Barriers to youth participation in policy and planning

Below are some of the key barriers to involving youth in policy formulation:

• Current policy dialogue, consultation and formulation may take place in very formal environments only, excluding diversity.
• The final stages of decision-making may only be made by a few very senior colleagues behind closed doors.
• Youth and civil society consultations may be artificially separated from each other.

Much has been written on the importance of consulting youth as a human right; as well as an instrument to improve the effectiveness of policy and programming.47 Yet token consultations remain the biggest barrier to effective engagement. The important point is to think through: which youth, why, where, with whom and when it is relevant to consult. These are some of the common pitfalls to avoid:

Quick fix: the rushing in and out of real commitment by one-off interactions, which do not sustain the culture and processes of meaningful participation.

Lack of follow-up and ownership: participants should always be informed as to why and how any of their input may be used.

Conflict with organisational culture and procedures: i.e., it may be appropriate to incorporate youth participation into existing consultative mechanisms (as long as they provide a youth friendly space). Not every youth consultation needs to be highly informal and interactive.

Exclusiveness: make sure you are not focusing only on involving the youth ‘superstars’ who have already become a part of the system.48

Creating a policy that is disconnected from other policies, budgets and political champions.

Any consultative process towards developing a new national policy or plan, including sector-wide approaches, civil service reforms, or poverty reduction strategy papers should be checked for any potentially harmful effect on excluded populations, ensuring that they do not increase the number of those already excluded.49

Overcoming the barriers: consultation and dialogue

We believe that effective consultations are based on the premise of valuing diversity.

How does a youth consultation differ from other types of dialogue and policy consultation?

• They can be more informal and participatory;
• They should be based on shared values. Several governments have recognised this, including the UK government through its Hear by Right youth participation agenda. They are:

1.  
   1. Young people’s involvement is a visible commitment that is properly resourced.
   2. Young people’s involvement is valued.
   3. Young people have an equal opportunity to get involved.
   4. Policies and standards for the participation of young people are in place, evaluated and improved.50

Overcoming the barriers: support for youth mainstreaming at a national level

All policy areas that touch upon young people can benefit from taking a ‘youth mainstreaming’ approach (see key terms), which is aimed at the following objectives:

1. To assist government and non-state partners to implement youth and human rights commitments (World Plan of Action for Youth, Commonwealth Plan of Action for Youth Empowerment, Convention on the Rights of the Child etc);
2. To build a network of organisations and individuals capable of making change;
3. To create a policy framework that brings youth into national development planning, dialogue and debate;
4. To meet young people’s practical needs: livelihoods, post-conflict transition, health and SRHR services;
5. To meet young people’s strategic needs: gender equality, post-conflict transition, overcoming subordinate positions with regard to assets (land, property and credit), and voice in governance.

Political commitment at the highest level is essential for youth mainstreaming. The responsibility for change cannot be placed entirely on young people themselves, NGOs or the lead agency/ministry; the latter itself may need capacity building to increase its level of political status and influence. On the following page is a summary of actions that donor agencies can take in support (government action points are adapted from the Commonwealth Gender Management System (GMS) framework).

Case studies in this section

We now turn to five case studies that demonstrate youth participation in policy and planning, at:

• National level (case study 6, case study 7, case study 8 and case study 9) 
• Regional/city level (case study 8) 
• Sectoral level (case study 10)

• 47. UNCRC; Save 2004; UNICEF 2009
• 48. National Youth Agency 2007
• 49. See UNICEF 2007
• 50. National Youth Agency 2007