less likely to ‘own’ the decision and they may use direct or indirect means to obstruct or circumvent it. Some children speak with their feet by running away; others quietly subvert decisions they do not agree with.
There are other arguments for involving children. Children are people and citizens of our democratic country and they should not be shut out from making a contribution. Childhood is a time for learning and developing skills in preparation for adulthood and children who have experience of being involved in decision-making will be better prepared for adulthood. They will also feel they have a stake in society and will be more willing to take on responsibilities if they feel that their views are taken seriously by adults.
Historical development of the principle of participation
British common law: children as incompetents
In traditional legal analysis children are ‘infants’ or ‘minors’ (from the Latin word meaning ‘less than’). They are often described as suffering from a ‘disability’ because of their young age. Under British common law (upon which New Zealand law was based) children were deemed to be under the control and authority of their father (later their parents) until they reached adulthood. They had no right to take their place in public life (which is the reason that the are still denied the right to vote). Children were treated as possessions of their parents who were expected to make all decisions about their children’s lives.
Gillick decision (1985)
An important milestone in rescuing children from a state of legal powerlessness came in 1985 when the English house of Lords concluded that lawyers and the public had been labouring under a misconception about the common law. The judges decided that the parental authority and control of parents diminished as their child grew in understanding and maturity and that children could make decisions from themselves when they attained sufficient age and maturity to make a balance judgment about a matter that affected them.
The judges made it clear that just because an adult might have reached a different decision was not in itself grounds for concluding that the child lacked the capacity to make the decision for himself or herself. New Zealand courts have confirmed that the Gillick principle applies in New Zealand. IT only applies if there is no statutory rule to the contrary (For example statutory restrictions on obtaining a driving licence or entering a pub or casino). But where there is not age fixed by Parliament, the Gillick principle applies. Gillick is important because it says children can make their own decisions when they understand the consequences of the decision and can weigh the risks and benefits of the options available to them.
Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNROC) was another important landmark. Unlike the UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child and other United Nations Human Rights Covenants it states that:
12.1 (Governments) shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those 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:
IT should be noted that all children who are capable of forming a view have the right to express that view. Two and three year olds are quite capable of forming a view on many issues that affect them. The fact that they are very young is not a reason for not obtaining their views. Their age and maturity are only relevant to the weight to be given to their views.
New Zealand ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1992 and the government has a responsibility to ensure that all New Zealanders have the opportunity to express their views on matters which affect them.
Different levels of participation
Harry Shier has charted five levels of child and youth participation in decision-making (see box):
‘Children must be given their say, but they do not always have to have their way’
Shier makes the important point that only levels 4 and 5 meet the requirement of the UNCROC: Pathways to Participation: H Shier: Children and Society Vol 15 107 (2001).
Opposition to child participation is often expressed in arguments that ‘we are sacrificing children to their rights’ or that ‘parental authority is being undermined’. As Penelope Leach puts it ‘Children must be given their say, but they do not have to always have their way’.
New Zealand laws which give explicit recognition to the child’s views
Children, Young Persons and their Families Act 1989
Section 5(d) establishes as a fundamental principle of child protection decision-making that consideration must be given to the wishes of a child insofar as those wishes can be ascertained but that the weight to be given to the child’s wishes shall take into account the child’s age and maturity. Section 5(e)(ii) goes further and states that social workers and the Courts should, in exercising any powers given to them, endeavour to obtain the support of the child. This could mean no more than that they should try to persuade the child to agree with their decision. Its correct meaning is that they should be willing to reconsider and precise their decision in the light of the child’s views. IN practice, children in the child protection system are seldom offered options in relation to out-of-home-care placements and are not always given the opportunity to meet and form a judgment about a proposed new career. Participation in decision-making has little meaning when there is only one option or when the child has had no opportunity to make an informed choice about the issue.
Adoption Act 1955
Section 11(b) requires the Family Court, in making a decision whether an adoption order will promote the welfare and interests of a child, to give due consideration to the wished of the child having regard to the child’s age and understanding. The child’s wishes are part of the Court’s inquiry into the welfare and interests of the child. Under the current legislation the means by which a child’s wishes can be ascertained are unsatisfactory and children may be presented with a fait accompli.
