Considerations and Challenges

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page

The following section will explore considerations and potential challenges in the process of integrating young people’s voices in policy development. The government will need to develop established practices to make space for diverse young people using a Gender-based Analysis Plus lens and address barriers, as well as established practices for virtual spaces, consent, safeguarding, compensation, and mitigating risk.

Gender-based Analysis Plus (GBA Plus)

In Canada, the use of Gender Based Analysis Plus approach is recognized as a key component to support the development of effective policies, programs, and legislation. GBA Plus provides federal officials with the means to continually analyze and improve their work and attain better results, by being more responsive to the diverse needs and circumstances of the populations they serve. The Government of Canada continues to work on enhancing the implementation of GBA Plus across all federal departments.^{Footnote 4}

Diversity

Young people can be invited to participate based on various factors to ensure representation of perspectives related to geography, age, gender, sexuality, race, cultural perspectives, diversity of life experiences, economic status, and academic experiences among others. Furthermore, involvement of a diversity of young people is needed to ensure that the implications of policies are equitable for child and youth populations regardless of their demographics. The criteria for child and youth voice should be determined by the policy area: child and youth populations who would be most affected or who have the most stake are critical voices. For example, if the policy area is related to the needs of disabled people, a diverse range of disabled young people should be overrepresented (McCart & Khanna, 2012; Pearson & Collins, 2011). However, often those whose voices are typically underrepresented and most needed also face many barriers to involvement.

Multiple barriers to participation may affect marginalized young people:

• Compensation: As described earlier, not compensating young people for their contribution and time may be a barrier for young people in low-income situations, thereby exacerbating inequities (Flodgren et al., 2024).
• Language: Accommodating young people’s language needs and preferences can support full participation (Coordination des ONG pour les droits de l’enfant, 2020; Flodgren et al., 2024).
• Life schedules: Young people may be overwhelmed with responsibilities (e.g., young people in care: Jackson et al., 2020).
• Digital Access: Supporting young people to access internet and technology is critical for more meaningful and equitable engagement (Coordination des ONG pour les droits de l’enfant, 2020; Park, 2023; Smith et al., 2024).
• Other accessibility needs: Physical accessibility to the space needs to be described clearly (e.g., transportation, stairs, gender-neutral washrooms, windows, lighting, quiet rooms). Consider cultural accessibility (e.g., prayer room) and other provisions (e.g., food, childcare) for participation (Wisdom2Action, 2019).

The following are key considerations related to diversity (Jacobs & George, 2022; Leclerc & Wong, 2024; McCart & Khanna, 2011):

• Representation: Which young people are involved, and which constituencies were or were not considered? Are young people representative of the key stakeholders? Who is underrepresented?
• Tokenism: Take into account whether social positioning and differing perspectives were taken sufficiently into account or were tokenistic. Were individual young people expected to represent a broader group and if so, were they supported with the resources to consult a broader constituency? Were young people limited in ways that prevented challenging existing power structures or bringing about change?
• Power relations: Even in situations where young people and adults have trusting relationships, when engaging young people, institutional and societal power relations still have influence. What has been put into place to shift power asymmetries? What are the other power asymmetries that may be influential among young people? 
• Sustained and consistent engagement from input to decision-making and beyond: Is the environment enabling with adequate tools, support, and resources diverse young people need?

While recruitment of young people from representation bodies (e.g., advisory councils) can make it easier for researchers and others conducting consultation (e.g., Chow et al., 2024), it may pose a problem for diversity; inequities in recruitment into youth councils often overrepresent privileged young people. Similarly, barriers such as lower socio-economic status have reduced diversity in national policy initiatives (Flodgren et al., 2024). Targeted recruitment and intentional efforts to overrepresent marginalized children and youth who are furthest from opportunity can balance these inequities and ensure that they do not feel tokenized (Khanna et al., 2025). Working with organizations and individuals that have existing trusting relationships with young people and their families in marginalized communities is most effective.

Identity-based groups

Identity-based engagement can be important for policies on issues that have disproportionate impacts on specific communities. However, while affinity-based discussions can provide safety and shared understanding, making a single identity salient in relation to a collective identity or issue can come at the cost of internal group diversity. In some instances, it may ignore the actual heterogeneity in the group and erase minority identities. For example, gender-specific groups may be appropriate to ensure that young people feel safer to discuss sensitive issues and researchers have found this approach to be successful in promoting greater participation of underrepresented groups (Ingman et al., 2023; girls and young women: Lofton et al., 2021; Peterson-Sweeney, 2005). These groups may also marginalize individuals based on other axes of identity (e.g., race, class, sexuality). Furthermore, they also risk excluding non-binary and trans youth voices and may not surface knowledge that would arise in mixed gender groups (Lofton et al., 2021). Intersectional approaches pay attention to, and make space for, the specific needs, experiences and perspectives of young people that may differ from one another based on their social locations (Bárta et al., 2021; Khanna et al., 2025). For example, Macias and colleagues (2022) identified that cultural and trauma responsiveness, meeting one-on-one, and flexible time commitment for engagement were conducive for Black, Indigenous and other racialized young people’s needs (Macias et al., 2022).

