2. Models of Engagement

Summary:

  • Participants reflected that it is important to pay attention to process as well as outcome, ensuring that youth engagement is valued as an experience, not just a means to an end.
  • Participants stressed the value of providing a continuum of opportunities, allowing diverse levels of involvement and various opportunities (or “points of entry”) for becoming involved.
  • The importance of participating in authentic exchange was emphasized by both youth and adults; effective youth engagement is seen to be a two-way street with youth, adults, and organizations sharing and growing together.

As part of the introduction to roundtable discussions, the concept of youth engagement was discussed and examples of the current conception of youth participation as seen by Canadian Heritage were provided by the facilitator. Participants articulated a number of theories (such as Hart’s Ladder of Participation[3], and Driskell’s Continuum of Participation[4]) and models (such as the Centre of Excellence’s Framework of Youth Engagement) that are reflected in the common themes of creating opportunity for authentic exchange, developing a continuum of engagement opportunities, and paying close attention to process.

Figure 1: Common themes in models of youth engagement

Youth engagement: continuum of opportunity; authentic exchange; attention to process

Additionally, examples of national strategies to foster youth engagement were mentioned, as well as international examples. Finally, reasons for engaging youth were articulated by organizations, and youth articulated their reasons for becoming involved.

2.1 Theme 1: Authentic Exchange

“One thing I like about some activities I’m in, you get to speak your ideas and adults listen and you get to organize and run them.” - EWC Participant

One of the most commonly used words in roundtable discussions about effective youth engagement was the word “relationship.” Participants reflected on not only the value of relationships for individuals (e.g., improving social support networks, helping youth feel valued in the community), but also on the positive impact a truly two-way relationship can have for programs (e.g., authentic youth participation in decision making and contributing to program development). Two types of youth engagement models suggested the theme of relationship building that led to an authentic exchange:

Mentorship

The practice of mentorship–connecting adult mentors with youth (either naturally through connections that youth develop over time with employees and adults involved in an organization, or more intentionally through programs that pair adults and youth together as part of the process)–was recommended by many participants. It was noted that mentorship can have positive impacts on young people from a personal-development as well as a professional-development perspective, with established professionals mentoring emerging professionals in their field.

Scaffolding

Engaging older youth to support and mentor younger youth in their communities, as well as providing support for older youth to deliver programs or workshops to younger youth are both common models of engaging youth.

2.2 Theme 2: Continuum of Engagement Opportunities

Repeated in all models of youth engagement that were mentioned during this process was the idea that youth engagement occurs on a spectrum or continuum, and that it is important to maintain a variety of entry points for young people, and a variety of layers at which they can engage in an activity. The following three spectrums were emphasized:

  1. Full Circle Involvement–a best practice is to engage youth at the beginning, the middle, and the end of a project–all the way through a project from involvement in the conception, to development, then delivery and evaluation.

  2. Ladder of Participation–youth engagement can happen to varying degrees, and it is important to recognize what kind of youth engagement is being undertaken. Several examples of theoretical continuums were presented (see Hart and Driskell for two examples)

  3. Incremental Involvement–programs should make space for different levels of engagement, and allow young people to increase their level of involvement at their own pace. Having layers to programming and different avenues of entry into a program facilitates this type of incremental engagement.

“I also think that to get youth involved you must stress that programs available are not for the ‘straight A’ student only or the ‘student council prez’” - EWC Participant

2.3 Theme 3: Attention to Process

It is important to realize that when working with youth, participants in these discussions felt that the process was as important (sometimes more important) than the outcome of a youth engagement activity; it is in the process that young people learn and grow and become able to contribute. Several important features of good process were listed by participants:

“Activities made me feel welcome, belonging and a part of something.” - EWC Participant

Engaging the Whole Person

Three elements of “head, heart, and feet”, are defined by the Centre of Excellence in Youth Engagement in their youth engagement theory as thinking, feeling, and doing. These elements were echoed in the observations of many participants. This approach is useful in framing the different types of motivation for youth involvement in engagement activities. Young people who shared their reasons for getting involved listed things like having opportunities for learning and experiencing new things, feeling like they belong to a community, and doing things that will influence change in the world. They wanted to use their “heads, hearts, and feet.”

Recognizing Diversity

Participating organizations recognized that there is diversity among youth and within communities; therefore, no one model of programming is the same across communities, programs, or even individual youth participating in the same community and program from year to year.

2.4 Examples of National and International Strategies

The activities of Canada’s current Governor General were cited during several different roundtable discussions as great examples of how youth engagement can be done really well on a federal level. Many of her programs were mentioned repeatedly as a “best practice.”

Opportunities for Youth (OFY), a Canadian funding model from the 1970s, was cited as the catalyst that launched the careers of many participants in the arts, heritage, and culture streams in one roundtable discussion. Although only mentioned once, all participants in that session were very passionate about the quality and impact of that program.

Also mentioned only in one group, but with emphasis, was the fact that some roundtable participants found the Canada Youth Arts Network (CYAN) to be an exciting idea when it was started, but some organizations felt that it has fallen short of reaching its potential for a variety of reasons (primarily the large scope of its work and resource restrictions). These participants did see value in engaging and connecting on a national level around youth in the arts. Although CYAN did not come up in any other roundtables, the idea of national exchange and connection was a universally expressed theme.

Internationally, Ecuador, Norway, France, the UK, and the EU were all mentioned as good examples of funding and engagement models. Unfortunately, the scope of these roundtable discussions did not allow for participants to fully explain them. These countries may be a good starting point for further research on international models of youth engagement.

Notes

  • [3]Hart, R. (1997). Children's Participation: The Theory and Practice of Involving Young Citizens in Community Development and Environmental Care. London: Earthscan.

  • [4]Driskell, D. (2002). Creating Better Cities with Children and Youth: A manual for participation. London: Earthscan.

    • [ Previous Page | Table of Contents | Next Page ]