Content uploaded by Ramona K Mullahey
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ramona K Mullahey on Jul 03, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Ramona K. Mullahey is currently a Community Builder Fellow with the U.S. Depart-
ment of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in Hawaii. Since 1989, she has been
the American Planning Association’s national advocate for involving young people in
planning. She launched APA’s newsletter on K-12 planning education, Resources. She
has developed curriculum and educated school teachers, children, and youth on the
value of taking responsibility for planning the future of their community.
Yve Susskind is a doctoral candidate in urban, technological, and environmental
change at the University of Michigan. Her work with Sharon Sutton on Urban Net-
work, a national effort to engage youth in learning about and improving their commu-
nities, ignited her interest in youth involvement in community planning. That research
focused on children’s views of the physical environment as a stage for enacting a class-
embedded way of life and sought to understand whether creative work focused on the
neighborhood environment can be used as a means of developing positive visions of
the future and cultivating moral imagination. Her current research focuses on social
change organizations where teenagers are in leadership roles. She is examining the
organizational processes and structures, as well as the teens’ experiences, learning, and
identity development, as well as the organizations’ accomplishments in their commu-
nities. The research is to contribute to the development of a model of “empowerment
planning,” a term adopted by Dr. Kenneth Reardon.
Barry Checkoway is Professor of Social Work and Urban Planning and the Director of
the Center for Community Service and Learning at the University of Michigan. He has
committed his career to creating community change through research, teaching, train-
ing, consultation, and technical assistance. His research includes studies of increasing
involvement of traditionally underserved people worldwide, through multicultural
community organization, social planning, and urban neighborhood work. He is the
founding director of the Center for Community Service and Learning, a campuswide
effort to strengthen student learning through community service, to enable faculty to
integrate service into teaching and conduct community-based research, and to develop
durable collaborative university-community partnerships. He was founding director
of the Michigan Neighborhood AmeriCorps Program, a unique collaboration of eight
graduate professional schools and 20 community-based organizations in Detroit neigh-
borhoods. He has published numerous works on planning, youth, and community
change.
The authors thank all innovators and visionaries who give voice to underrepresented
and underserved communities, who seek to nurture a more civil society, who stir the
consciousness of the ordinary to empower the extraordinary, and who give meaning
to community. We also thank Roger A. Hart, Director of the Children’s Environments
Research Group at City University of New York, for his commitment to genuine youth
participation and his insights in reviewing this report. And, finally, we thank Wade
Hillier, Augusto Mathias, Kent Khounsombath, Matt Onek, Susan Kim, Artese Hart-
man, Laura Timme, Julie Iny, Hailey Bryant, Mae Mendelson, and Joe Lam, who agreed
to be interviewed to help us develop the case studies presented in this report.
Cover design by Toni Thanasouras Ellis.
The Planning Advisory Service is a subscription service offered by the Research Department of the Ameri-
can Planning Association. Eight reports are produced each year. Subscribers also receive the PAS Memo
each month and have use of the Inquiry Ansering Service. Frank S. So, Executive Director; Sylvia Lewis,
Publications Director; William Klein, Director of Research.
Planning Advisory Service Reports are produced in the Research Department of APA. James Hecimovich,
Editor; Marya Morris, Assistant Editor; Lisa Barton, Design Associate.
© June 1999 by the American Planning Association. APA’s publications office is at 122 S. Michigan Ave.,
Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60603. E-mail: pasreports@planning.org. APA headquarters office is at 1776 Mas-
sachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20036.
Contents
Youth
Participation
in
Community
Planning
Ramona Mullahey,
Yve Susskind,
and
Barry Checkoway
Part 1. Supporting Youth Participation ......................................1
The Concept of Participation .......................................3
Benefits and Challenges of Involving Youth..........................5
A Typology for Youth Participation .................................9
Part 2. Involving Youth in Community Land-Use Planning ......................13
Toronto ........................................................13
Salt Lake City ...................................................15
Loveland, Colorado..............................................15
Lemon Grove, California .........................................17
Honolulu.......................................................18
Seattle..........................................................19
Reflections...................................................... 22
Part 3. Youth-Based Initiatives for Youth Empowerment and
Community Change in Seattle, Washington................................25
The Seattle Young People’s Project .................................26
Youth-N-Action .................................................40
Part 4.-Youth in Policy Making ............................................55
Honolulu: Ke Ala Hoku ..........................................55
San Francisco: The Youth Commission .............................59
Toronto: The Young People’s Advisory Board .......................63
Reflections...................................................... 65
Part 5. Conclusions.....................................................67
Appendix A. List of References and Suggested Resources for
Curriculum Development ..............................................69
Figures
Figure 1.-Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation................... 9
Figure 2. Hart’s Ladder of Young People’s Participation..............10
Figure 3. Seattle Young People’s Project Organizational Chart.........28
Figure 4. The Youth-N-Action Organizational Structure ..............43
Part 1
Supporting
Youth
Participation
If our democracy is to grow in its capacity to solve its weighty environmental,
economic, and social problems, it will be because young people are learning to
participate effectively in public life. It is because young people are discovering that
involvement in public life is not what we leave to a public official to do for us or to
us. It is an exciting, rewarding dimension of the "good life" we all want.
- F M L, C L D
There are many powerful examples of children and youth taking re-
sponsibility for making the world a better place and transforming
themselves to help shape their communities. Never before have
young people demanded a more active role nor been better equipped to as-
sume broader responsibilities as designers and planners of healthier, more
livable communities that are friendlier to families, children, and youth.
This take-charge attitude arises from the desire to have a significant voice
in issues that affect everyone, to make positive changes in the quality of
life, and to create more meaningful roles for themselves in society as effec-
tive decision makers. In 1998, more than a quarter of the U.S. population
was younger than 18; by 2005, there will be nearly 73 million Americans
younger than 18.
This is an opportune time to reflect on the particular gifts young people
contribute to the world community, as they discover their potential to make
a difference in their schools, their neighborhoods, and their communities.
Through first-hand experience, young people are building self-reliance, con-
necting with others, and learning about their inner resources and their own
creative potential to forge a new sense of what is possible. They are trans-
forming ideas into pragmatic proposals for action and advocating solutions
to the urgent problems confronting their communities, their country, and
their world. Among other things, they are planting urban gardens to beautify
inner-city neighborhoods, striking for peace, lobbying political leaders to end
world hunger, and publishing magazines, such as Children's Express, to reach
out to others. They are putting their communities on notice by implementing
the Agenda 21 initiative on sustainable development, by creating sustainabil-
ity indicators relevant to youth, and crafting a whole new role in the United
Nations for young people.
We need more people who are aware of the common good and are will-
ing to work for it. We need capital humans as much as we need human
capital. How can we harness the idealism, passion, and energy of the next
generation and engage them in the community planning process as full
participants in shaping the world that they will inherit? This PAS Report
will explore examples of how communities have involved children and
youth in their planning endeavors, social activism, and policy making.
1
Reprinted with permission by Youth Participation in Community Planning;
copyright 1999 by the American Planning Association
2 Youth Participation in Community Planning
The goal is to develop an informative guide that provides planners with
practical tools for their citizen participation tool box. It will include a
typology for thinking about young people’s participation in projects, de-
scribe some of the techniques used to engage this younger constituency,
identify key elements in designing an effective program, and present
newly emerging models from forward-thinking communities that attempt
to formalize newly empowered youth in decision making.
This report will be a practical guide to the emerging field of youth
participation. It will inform practicing planners and community decision
makers about how they may take the following steps:
• Establish a new paradigm for citizen participation
• Examine the benefits of youth participation in planning and decision
making
• Discuss a typology for youth participation
• Provide examples of how communities have engaged young people in
planning
• Identify some common elements in designing a youth participation
program
• Introduce examples of youth-based initiatives for social change
• Profile emerging models for formalizing youth involvement in com-
munity decision making
The report will not contain an exhaustive analysis of the theoretical
basis for youth participation, nor will it provide a model that will be ef-
fective for every community endeavor. However, it will present, in Part
2, a range of activities for youth involvement and suggest strategies for
developing a youth participation program that can be tailored to the needs
of specific communities. Planners and other public service officials should
understand that organized efforts to engage young people in the public
participation phase of the community land-use planning process are time-
limited, discrete activities. They should be viewed as seminal opportuni-
ties–the initial stage to broadening and deepening the base of stakeholder
participation and to building communities that work for all citizens.
This is only the beginning. Youth voices demand to be part of the on-
going public dialog and dynamics of community change making. Part 3
looks at youth participation through another lens; namely, the words of
young people themselves as they share their stories of self-empowerment
and personal growth through social activism. Based on a field study of
youth empowerment, coauthor Yve Susskind examines in detail young
people in Seattle who defy negative stereotypes of teenagers through what
she describes as empowerment planning. Empowerment planning focuses
on achieving community and social change by developing grassroots
planing and leadership skills in relation to some need in the local commu-
nity. The two organizations featured are youth-driven and directed—run
by teenagers who address issues like youth homelessness, gay rights,
youth violence, education reform, and other social issues that affect the
well-being not only of youth but of the entire community. Not only do the
two documented case studies provide insights on how young people are
overcoming barriers to youth involvement, but they also show how young
people are creating personal, community, and social transformation by
altering the conditions that limit the rights and opportunities of certain
groups from fully participating in society.
The goal is to develop an
informative guide that pro-
vides planners with practical
tools for their citizen participa-
tion tool box. It will include a
typology for thinking about
young people’s participation in
projects, describe some of the
techniques used to engage this
younger constituency, identify
key elements in designing an
effective program, and present
newly emerging models from
forward-thinking communities
that attempt to formalize newly
empowered youth in decision
making.
In Part 4, we look at how young people are collaborating with adults
in community decision making to form, review, and help shape policies
that affect their lives. This section of the report identifies three models
where youth in partnership with business, government, and the non-
profit community are formalizing the impact of young people through
innovative approaches that solidify their participation in the public
policy arena. These powerful examples reflect communities where youth
involvement in the policy process is institutionalized and sustained and
where young people have assumed leadership roles and are operating
in the political arena to mobilize resources for programs that support
youth.
Part 5 distills the key insights of youth involvement and empowerment.
It reflects on how young people transform promise and possibilities into
effecting and sustaining fundamental change in the community. It reaf-
firms the role of youth in the emergence and rediscovery of participatory
democracy and the richness of a public life.
Although the report highlights examples of young people of all ages—
children and teens—engaged in shaping the future of their communities,
the primary focus of the case studies will be on emerging models involving
older teens and young adults, ages 14 to 20, in direct action: finding their
voice, speaking out, making informed choices, and forging a united vision
of the future. The transition from youth to adulthood is enriched and en-
hanced, lives made more relevant, as youth mature and become effective
advocates for positive change. They experience a sense of community and
purpose, self-worth, and personal growth as they learn to care for others at
a deeper level. They infuse community life with their spirit and boundless,
youthful energy.
The community benefits immediately when young adults assert their
rights to participatory democracy. As youth assume the responsibilities of
active community citizenship, they take ownership of their community by
being part of the solution and not the problem. Their courage, contribu-
tions, insights, and leadership strengthen the threads that form the civic
fabric of community, nurturing a more civil society.
The core value in involving young people (regardless of age) is to ensure
their genuine and active participation: to create opportunities for young
people to choose to take part in defining a community problem, crafting a
solution, and ultimately, taking "ownership" for making their community
a better place. Tokenism and adult control are to be avoided. Adults must
step back from traditional roles and stereotypes and help create a culture of
mutual respect and support with their younger community counterparts.
It is imperative in facing the critical community problems emerging today
that youth and adults share the power and work effectively together for
our common future.
THE CONCEPT OF PARTICIPATION
Participation is the involvement of people in the decisions that influ-
ence their lives (Checkoway 1994). Some kinds of participation and some
participants are more influential than others. In 1969, geographer Sherry
Arnstein increased awareness of the differences between token participa-
tion and the kind of involvement in which people have influence and ef-
fect real change. Others, including community planner Barry Checkoway,
health educators Barbara Israel, Arlene Eisen, and Mark Zimmerman, and
community psychologists Stephanie Riger and Julian Rappaport, have
continued to show that participation does not automatically result in in-
fluence. From the perspective of community planning, influential youth
participation occurs when:
Part 1. Supporting Youth Participation 3
Although the report highlights
examples of young people of
all ages—children and teens—
engaged in shaping the future of
their communities, the primary
focus of the case studies will be
on emerging models involving
older teens and young adults,
ages 14 to 20, in direct action:
finding their voice, speaking
out, making informed choices,
and forging a united vision of
the future.
4 Youth Participation in Community Planning
1. actions aim to intervene in existing conditions,
2. involvement is part of the public dialog and decision making, and
3. engagement is influential and changes are significant.
What Is Youth Participation?
There are many forms of youth involvement. Many youth enlist in com-
munity service, an increasingly popular youth movement. Others engage
in enrichment programs, such as recreational and after-school activities to
receive academic and cultural or religious tutoring. In some cases, adults
have created forums for students to speak or write on various issues, such
as violence or the environment. However, which of the above examples
meet the criteria for influential participation in community planning?