Guardianship Act 1968
The Family Court, by reason of s23(2), must, in guardianship, custody and access proceedings ‘ascertain the wishes of the child, if the child is able to express them…and take account of them to such extent as the Court thinks fit, having regard to the age and maturity of the child’.
While judges pay greater attention to the wishes of children than they used to, the whole structure of family proceedings treat the matters in issue as ‘adult business’ and children’s views are usually filtered through adult intermediaries who do not always present the child’s views accurately or persuasively.
These are the only NEW Zealand Statutes that guarantee children the right to have input into decisions but the Courts have adopted the principle set out in Article 12 of the UNCROC in other areas of the law.
Education Act 1989
When the Education Act was passed every Board of Trustees of a state school at post-primary level was required to have one student representative. The National government removed this requirement. The present government has restored it. There is still only required to be one student representative on a Board of Trustees whereas teachers an parents have several representatives.
The child’s right to have a say
Children now have a right under international law to put their views forward on any matter which may affect them. But the right granted to children under Artcile 12 of UNCROC should be applied by the courts when the have a discretion or when legislation is ambiguous.
Even though the right to participate is not a legal requirement all government and non-government organizations should ensure that children be given opportunities to participate in decision-making and should take practical steps towards achieving this goal.
The New Zealand Commissioner for Children (in its twelfth year) is establishing a Children’s Advisory Group which will advise the Commission on its policies and priorities. Other government and non-government agencies should follow its example.
Rhetoric and reality
Central Government
The New Zealand government ratified UNCROC in 1993 but successive governments have made little effort to implement Article 12. In this respect New Zealand is lagging behind the United Kingdom and New South Wales (see boxes). There are signs that the present government is about to move on the issue. Certainly political rhetoric suggest a commitment to children’s participation. Children have been consulted as part of the preparation of NEW Zealand’s second report under UNCROC due this year and a Prime Minister’s Youth Advisory Forum was established in 1998. A Youth Parliament has been held every three years since 1994. There appears to have been no evaluation of these bodies and the extent which they actually influence policies affecting children.
Local Government
The most innovative work has been done by a handful of local authorities. Christchurch City Council carried out a survey into the views of children and developed a youth policy. Waitakere City Council has also been a lead in this area.
While the initiatives of a few councils are to be welcomed there is no certainty that they will continue after the initial enthusiasm. Like so many venture involving children they tend to wax and wane according to the leadership and commitment of a few dedicated individuals. The history of Youth Councils is an example of this phenomenon. Auckland City Council was in the 1970s and 1980s pre-eminent in providing opportunities for children and young people to have a say in local decision-making. Later councils close the Youth Resource Center, dismissed the staff and sold off the central city building.
Tokenism and decoration
The real test of any initiative to involve children in decision-making is the extent to which policies and priorities are influenced by input from the children involved. Some initiatives meet the first requirement of Article 12 in providing opportunities for children to express their views but fail the second requirement that their views be given due consideration. To ask children for their vies then to ignore them is hypocritical and disrespectful to children.
Harry Shier has developed a useful diagrammatic outline of different levels of child participation and shown that few meet the requirements of Article 12 (see Box).
How can organizations involve children in decision-making?
Adult Attitudes
Adult attitudes are the main barrier to involving children in decision-making. If adults believe that children have nothing to contribute or that they should be ‘seen but not heard’ they will not see any need to bring them into the decision making processes. As Priscilla Alderson has put it: ‘a powerful distorting pressure when assessing children’s abilities is the tradition of the child negatively defined as not adult: not wise, informed or experienced, and so assumed to be foolish, ignorant or perverse….Narrow meanings of knowledge and maturity are used to justify withholding information from children and then to label them as ignorant and exclude them from sharing in decisions’. Adult attitudes are beginning to change and children are becoming more confident and more articulate.
Organisational obstacles
Most organizations have not considered involving children in decision-making. If they are pressed on the matter they may argue that they lack the funds or human resources to involve children or that they lack the expertise or skills to fins out children’s views.
“A powerful and distorting pressure when assessing children’s abilities is the tradition of the child negatively defined as not adult: not wise, informed or experienced, and so assumed to be foolish, ignorant or perverse.”
