Youth participation in judicial procedures: research outcomes

Jump directly to: Typologies of youth participation

Research findings on the involvement of children and youth (from now on, often referred as ‘youth’) in decision-making overwhelmingly show youth’s desire to be included in decisions affecting their lives. Participation makes youth feel respected as autonomous persons. Consistent with the theory of self-determination, an autonomy-supportive environment has demonstrated to benefit youth by stimulating engagement, motivation and achievement – for instance, in education, by parents and in (mental) health care^[1]. This outweighs the possible concerns youth have, such as being nervous or scared to talk in court^[2].

Contrary, being excluded from participation can result in feelings of frustration, desperation and powerlessness, and even lead to problematic behavior^[3]. When prevented from participating, chidren and youth ‘learn’ not to have a say and, as a consequence, do not develop trust in their abilities to make decisions on their own.

Research also shows that young people under the age of fourteen often do not fully understand what judicial procedures entail^[4], while older adolescents have significantly more knowledge about judicial procedures^[5]. Moreover, not knowing what to expect seems to be one of the main reasons why youth in family law proceedings experience anxiety or stress^[6]. Research has shown that legal terms are often used in communication with youth, which can be intimidating and can decrease their motivation to participate^[7]. However, it is important to note that the development of individual youth may differ: some are behind, and some are ahead. Simply, the age of a young person is not enough to indicate what they can understand. For example, research shows that intelligence, mental health problems and stress because of the trial may play a role in the understanding of the trial^[8].

When youth participates in the decision-making process, it increases the chance that they accept the outcome of the decision, even if this differs from their own views^[9] because the reasons for taking the decision are explained and, consequently, better understood by them^[10]. Involving youth and youth in the decision-making can even increase their reasoning-skills and facilitate them to better express their opinions in the future^[11].

To improve participation of youth in judicial proceedings, three conditions are of importance to take into account^[12]:

1. Informing the young person: using child-friendly communication adapted to their level of maturity, preparing them before the proceedings and explaining the decision that has been made.
2. Creating a safe environment: an informal setting in which the young person does not feel intimidated – neither by the setting nor by adult participants; including a representative or trusted person of the young person.
3. Communication skills: reducing the young person’s level of stress by giving explanations and making them feel at ease, stimulating them to tell their story, and avoiding suggestive questioning.

Typologies of youth participation

In the past decades, various models for the effective implementation of the right to be heard were designed. Below, three different models will be discussed.

THE LADDER OF PARTICIPATION

Roger Hart introduced the Ladder of children’s participation^[13], a tool to understand the different types of children’s participation. The ladder consists of the following rungs:

Non-participation:

1. Manipulation: situation in which children are used by adults to pretend certain causes were inspired by children.
2. Decoration: when children are used to help a cause indirectly, but adults not longer pretend that children are the inspiration behind a cause.
3. Tokenism: when children and youth are given a voice, but they have little or no influence and opportunities to construct their own opinions.

Participation – different degrees

1. Assigned but informed: youth gets a specific role and receive information about how and why they can participate.
2. Consulted and informed: youth provides input and advice to adults; they also how know how their views will be used and are informed about the outcomes of the decisions.
3. Adult-initiated, shared decisions with children: adults initiate a certain project, but the decision-making is shared with youth.
4. Child-initiated and directed: youth initiates a project and adults are only there to support.
5. Child-initiated, shared decision with adults: projects are initiated by youth and decision-making is shared between youth and adults.

Pathways to Participation

Harry Shier developed a model of Pathways to Participation^[14], where five stages of children’s participation are described. Shier explains that this model is inspired by Hart’s ladder and serves as an additional tool.