Many experiential curricula involve youth in hands-on learning. For ex-
ample, planners and designers have developed curricula for young people
to learn about and engage in planning and design techniques. In some
instances, these educational programs alter traditional power structures in
schools by creating nonhierarchical communities inside classrooms where
students participate in directing their own education.
While such activities as these contribute to young people’s development
and learning, they do not necessarily qualify as participation in community
change. Community service often does not focus on or result in community
change. Youth involvement in many service activities is oriented toward
helping people in need rather than toward changing the conditions in the
community or society that create need.
Enrichment programs may improve opportunities for youth and pro-
vide positive alternatives; they may contribute in the long run to change
in communities by making them more pleasant, less violent places and by
making the individuals who live there more successful. Such interventions
for youth, however, usually do not involve them in the actual processes of
envisioning, planning, and creating change. Learning the skills and gaining
the confidence to speak out are essential to building lifestyles of ongoing
involvement. When such expressions do not become part of community
dialogue and decision making, the act of speaking out can be frustrating
and alienating. Finally, teaching youth about community change by prac-
ticing the steps of the process is not the same as teaching them to be agents
of change by attempting to effect real change. It is questionable whether the
former increases the influence of youth in city, neighborhood, or program
planning and design. Thus, young people’s work that focuses on indi-
vidual learning and development, rather than on changing their surround-
ings, is not real participation. Youth participation in nontoken community
change requires that youth become part of the actual process and trajectory
of change in their communities. Participation should not only give young
people more control over their own lives and experiences but should also
grant them real influence over issues that are crucial to the quality of life
and justice in their communities.
Service learning has emerged as an effective teaching/learning strat-
egy that connects meaningful community service and volunteerism with
academic curriculum. Within the framework of the school environment,
students learn civic responsibility by applying newly acquired academic
skills and knowledge to meeting real community needs. It is a form of
experiential education and citizenship education where the community be-
comes the learning laboratory as students are engaged in real-life problem
solving. Personal growth is achieved as young people learn and develop
through genuine participation and increased competence, performing
meaningful work and being involved in both project planning and imple-
Genuine Involvement
A
major consideration in all
these community efforts
to broaden the base of public
participation to include young
people is the degree of their
in volvement and their partici-
pation. As educator George H.
Wood points out, "Since the be-
ginning of the American demo-
cratic experiment, the belief was
that ordinary people, engaged
in everyday talk, could resolve
public problems and issues."
Understanding democratic
participation goes beyond the
teaching and learning of the
principles of democracy in class-
rooms. It requires developing
the confidence and competence
to participate, which is acquired
gradually through actual prac-
tice.
Young people's participation
in their community can assume
a variety of forms. Genuine par-
ticipation occurs when the child
has the opportunity to choose
to participate at the highest
level of his ability. The ideal
is to create opportunities with
young people as partners in the
planning and design that maxi-
mize their ability to speak about
the issues that concern them in
ways that are most comfortable
and supportive for them. Fur-
thermore, good projects should
aim to stretch a young person's
capacities to reach beyond pre-
vious knowledge and enhance
her or his self-concept upon
achievement and a sense of
satisfaction. Good youth proj-
ects should nurture a sense of
learning by encouraging young
participants to examine them-
selves in action, reflect on their
experiences, make the connec-
tions on how their work relates
to community needs, analyze
any problems that occur in the
process, and learn to be self-
correcting and accountable.
mentation. Service learning changes the paradigm of how we view youth
in the community from a cause of problems to a source of solutions.
Forms of Youth Participation
Many existing or emergent methods of participation are available from
focus groups to town meetings to public hearings to protest demonstra-
tions to community surveys. This report will explore three forms of youth
participation: youth in community planning, youth-based initiatives for
social change, and youth in policy making.
Youth participation in community planning occurs when young people
have a role in the planning process. Young people may be sought as con-
sultants to identify problems. They may participate in research to identify
causes and resources for solving problems. They may recruit and mobilize
other youth to create more inclusivity in community planning. In this
form of participation, young people are ideally involved in formulating
goals and action plans, as well as in taking and evaluating action. Some
examples of youth-based initiatives for social change may also be examples
of community planning, but the differences are that, in the former, youth
control the agendas, the organizations, and the processes, whereas, in the
latter, they do not necessarily have that control. On the other hand, their
participation may be more influential if it is connected to power in the
community.
Youth-based initiatives for social change are those in which young
people define the issues that they work on and control the organizations
through which they work and the strategies they use. In this form, youth
employ a variety of strategies, including advocacy, social action, popular
education, mass mobilization, and community and program development,
to achieve their goals for social change.
Youth participation in policy making takes place when young people
have direct decision-making authority or advisory roles in making public
policy decisions. Young people participate in policy making, for example,
when they sit on a county or city committee that selects grant recipients,
or when they are voting members of commissions that allocate funds
or develop recommendations for a state agency, county commission, or
mayor’s office. They engage in policy making when they are selected to
represent a youth perspective, or, because of their experience or expertise,
to provide advice on a board or committee. Youth participation can be very
susceptible to tokenism but also has the potential to provide a direct line to
government decision making.
BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES OF INVOLVING YOUTH
The unprecedented scope of change facing our communities today requires
a broadly inclusive decision-making pattern that engages a diversity of
stakeholders. The problems, issues, and challenges our society faces are be-
coming more global and complex. To nurture an effective public voice, we
need to encourage and motivate people to exercise real citizenship, which
means taking responsibility for the common good and working together
to define shared, win-win solutions for common problems that challenge
community life.
One way to broaden the base of public participation and to develop com-
petent and active citizenry is through the involvement of young people in
processes that shape their future and improve the quality of their commu-
nity. By expanding the opportunities for participation in government, we
reach beyond traditional practices and help to develop a climate in which
stakeholders are ready to make the tough choices. By creating greater
awareness of the challenge of change that continually confronts communi-
Part 1. Supporting Youth Participation 5
One way to broaden the base
of public participation and to
develop competent and ac-
tive citizenry is through the
involvement of young people in
processes that shape their future
and improve the quality of their
community. By expanding the
opportunities for participation
in government, we reach be-
yond traditional practices and
help to develop a climate in
which stakeholders are ready to
make the tough choices.
6 Youth Participation in Community Planning
ties, in guises such as welfare reform, we can help to energize citizens to
create a common vision and strategy for achieving community well-being
in its broadest sense.
Young people need the experience of genuine participation and knowl-
edge of the responsibilities of real citizenship to become effective decision
makers. Involving citizens in the process of determining a direction for
the future of their community helps establish a collective vision and a
sense of community. It encourages them personally to invest in their city’s
or neighborhood’s future. A community planning process can serve as a
springboard to actualize democratic citizenship.
Planners have been trained to view the city in specific ways; though
valuable, these perceptions tend to narrow our field of vision. If we are
to develop a new vision of the city—one that strengthens community and
the family—we must begin to see the city in new ways, ways that a child,
a teenager, or a parent may see it. (The Playful City Conference Workbook
(Driskell et al. 1990), for example, proposes draft policies, guidelines, and
ideas for creating urban environments that meet the needs of children,
youth, and families.)
Actively involving children and youth in real community projects rather
than in classroom simulations provides learning experiences that enhance
the capacity of students to forge solutions to real world problems. Such
experiences are essential to educating youth for social responsibility. By
using the community as a classroom, young people have an opportunity
to make sense of a complex world, to become competent decision makers
capable of accessing and processing information, and to make informed
choices that will affect their lives and the future of their communities.
The theory of America’s democratic process is that ordinary citizens
can resolve the pressing public issues and answer the social questions of
the day. Civic competence is a prerequisite for assuming what Jefferson
termed “the office of citizen.” Meaningful learning through real life appli-
cations develops practical knowledge. Engaging children and youth in ex-
periential learning enhances their sense of community, place, and belong-
ing, as well as enhancing their lives. They learn that they have something
to contribute and that they have the opportunity to participate in making
a qualitative difference in shaping the places where they live. When the
community becomes the curriculum, young people learn to make the con-
nections between academic subjects and abstract concepts.
Developmental Capacity
Our nation’s increasing diversity poses a significant challenge. Young people’s
capacity to participate is influenced by many variables, such as cultural tradi-
tions, social class, and informal teachings assimilated from the environment
and daily experience. Many children and youth of color, those from low-in-
come households, or speakers of languages other than English often feel alien-
ated, forgotten, and marginalized. Traditional standardized school tests and
assessment practices ignore the different competencies, learning styles, and
variety of settings in which young people exercise these capacities.
Empirical research and experiences validate beliefs that students of
any particular age group will differ in the way they learn. Most research-
ers believe that learning styles are a function of nature (inborn or innate
predisposition) and nurture (early socialization that occurs in the family
and cultural environment). Furthermore, a consistent finding in both
observational and data-based research on cultures demonstrates that,
within a given group, there are as many variations among individuals as
there are commonalities. In other words, there is great diversity within
a culture. Each child brings his or her unique competencies when he or
The theory of America’s
democratic process is that
ordinary citizens can resolve
the pressing public issues and
answer the social questions of
the day. Civic competence is a
prerequisite for assuming what
Jefferson termed “the office of
citizen.” Meaningful learning
through real life applications
develops practical knowledge.
Engaging children and youth in
experiential learning enhances
their sense of community,
place, and belonging, as well as
enhancing their lives.
she interacts with others. As Gardner (1984) states, “We are all so different
largely because we all have different combinations of intelligences. If we
recognize this, I think we will have at least a better chance of dealing ap-
propriately with the many problems that we face in the world.” Gardner
further suggests that these intelligences are catalyzed by participation in
a culturally valued activity and follow a developmental pattern specific
to each individual’s growth; that is, each intelligence develops at different
rates given the appropriate encouragement.
Developmental psychology informs us that there are differences in a
child's capacity to participate, in part, due to contextual factors, such as
culture, environment, social class, and even gender, that may influence
their perceptions and understanding. For example, according to Multiple
Intelligences theory, an intelligence must be valued by a culture to be
considered a true intelligence. Every culture has and uses all seven intelli-
gences. Specific cultures may place greater emphasis upon one intelligence,
such as musical intelligence in an oral culture, as more valuable than any
of the other six intelligences.
The implication of this perspective on youth participation is to recognize
that there is no universal set of stages in a child's development, but rather
a continuum of evolving competencies functioning in ways unique to each
person. This points out the need to develop a broad range of techniques (i.e.,
multiple approaches) to enable all young people to participate in a project that
will span the various domains of intelligence as well as individual differences
and disabilities. Diversity and inclusiveness are key strategies in designing
opportunities for interaction and participation. Diversity has value and adds
value as young people (or adults for that matter) with different competencies,
experiences, beliefs, and knowledge brought together in constructive ways
can bring their various perspectives to innovate solutions imagining a shared
future and a commitment to the common good.
Planners, community decision makers, and community advocacy groups
are strategically placed to offer authentic projects grounded in the rich
learning opportunities of the everyday world. Through hands-on, action-
based activities that connect children and youth with their immediate sur-
roundings, planners can provide meaningful planning initiatives that can
develop the capacity of young people for community planning and that
can increase their level of social responsibility. Civic responsibility is ac-
quired through practice and involvement. By using their varied talents and
perceptions as a social resource, planners can promote in young people a
heightened self-esteem and social commitment from an early age.
Adultism
Dorothy Stoneman (1988) defines adultism this way:
Adultism refers to the attitudes and attendant behaviors that result
when adults presume they are better than young people and that
young people, because they lack life experience, are, therefore, inferior
to adults. Children are taught, disciplined, guided, punished, and con-
trolled without their agreement, as part of preparing them for entering
the adult world. Often, adults were treated this way themselves as
youth, and the process has been internalized. Adult statements that
reflect this way of thinking include: "When are you going to grow up?"
"What do you know? You haven't experienced anything!" "It's only a
stage. You'll outgrow it." "You're so smart for 15!" As a result young
people are talked down to and not seen as contributing individuals
with valuable opinions and ideas who are capable of making respon-
sible decisions. Many become passive recipients of information rather
than people who assert themselves to voice their particular concerns
and viewpoints.
Part 1. Supporting Youth Participation 7
Diversity and inclusiveness
are key strategies in designing
opportunities for interaction
and participation. Diversity has
value and adds value as young
people (or adults for that mat-
ter) with different competen-
cies, experiences, beliefs, and
knowledge brought together in
constructive ways can bring their
various perspectives to innovate
solutions imagining a shared
future and a commitment to the
common good.
8 Youth Participation in Community Planning
Adult Self-Assessment of Attitudes toward Youth
One way to assess your perspective towards young people to gauge your
ability to work effectively with youth is to take the following test:
1. How would you assess your present level of working with young
people?
(Circle your answer.)