Organisations might say that children would find their meetings boring, that they might disrupt the business in hand or that they would not understand the matters being discussed. IT might not occur to them to make changes in their procedures or to look at different ways that children’s views can be elicited.
It is surprising that children are rarely consulted about services or facilities that are intended for their special use. They seldom get a ay in planning of school and community play-grounds, in the content and teaching methods of schools or pre-school centers. IT is most unusual for youngsters to be given a say in official policies. When adults plan museums or art galleries they selfdom seek a children’s perspective even though these public facilities are used by children. The group Play Train in the United Kingdom provides a consultancy service where organizations can find out the views of children on proposed new facilities of services. It has been very successful.
Participation must be part of an organisation’s culture or belief system.
If child participation is to work in practice it is important to make participation part of the belief system and culture of the organization. In the case of government agencies it should be written into legislation, regulations or practice manuals. Non-government organizations can include a commitment to participation in their constitution, strategic plan, or aims and objects.
But participation must be more than a mission statement or theoretical principle. Managers and key staff members must believe in it and employ staff who are enthusiastic about working with children. Staff who are busy or struggling to keep within a tight budget may find it hard to devote sufficient time and resources to children’s participation. Their managers must support them and remind them that participation is a priority.
Children on Interview Panels
When appointing staff to work with children and young people, it is a good idea to involve children and young people in the selection process. How the interviewee responds to the child or young person in the interview is often a good measure of how well that person would work with children and young people if selected for the position. If a staff member is to work directly with a youth council or youth group it makes sense that young people from the group should be part of the selection process. Children and young people can also be involved in staff performance evaluation and appraisal processes.
Involving children in significant decisions
Children and young people will soon lose interest if they perceive that their participation is tokenistic or their views are sought only on trivial issues. Schools, for example, should not restrict student participation to social activities and fundraising. Children can be asked for their views on small issues such as an organization’s logo or the design of a publication where they will have the satisfaction of seeing the results of their ideas and suggestions.
Recognition of children’s participation
Many initiatives fail because children are expected to give freely of their time and expertise without recognition or reward. This is another example of ‘youthism’ - discrimination against children and young people because of their young age. There is an assumption that children have endless spare time and that they should feel gratified to be asked for their views. There is also an assumption that their views are hardly likely to be of value or importance and that the organization is doing them a favour by inviting them to participate.
Participatory initiatives often crash because the young participants are expected to fit into adult time schedule. A local newspaper complained that very few young people had attend the launch of a youth café that young people in the are had asked for. The program involved speeches by local notables and was all ‘adult business’. Young people are often expected to sit though official meetings which they find boring so that they can have ten minutes to present their views. At a conference to consider children’s rights young people performed during a refreshment break. They were not thanked publicly and the conference delegates talked throughout their performance.
If children are to participate they need to be involved in the planning of activities and need to feel some ownership of a project. Their participation must be challenging, rewarding and fun. Food and rink should be provided - not tea and dry biscuits but food likely to appeal to children of that age group. Why not ask them to choose the food of give them a budge stand let them select and order the refreshments? Meeting and sharing ideas with others of their age-group are one of the attractions of child and youth participation. Social activities provide an opportunity for them to get to know each other and build their confidence.
Children need to feel that their expertise is valued. Consideration should be given to paying them for their time and effort. At least, there should be some formal recognition by way of letter of thanks, certificate of appreciation, coverage in local media or a group outing or entertainment. Schools give out prizes for academic and sporting achievement but often fail to acknowledge the contribution of student who have participated in school committees or on Boards of Trustees.
Preparation and training
Involving children in adult business is seen by many adults as ‘messy’. If you invite the pigs to dinner, you can’t complain if they put their trotters on the table. This is a carry over of the view that children are uncivilized creatures who should be kept at a distance from polite society.
Often children and young people feel diminished as a result of their participation in adult activities . At one international conference children were asked to enter the stage at the opening ceremony carrying the flags of the various nations represented. They were harried and bustled so that the program would run on time. Their tokenistic involvement must have resulted in their feeling belittled.
If children are to have meaningful input they must be prepared. They should be given information about the issues and how they can have input. They should have opportunities to discuss the issues as a group before putting forward a ‘youth’ view. They should be assisted to present their views in the most persuasive manner. If there is a possibility that their views might be attacked or discredited they should be prepared to deal with antagonistic responses.