In the Canadian context, research and consultation with Indigenous young people have historically reproduced colonial power dynamics. Effective practices to shift this dynamic include the following:

• Prioritizing relationship building: Build community partnerships (Crooks et al., 2010).
• Cultural protocols: In a review of community-based Indigenous research ethics protocols in Canada, three protocols were identified: 1) Balancing individual and collective rights, 2) upholding culturally-grounded ethical principles, and 3) ensuring community-driven, self-determined research (Hayward et al., 2021).
• Cultural considerations (Liebenberg et al., 2017) honor Indigenous young people’s realities, world views, and ways of being. These have been described as: a sense of belonging in the physical space configured to feel safe and comfortable for a more informal conversational experience; a safe emotional space where child and youth voices are heard and acknowledged (Quintal-Marineau et al., 2024); and a culturally relevant space with food and cultural practices (Crooks et al., 2010; Morris, 2016) and honoring Indigenous ways of knowing.
• Indigenous-led: Indigenous organizations are better equipped to create culturally safe spaces that respect local cultural protocols, ensure representation and engage diverse Indigenous young people; they understand their realities and the roles these realities play in the community, and are responsive so consultations are customized and relevant to the children and youth involved. Young people are in control of the process and decide on the direction of the consultation rather than imposing issues (Povey et al., 2023; Quintal-Marineau et al., 2024).
• Autonomy: Autonomy is defined as Indigenous young people expressing concerns and priorities on their own terms, and Indigenous organizations redefining participation and having control over the process to help to challenge the power asymmetries with the settler state (Blanchet-Cohen et al., 2021; Quintal-Marineau et al., 2024; Povey et al., 2023).
• Multiple ways to participate: For example, focus groups and surveys, multiple media platforms, online survey, virtual conversations to validate interpretations and ensure diversity was reflected, in-person discussion-based gatherings, and multiple modes of expression (e.g., oral, written, arts, activities) (Povey et al., 2023; Quintal-Marineau et al., 2024).
• Flexibility: Adjust the process to the local context and specific young people. For example, urban Indigenous children and youth may or may not have links to Indigenous communities, which may require adapting questions and facilitation (Liebenberg et al., 2017; Quintal-Marineau et al., 2024).
• Access to decision-makers: Provide pportunities for leaders and policy makers to listen to and speak with children and youth (Quintal-Marineau et al., 2024).
• Iterative engagement: Engage young people in identifying issues, formulation, and review in cycles (Povey et al., 2023).
• Strengths-based: Indigenous young people and communities are recognized for their complexity – their gifts and strengths - rather than seen through a damage-centred narrative (Crooks et al., 2010; Povey et al., 2023; Quintal-Marineau et al., 2024).

Age

Children and youth are capable of providing critical insights to policy makers. Too often, policy makers avoid engaging young people under 18, because of the increased logistics related to parental consent and safety considerations for children and youth (Mandoh et al., 2023; McCart & Khanna, 2012). Yet these young people, without the right to vote, have the least voice in policy. Young people 18 and over are developmentally very different from their younger counterparts, and in most cases, cannot effectively represent adolescents or children who have different experiences, needs and priorities (McCart & Khanna, 2012). Furthermore, there is limited academic literature about effective practices for involving children (under 12) in policy development.

In order to be accessible for children, arts and activity-based methods are effective (under 5 years: Caring and Learning Alliance, 2021; Ingman et al., 2023; Martin et al., 2018). More typical methods such as surveys and focus groups can also be accessible to children if they ensure accessible language (no negatives, jargon, or passive voice), lower reading levels, and multiple options (including activities without reading or writing) to participate (e.g., Williams, 2004; Willow et al., 2007).

If a wide range of ages are included in a policy development activity there are benefits of dividing by age range to cater to different life stages and experiences and to ensure that younger young people are not intimidated to participate. For example, dividing young people 10-14 from 15-19 due to developmental differences, maturity and life stages may be more effective (Flodgren et al., 2024). Alternately, there are specific purposes for having a wide age range of young people  together; at the Students Commission’s national youth conferences, older youth and young adults take on new roles to facilitate the voice of younger youth and share their skills to help amplify them (e.g., media production). Young people can relate to one another and build trust quickly in these circumstances. These decisions can be guided by the purpose of the activity.