Do you respect their ideas? Yes No
Do you give them encourage ment? Yes No
Do you provide resources for their activities? Yes No
Do you listen carefully to what they have to say? Yes No
Do you promote their active participation? Yes No
Do you encourage critical think ing and reflection? Yes No
Do you build mutual support? Yes No
Do you empower them to make decisions? Yes No
2. Place a check mark next to the answers that tell you that you need to
change if you truly want to involve youth.
3. Underline those questions that mention issues that you could start
working on today.
Source: Adapted from Checkoway, “Adults as Allies.“
In the view of one youth:
Mainstream cultural influences have conditioned us (in reference to
the general public) to devalue youth. The younger generation them-
selves fall prey to this train of thought. Take for instance the saying
voiced by a great deal of them: “I want to be somebody when I grow
up.” As if they weren’t currently somebody. All too often, youth have
no sense of self-worth. It’s this lack of self-worth which leads them to
devote their time and efforts to negative activities.
Some of the obstacles to involving youth in community change are listed
here.
• Adults view youth as problems and not as resources.
• Adults plan programs or projects without involving youth in the pro-
cess.
• Adults do not share their power with young people.
• Young people do not view themselves as a group that can create
change.
• Young people may have good ideas but are unsure about how to imple-
ment them.
An easy way to identify whether your behavior is adultist is to consider
your responses to the following questions: Would you treat an adult the
same way you are treating a young person? Would you talk to an adult
in the same tone of voice that you use with a young person? Would you
have similar expectations of a young person and an adult? Adults have
pivotal roles in supporting youth to develop their leadership capacity as
full participants in creating community change. If we are to be successful
at working with young people, we must scrutinize the way we interact
and communicate with them. Adults must respect the ideas, concerns,
and abilities of young people. As in any facilitation process, adults must
provide essential information as may be needed to make informed deci-
sions, and then stand back and let the youth do the work and make their
own decisions. Encourage the ideas and contributions from these youth-
ful decision makers, take them seriously, compliment them, and create an
atmosphere conducive to open discussion.
Planners, especially, can help young people acquire the core skills
needed for participation and civic action: solving problems, assessing
community conditions, gathering information, manipulating data, analyz-
ing critically, setting priorities, thinking creatively and reflectively, devel-
oping and presenting action plans, and making decisions to implement
programs. The overriding goal is to help young people be competent
participants as well as community leaders.
A TYPOLOGY FOR YOUTH PARTICIPATION
Arnstein’s seminal ladder of participation (1969) describes a typology for
the range of different kinds of adult involvement in institutional program
decision making. (See Figure 1.) Each of the eight rungs of the citizen
Part 1. Supporting Youth Participation 9
Figure 1. Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation
participation ladder corresponds to a differing degree of citizen power in
determining outcomes:
Roger A. Hart has applied the ladder metaphor, using new categories
to best illustrate the levels of young people’s participation when working
on projects with adults. (See Figure 2.) The beginning typology provides
a framework for examining how adults can support the involvement of
children and youth in community planning projects. The information can
be used as a basis for designing a program that maximizes opportunities
for young people to participate at the highest level of their abilities.
According to Hart, the first three rungs of the ladder (manipula-
tion, decoration, and tokenism) are unacceptable because they fail to
maximize participation and are designed and controlled by adults, with
children and youth playing predetermined roles. Manipulation occurs
when young people’s involvement is consciously used by adults to com-
10 Youth Participation in Community Planning
Figure 2. Hart’s Ladder of Young People’s Participation
municate the adults’ messages. Decoration occurs when adults simply
use children to promote or support a cause without any pretense that the
children understand the issue themselves or are involved in organizing
the activity. Tokenism, a much more common form of involving young
people, deals with symbolic representation rather than a genuine voice
and effective participation.
In the higher rungs of the ladder of participation, Hart’s underlying
principle is choice: young people may not want to participate at the high-
est possible levels. However, participation programs should be designed to
maximize the opportunity for the child to participate at the highest level
of his or her ability.
The “assigned but informed” rung of the ladder is the first step towards
substantial participation. Although children may not have initiated the
project themselves, they have an understanding and a sense of ownership
that may arise from critically reflecting on the issue. The “consulted and
informed” rung includes projects designed and run by adults who consult
with children who understand the process and are able to form opinions
that adults then consider seriously. The sixth rung takes adult-initiated
projects another step by sharing the decision making with young people
who should be involved in the entire process. Hart points out the general
tendency to involve children only in the conceptual design phase and not
in the development of the technical details, steps that are generally per-
formed by professionals, such as planners, engineers, and architects. It is
at this point that young people should be part of the discussion to learn
how and why compromises are made so they can obtain a more realistic
experience of a real-life, decision-making process.
The highest rungs on the ladder are “child-initiated/child-directed” and
“child-initiated/shared decisions with adults.” They require a level of com-
petency and self-confidence from both young people and adults. The first
category requires committed youth with a level of maturity and an ability
to cooperate with their peers. The second category, or the eighth rung, in-
volves the element of trust in which young people are able to include adults
without feeling subjected to adult control. This demonstrates a realization
by the youth that collaborating with adults may further the success of their
project.
Hart’s ladder of participation attempts to explain a complex subject in a
manner that is simple to use and understand. It provides an overall frame
of reference to guide the development of participation projects to ensure
that genuine involvement actually occurs. Although the aim is to encour-
age the highest rungs of participation in involving children and youth
in community planning endeavors, the actual level of participation may
fluctuate among the upper rungs, depending on the capability and interest
of the young person in a specific project. In his informative and practical
book, Children’s Participation: The Theory and Practice of Involving Young
Citizens in Community Development and Environmental Care, Hart empha-
sizes the authentic participation of children in developing democracy and
sustainable communities. He presents organizing principles, successful
models, practical techniques, and resources for involving young people in
environmental (meaning environment in the broadest sense) projects.
Part 1. Supporting Youth Participation 11
The highest rungs on the lad-
der are “child-initiated/child-
directed” and “child-initiated/
shared decisions with adults.”
They require a level of compe-
tency and self-confidence from
both young people and adults.
The first category requires com-
mitted youth with a level of ma-
turity and an ability to cooperate
with their peers. The second
category, or the eighth rung,
involves the element of trust in
which young people are able
to include adults without feel-
ing subjected to adult control.
This demonstrates a realization
by the youth that collaborating
with adults may further the suc-
cess of their project.
Part 2
Involving Youth
in Community
Land-Use Planning
Public participation in community land-use planning is perceived,
all too often, as limited to a select group of adults or established in-
fluential interest groups, generally those with an economic interest.
Ordinary citizens, for the most part, feel left out of the system, taking a
back seat in the decision-making process. Young people are, in most cases,
an underrepresented, powerless, minority group lacking legitimacy in the
community planning process.
As the challenges confronting our communities today are legion, the
ability of communities to collaborate successfully in shared planning for
the future and shared problem solving demands inclusiveness in the way
we do business affecting public issues and community concerns. Coming
together to participate in the effort to solve problems is essential. Some
communities are breaking the traditional mold, finding new ways to tap
into the wellspring of civic vitality with initiatives that strive for inclusion.
This requires a change in consciousness and a willingness to remove the
barriers that inhibit our ability to respond readily to change, a desired
quality characteristic of the young.
What follows are several outstanding examples of communities giv-
ing children and youth, a previously underused resource, a voice in
shaping their community's future by involving them in the land-use
planning process. These democratic experiments serve as templates for
bringing a new stakeholder group into the participation process. "De-
mocracy," states Frances Moore Lappe' and Paul Martin Du Bois in The
Quickening of America, "is not just about changing the rules; it's also
about changing the culture--our attitudes, values, and expectations."
These models reflect Hart's upper levels (fourth to the sixth rungs) of
the ladder of participation. Although adult-initiated, the projects tend to
offer genuine participatory experiences in which young people take part
in the decision-making process.
TORONTO
In 1990, the City of Toronto involved nearly 8,000 young people in the
preparation of a new official plan for the central area. This program,
known as Kidsviews or Youthviews, depending on the age group par-
ticipating, formed a key component of the public participation process of
Cityplan '91. The young planners participated in six planning-related ac-
tivities designed for grades 1 to 13, as well as for Toronto's homeless young
people. These activities included:
• a student conference on urban issues;
• a two-day workshop, in which teams built a new city neighborhood
using Lego blocks;
13
14 Youth Participation in Community Planning
• a survey to identify places, buildings, and neighborhoods they liked;
• an exhibition of more than 200 paintings, models, plans, essays, murals,
and poems;
• a role-playing, development game in which students prepared a rede-
velopment proposal for waterfront lands; and
• an in-class assignment in which students prepared their own official
plans.
Initiated by the City of Toronto Planning and Development Depart-
ment, the program was developed in conjunction with the Toronto Board
of Education, the Metropolitan Separate School Board, Youthlink-Inner
City, a street-based counseling agency, and Beat the Street, a charitable
organization that promotes literacy. Participation came from some 100
city schools, as well as from more than 100 street kids. The Toronto Board
of Education helped implement the program by involving teachers from
across the city in the planning and development of classroom curriculum
for the individual activities. A promotional campaign targeted to every
school formed the basis for soliciting student involvement. A broad
range of local boards of education, city departments, and community
agencies facilitated this initiative.
The result of Kidsviews and Youthviews was a report to guide plan-
ners in the preparation of the new official plan and the establishment of a
Young People's Advisory Board to guide the city council and city staff on
matters that affect and interest Toronto's youth. Several other proposals
that arose from the program involved the development of new core cur-
riculum on municipal government based on the Kidsviews experience for
Toronto schools.
The quality of the feedback from Toronto's young people confirmed that
much could be learned from youth. The Toronto Young People's Advisory
Board was established to provide an ongoing forum for young people.
Housed in the Healthy City office, the board served as a subcommittee of
the city council (prior to the amalgamation of the city with six other exist-
ing municipalities in January 1998) and worked on issues of youth and
violence, race relations, and the impact of the unified new City of Toronto
on children and youth. (See Part 4 of this report, Youth in Policy Making,
for more about Toronto’s Young People’s Advisory Board.)
SALT LAKE CITY
Project 2000, a citizens' group in Salt Lake City, took a similar approach to
Toronto’s and developed the Kidspeak program to involve Utah's young
people. Kidspeak was initiated in 1987 to help students identify issues and
local problems that have an impact on them and on their community. When
Project 2000 began initiating dialogue on the future of the state, the group
realized the importance of giving a voice to the children, who were future
community leaders and decision makers. They believed that, through edu-
cation and increased awareness, young people could be equipped with the
skills needed to face the challenges of the future. Kidspeak gives a voice to
young people by involving them in projects that make their communities
better places to live.
The curriculum, as implemented through Salt Lake City’s public schools,
is designed to present issues that will affect the future quality of life in the
state of Utah. The emphasis is placed on students solving local problems and
seeing the impact of local problems on the nation and the world. The prob-
lem-solving and planning process engages students to think critically and to
learn the importance of being involved in their community. The outcome is
to help students make a positive contribution in their community, neighbor-
hood, or school, and thereby develop a sense of ownership and pride in the
future of their community. Students learn language arts skills through honing
community problem-solving tools, such as writing letters to public officials or
newspapers, interviewing, conducting surveys, fund raising, creating news
releases, writing grant proposals, initiating petitions, lobbying, writing resolu-
tions, initiating ordinances, delivering speeches, campaigning, and registering
voters. These activities teach students all the basic skills of democratic citizen-
ship while connecting the application of those skills to real world issues.
LOVELAND, COLORADO
In Loveland, Colorado, a community of about 38,000 people 50 minutes
north of Denver, a planning effort called Agenda for the 90's and Beyond
was initiated in 1990 to involve the entire community in long-range plan-
ning efforts. A hybrid planning tool, the Town Image Framework Plan,
blends the work of Sir Raymond Unwin in 1902 and Kevin Lynch's Image
of the City. The Town Image Map, developed as part of the plan, replaces
the traditional comprehensive plan land-use map as the map that forms the
policy-level, physical planning core for Loveland. The Town Image Map
identifies existing and future paths, edges, nodes, districts, and landmarks
of communitywide significance that are vital to preserving and enhancing
Loveland's economic, social, and environmental character or qualities.
The city planning division, as lead agency, managed and coordinated the
project, and the city’s citizens set the agenda and made decisions related
to the project. The citizen involvement process, designed by the Agenda
for the 90's and Beyond steering committee, comprised an average of 25
citizens (the exact number of members varied because membership was
always open to anyone who wanted to join).
Part 2. Involving Youth in Community Land-Use Planning 15
Th e Ki d s p e a K Cu r r i C u l u m
The curriculum that was used as a basis for
Kidspeak is available as a publication. The
Kid‘s Guide to Social action: How to Solve
the Social Problems You Choose—and
Turn Creative Thinking into Positive Action
(revised, expanded, updated edition) by Bar-
bara A. Lewis can be purchased from:
Free Spirit Publishing
400 First Avenue, North
Suite 616
Minneapolis, MN 55401–1724
800–735–5050 (fax)
www.freespirit.com
Fo r mo r e in F o r m a
T i o n
Loveland’s Agenda for the 90’s and beyond is
managed by:
Margaret P. Schmatz or Christi Bashor
Long-Range Planning Division
City of Loveland
500 E. Third Street
Loveland, CO 80537
970–962–2346
970–962–2577
16 Youth Participation in Community Planning
Leaders of the agenda project recognized very early on that young peo-
ple were an integral part of the planning process. A student was appointed
to the steering committee and to a task force formed to involve students.