Children need to know what influence their views have on decisions. Too often children are asked for their input but they never hear what the decision is or the extent to which the decision finally made reflects their views. There should be regular feedback so that the participants can have the satisfaction of knowing that they did make a difference.
Rewards of child participation
Those organizations which involve children in decision-making report a number of benefits. Children are open, direct and fun to work with. If the right atmosphere is created, they are very ready to give their views. Hearing from children is likely to give decision-makers a different perspective on the decisions they have to make.
Acknowledgements:
Some of the ideas in this Information Sheet are drawn from the NSW Commission for the Children and Young People’s publication Taking participation Seriously launched in July 2001 and shortly to be made available on the Commission’s website http://www.kids.nsw.gov.au
Acknowledgement is also made of the work of Harry Shier and his article Pathways to Participation published in Children and Society Vol 15 (2001) p107.
United Kingdom - Play Train
A group called Play Train was established to provide a consultancy offering advice to organizations seeking the views of children on specific projects. Play Train involves children in the 11-14 age group and has successfully advised museums, art galleries, local authorities and non-government organizations.
For further information visit: team@playtrn.demon.co.uk
Carnegie Young People Initiative
This is a project of Save the Children UK. The CYPI has looked at schemes and initiatives throughout the United Kingdom which involve children in decision-making. THE first two reports covering the situation in Northern Ireland and in Wales have been published and reports for England and Scotland will be released shortly. Each report contains a series of recommendations. Children and young people have being involved in the planning of the project.
For further information visit: carnegieypinitiative@repic.co.uk
Article 12
A children’s rights organization committed to encouraging greater involvement of children in decision-making , Article 12 was launched in 1996. Anyone under 18 can join. It has more than 450 members from all over the UK. It is run by a steering committee of 24 young people who meet every 6 weeks in London and Leicester. There are two adult support workers based in London and Nottingham.
For further information visit: www.article12.org.uk
London Children’s Rights Commissioner
Established last year the Commissioner, Moira Rayner, has an advisory Board of children and young people.
For more information visit: www.londonchildrenscommissioner.org.uk
New South Wales - Legislation
Recent legislation highlights the importance of children having a say in decision making. The Children and Young Person (Child Protection) Act 1988 and the Adoption Act 2000 establish a fundamental ‘principle of participation’ which requires that children be able to participate in all decisions which have a significant impact on their lives. The principle also requires that children be given adequate information about any decision to be made and how their views will be taken into account, the opportunity to express their views freely and assistance to express those views and an opportunity to respond to any decision.
Premier’s Direction
The Premier of NSW has issued a direction to all government departments that in their policies and administrative procedures the views of children must be taken into account and children must be represented on committees and advisory boards. There is a Young Persons Advisory group which advises the Premier on policy issues.
NSW Commissioner for Children and Young People
The Commission has since its inception in 1999 had a Children and Young Persons Reference Group that advises the Commission on all policy issues. Members are drawn from a range of backgrounds, attend orientation and training sessions and are paid for their attendance at meetings at a rate equivalent to members of other government advisory boards. The Commission has a statutory obligation to promote participation by children in government and non-government organizations. IT has published a kit Taking Participation Seriously which advises organizations on involving children in decision-making and in conferences and events.
For further information visit: www.kids.nsw.gov.au
National Children’s and Youth Law Center (Australia)
The Center promotes participation of children in decision-making. It gives practical help and advice through its international prize-winning website www.lawstuff.org.au
http://www.childreninscotland.org.uk/html/hom_part.htm
http://www.unicef.org/sowc03/contents/
http://www.haznet.org.uk/hazs/hazmap/lsl_child-partic-summary-feb00.pdf
http://www.social.coe.int/en/cohesion/action/particip.htm
Historical development of the principle of participation
Different levels of participation
New Zealand laws which give explicit recognition to child’s views
The child’s right to have a say
Rhetoric and reality
How can organizations involve children in decision-making?
Rewards of child participation
Why should we involve children in decision-making?
There are three basic reasons why children should be given the opportunity to participate in decisions which affect them:
*Children have rights: Children have to live with the consequences of decisions that affect them and it is only fair and reasonable that they should have some input and influence on the decision that is made.