In contexts where young people are involved in collaborative discussions with policy makers and other adult experts, ensure a 1:1 ratio with adults for balanced representation. The goal is to prevent an adult-dominated discussion with a few young people who are expected to represent the child or youth “perspective” (McCart & Khanna, 2012; Nesrallah et al., 2023). Where possible, aim for overrepresentation of young people to shift the power asymmetry. For example, the Shaking the Movers model recommends at least two thirds of the participants should be children and youth and that adults should participate in their own group discussions so that they do not overly influence young people (Pearson & Collins, 2011).

Virtual spaces

The following are considerations and challenges that shape virtual child and youth involvement. These challenges can be addressed or mitigated with input from young people and proactive planning.

Equity: Increasingly, young people’s involvement in policy development is occurring online. However, equity of access to internet and speed of internet (e.g., rural or remote communities) can limit or exclude young people (Smith et al., 2024). The lack of affordable and accessible internet and devices may be especially limiting for children and youth with disabilities, refugees, young people in families with lower income, and those living in rural, northern, and remote communities (Park, 2023).

Appropriate communication channels: Young people do not typically use e-mail and are more likely to prefer communicating by phone app such as GroupMe, WhatsApp, or text (Nzinga et al., 2024). Digital tools need to be low-barrier and match the participants. For example, in a study, Black, Indigenous and other racialized youth found a variety of virtual tools for promoting their voice (e.g., Zoom, email, Kahoot, virtual online gallery, Google Jamboard, and Dropbox) effective (Macias et al., 2022). Low-barrier technologies are those that have no financial cost for participants, do not require setting up an account, are relatively simple to use, and are familiar to the group. In a group with less comfort with technology, start with an interactive and fun activity that gets everyone familiar and on the same page with the functions needed for the interaction (Magee et al., 2024).

Relational practices online: Options to turn off video/audio and participate via chat in online consultations are important for autonomy and comfort but may have an impact on trust-building and bringing lesser-heard young people’s voices into the conversation (Smith et al., 2024). Quasi-digital participation (i.e., young people are in-person together, but online with a facilitator) can be beneficial to minimize the number of devices or internet access and encourage group discussion. However, this may make it difficult for the facilitator to get embedded in the group, or hear clearly (Magee et al., 2024; Smith et al., 2024).

Safety: Consider how you will keep young people’s information private and protected (secure and encrypted) and ensure that your privacy policy is transparent and accessible to young people (Information Commissioner’s Office, n.d.). Remind young people not to share personally identifying information in online opportunities (e.g., address, phone number, schedule, school). Put in place measures and policies to prevent cyberviolence and revisit shared guidelines and expectations of one another.

Consent to participate

Children and youth have evolving capacity to decide whether to participate in an engagement activity. It’s important to consider the need for parental/caregiver consent when engaging young people under the age of majority. At the same time, parental/caregiver consent requirements may impact participation.

Research activities in Canada are governed by the Tri-Council Policy Statementon Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, which outlines ethical considerations and guidance on the consent process in research involving children and youth (Canadian Institutes for Health Research et al., 2022). This can be a useful guide for consultation and engagement activities with young people. Where risk of harm is judged to be minimal (i.e., by a research ethics board), scholars argue that youth as young as 12 should be granted capacity to consent to participate in research (Samdal et al., 2023). For example, in Sharing the Stories, a current research study about young people’s experiences and outcomes in child and youth programs in Canada, young people 12 and over can consent to participate (Ramey et al., 2020).

Participating in events or sessions may require parental consent. For example, consulting younger children (under 12) may be more easily done in their own communities, through programs trusted by parents/caregivers, where issues of caregiver/parental consent and involvement can be resolved (McCart & Khanna, 2012). For events and activities in-person, particularly those that require travel or overnight stays, parental consent is recommended for young people under the age of majority.

Ethical guidelines for participation and informed consent in research suggest that young people should be informed about the purpose of their participation, what will happen, how their input will be used, and how decisions will be made (Canadian Institutes for Health Research et al., 2022; Coordination des ONG pour les droits de l’enfant, 2020; McCart & Khanna, 2011). Researchers suggest using multiple ways to communicate this information (written, verbal, video) and making sure that all questions are answered before young people sign the consent form. In addition, confirming that they know that their participation is voluntary and that they can opt out or withdraw at any point (and how) is recommended. During this process, it is recommended to ask about what additional supports young people need to participate fully. Consent to participate may be more challenging online due to more limited communication and the lack of visual cues that might be helpful to understand consent (e.g., nodding, confusion: Smith et al., 2024).

Safeguarding

Safer spaces require safeguarding structures. Children in Scotland, a non-governmental organization, recommends the following safeguarding structures (Children in Scotland, 2019):

• Ensure that staff or other adults involved have had appropriate checks completed (e.g., vulnerable sector checks).
• Ensure that it is clear to staff and young people who to go to for safety concerns (i.e., designated person trained in child protection). Child and youth-serving partner organizations often bring this expertise and relevant policies. They can also provide support for young people beyond the end of the policy development activity.
• Engage young people in developing guidelines for participation that apply equally to young people and adults.