Through the efforts of the task force, the students of every high school in
town were surveyed concerning their thoughts about Loveland's future.
A steering committee member spoke to students about the project and the
importance of their input.
But involvement was not limited only to high school students. Third
graders study Loveland as part of their regular curriculum for that school
year. Consequently, several hands-on activities were developed to get them
involved. The first was a cognitive mapping exercise to see what students
identified as important in their community. (Cognitive maps are the mental
maps or “pictures” of physical elements or features of a place that people
remember as signifying their experience of that space. They reflect spatial
intelligence.) The information collected through these maps was placed in
a computer database along with more than 400 cognitive maps to develop
the Town Image Map and the associated vision and goals. Next, students
at the four elementary schools in town were divided into small groups
to design collages of what they wanted and what they did not want for
Loveland's future. Each group was given poster board to illustrate either
“what they would want for Loveland” or “what they would not want” for
Loveland’s future. The only rule was that everyone had to agree before
something could go on the poster board. The results were presented to the
entire class along with a discussion of their general hopes and fears.
Barbara Miller, the principal from an elementary school, commented:
The picture collages completed by the children displayed some recur-
ring and powerful messages. Their "hopes" included more attention
to the environment, clean water/air/land, open spaces and protecting
wildlife. The family, through pictures of caring and happy people, was
also evident in their work. Their "fears" were shown through pictures
of wars, violence, and crime as well as concerns related to drugs,
smoking, and alcohol. The issues expressed by adults were remarkably
mirrored by the children.
A ninth-grade civics class developed a weekly call-in talk show for teens to
discuss community issues important to them. This presented an opportunity
for the agenda project to learn more about what young people considered the
important issues and to give them a voice. As one student commented, "You
know, it is great to get the chance to really talk about things."
LEMON GROVE, CALIFORNIA
In preparing a recent update of its comprehensive General Plan, the City of
Lemon Grove, California, launched the Lemon Grove Kids City Planning
Program. The purposes of the program were to:
• obtain input on a children's vision of the future of Lemon Grove and
identify the community issues that are most important to local children;
• educate children about city planning;
• promote interest in planning as a career; and
• promote interest in community involvement.
Because of limited resources and time constraints, the city's planning
consultant focused on a fifth grade class. Three classroom sessions were
conducted in consecutive weeks. The culminating event was a presentation
of the students' ideas to the group of citizens and elected officials charged
with the General Plan update.
Part 2. Involving Youth in Community Land-Use Planning 17
Fo r Mo r e In F o r M a t I o n
The contact for Lemon Grove’s Kids City
Planning Program is:
Tony Lettieri
Lettieri-McIntyre and Associates, Inc.
1551 Fourth Avenue
Suite 430
San Diego, CA 92101
619-238-4241
619-238-9772 (fax)
The first session introduced
the concepts of city planning.
The students then constructed
a variety of building types. The
second session started with a
conversation on the types of
land-use categories found in
cities. The students then con-
structed a model of their ideal
city. In the final session, stu-
dents were able to discuss what
they liked most and least about
their city. They then divided
into groups with adult facilita-
tors to discuss in more specific
detail their ideas on topic areas,
such as housing and neighbor-
hoods, public buildings, stores
and commercial areas, office and
factories, and transportation.
18 Youth Participation in Community Planning
Homework assignments between sessions required the children to ex-
plore the city with their mothers and fathers and to take a closer look at
what Lemon Grove had to offer residents. They also were asked to pay
attention to where buildings were located. The kids were assigned to ask
their parents what their likes and dislikes were about the city and how they
would change things. These activities simultaneously involved their par-
ents in the General Plan update, thus multiplying the impact of involving
the kids in the comprehensive planning effort. In addition to constructing
the miniature city, the fifth graders wrote short essays about what it is like
living in Lemon Grove.
Some of the creative ideas that the kids presented included a trolley station
as a downtown hub, with a mall providing a convenient child care center for
commuters, a history center, and theaters for films, operas, and rock concerts.
Other suggestions included more security on the trolley, safe local bus service
for children and seniors, nonpolluting factories, and a crime-free community.
A document, the Kids Element, was produced that summarized the charac-
teristics of the ideal city and the children's directives for the future of Lemon
Grove. The students presented the Kids Element to the citizens committee and
city council responsible for updating the General Plan.
Many of the children's ideas are reflected in the adopted Lemon Grove
General Plan document. In several parts of the updated General Plan, the
children's ideas, as expressed in the Kids Element, are the same as policies
adopted by the community. Important similarities in both plans include
statements that:
• focus on the need to upgrade and improve public facilities;
• locate housing close to shopping and activities such as parks, theatres,
and schools;
• improve transportation and mobility in the Lemon Grove by emphasiz-
ing a system oriented to pedestrians; and
• create safer, cleaner neighborhoods.
Looking at the results of the Kids City Planning Program in retrospect,
the City's General Plan consultant shares:
. . .we can create much better plans for all the community if we first
address how we are going to plan our cities for children and seniors.
Think about how easy that city will be to get around.
In addition to constructing the miniature city, the fifth graders wrote
short essays about what is was like living in Lemon Grove. According to
the teacher:
This has been a great experience for the kids. It's been a number of
lessons in language arts, math, and social studies incorporated to-
gether. But most important of all, it's taught the kids to have a sense
of involvement and pride in their community. After all, they are our
caretakers of the future of Lemon Grove.
HONOLULU
The City of Honolulu Department of Planning, in its efforts to update the
development plan that will guide the growth of urban Honolulu to the year
2020, incorporated a family-centered perspective in its focus group process.
Schools are a major resource in Honolulu for providing information and sup-
port to families. With middle schools and high schools serving as the vehicles
for involvement, kids, parents, and school staff were invited to share their
ideas and visions for their neighborhoods’ and community's future.
Fo r Mo r e In F o r M a t I o n
Honolulu’s efforts to involve youth in the
update of the city’s development plan are
headed by:
Bob Stanfield
Department of Planning
and Permiting
City and County of Honolulu
650 S. King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
808-527-6094
808-527-4950 (fax)
Sessions were held at both public and private middle/intermediate
schools and high schools. Each school was allowed to choose how the ses-
sions would be organized; namely, the session could be attended by all stu-
dents, or by students with parents and school staff, or by parents and school
staff only. Some teachers and students felt that open discussion would be
inhibited if parents and teachers shared the session with youth. Sometimes,
parents were not able to participate due to scheduling conflicts.
More than half of O’ahu’s population resides in a 90-square-mile area
of “urban Honolulu” that, for planning purposes, is known as the Pri-
mary Urban Center (PUC). The PUC serves many capacities. It is the state
capital, county seat, and headquarters for virtually all major commercial,
industrial, educational, cultural, and transportation activities in the State of
Hawaii. The PUC includes the major hospitals and medical centers, a major
port, and an airport. The state's economic engine and major destination,
Waikiki, is also located here. In 1995, the school-based groups of students,
parents, and school staff in 10 middle and high schools in the PUC were
asked a series of facilitated questions to share their views on how Honolulu
should develop over the next 25 years. The questions included:
1. What is your vision of what urban Honolulu should be in the next 25
years?
2. Which areas, places, buildings, and resources (both man-made and
natural) do you think should be preserved?
3. Which areas within urban Honolulu should be developed? Where
should growth occur?
4. Where do you think growth should not occur?
5. In the year 2020, what should our neighborhoods look like and how
should they function?
Transportation, open space, affordable housing, recreational opportuni-
ties for children and youth, jobs and economic development, preserving
cultural and historic landmarks and view planes, services for the aging
population, and quality of life were key issues and concerns expressed by
all ages.
The input from each school-based group was presented to the City and
County of Honolulu Planning Department. All participants were invited
to a series of public workshops and meetings to review existing conditions
and trends, to identify and evaluate alternatives, and to help the depart-
ment develop a recommended plan vision and policies. Along with the
feedback of other stakeholders, these recommendations helped the depart-
ment to focus its research efforts and policy development, and to set its
priorities to respond to the collective vision. It was the first time that stu-
dents and family viewpoints were explicitly solicited, meaning that a new
constituency was participating in the planning process. A policy evaluation
report summarizing all of the workshop material was published in Febru-
ary 1999. A final plan will be completed sometime in the near future.
SEATTLE
In 1991, three Seattle Youth Summits were organized by Seattle KidsPlace,
“a kids’ lobby for an effective Seattle.” Youth participation in the summits
was sponsored by the Boeing Corporation; more than 500 young people
from Seattle schools attended the summits. Summit participants expressed
frustration at the one-shot appeal for their input. They did not want to just
have their say and let adults do the rest; they wanted follow through and
help to do it themselves. In Feburary 1992, The Seattle Youth Involvement
Part 2. Involving Youth in Community Land-Use Planning 19
Fo r Mo r e In F o r M a t I o n
The Seattle Youth Involvement Network
(SYIN) is managed by:
Jamie Flaxman
Executive Director
Seattle Youth Involvement Network
172 20th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98122
206-325-7922
206-325-8731 (fax)
www.seattleyouth.org
20 Youth Participation in Community Planning
Day, which involved more than 700 participants, catalyzed the develop-
ment of a youth force to involve young people in a more meaningful way
in their community. In 1992, a youth advocacy group, the Seattle Youth
Involvement Network (SYIN), became a reality. The purpose of SYIN is to
provide young people in elementary, middle, and high schools a forum for
discussing education, neighborhoods, and the future of the city.
Supported, in part, by then Mayor Norman Rice and The Boeing Company,
SYIN has grown to become a private, nonprofit community organization.
Its mission is "advocating with youth to initiate positive change in the com-
munity through volunteer service and the political process." Its goals include
catalyzing opportunities for youth involvement in service and leadership
and supporting youth-initiated projects. It offers training and technical assis-
tance to young people and young professionals, serves as a clearinghouse for
information on current youth programs and volunteer opportunities, builds
coalitions, and raises public consciousness about the positive contributions
made by young people such as via the Seattle Youth Involvement Awards.
SYIN surveys youth annually and creates focus groups on a variety of issues
relevant to the well-being of young people, such as youth violence, student
and gender equity, and employment needs.
SYIN's board of directors, which oversees the work of the agency, is
comprised of young people and adults. In addition, a youth-facilitated
Youth Leadership Council broadens the participation of young people in
SYIN’s decision-making processes, planning, recruiting, and project imple-
mentation. SYIN has produced several publications, including the School-
to-Work Survey Report, the Youth and Business Leaders Forum Report on youth
employment, the Youth Yellow Pages, and the Service Learning Study Guide.
SYIN has excellent resources to help interested groups build multigenera-
tional teams. For instance, the training manual, Youth Voice Begins with You,
offers tips, tools, exercises, examples, and activities to nurture and help
Part 2. Involving Youth in Community Land-Use Planning 21
sustain youth-adult partnerships in community
building. The series of publications, Youth Tip
Sheets, covers such topics as action planning,
addressing stereotypes, creating youth-adult
partnerships, liability issues, and defining roles
and responsibilities. Respect is an advisory hand-
book created by SYIN and the Seattle Police
Department that provides information on work-
ing together to improve communication and ad-
dresses issues expressed by police officers and
youth in forums and meetings.
The Seattle Youth Involvement Day is now
an annual event where an estimated 500 middle
and high school students come together with
the mayor, city council, the Seattle police, school
leaders, and state legislators to discuss solu-
tions to youth concerns and propose changes.
Discussions have covered a wide array of topics,
including multicultural education, after-school
activities, teen health, and school safety.
An example of SYIN’s involvement in com-
munity planning is the collaboration between
SYIN, the Summer Youth Employment Program
(SYEP), and the Seattle Planning Department in
1993 to involve young people in surveying other
young people to collect their input on Seattle’s
comprehensive plan. The plan, Toward a Sustain-
able Seattle, is a vision for managing the growth
of Seattle to 2014. Specifically, the surveying was
a seven-week project involving five young people trained in surveying tech-
niques with community resources from the planning department and outside
consultants. The five young people prepared the survey model, did the
surveying, prepared a final report, and presented that report to city officials.
Over the seven weeks of the program, approximately 450 young people of
all ages were surveyed and made recommendations for planning, housing
and neighborhood quality, parks and recreation, and transportation. Age-
appropriate workshops were designed to address each age group's level of
understanding. Survey questions included the following.
1. How much should Seattle grow?
2. What is the best way to control urban growth in Seattle?
3. What is the best kind of transit system for Seattle?
4. How can we ensure that services and infrastructure keep pace with
growth?
5. What is Seattle's regional responsibility?
6. How can we ensure that the plan reflects citizens’ changing values, that
it is practical, and that it can be implemented?