*Children have something special to contribute: Children have a different perspective and different life experiences from adults and their views will help decision-makers reach a decision which will best meet children’s needs.
*A better decision will be reached if children contribute: If children are denied the opportunity to make direct input into decisions which affect them they are less likely to ‘own’ the decision and they may use direct or indirect means to obstruct or circumvent it. Some children speak with their feet by running away; others quietly subvert decisions they do not agree with.
There are other arguments for involving children. Children are people and citizens of our democratic country and they should not be shut out from making a contribution. Childhood is a time for learning and developing skills in preparation for adulthood and children who have experience of being involved in decision-making will be better prepared for adulthood. They will also feel they have a stake in society and will be more willing to take on responsibilities if they feel that their views are taken seriously by adults.
Historical development of the principle of participation
British common law: children as incompetents
In traditional legal analysis children are ‘infants’ or ‘minors’ (from the Latin word meaning ‘less than’). They are often described as suffering from a ‘disability’ because of their young age. Under British common law (upon which New Zealand law was based) children were deemed to be under the control and authority of their father (later their parents) until they reached adulthood. They had no right to take their place in public life (which is the reason that the are still denied the right to vote). Children were treated as possessions of their parents who were expected to make all decisions about their children’s lives.
Gillick decision (1985)
An important milestone in rescuing children from a state of legal powerlessness came in 1985 when the English house of Lords concluded that lawyers and the public had been labouring under a misconception about the common law. The judges decided that the parental authority and control of parents diminished as their child grew in understanding and maturity and that children could make decisions from themselves when they attained sufficient age and maturity to make a balance judgment about a matter that affected them.
The judges made it clear that just because an adult might have reached a different decision was not in itself grounds for concluding that the child lacked the capacity to make the decision for himself or herself. New Zealand courts have confirmed that the Gillick principle applies in New Zealand. IT only applies if there is no statutory rule to the contrary (For example statutory restrictions on obtaining a driving licence or entering a pub or casino). But where there is not age fixed by Parliament, the Gillick principle applies. Gillick is important because it says children can make their own decisions when they understand the consequences of the decision and can weigh the risks and benefits of the options available to them.
Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNROC) was another important landmark. Unlike the UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child and other United Nations Human Rights Covenants it states that:
12.1 (Governments) shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those 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:
IT should be noted that all children who are capable of forming a view have the right to express that view. Two and three year olds are quite capable of forming a view on many issues that affect them. The fact that they are very young is not a reason for not obtaining their views. Their age and maturity are only relevant to the weight to be given to their views.
New Zealand ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1992 and the government has a responsibility to ensure that all New Zealanders have the opportunity to express their views on matters which affect them.
Different levels of participation
Harry Shier has charted five levels of child and youth participation in decision-making (see box):
- Level 1 Children are listened to
- Level 2 Children are supported in expressing their views
- Level 3 Children’s views are taken into account
- Level 4 Children are involved in the decision-making process
- Level 5 Children share the power and responsibility for decision-making.
‘Children must be given their say, but they do not always have to have their way’
Shier makes the important point that only levels 4 and 5 meet the requirement of the UNCROC: Pathways to Participation: H Shier: Children and Society Vol 15 107 (2001).
Opposition to child participation is often expressed in arguments that ‘we are sacrificing children to their rights’ or that ‘parental authority is being undermined’. As Penelope Leach puts it ‘Children must be given their say, but they do not have to always have their way’.
New Zealand laws which give explicit recognition to the child’s views
Children, Young Persons and their Families Act 1989
Section 5(d) establishes as a fundamental principle of child protection decision-making that consideration must be given to the wishes of a child insofar as those wishes can be ascertained but that the weight to be given to the child’s wishes shall take into account the child’s age and maturity. Section 5(e)(ii) goes further and states that social workers and the Courts should, in exercising any powers given to them, endeavour to obtain the support of the child. This could mean no more than that they should try to persuade the child to agree with their decision. Its correct meaning is that they should be willing to reconsider and precise their decision in the light of the child’s views. IN practice, children in the child protection system are seldom offered options in relation to out-of-home-care placements and are not always given the opportunity to meet and form a judgment about a proposed new career. Participation in decision-making has little meaning when there is only one option or when the child has had no opportunity to make an informed choice about the issue.