Shier distinguishes five levels of participation:

• Level 1, children are listened to: youth are listened to with due care and attention, but only when they themselves come forth with an opinion.
• Level 2, children are supported in expressing their views: adults take action to hear youth, who can openly and confidently share their opinions.
• Level 3, children’s views are taken into account: this calls for adults actively incorporating youth’s views into their decision-making. It is important to note that this does not imply that youth’s views are always followed.
• Level 4, children are involved in the decision-making process: this level involves youth in both the consultation and the decision-making.
• Level 5, children share power and responsibility for decision-making: here, youth are not only involved in the decision-making, but they share power and responsibility for the decisions taken. At this level, adults cannot overrule youth.

Each of these levels may have different degrees of commitment to empowerment. This is why Shier also introduced three stages of commitment that cut across each level of participation. They are:

1. Openings: this occurs when adults are ‘ready to operate’ and make a personal commitment to work in a certain way;
2. Opportunity: different needs are met to enable the adult to operate, including but not limited to like resources, skills and knowledge;
3. Obligation: it occurs when youth participation is built into the system through a policy. This means adults have to act in a certain way to enable participation.

Finally, Laura Lundy’s^[15] model conceptualizes children’s right to participation. She distinguishes important elements of effective participation based on article 12 CRC: dialogue between adults and children, providing feedback to children on their views, and giving due weight to their views. Lundy’s model sets out four distinct, yet interrelated elements to the right to be heard:

1. Space: Award children the opportunity to set forth their views
2. Voice: Facilitate children to set forth their views
3. Audience: Listen to children’s views and
4. Influence: Appropriately act upon children’s views.

According to Lundy, tokenistic participation should be avoided. To achieve this, the dialogues between children and adults should be encouraged by decision-makers and authorities. However, she also argues that tokenistic participation is better than no participation at all: just because it is not 100% perfect and meaningful, does not mean it is legitimate to not do it at all^[16].

You can download the full list of bibliographical references below

An inspirational insight on youth participation

The documentary below shows the trajectory of the youngsters participating in the EU YouthLab project in Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands. For one weekend, they had the opportunity to reflect together on their experience in the justice system, on how the program transformed  them and their aspirations for the future of the juvenile justice system. 

See below the documentary with English subtitles.

The documentary is also available with subtitles in Dutch, French and Italian.

The financial model of YouthLab rests on 2 pillars.

1. The youth are at all times paid for their contribution – there is no question about it. If the YouthLabis requested to deliver training and decides to accept the assignment, but the interested organization does not have funds , the YouthLab host should reimburse the youth from its own pocket. The exact amount will depend on the host organization and you might want to consider the local costs of living, national and taxing legislation, etc. In some cases, the youth might feel that being paid makes their engagement feel less sincere – in this case, you can encourage them to donate the money instead of not accepting the payment. The payment is not only a way to encourage youth’s participation, but mainly to demonstrate that their contribution is valuable and can make a positive impact.
2. YouthLab raises money just like a consultancy bureau would: by ‘selling’ consultancy services and training courses. The ‘ clients’ of YouthLab services are aware that they are paying for a ‘social enterprise’: the revenue covers the expenses and payment for the trainers (youngsters), the YouthLab organization as well as the leadership course to prepare the experience experts. When the YouthLab starts out, it will often be the case that its revenue will not be enough to cover expenses. In the Netherlands, for instance, it often required supplementation with contributions from equity funds.

Tailored agreements with partners

The term ‘consultancy bureau’ works for the youth—it gives them a sense of pride—but it is also misleading. In the end, YouthLab tries to create ‘tailored’ agreements with partners regarding coverage of expenses. For example, in The Netherlands there are separate price agreements with the Public Prosecution Service: one half-day training session ‘costs’ 1000 euros. With the Ministry of Security and Justice we charge the same fee, but we also charge extra personnel costs. Thus, YiP charges both partners the market rate, corresponding with the regular costs of hiring external contractors. The partners are aware that they are supporting the financial model of a social enterprise.

However a new YouthLab organization can choose not to charge participants for the full service in order to gain practice, finetune their training and build a demand. That has been the case of Defence for Children – Italy. Nevertheless, a small fee was charged upon registration so that professionals feel commitment to the training throughout the sessions.