Responses to these questions resulted in a report with the young authors’
recommendations, which included:
• Provide low-income housing that is well built, maintained, and land-
scaped
• Provide more affordable apartments near grocery stores and other
businesses
• Develop more late night programs with youth input
• Keep parks open longer
• Establish teen centers
• Schedule buses more frequently, especially on weekends
• Build more bike lanes, trails, and racks
• Develop a rail system that is affordable for youth, with stations near
housing, jobs, and shopping
• Provide vans for community centers to take kids home at night
• Preserve views from neighborhoods
• Encourage multicultural community atmosphere
• Clean up streets
One value shared by youth and their adult counterparts is the desire to
preserve the lower-density, single-family character of Seattle's diverse and
unique neighborhoods. As the traditional resistance to higher densities
remains in some neighborhoods, current planning efforts focus on neigh-
borhood planning and neighborhood self-determination on how growth
should occur, and on translating the comprehensive plan's citywide vi-
sion and goals into neighborhood terms. According to Planning magazine
(March 1999), as 1999 began, 37 neighborhood plans were proceeding
through the city's review and approval process.
The survey analysis was synthesized into a final report, the Seattle
Youth Report, and, in August 1993, was presented to the Department of
Construction and Land Use, the City of Seattle, and the Seattle Planning
Department. The report was included as part of the public participation
component of the comprehensive plan, which was adopted in July 1994.
REFLECTIONS
These community examples demonstrate a range of approaches to involv-
ing youth in community land-use planning. In all, except for SYIN, youth
involvement was, according to Hart's ladder of participation, adult-initi-
ated, and, for the most part, adult-directed. In the case of SYIN’s participa-
tion in the comprehensive plan effort, youth who were invited to a mayor's
community briefing on the draft plan proposed the need for more visible
youth input. Subsequently, a written proposal was presented to the plan-
ning department and the SYEP. Youth had an opportunity to collaborate
with the planning department and help develop the program, prepare the
surveys, keep records, do outreach, plan and facilitate group discussion,
and prepare the final report. SYIN achieved a genuine, shared decision
making between the adults and youth.
There were also different outcomes from these community participa-
tion initiatives. For example, the success of the construct developed by
the Toronto Planning and Development Department in collaboration with
its partners allowed for a scope, scale, and level of sophistication that
ultimately led to a recommendation to formalize youth participation as
part of municipal government. Salt Lake City's curriculum resulted in a
well-received kid's guide that is featured in many book catalogues around
the nation. Loveland teens designed a welcome brochure for visitors to the
City of Loveland. Honolulu youth had the opportunity to became part of
the planning process that continued for two years. Lemon Grove students
can point to a General Plan that reflects their ideas on the physical devel-
opment of the city.
22 Youth Participation in Community Planning
Part 2. Involving Youth in Community Land-Use Planning 23
Adults in every youth participation initiative found their experiences
revealing. They were impressed by the ability of young people to grasp
the essence of complex issues (no matter what age), the seriousness that
they brought to their participation, the inclusiveness in their approach to
community development, and a common desire to provide practical solu-
tions. It is this deep human need to be taken seriously, to be a contributing
member of the community—meaningful participation—that should moti-
vate planners and public officials to create opportunities for young people
to participate in community planning and problem solving , and to value
that participation.
Part 3
Youth-Based
Initiatives for Youth
Empowerment and
Community Change in
Seattle, Washington
Young people want to be respected as individuals and recognized
for their achievements, just like adults. They want a role in the
decision-making process that affects them. They want the personal
satisfaction of helping others and of improving their community. And they
are willing to develop the skills and competencies needed to be effective
contributors to society and to work toward greater social justice if given
the chance.
In this section, we will describe two representative examples of youth
initiatives in which young people have accepted responsibility for identi-
fying a variety of social concerns and for devising methods to deal with
them. Both initiatives reflect youth empowerment models in which young
people initiate, design, and organize projects that respond to the critical
needs of their peers and help transform their society. Social change in-
volves youth in causes that expand the rights and opportunities of groups
or persons in society who are disadvantaged in any way. These issues may
include gay rights, homelessness, prevention of sexual abuse, etc. Youth
create projects to change conditions of social inequality in the community
and to change the beliefs and practices that maintain them.
In Seattle, a city with a rich tradition of progressive participatory plan-
ning and the site of these two initiatives, there are many organizations
involving young people confronting such issues as youth homelessness,
education reform, gay rights, and other issues that affect the well-being of
young people and their communities. The 1996 Seattle Youth Report listed
at least 16 youth empowerment agencies. Seattle also provides funding,
through its Department of Neighborhoods, for projects initiated and led
by youth (ages 12 to 20) to improve the community. Grants of up to $1,000
are provided from a Youth Working in Communities Fund. Applicants for
grant money must form, or belong to, groups of five or more young people
and cannot be from an adult-led organization; however, every applicant
must have an adult sponsor organization. Applications are reviewed by
the Youth Review Team, which makes recommendations to the Depart-
ment of Neighborhoods Director.
Throughout this section, we have opted to use quotes from the young
participants involved in these initiatives. Like the programs themselves,
only by hearing literally what these young people have had to say can one
get a clearer understanding of how these youth-initiated opportunities
help them to grow, achieve, and develop positive attitudes toward them-
selves as participants in the adult world.
The case studies in this section were conducted in 1996 to 1998 as part of
coauthor Yve Susskind's doctoral research on organizations where young
people are leaders in social change and community activism. The fine
grain detail helps explain how these youth-directed and youth-run groups
25
25
cope with the challenges of youth empowerment in an often complicated
human process of self-discovery and adulthood; their words offer the most
eloquent and direct explanation of their beliefs, motivations, and needs, as
well as their desire for a more meaningful life.
THE SEATTLE YOUNG PEOPLE’S PROJECT
The Seattle Young People's Project (SYPP) is a nonprofit youth empower-
ment organization run by young people. SYPP is dedicated to assisting
youth to speak out and take action on the issues that affect their lives.
SYPP provides young people with the tools and resources to work to-
ward change in society, their schools, communities, and neighborhoods.
A young member of SYPP's board of directors describes the organization's
empowerment philosophy:
The main thing is youth empowerment, which means youth making
decisions about things that affect their lives. SYPP is like a loud-
speaker and youth have the power just to grab that loudspeaker
and express what they want to express and they have all these tools
to do what they want with it, like to organize a rally around it, and
they have all this money that they could use. So, that's the big idea
of youth empowerment.
Unlike many other self-described youth empowerment organizations,
in which the priority is to provide organizing or leadership training, in
SYPP's model, young people begin by organizing. They seek training and
guidance from others in the organization, or from outside volunteers, as
these are needed, to move forward on their actions. A young person in
SYPP explains that youth are people who are ready to act and who become
empowered by taking action:
It's such a crazy idea anyway, like someone has to give you power for
some reason. That is not where power comes from. Power comes from
doing something. That's where you get power, and the space that there
is for you to accomplish things, that's the power, that's where power
comes from. No one can give you it and teach it to you.
As this young person explains, the work of SYPP begins with, and re-
volves around, activism, not training:
It's a really action-based organization rather than a theory. It's not like
you're a youth. It's like you're a person organizing something that you
care about. Core [SYPP activists] wouldn't be like "I'm involved with
SYPP because it's youth empowerment." They'd be like, "I'm involved
in SYPP because I care about rights for queer youth," or things like that.
SYPP makes it possible for youth to do what they see fit because so
many times, just because you are youth, people don't think that you are
going to have a developed opinion or a developed voice. And we do.
Also contrary to some other examples of youth involvement, SYPP is not a
clearinghouse of youth who are asked to represent all youth on an issue. How-
ever, one result of SYPP's accomplishments is that, because the organization is
known in the community, it gets calls as if it were. Some SYPP participants do
not see this as a positive role for the organization; they see it as tokenism—get-
ting one youth to represent all youth. This young person explains:
We have had enough rallies, we've wrote enough letters, we've done
enough things that we are being noticed by people. Now they're com-
ing to us. It's funny, like a little joke around here that we're like Kids R
Us. It's interesting. People are like, “I need a black male who's 16,” or
whatever. And it's not such a good thing.
26 Youth Participation in Community Planning
Fo r Mo r e In F o r M a t I o n
If you want to know more about the Se-
attle Young People’s Project (SYPP), please
contact:
The Seattle Young People’s Project
1265 South Main Street
Suite 310
Seattle, WA 98144
206-860-9606
www.ci.seattle.wa.us/%7Emost/
npos/sypp.htm
Origins
SYPP began in 1991 when a young man from Boston, Flip Rosenberry,
arrived in Seattle with family money to start a youth organization. He
realized that organizations run by youth basically did not exist. “So,” as a
youth board member explained the history, “interestingly enough, SYPP
was started and organized by an adult.”
What he did was he went to high schools, he stood outside the doors
and got people to sign up that were interested. Told them a little about
the idea of youth running an organization. This was how he brought it
into existence, by just communication. Then the youth came together,
they had meetings together, figuring out the way things were.
At the beginning, the bylaws of this nonprofit organization stated that
the president of the board would be an adult. Later, those bylaws were
changed so that all offices, except the treasurer, are to be held by people
under age 19. SYPP has evolved in many other ways since 1991.
A lot has been worked through. Nineteen ninety-one wasn't that long
ago, especially for an organization. We're building, everyday we're
growing a lot and learning a lot. The initiatives got started. Different
people were interested in different things so they started Project Street
Life [an initiative to fight for the rights of Seattle's homeless youth],
and the Anti-Violence/Anti-Curfew initiative was also one of the origi-
nal initiatives. Then it sort of grew and grew and kept on rolling. When
Flip moved, an executive director and youth advisor were hired. It's
grown and we moved from the Eastlake office to here [office in Seattle's
Central District], and Flip is gone.
Organizational Structure
The following description is taken from a 1996 SYPP document.
SYPP is composed of youth-led projects, called initiatives, that allow
young people to create concrete changes in the conditions that affect
them. Our 520 youth members, all under 19, are given the right to vote
on proposed projects that other young people introduce. Once a project
passes a vote of SYPP's membership, it becomes an officially sponsored
initiative of our organization. At SYPP we believe that all young people
have ideas and opinions that deserve to be taken seriously. Our demo-
cratic initiative process guarantees that any young person can take
leadership and make their voice heard.
An initiative is made up of a core group of between 5 to 20 volunteer
young activists drawn from the larger SYPP membership, recruited
through friendship networks or at SYPP events and actions. Each initia-
tive is led by a paid intern who works about 16 hours per week. Core
groups meet about once a week. SYPP's budget can support seven initia-
tive interns. It also provides funding for interns for recruitment and fund
raising.
Young people become members of SYPP simply by signing up. Mem-
bership forms are made available at rallies, events organized by a SYPP
initiative, such as a conference or workshop, or at an event hosted by an-
other organization at which SYPP has a table. Members are also recruited
at SYPP's big annual fund-raising events, including a bowl-a-thon and an
auction. When young people sign up as members, they indicate which ini-
tiatives interest them. The recruitment intern is then responsible for calling
new members and hooking them up with core groups. Many members do
not join core groups. All members are notified of SYPP events, and many
who are not active in core groups come to those events.
Part 3. Youth-Based Initiatives for Youth Empowerment and Community Change 27
At the beginning, the bylaws
of this nonprofit organization
stated that the president of the
board would be an adult. Later,
those bylaws were changed
so that all offices, except the
treasurer, are to be held by
people under age 19.
In addition to the youth interns, SYPP has two adult staff, a college in-
tern, and, on occasion, a work-study student. The adult staff include the
fund-raising and administrative director (called the F and A, formerly the
executive director position) and the youth advisor (YA). The F and A's job
description contains the following specific duties.
• Staff board events, functions, and committees
• Assist the board in setting and implementing annual fund-raising
plans and other board responsibilities
• Identify funders and write grants
• Coordinate direct mail and other donor campaigns
• Train and involve youth in fundraising
• Oversee and hire (with youth input) adult volunteers, college interns,
work-study students, or interns who assist with fund-raising and ad-
ministrative tasks
• Deposit checks, pay bills, and do payroll
• Develop and monitor the budget, and prepare tax returns and other
nonprofit reports
• Answer phones and mail out information to callers
• Direct outside organizations and individuals to appropriate youth staff
or initiatives
The YA’s job responsibilities include the following:
• Coordinate the hiring of youth interns
• Orient, train, and supervise the interns
• Serve as a resource to interns on organizing, event coordination, and
core group facilitation
• Help interns set and revise goals
28 Youth Participation in Community Planning
Figure 3. Seattle Young People’s Project Organizational Chart
SYPP
• Facilitate staff meetings with all interns
• Oversee and work with interns to provide youth outreach, recruitment,
and member training
• Monitor initiative budgets
• Act as a liaison between the board and interns
• Ensure that the office is a productive, clean, and professional work
space
Adult staff are hired by a hiring committee made up of interns, youth
board members, and adult board members. All members of this committee
have equal voting power, and the committee's decision is approved by the
full board. The bylaws of the organization require that half of the board must
be younger than 19. The board supervises the adult staff. In turn, the YA su-
pervises the youth interns, and the administrative director or YA supervises
the college intern.