Adoption Act 1955
Section 11(b) requires the Family Court, in making a decision whether an adoption order will promote the welfare and interests of a child, to give due consideration to the wished of the child having regard to the child’s age and understanding. The child’s wishes are part of the Court’s inquiry into the welfare and interests of the child. Under the current legislation the means by which a child’s wishes can be ascertained are unsatisfactory and children may be presented with a fait accompli.
Guardianship Act 1968
The Family Court, by reason of s23(2), must, in guardianship, custody and access proceedings ‘ascertain the wishes of the child, if the child is able to express them…and take account of them to such extent as the Court thinks fit, having regard to the age and maturity of the child’.
While judges pay greater attention to the wishes of children than they used to, the whole structure of family proceedings treat the matters in issue as ‘adult business’ and children’s views are usually filtered through adult intermediaries who do not always present the child’s views accurately or persuasively.
These are the only NEW Zealand Statutes that guarantee children the right to have input into decisions but the Courts have adopted the principle set out in Article 12 of the UNCROC in other areas of the law.
Education Act 1989
When the Education Act was passed every Board of Trustees of a state school at post-primary level was required to have one student representative. The National government removed this requirement. The present government has restored it. There is still only required to be one student representative on a Board of Trustees whereas teachers an parents have several representatives.
The child’s right to have a say
Children now have a right under international law to put their views forward on any matter which may affect them. But the right granted to children under Artcile 12 of UNCROC should be applied by the courts when the have a discretion or when legislation is ambiguous.
Even though the right to participate is not a legal requirement all government and non-government organizations should ensure that children be given opportunities to participate in decision-making and should take practical steps towards achieving this goal.
The New Zealand Commissioner for Children (in its twelfth year) is establishing a Children’s Advisory Group which will advise the Commission on its policies and priorities. Other government and non-government agencies should follow its example.
Rhetoric and reality
Central Government
The New Zealand government ratified UNCROC in 1993 but successive governments have made little effort to implement Article 12. In this respect New Zealand is lagging behind the United Kingdom and New South Wales (see boxes). There are signs that the present government is about to move on the issue. Certainly political rhetoric suggest a commitment to children’s participation. Children have been consulted as part of the preparation of NEW Zealand’s second report under UNCROC due this year and a Prime Minister’s Youth Advisory Forum was established in 1998. A Youth Parliament has been held every three years since 1994. There appears to have been no evaluation of these bodies and the extent which they actually influence policies affecting children.
Local Government
The most innovative work has been done by a handful of local authorities. Christchurch City Council carried out a survey into the views of children and developed a youth policy. Waitakere City Council has also been a lead in this area.
While the initiatives of a few councils are to be welcomed there is no certainty that they will continue after the initial enthusiasm. Like so many venture involving children they tend to wax and wane according to the leadership and commitment of a few dedicated individuals. The history of Youth Councils is an example of this phenomenon. Auckland City Council was in the 1970s and 1980s pre-eminent in providing opportunities for children and young people to have a say in local decision-making. Later councils close the Youth Resource Center, dismissed the staff and sold off the central city building.
Tokenism and decoration
The real test of any initiative to involve children in decision-making is the extent to which policies and priorities are influenced by input from the children involved. Some initiatives meet the first requirement of Article 12 in providing opportunities for children to express their views but fail the second requirement that their views be given due consideration. To ask children for their vies then to ignore them is hypocritical and disrespectful to children.
Harry Shier has developed a useful diagrammatic outline of different levels of child participation and shown that few meet the requirements of Article 12 (see Box).
How can organizations involve children in decision-making?
Adult Attitudes
Adult attitudes are the main barrier to involving children in decision-making. If adults believe that children have nothing to contribute or that they should be ‘seen but not heard’ they will not see any need to bring them into the decision making processes. As Priscilla Alderson has put it: ‘a powerful distorting pressure when assessing children’s abilities is the tradition of the child negatively defined as not adult: not wise, informed or experienced, and so assumed to be foolish, ignorant or perverse….Narrow meanings of knowledge and maturity are used to justify withholding information from children and then to label them as ignorant and exclude them from sharing in decisions’. Adult attitudes are beginning to change and children are becoming more confident and more articulate.