Compensation

Compensating young people for their contributions when possible has a strong rationale. First, compensation can reduce barriers to participation, particularly for young people whose basic needs are not being fully met; involvement comes at the cost of other things young people could be doing instead, including generating income. Second, adults involved in policy development are often compensated for their work so compensating young people helps to provide a more equitable footing. Third, compensation is a way to recognize the value of young people’s expertise and contribution (Coalition for Juvenile Justice, n.d.).

Typically, young people are provided compensation in the following ways based on their involvement: 1) Gifts or prizes (e.g., gift cards, raffle entry) as a thank you or incentive to participate, 2) honoraria (up to $500) as a thank you for voluntary time-limited contributions, or 3) fee-for-service for contributions that are sustained for youth 15 and older (above $500). To calculate hourly compensation for fee-for-service, a living wage is a good guide (these vary depending on where youth live). Some organizations choose to hire youth as consultants and provide higher hourly rates that are comparable to other hired consultants (Casey Family Programs, 2022). For activities that require caregivers (for individual young people) or volunteer chaperones (i.e., for 24-hour supervision of youth at an event), provide honoraria where possible.

For research activities, such as collecting data from young people (i.e., completing a survey or an interview), the amount should be a small incentive that is not so large as to be coercive as outlined in the Tri-Council Policy Statement. For example, a $25 cash or gift card, or entry into a raffle for a prize would be reasonable for a survey or a half hour interview. A recent Canadian study with youth and young adults (15-30 years) found that direct e-transfer was more effective at incentivizing young people to participate in surveys than draws and non-cash rewards (Cifuentes et al., 2025).

Explain tax implications so that young people are aware of what is coming and do not have to pay an unexpected bill at tax time (Coalition for Juvenile Justice, n.d.). If young people are on disability assistance, ensure that their compensation does not exceed the annual earnings exemption in order to avoid deductions from their assistance payments. If compensation may exceed this amount, offer other options, such as gifts or other opportunities that confer equal value for that young person.

Connect with young people about how they want to receive compensation and offer alternatives to accommodate individual young people. Gift and cash cards are convenient to send virtually but may limit young people’s autonomy and are not always child or youth-friendly; they are limited in their choices of where they can make gift card purchases and cash cards often need to be transferred to a bank account, expire within a relatively short period, and may carry high service fees. Cheques may also be difficult for young people to use if they have limited access to banking. Where feasible, paying young people with cash is easiest to access and use in whatever way they choose. Also, consider cash advances (or credit card payments in advance) for travel or if young people are going to need to make purchases to fulfill their role (e.g., if youth are facilitating data collection with peers, they may need to purchase facilitation supplies such as markers, paper, and snacks) (Coalition for Juvenile Justice, n.d.).

There are also non-monetary ways to recognize young people, such as credits for volunteer hours, co-authorship, certificates to add to their resume, and/or reference letters (McCart & Khanna, 2012). Additionally, consider other compensation to mitigate barriers to participation such as food, bus tokens or mileage, childcare, and/or internet or phone stipend (Coalition for Juvenile Justice, n.d.).

Risks

To address some of these considerations and challenges, anticipating and mitigating risks proactively from the early initiation stage is recommended. The following table is an example of common risks and mitigations (Nesrallah et al., 2023).

Table 2: Risks and mitigations

Benefits of working with an external vendor

External child and youth-serving organizations that have experience in engagement and trusting relationships with young people and their communities are invaluable for supporting child and youth voice in policy development and mitigating challenges. Partnership with child and youth engagement organizations from the outset can help to establish the creation and implementation of the child and youth engagement model (e.g., young people -adult partnership). These organizations can support debriefing and provide feedback into the process effectively (Fischer & Radinger-Peer., 2024; Nzinga et al., 2024; Tjahja & Potjomkina, 2024). They also play a critical role in translation between young people, researchers and policy makers (Fischer & Radinger-Peer, 2024). For issues where it is especially critical to hear the voices of hard-to-reach young people (e.g., in marginalized communities, and furthest from opportunity), working with trusted adult allies in those communities is highly recommended; often they have existing relationships and may share characteristics of marginalization that allow for deeper conversations about these factors (Smith et al., 2024). Finally, working with external vendors can reduce liability for risks related to working with young people. This is often most critical for in-person child and youth events (especially overnight). External vendors with mandates to regularly work with young people have structures and mechanisms in place to create safer spaces for them, such as safeguarding policies, trained child and youth workers with vulnerable sector checks, insurance, and established consent processes, which may not be available to the public service. This reduces time and resources (e.g., going through an institutional ethics board, training staff, developing and approving policies) and risk (i.e., responsibility for the health and safety of minors).

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page