Part 3. Youth-Based Initiatives for Youth Empowerment and Community Change 29
A SYPP initiative organized a
discussion on hip-hop music and
culture.
Resources
The tools and resources that SYPP pro-
vides for each initiative include space in
the office, funding to support an intern, a
budget for the initiative's actions, projects,
or events, and training and support, when
needed. The quality of support and training
depends greatly on the needs of the interns
and on the skills and style of the YA, as well
as on the relationship between the intern
and the YA. There is no formal training
program.
SYPP is housed in a one-room office in a
multiuse commercial building in Seattle's
culturally diverse Central District. It is
within walking distance of one of Seattle's
large high schools and on several major
bus routes.
The organization's annual budget is ap-
proximately $125,000. About one-third of that comes from government and
foundation grants, including city agencies and foundations. Two-thirds of
the budget is contributed by individuals through major gifts, SYPP fund-
raising events, direct mail, and phone solicitations. There is no membership
fee. Initiatives are responsible for raising a quarter of their budgets, and
they do this through writing grants, soliciting major gifts, and holding ben-
efit events, such as concerts. Adult friends and contacts of SYPP activists
occasionally volunteer to help organize initiative fund-raisers.
Initiatives have different size budgets, depending on the activities they
are planning. For example, the initiative called Puget Sound Student Alli-
ance, which organizes an annual two-day conference for about 100 youth,
has a larger budget than some of the other initiatives because it pays for
lodging, transportation, and food. Interns create the budgets for their initia-
tives at the beginning of their terms. These budgets are submitted to, and
approved by, the YA.
Initiatives and Interns
Intern terms are roughly matched to the school calendar; there are three
trimesters, fall, winter/spring, and summer. Interns are sometimes rehired
30 Youth Participation in Community Planning
for additional terms, in the same position, for a different initiative, or for
one of the administrative internships. Hiring decisions are usually made
by a committee including young activists and the YA, but some YAs have
made unilateral hiring decisions. Hiring decisions are influenced by, on
one hand, the need to bring in new people, talent, and perspectives, and,
on the other, the expediency of hiring experienced people within the orga-
nization to provide some continuity.
Initiatives are focused on issues identified by youth through member-
ship surveys and meetings and by individuals or groups of youth who
propose new initiatives for a vote by the full membership. Members vote
through mailed ballots and follow-up phone calls to members who do not
return ballots. (Not all members vote; sometimes it is only a small fraction
of the entire 500 youth membership who vote.) Once voted in, an initiative
receives funding for an intern and activities. Initiatives remain active until
they naturally die out for lack of interest. When there are too many initia-
tives to be funded in a trimester, initiatives take turns operating without
an intern.
In February 1996, the initiatives were:
1. Puget Sound Student Alliance (PSSA), focusing on education reform
and multicultural education;
2. Anti-Violence/Anti-Curfew (AV/AC), working against both youth
violence and restrictions upon youth rights;
3. Queer Youth Rights (QYR), bringing awareness of gay, lesbian, bi-
sexual, and transgender youth issues to the community and acting to
defend their rights;
4. Sexual Harassment/Sexual Assault (SH/SA), advocating for stronger
school policies on these problems;
5. Empowered Youth Educating Society (EYES), taking action for youth
rights wherever they are threatened; and
6. Urban Agenda (UA), a newsletter by and for young people of color.
Initiative Structure and Process
When initiatives are born, the intern at the time writes up mission, goals,
and strategy statements. Initiatives change over time with each new ses-
sion because incoming interns usually build core groups around their own
activities and friends. So, the mission, goals, and strategies of initiatives
can change over time. In the past, interns had kept the statements current,
rewriting them as necessary to reflect what the core groups were planning
to do during the intern’s term. However, recently, the YAs have not stressed
these written statements, and they are not all up to date.
Initiatives have diverse histories, structures, and strategies. SH/SA and
QYR were among the initiatives created by SYPP at its inception. Their
strategies have varied, depending on the interest and experience of the
intern and core group members and on the training and background pro-
vided by the YA. PSSA was also one of the original SYPP initiatives. PSSA
focuses on the issue of education reform and multicultural education, but
its main purpose is to implement a specific project, an annual education
conference for youth. However, in the past, PSSA has also mobilized youth
into political action on issues raised at its annual conference. For example,
PSSA got student evaluations of teachers implemented at a Seattle high
school.
EYES and AV/AC, on the other hand, were initiatives that grew over
time but were not part of the initial SYPP efforts. EYES began when a group
Initiatives are focused on issues
identified by youth through
membership surveys and meet-
ings and by individuals or
groups of youth who propose
new initiatives for a vote by the
full membership.
When initiatives are born, the
intern at the time writes up
mission, goals, and strategy
statements. Initiatives change
over time with each new ses-
sion because incoming interns
usually build core groups
around their own activities and
friends. So, the mission, goals,
and strategies of initiatives can
change over time.
of youth, some of whom had been active in QYR previously, carried out
an independent political action and then came to SYPP with a proposal to
become a new initiative. Similarly, AV/AC was formed in response to a
pressing issue. Both initiatives address youth issues through various politi-
cal actions, as described by an SYPP member:
EYES came about last spring. Norm Maleng, the King County pros-
ecutor, pushed really hard for the Becca Bill, which especially affects
homeless youth. It's a parental rights package so that if you stay at
shelters, the shelters are obligated to give people the names of who
stays there. It gives the police a lot more power. They can put you in a
shelter overnight, or if they are called into a situation, they have a lot
more power to arrest you and detain you overnight. So, when a group
of people who had worked with SYPP previously found out about this,
they organized a funeral for youth rights within four days, working at
one o'clock in the morning, staying up all night doing this, and there
was a great turn-out, and it was in the papers and all that. It was in
1995. So then they formed into a group that kept meeting after that.
AV/AC began as a response to a curfew that was proposed as a
means of basically stopping youth violence. It's turned into mainly
focusing on antiviolence since the curfew didn't get passed. AV/AC
did a community forum, with police and youth, which was really suc-
cessful. They organized a panel of police speakers and other people
in the community. It was mainly youth, but anyone was invited to go.
They talked for three hours about police-youth relations, like police
harassment, and things like that. It's about confronting them and try-
ing to work out a way that relations could be smoother. They also had
a candlelight vigil for all the youth that had been killed by an act of
violence. They had a rally before hand at the Seattle Center.
UA existed before its members approached SYPP to ask that it be made
an initiative. It was formed when young people realized a need for a forum
for youth of color. UA is project-focused:
Urban Agenda is a newspaper written by and for youth of color in the
Seattle area. It started off as its own thing separate from SYPP. They
had their own core group and they knew exactly what they wanted
to do. They would have meetings, and they just needed someplace to
sponsor them. They were separate. But they couldn't really do it on
their own because they didn't have the financial support, so it was a
perfect partnership. They have their own president, they have their
own situation. But they do have meetings here, and people from that
initiative have been active in other parts of SYPP.
Core groups select and plan actions in a variety of ways. Some that are
ongoing make decisions collectively. In other cases, core groups may fall
apart when interns turn over. In these situations, the incoming intern will
often decide what that initiative will do that session and then recruit other
youth, usually friends, who are interested in helping. In between these
extremes are the ongoing core groups in which the intern is really the main
decision maker and the rest of the group acts to endorse decisions and to
work as volunteers.
Other Roles for Youth and Adults
Young people within SYPP who are not serving as interns volunteer to help
carry out SYPP activities, especially fund raising and recruitment. Adults
also volunteer for SYPP, providing transportation, accounting, retreat fa-
cilitation, distribution of flyers, and printing. In general, adults participate
in SYPP at the request of youth. They may be invited to advise, provide
Part 3. Youth-Based Initiatives for Youth Empowerment and Community Change 31
At the Funeral for Youth Rights,
young people protested passage of a
Washington State “parental rights”
bill that makes running away a crime
and allows parents to involuntraily
commit their teenage children to men-
tal institutions without independent
review.
SYPP
information or training, present at a conference, or make connections to re-
sources or people in power. Because of policies that reserve majority power
for youth, adults cannot dominate policy decisions. More importantly, the
role of adults in initiatives—where the work of the organization is done—
is very restricted. Adults cannot proffer ideas for initiatives and have only
occasional, invitational roles as outside resources. A SYPP board member
describes the role of adults in SYPP:
Adults participate in some ways, like at the conference we had a
panel with adults who have different roles in education. PSSA is the
one that adults have been the most interested in. However, there's
not that much room for adults to start running things. They can't
really have that much power. They were invited to come and speak.
The way that they can help out with SYPP is through three ways,
through financial support, through supporting us, like coming to
our rallies, and things like that. And then the third is that adults
are older, they have been around longer, they do know how to do
certain things and have more connections, and because the way this
society is set up, they do have more power. There's lots of different
connections, like if we need an in with the superintendent, or some
other powerful person. And, helping us, like teaching us how to do
different things like with computers, or providing their skills, to
volunteer their skills.
Youth and adults also volunteer as members of the board of direc-
tors. The board of directors is responsible for making policy decisions,
participating in fund raising, approving one-time allocations of funds,
supervising and evaluating the adult staff, and mediating conflicts and
grievances. The board also approves the overall organizational budget,
which includes the allocations for initiatives. Interns submit budget re-
quests, which are approved by the YA and then sent to the board as part
of the budget. Board directors are elected by the membership in a man-
ner similar to the membership vote on initiatives; a slate of nominees
goes to the membership for vote. Decisions are made when proposals are
passed by consensus-minus-two (only two nay votes are allowed), and
consensus cannot be blocked solely by adults. Board officers include two
copresidents, a treasurer, and a secretary. The president and secretary
are youth positions, and the treasurer is an adult. The board provides a
transitional role for SYPP participants who turn 19 to continue to play
leadership roles in the organization.
A former board member describes the relationship between youth and
adults on the board:
Being on the board, I get to work with adults and with youth. Youth
empowerment comes into play when you're dealing with adults
and seeing how they treat you, and it makes you realize that you're
being listened to with respect, and these adults really want to know
what I have to say and really want to have my input on things and
really just care.
Roles in SYPP are flexible, and the organizational structure is loose,
with youth serving in multiple capacities, simultaneously or one after
the other. Ad hoc committees frequently form, made up of individu-
als with multiple roles. For example, interns and core group members
brought up problems with race relations in the office at board meetings,
and an all SYPP meeting on internal issues was called. Board members,
interns, core group members, former adult employees, and community
members met and drafted a proposal that was brought to the next board
meeting.
32 Youth Participation in Community Planning
Because of policies that reserve
majority power for youth,
adults cannot dominate policy
decisions. More importantly,
the role of adults in initia-
tives—where the work of the
organization is done—is very
restricted.
Roles in SYPP are flexible, and
the organizational structure
is loose, with youth serv-
ing in multiple capacities,
simultaneously or one after the
other.
Accomplishments
Core groups have organized rallies and demonstrations to protest unjust
legislation and school policies. They use other advocacy strategies, includ-
ing writing policy alternatives, lobbying, or working with policy makers
Part 3. Youth-Based Initiatives for Youth Empowerment and Community Change 33
QYR members en route to teaching a
workshop at the annual Young Loud
and Proud conference in San Francisco.
SYPP
to get changes instituted. For example, the SH/
SA initiative gathered data on incidents in the
schools, drafted policy changes based on these
data, and then worked with the superintendent
and his staff to try to change the district's poli-
cies. SYPP activists sometimes have direct roles
as policy makers when they sit on councils, such
as the school district's Sexual Minority Advocacy
Council.
Some initiatives focus their energies on edu-
cating the public on their issues. Some, like
UA and QYR, publish newsletters. QYR, PSSA,
and EYES give presentations, sit on speaker
panels at conferences, and hold workshops for
other youth. PSSA, SH/SA, and AV/AC have
organized their own conferences and forums to
engage youth, and sometimes adults, in dialogue
around complex issues such as establishing multicultural curricula in the
Seattle schools, young women's empowerment, and police-youth relations.
Core groups have also used surveys, flyers, and pamphlets to mobilize
political support or opposition on various issues such as advertising in
schools and the need to revise sexual harassment policies.
SYPP has created an opportunity for young people to be politically
active and to achieve powerful changes in city, school, and county policy
and in public awareness. An important outcome of SYPP's existence
and work for youth and adults in Seattle is that youth have a place in
which they feel comfortable being who they are, having political posi-
tions, freely expressing their views, and taking action in a very public
way. Not only is this a positive outcome for youth, but, when people in
a community are active, the entire community is enhanced. One SYPP
activist puts it this way:
Here's this outlet that you can do something with. That's the thing
that's with all the initiatives, it's like here's this outlet that you po-
tentially can have an affect, and that's of great benefit to everyone in
Seattle, that this exists and that youth can do something about what
they care about.