Organisational obstacles
Most organizations have not considered involving children in decision-making. If they are pressed on the matter they may argue that they lack the funds or human resources to involve children or that they lack the expertise or skills to fins out children’s views.
“A powerful and distorting pressure when assessing children’s abilities is the tradition of the child negatively defined as not adult: not wise, informed or experienced, and so assumed to be foolish, ignorant or perverse.”
Organisations might say that children would find their meetings boring, that they might disrupt the business in hand or that they would not understand the matters being discussed. IT might not occur to them to make changes in their procedures or to look at different ways that children’s views can be elicited.
It is surprising that children are rarely consulted about services or facilities that are intended for their special use. They seldom get a ay in planning of school and community play-grounds, in the content and teaching methods of schools or pre-school centers. IT is most unusual for youngsters to be given a say in official policies. When adults plan museums or art galleries they selfdom seek a children’s perspective even though these public facilities are used by children. The group Play Train in the United Kingdom provides a consultancy service where organizations can find out the views of children on proposed new facilities of services. It has been very successful.
Participation must be part of an organisation’s culture or belief system.
If child participation is to work in practice it is important to make participation part of the belief system and culture of the organization. In the case of government agencies it should be written into legislation, regulations or practice manuals. Non-government organizations can include a commitment to participation in their constitution, strategic plan, or aims and objects.
But participation must be more than a mission statement or theoretical principle. Managers and key staff members must believe in it and employ staff who are enthusiastic about working with children. Staff who are busy or struggling to keep within a tight budget may find it hard to devote sufficient time and resources to children’s participation. Their managers must support them and remind them that participation is a priority.
Children on Interview Panels
When appointing staff to work with children and young people, it is a good idea to involve children and young people in the selection process. How the interviewee responds to the child or young person in the interview is often a good measure of how well that person would work with children and young people if selected for the position. If a staff member is to work directly with a youth council or youth group it makes sense that young people from the group should be part of the selection process. Children and young people can also be involved in staff performance evaluation and appraisal processes.
Involving children in significant decisions
Children and young people will soon lose interest if they perceive that their participation is tokenistic or their views are sought only on trivial issues. Schools, for example, should not restrict student participation to social activities and fundraising. Children can be asked for their views on small issues such as an organization’s logo or the design of a publication where they will have the satisfaction of seeing the results of their ideas and suggestions.
Recognition of children’s participation
Many initiatives fail because children are expected to give freely of their time and expertise without recognition or reward. This is another example of ‘youthism’ - discrimination against children and young people because of their young age. There is an assumption that children have endless spare time and that they should feel gratified to be asked for their views. There is also an assumption that their views are hardly likely to be of value or importance and that the organization is doing them a favour by inviting them to participate.
Participatory initiatives often crash because the young participants are expected to fit into adult time schedule. A local newspaper complained that very few young people had attend the launch of a youth café that young people in the are had asked for. The program involved speeches by local notables and was all ‘adult business’. Young people are often expected to sit though official meetings which they find boring so that they can have ten minutes to present their views. At a conference to consider children’s rights young people performed during a refreshment break. They were not thanked publicly and the conference delegates talked throughout their performance.
If children are to participate they need to be involved in the planning of activities and need to feel some ownership of a project. Their participation must be challenging, rewarding and fun. Food and rink should be provided - not tea and dry biscuits but food likely to appeal to children of that age group. Why not ask them to choose the food of give them a budge stand let them select and order the refreshments? Meeting and sharing ideas with others of their age-group are one of the attractions of child and youth participation. Social activities provide an opportunity for them to get to know each other and build their confidence.
Children need to feel that their expertise is valued. Consideration should be given to paying them for their time and effort. At least, there should be some formal recognition by way of letter of thanks, certificate of appreciation, coverage in local media or a group outing or entertainment. Schools give out prizes for academic and sporting achievement but often fail to acknowledge the contribution of student who have participated in school committees or on Boards of Trustees.
Preparation and training
Involving children in adult business is seen by many adults as ‘messy’. If you invite the pigs to dinner, you can’t complain if they put their trotters on the table. This is a carry over of the view that children are uncivilized creatures who should be kept at a distance from polite society.