At the same time, the YouthLab also works together with colleges and universities, which usually have less available funding. Thus, when it is financially feasible to do so, YouthLab will also accept these assignments. After all, the YouthLab does not strive for maximum financial gain, but the maximum number of learning opportunities for the participating youth and the justice/youth care professionals.

FUNDRAISING MODEL

Formal starting point of acquisition: for youth, for professionals

In many countries, professionals working in the judiciary and/or (forensic) youth care are required to take classes in order to improve their communication and social skills. Moreover, some occupational groups, such as (juvenile) lawyers, are also required to complete a number of classes linked to ‘training points’. Only when they have achieved sufficient training points can they remain a member of the occupation. Thanks to these requirements, many budgets will have resources set aside for the education and training of justice and/or (forensic) youth care professionals; these are often explicitly labeled as such. In the ideal situation, the YouthLab will come to be seen as a place where one can meet these educational requirements in an interactive, highly insightful and fun way.

Informal starting point of acquisition: searching for connection

More often than not, professionals working in the judiciary and (forensic) youth care participate in the training course not out of requirement, but from a deep seated desire to ‘truly’ connect with youths. This is not a straightforward matter with youth who have been in conflict with the law, for the simple reason that this conflict frames and accompanies nearly all contacts they have. Due to this, many meetings are negatively loaded from the outset, which should be seen as a consequence of the structure framing the relationship between youth and professional.

The YouthLab exists both inside and outside this structure. Outside, because the YouthLab organization ideally operates separately and autonomously from the judiciary. Inside, because its outsider status forms a good basis for partnering up with the judiciary. The blend of insider and outsider status increases the chances of a ‘successful’ interaction with the youth; and this is reflected also in the training and/or consultancy services. Because of this, the training courses are able to fulfill a deeper need for a real and reflective conversation.

A final element of added value: the YouthLab organization takes on the risks

From the very first moment that the YouthLab starts providing training courses, the question will arise:

‘What if a juvenile prosecutor receives training from a youngster, who later will have to appear in court again?’

The odds are very real, because the rate of recidivism among juveniles is often high, and also because ‘old cases’ can follow youths for a long time. It is therefore possible that a youth does not realize that he is part of a criminal investigation, even though a justice professional is aware of this already.

For that reason, it is wise not to assert that YouthLab youths will never re-offend, and to position this risk as a starting point for collaboration. This means that the YouthLab never makes the promise that the participating youths will not re-offend, all the while committing itself at all times to prevent this from happening. Secondly, this also means that the YouthLab will enter appropriate agreements with the partner organization and, if necessary, formulate protocols that enable YouthLab to respond swiftly when a youngster re-offends or falls under suspicion again.

For example, in the Netherlands the following agreements apply: a younster must notify the YouthLab immediately, when he becomes aware that he is the subject of criminal investigation. Subsequently, this individual may not join in or provide training sessions in this period of time, unless agreed upon differently with the partners.

In the Netherlands it has happened that a youth, who provided many training sessions, committed a serious (and media sensitive) offense. The Ministry of Justice swiftly declared the matter as ‘sensitive’—however, the protocols that were agreed upon beforehand were able to disarm the situation very quickly. What proved to be especially important in this matter was that the news reported that ‘a juvenile of the YouthLab umbrella organization’ (in Dutch: Stichting Young in Prison) committed the offense, and not a ‘trainer from the Public Prosecution Service’. In short, the host organization functions as a buffer, insulating the partner organization from these types of risks. This too is an important reason why partners choose to work together with the YouthLab organization.

I get paid to tell my story?

When Joel joined a YouthLab training for the first time, he was very pleased when he received his envelope with his contribution. Out of honesty, he came up to me: “Is this the right amount? My travel expenses were much lower than this.” The trainer explained to him that he will get a contribution for each training, as well as a refund for his travel expenses. He added, your experiences and your time are very valuable to us and many professionals. We can learn from your experiences, and you deserve to get paid for your efforts.