The community also benefits through the impact that SYPP has on the
public's perception of the role of youth in public society and the relation-
ship between youth and adults. SYPP has created an awareness in Seattle
that young people are active, politically and socially, on a variety of issues,
and that they are a politically powerful voice in the city:
SYPP puts the idea in people's heads that youth are organizing things.
We're not letting the people forget that we are watching, like with
police harassment, we are keeping the voice of youth present in all
different parts of our lives.
I think this is why we have had enough rallies, we've written enough
letters, we've done enough things that now we are being noticed by peo-
ple. I think this is why SYPP keeps on changing and growing—because
we're getting more and more attention. They're coming to us now. There
is that awareness that youth are doing something. The superintendent
isn't forgetting that youth do care about their curriculum. And different
people aren't forgetting that, because we've made ourselves visible.
In the interviews for this case study, SYPP participants focused on the
effects that activism has had on politicizing youth giving youth the skills,
confidence, and motivation to be politically active—and on the increasing
acceptance in Seattle of youth activism. The participants have been less
vocal about actual policy and social changes that they have influenced.
Here are a few examples. One policy change wrought by SYPP that affects
large numbers of young people is the institution of teacher evaluations by
students at one of the large high schools in Seattle. One SYPP activist re-
34 Youth Participation in Community Planning
SYPP’s Anti Violence/Anti Curfew
initiative organized A Call II Action,
where SYPP members solemnly read
the names of the 144 youth who were
murdered in King County and Seattle
in the 1990’s. This picture was taken
at the Call’s Candlelight vigil.
SYPP
ports hearing classmates say, "When are
we going to get the teacher evaluation
forms? I can't wait till we get those."
Another change that SYPP partici-
pated in was the establishment of gay
and lesbian support groups in all Seattle
high schools. Members of QYR served
on the district advisory group that wrote
the recommendation and implemented
the decision to initiate these groups. In
another area, youth in the SH/SA ini-
tiative took their background research
and hundreds of petition signatures to
the superintendent and began the pro-
cess of negotiating changes to the Se-
attle School District's sexual harassment
policy. However, that project was sus-
pended when the initiative's co-interns
were replaced when their term ended
and the new intern decided to start an
entirely new project. There has recently been some discussion of reviving the
policy negotiations.
As with any advocacy organization, gauging the impact of its activi-
ties is often difficult. This is the case when, as is the case with most work
for social change in any society by people of any age, advocates do not
have decision-making authority or direct lines of communication with
the decision makers. Despite the difficulty of evaluating the effectiveness
of tactics such as letter writing, lobbying, public awareness campaigns,
and demonstrations, these social change tools have been part of move-
ments throughout history. SYPP activists use them liberally and may have
affected the decisions of public policy makers. For example, EYES was
involved in an ultimately successful campaign to end corporate advertis-
ing in Seattle schools. PSSA has advocated for multicultural education in
Seattle's schools since its inception, and a former PSSA activist was recently
hired to write a curriculum for use in the schools. Through its rally of over
250 middle and high school students and other actions, EYES continues
to be among the many voices throughout Washington state fighting the
Becca Bill and similar parental rights legislation. Through these and other
actions—teen forums, meetings with teachers, administrators and politi-
cians, press conferences, letter writing—SYPP activists have been part of
several social movements in Seattle and in the state.
How Do Youth Benefit?
As described above, the diversity of the organization (racial, sexual
orientation, political and social views, and so on) has created an envi-
ronment where people have learned to work together across divisions.
When asked to describe what she has gotten out of being in SYPP, one
person said,
Experience dealing with people that are different. That is a really
important outcome. People talking to each other that wouldn't
otherwise have the possibility to, or the opportunity to. I went out
this one time with a bunch of people that had been involved with
PSSA, a really diverse group. You had one person that was just out
for the night, let out from juvy, and you had another person with
a completely different background, and we watched this video
about Berkeley High School. It was about their whole efforts at a
multicultural curriculum, and we just kept on having to stop it to
have these big discussions, and these are people from completely
different backgrounds, that I would never ever have had the chance
to talk to going to school. Some of them went to my school and I'd
never talked with them. And the PSSA conference was a prompt for
some people to talk about that some people were openly gay, and
these other people were against gays because of their religion. A big
conversation like that by people coming together. And they have to
work together, I mean they don't have to like each other, but they
have to work together because they're involved with SYPP.
Youth involved in SYPP also said that they have gained remarkable
self-confidence in acting in ways that they can see have positive and real
consequences.
Interns gain a lot of respect for themselves, a lot of responsibility is
put on their shoulders. They gain trust in themselves that they can
do this again. The power of seeing something and being like "I cre-
ated this with the work of a lot of other people." To look at a rally or
look at a conference and be like "Look at this, this is from an idea that
came from my head."
Members who may not be actively involved in SYPP but may come to
some events or actions learn about issues and gain awareness of opportuni-
ties for taking action on issues that they care about. They learn that young
people are indeed activists in their community. One SYPP participant de-
scribes membership as a first step or an introduction to a more active role;
members do not gain as much as interns, but they do get an introduction
to whet their appetites for future activism.
Members of SYPP get to see that other youth are active. They get
to see the options and the opportunities and the power that other
youth have in organizing things around what they see is wrong. I
think that SYPP is not really designed right now to fully benefit all
the members or to draw them all in. It has a greater benefit to the
people that are involved in the everyday actions of SYPP. How-
ever, I've seen members that have first come to a rally of SYPP say,
"God, this is really interesting," then become a core group member,
then become an intern, start speaking at rallies. It completely gives
people the power to speak and be listened to.
Other participants who are more active, such as interns and core group
members, get more out of the experience. In the words of a SYPP intern,
Interns gain respect for how much work has to go into things. The
more responsibility you have, the more you're going to get out of SYPP
because the more you're going to realize you don't need an adult doing
things for you, that you don't need so much training from adults. Being
part of a core group, you realize how things get organized, how you
organize a conference, how you do press releases, how you deal with
writing grants, how you deal with everything. It is pretty much like
training to run other grass roots organizations.
Part 3. Youth-Based Initiatives for Youth Empowerment and Community Change 35
I've learned a lot about funding, about logistical matters. I've
learned a lot of people skills and there's a lot of growth that comes out
of every conflict that we have, like between the people coming from
different backgrounds, figuring out how to work together and seeing
all the people's different struggles.
Lessons and Implications
In fall 1997 and spring 1998, SYPP focused much of its attention on
strengthening the organization by identifying, understanding, and solving
problems and conflicts within and among the staff, activists, and board.
SYPP has recognized the need to balance the autonomy of interns with
SYPP’s collective will. They have found that initiatives are more effective
when they consist of ongoing core groups whose decision making and
organizing work are done collectively. Those that are less effective are
those in which core group members see their role as volunteers helping the
intern (often a friend) on a one-time project. One reason initiatives so often
run on the second, less effective model is that SYPP's culture and philoso-
phy tend to emphasize the autonomy of the intern as a way to ensure that
youth, not adults, control initiative activism. Organizational or collective
control has, in the past, been equated with adult control, while autonomy
is equated with youth power.
This emphasis on youth autonomy combines with the tendency for
“grass roots organizing to become fluffy when someone is paid and others
aren't because the people who are not paid don't take as much responsibil-
ity and so all the work falls on the shoulders of the one paid person and
not enough gets done," as stated by a SYPP youth activist. As a result, some
initiatives are very intern-centric; the intern comes up with ideas and pro-
posals, brings these to the core group for approval, and then does most of
the work to carry out those decisions.
When a core group has been weak, an incoming intern must focus much
of her or his time on recruiting and mobilizing the group. This detracts
from the intern’s feeling that she or he is accomplishing very much dur-
ing the time of the internship. If the greater part of a four-month term is
spent recruiting and developing a core group, the result may be a strong
core group but few accomplishments. SYPP interns have found it hard to
mobilize people when little is being accomplished.
By looking at the dynamic between youth autonomy and effective col-
lective organizing, SYPP has clarified its goal as being to mobilize a youth
movement in Seattle, rather than simply carrying out a series of projects
or events. This realization has altered the way that SYPP recruits and hires
interns; the focus is now on identifying and supporting youth as grassroots
organizers, rather than as project developers and coordinators. SYPP now
recognizes the importance of providing training in some of the basics of
community organizing, such as recruiting members, facilitating meetings,
and raising money.
SYPP participants have also found that the continuity of a core group
as an organization and the continuity of its work are often impaired
when an intern's term ends. One reason for this is that YAs have varied
in the degree to which they involve core groups in hiring decisions. In
such cases, when the YA's primary goal is to bring in new people, the
continuity of the core group can be severely compromised and even
destroyed. When YAs have hired to bring in new blood, they have
often given the message to the new interns that they are completely
autonomous in planning their initiative. Not only are the core groups
and projects that preceded these interns destroyed, but these incom-
ing interns are shortchanged because they have to try to accomplish
36 Youth Participation in Community Planning
By looking at the dynamic
between youth autonomy and
effective collective organiz-
ing, SYPP has clarified its goal
as being to mobilize a youth
movement in Seattle, rather
than simply carrying out a
series of projects or events.
This realization has altered the
way that SYPP recruits and
hires interns; the focus is now
on identifying and supporting
youth as grassroots organiz-
ers, rather than as project
developers and coordinators.
something meaningful in only four months with no core group to start
with. On the other hand, in other situations, interns have been hired
with the expectation that their role is to facilitate an ongoing activism
organization. While this process may protect core group cohesiveness,
their initiatives will sometimes lack the energy that new people and new,
creative projects bring.
A more important impact on core group continuity than the YA's hiring
decisions is the strength of the core group when interns turn over. Because
Part 3. Youth-Based Initiatives for Youth Empowerment and Community Change 37
200 young peope attended the May 20
Funeral for Youth Rights.
SYPP
of the trimester system, the continuity of
projects is jeopardized when the internship
turns over if a core group has not developed
as an activist organization (rather than as an
advisory group for the intern), with goals
and activities directed by the collective will
of the group. The results can be the untimely
end of work on changing a policy or the
loss of contact with youth who have been
inspired to the brink of action by an SYPP
event.
SYPP has begun to recognize that for core
groups to be effective in their activism and
for the organization to be a catalyst to mo-
bilize more young people than it does, the
organization must deal with the dilemma
of achieving continuity and productivity of
initiative work while continuing to bring in
new people as leaders. The current solution
to this dilemma is to hire initiative interns
from within active core groups and to put more programmatic resources
and recruiting energy into starting new initiatives.
The extent to which initiatives connect to adult organizations or coali-
tions of organizations working on similar issues varies, sometimes as a
function of the personal contacts interns already have when they are hired.
Other factors influencing whether interns will network outside of SYPP
include the interns' visions for their initiatives and the needs and opportu-
nities they see for networking. Also, some interns have more networking
skills, interest, and inclination than others. The YA and the training that
she or he provides also have a great impact here. Other organizations will
sometimes contact SYPP, and the networking will occur that way. While
these connections are made occasionally, SYPP has not formed enduring
partnerships with other organizations or joined ongoing coalitions.
A drawback of transitory relationships is that at events in the city where
youth are given the opportunity to be involved in policy making, even
when the focus of the event is a youth-related issue, SYPP is rarely rep-
resented because they are not well connected to the community of youth
involvement. From the perspective of a grassroots activist, SYPP does not
network well with other youth organizations and therefore is not at the
core of the political movements or the dialog of the community. On the
other hand, one of the benefits to not forming permanent relationships
with other organizations is that SYPP interns and core groups are able to
control their agendas, strategies, and organization. SYPP participants, both
youth and adult, are often skeptical of what is called youth involvement
in Seattle—situations that adults create for young people to speak out on
issues. They feel that adults identify the issues, set the agendas, and limit
the options open for discussion. In such situations, young people are used
to legitimize a process that is adult driven.
Networking has been most effective in SYPP when the interns develop
their own contacts with adults and youth in the community to support the
work that they are doing. When the connections occur in this direction,
SYPP youth are the ones setting the agenda and setting the parameters
for the role of adults. Not all interns have had the necessary skills or con-
nections, however. One suggestion is to have youth who are experienced
networkers teach other youth how to network effectively without giving
up control. An adult skills bank has been set up so that core groups can
search for possible adult allies who can help with specific requests while
being guided by the intern or core group. In addition to assisting SYPP
activists form and control their own alliances, a new role for the YA may
be to maintain contact with youth organizations and policy makers, so that
SYPP youth can have a voice in community dialogue as the youth see fit.