Often children and young people feel diminished as a result of their participation in adult activities . At one international conference children were asked to enter the stage at the opening ceremony carrying the flags of the various nations represented. They were harried and bustled so that the program would run on time. Their tokenistic involvement must have resulted in their feeling belittled.
If children are to have meaningful input they must be prepared. They should be given information about the issues and how they can have input. They should have opportunities to discuss the issues as a group before putting forward a ‘youth’ view. They should be assisted to present their views in the most persuasive manner. If there is a possibility that their views might be attacked or discredited they should be prepared to deal with antagonistic responses.
Children need to know what influence their views have on decisions. Too often children are asked for their input but they never hear what the decision is or the extent to which the decision finally made reflects their views. There should be regular feedback so that the participants can have the satisfaction of knowing that they did make a difference.
Rewards of child participation
Those organizations which involve children in decision-making report a number of benefits. Children are open, direct and fun to work with. If the right atmosphere is created, they are very ready to give their views. Hearing from children is likely to give decision-makers a different perspective on the decisions they have to make.
Acknowledgements:
Some of the ideas in this Information Sheet are drawn from the NSW Commission for the Children and Young People’s publication Taking participation Seriously launched in July 2001 and shortly to be made available on the Commission’s website http://www.kids.nsw.gov.au
Acknowledgement is also made of the work of Harry Shier and his article Pathways to Participation published in Children and Society Vol 15 (2001) p107.
United Kingdom - Play Train
A group called Play Train was established to provide a consultancy offering advice to organizations seeking the views of children on specific projects. Play Train involves children in the 11-14 age group and has successfully advised museums, art galleries, local authorities and non-government organizations.
For further information visit: team@playtrn.demon.co.uk
Carnegie Young People Initiative
This is a project of Save the Children UK. The CYPI has looked at schemes and initiatives throughout the United Kingdom which involve children in decision-making. THE first two reports covering the situation in Northern Ireland and in Wales have been published and reports for England and Scotland will be released shortly. Each report contains a series of recommendations. Children and young people have being involved in the planning of the project.
For further information visit: carnegieypinitiative@repic.co.uk
Article 12
A children’s rights organization committed to encouraging greater involvement of children in decision-making , Article 12 was launched in 1996. Anyone under 18 can join. It has more than 450 members from all over the UK. It is run by a steering committee of 24 young people who meet every 6 weeks in London and Leicester. There are two adult support workers based in London and Nottingham.
For further information visit: www.article12.org.uk
London Children’s Rights Commissioner
Established last year the Commissioner, Moira Rayner, has an advisory Board of children and young people.
For more information visit: www.londonchildrenscommissioner.org.uk
New South Wales - Legislation
Recent legislation highlights the importance of children having a say in decision making. The Children and Young Person (Child Protection) Act 1988 and the Adoption Act 2000 establish a fundamental ‘principle of participation’ which requires that children be able to participate in all decisions which have a significant impact on their lives. The principle also requires that children be given adequate information about any decision to be made and how their views will be taken into account, the opportunity to express their views freely and assistance to express those views and an opportunity to respond to any decision.
Premier’s Direction
The Premier of NSW has issued a direction to all government departments that in their policies and administrative procedures the views of children must be taken into account and children must be represented on committees and advisory boards. There is a Young Persons Advisory group which advises the Premier on policy issues.
NSW Commissioner for Children and Young People
The Commission has since its inception in 1999 had a Children and Young Persons Reference Group that advises the Commission on all policy issues. Members are drawn from a range of backgrounds, attend orientation and training sessions and are paid for their attendance at meetings at a rate equivalent to members of other government advisory boards. The Commission has a statutory obligation to promote participation by children in government and non-government organizations. IT has published a kit Taking Participation Seriously which advises organizations on involving children in decision-making and in conferences and events.
For further information visit: www.kids.nsw.gov.au
National Children’s and Youth Law Center (Australia)
The Center promotes participation of children in decision-making. It gives practical help and advice through its international prize-winning website www.lawstuff.org.au
http://www.childreninscotland.org.uk/html/hom_part.htm
http://www.unicef.org/sowc03/contents/
http://www.haznet.org.uk/hazs/hazmap/lsl_child-partic-summary-feb00.pdf
http://www.social.coe.int/en/cohesion/action/particip.htm