SYPP participants have found that youth empowerment organizations,
even if built on the traditional model of a nonprofit organization, must
have boards of directors that are more active in the organization and bet-
ter connected to the staff, interns, and volunteers. Because of the adultist
nature of society, the inherently hierarchical structure of the traditional
nonprofit too easily creates the impression of a power imbalance between
adults and youth. While the SYPP board does not make decisions about
the agendas, goals, or activities of the initiatives, many of its decisions do
affect the initiatives. Typically, such as with staff evaluations and budget
requests, the board heeds the recommendations and requests of the interns
and core group members. However, occasionally the board has made deci-
sions that have been unpopular with at least some interns. SYPP interns
and core group members have said that they feel there is not enough con-
nection and communication between the board and the activists. They feel
that the board sometimes makes decisions without enough information
about what is really happening in the organization. A youth board member
describes the problem:
Where there's a problem with SYPP is the connections between the
board and the staff. Here we are deciding these large things about
finances and things like that; however, the board, especially the adults
on the board, are not directly involved with SYPP. Some of them will
only come to a couple of meetings a month or something, and that's
all they know.
Board members and activists have agreed that there is neither enough
communication between the board and the interns nor sufficient involve-
ment of the board in what is going on in the office. Interns have charged
that the board abuses its power when it acts without adequate input from
interns. Some SYPP participants have said that this is an issue of youth-
adult power imbalance, even though there are youth on the board. They
feel that the adult viewpoints, though in the minority, should have less
weight because they are adult viewpoints in what is supposed to be a
youth-run organization. A solution proposed but not implemented was to
merge the leadership of the organization either by inviting interns onto the
board or dissolving the board and having interns and core group activists
carry out the board functions, with adults serving only advisory, nonvot-
ing roles. While there are some interns currently on the board, many have
said that playing both roles is too much work. The present solution has
been to require that board members occasionally attend core group and
staff meetings and volunteer in the office, and that the YA and, whenever
possible, interns and core group members come to board meetings.
This solution was conceived after the firing of a YA. There were several
interns at the time who felt that the firing was unjust and felt that intern
38 Youth Participation in Community Planning
SYPP participants have found
that youth empowerment
organizations, even if built
on the traditional model of a
nonprofit organization, must
have boards of directors that
are more active in the organiza-
tion and better connected to the
staff, interns, and volunteers.
input into the process had been very weak. They felt ignored and left out
of an important decision. In response, interns, core group members, and
some youth board members formed a youth committee to restructure the
way decisions are made. At that time, a member of that committee stated
that:
It was a real wake up call for us that there is a lot that needs to change
about SYPP. And we're doing it, we're making it the way we want
it. That committee came up with a proposal for a new structure. The
youth committee would be a large body that would make large deci-
sions about SYPP, instead of the board. It would be open to all youth in
SYPP: interns, core group members, former interns, any youth. Adults
would be asked to be there as allies, to offer experience and skills, but
not vote. Adults would be welcome to contribute their opinions and
they could contribute in that way.
In this instance and similar occasions, young people in the organization
have taken the initiative to organize democratic, loosely consensus-based
processes and facilitate ad hoc meetings not officially sanctioned by the
board. However, typically the plans that are made in these situations do
not get implemented—at least not directly. Youth who are not on the board
do not have policy-making power. Their ideas for changing the organiza-
tion often do not get adopted for several reasons. Not all youth know how
to, or choose to, use the organization's official process for change, which
is to take proposals to the board. If they know the process, they may not
trust the board, or they may feel they can make decisions and affect change
in the organization at a more grassroots level. Additionally, the youth who
take the initiative to come up with new ideas and who have the motivation
to see them through are the busiest members in SYPP and do not really
have the time or energy to make all their ideas reality.
The board, however, has become more responsive to criticisms and sug-
gestions from the activists. While many ideas for improvement have got-
ten lost because of lack of time, energy, or know-how on the part of board
members to follow them up, some of the input of these ad hoc committees
has been taken to heart. For instance, the board has held meetings that
have been open to the whole organization to discuss internal issues, such
as racism in SYPP, and has then formed cross-organization committees to
formulate policy changes. An additional option is to amend the organiza-
tion's bylaws to create official channels for youth who are not on the board
but who are members, interns, or activists.
The board and staff have become safe and effective forums for the dis-
cussion of race and diversity in the organization. While these discussions
sometimes point out difficult truths, they have helped move the organiza-
tion forward. SYPP participants feel that recognizing internal racism is an
important step in strengthening the organization.
Organizational analysis by SYPP board members and staff often re-
volves around issues of race and diversity. For example, in discussing
the hiring of adult staff, a board member asks, "Do we want both of the
point people in our organization to be white females? How does that
look? What does that say? Will that attract people of color to our orga-
nization or would that deter them?" An all-SYPP internal issues meeting
called by the board in response to criticisms made by youth activists
identified race as a factor in many dysfunctions. For example, in talking
about why sometimes there is a slump in active participation in SYPP
initiatives, especially by youth of color, people at the meeting realized
that most of the existing initiatives had been originated by white people
and so may not have represented the interests of youth of color. Another
Part 3. Youth-Based Initiatives for Youth Empowerment and Community Change 39
Not all youth know how to, or
choose to, use the organization's
official process for change,
which is to take proposals to
the board. If they know the
process, they may not trust the
board, or they may feel they
can make decisions and affect
change in the organization at
a more grassroots level. Ad-
ditionally, the youth who take
the initiative to come up with
new ideas and who have the
motivation to see them through
are the busiest members in
SYPP and do not really have the
time or energy to make all their
ideas reality.
realization was that youth interns and activists felt that the board was
not representative of them. They felt both that there was not enough
interaction between the board and activists, and that the board, being
at that time a white majority, did not appear approachable to youth of
color. The board is currently in a recruitment mode, focusing on recruit-
ing youth of color as directors.
Despite the prominence of dialogue on the issues of race and diversity,
documents show that SYPP had greater racial diversity than the city of
Seattle at the time that interviews were conducted for this case study.
SYPP also contains a diversity of viewpoints, values, beliefs, cultures, and
political analyses. There is no philosophy that ties the initiatives together
or defines the orientation of the activist work. There is no such overriding
value or political leaning, other than youth empowerment, to either guide
or restrict the work of the initiative.
Just because it's a youth organization doesn't mean that all youth in
the organization are going to have the same views. That's an interest-
ing thing to work through. We are all under this umbrella of youth
empowerment, and even though we're all within SYPP and we are all
being empowered, we are definitely all working on our own things.
Some people are involved with SYPP because they care about anti-
violence, but they don't care at all about QYR.
The process works. The diversity creates tensions when racist, sexist,
or homophobic comments or incidents occur. Friction also arises when
people do not agree that each others' initiatives represent their views.
But the structure of SYPP helps people overcome those schisms—the
common space, in which all interns work, gather for staff meetings, and
encounter each other creates opportunities to build bridges. Democracy,
a faith in people, and in the power of diversity are what keep the focus
of the work oriented against oppression and toward social justice, even
though there is no official SYPP statement of that orientation. SYPP is
a combination of Hart's “child-initiated and directed” rung, and the
“child-initiated, shared decisions with adults” rung of the participation
ladder. The former rung describes initiatives and the latter the board
and staff.
YOUTH–N–ACTION
Youth-N-Action (YNA) is a body of young people between the ages of
14 and 21 in King County, Washington, who represent viewpoints of
youth on policies and issues in order to improve their communities. King
County contains a great number and diversity of communities, from the
big city of Seattle, with its dense neighborhoods, to places where people
live on acres of land, on the shores of Puget Sound or in the foothills of the
Cascade Mountains. There are suburbs, cities, towns, and unincorporated
rural land all in the same county. YNA, a youth-led group of activists, is
responsible for providing a meaningful way for young people throughout
the county to influence the policies that affect their lives.
Kaleem, a core member of YNA, says the purpose of the group is:
to voice the youths' opinions because without it being structured,
there's no way that youth are going to be allowed to talk at adult
conventions or discuss the laws like we have in Olympia (the state
capitol), organize youth summits and programs. YNA being struc-
tured and funded we can develop programs that will help the youth
out and voice the youths' opinions on every subject, not just the
subjects that people will let us. We're a group that voices the opinion
of everybody.
40 Youth Participation in Community Planning
Fo r Mo r e In F o r M a t I o n
More extensive information about Youth-
N-Action (YNA) activities can be had by
contacting:
Sherry Rials
Coordinator
Youth-N-Action
King County Community
--Organizing Program
700 Fifth Avenue
Suite 3700
Seattle, WA 98104
206-296-5250
www.metrokc.gov/dchs/csd/kccop.htm
Renee, another core member, describes what YNA does this way:
Our duty is to change people's thoughts. I want people to think of
youth as being human and being someone with the same needs as
adults, because adults were teens once, too, they know it was hard. I
just want to change people's attitude towards us.
While YNA is charged with representing the diverse viewpoints of youth
throughout the county, Sharon, the adult coordinator for YNA, says that,
for the young people who are the core of YNA, "the priority is to advocate
for youth who have no voice."
YNA is a diverse group that includes all kinds of young people, includ-
ing some who are currently incarcerated who have earned the opportunity
to speak at schools and community forums, some who have been homeless,
some who are immigrants to the U.S., and some who are honor students.
The people who you will read about in this case study have been assigned
pseudonyms to protect their privacy. Below is a bit of information about
each of them, to put what they will have to say into context.
Kaleem was incarcerated in a juvenile detention facility, Echo Glen, until
early 1997 . At Echo Glen, he was involved in a youth group that helped him
begin to learn some leadership and service skills. Since his release, he has been
living in a group home, still under incarceration, but with more freedom to
participate in the life of his community. Kaleem is now almost 17. He has trans-
formed his life, in large part through the support and experiences of YNA.
Amir immigrated to the United States when he was about six years old.
He had to learn to adapt to a new culture and to make his life something he
could be proud of. Like Kaleem, he had some trouble with the law earlier
in his teens and, now, at 15, has set out to make the world a better place.
He is now a leader in the youth council in his community.
Renee and Martin are cousins. They have helped each other through
some hard times with their families. Both are finishing up high school and
have found strong support in their activism and friendships in YNA as
they heal and grow. In addition to YNA, Martin has been active in several
school and community-based social change organizations, focusing on
traffic safety, recovery from substance abuse, rights for gay and lesbian
youth, and political expression through the arts. Renee has become a dy-
namic public speaker and has worked for POCAAN—the People of Color
Against AIDS Network in Seattle—since her early teens.
Kira, Kevin, and Lorraina are other YNA members mentioned in the case
study. Kira and Kevin have been with YNA since the beginning. Kevin, 15, lives
in a suburb of Seattle and goes to one of the best high schools in the area. Both
he and Lorraina, who is also around 15, live in a semirural part of the county
and have to travel a long way to get to meetings and events. They feel that
they have had relatively happy and trouble-free lives in supportive families.
But they also recognize racism, homophobia, and other problems in their com-
munities and schools, and work hard to change them.
Angie, a high school student recovering from alcoholism and drug ad-
diction, does not live in King County but has been inspired and assisted in
her community organizing by YNA at several workshops and meetings.
Sharon is the adult coordinator of the program. She grew up in Seattle
but went away for school and work for several years. She has returned and
is a passionate youth ally and advocate for the rights of all young people to
be heard and to be politically active.
Origins
In 1994, members of the King County Children and Family Commission,
the King County Executive, and members of the Metropolitan King County
Part 3. Youth-Based Initiatives for Youth Empowerment and Community Change 41
Council all focused on finding solutions to the rising tide of youth vio-
lence in the county. To this end, then King County Executive Gary Locke
sponsored a Public Safety Summit at which the top priority for action was
identified as diminishing youth violence by involving communities.
In response to that call to action, county council members Larry Gossett
and Jane Hague spearheaded a series of county-sponsored community fo-
rums on youth, which were open to both adults and youth. The sponsors
did not anticipate that many young people would attend these forums, but
they were wrong. Youth came out, saying that they were tired of adults
making decisions about where funding goes in the county. The young
people said that they wanted to be on boards and commissions that made
decisions on youth policies, programs, and funding. The council realized
that having youth input in all decisions that affect youth would help youth
programs, and young people themselves, succeed.
The reaction was swift. Within six months after these forums were held,
the county was hiring a staff person for a pilot project, which at that time
was called the King County Youth Involvement Project. Sharon says that
the thinking was that the program would be a pilot, not a permanent pro-
gram, of the county.
They thought that, yeah, youth came out for the first forums, but if it's
important to the youth, they'll start coming to these meetings, they'll
be a part of this, and they'll be invested. If not, it was just a couple of
youth who were vocal at these particular meetings.
The pilot would be a test to see if there really was enough of a youth
movement, and enough adult community support, to keep the project
going on a more permanent basis.
Sharon says that she does not know what the future of the project will
be, even though YNA has received extensive support from both youth
and adults. The feedback from the county has been that it looks like the
program is working, but it is very rare for a pilot program of any sort to be-
come a permanent department or subdepartment of the county infrastruc-
ture. Usually the county's goal with pilot projects that work is for them
to become independent organizations, outside the county infrastructure.
Sharon says, "Nothing's permanent in county government. What happens
after our three years is up depends on what happens in the budget."
Organization and Administration
The county council allocates funding for YNA through the King County
Children and Family Commission. Because of its community organizing
function, YNA is housed within the King Community Organizing Proj-
ect, which assists communities in establishing coalitions and networking
among community groups. The YNA core group is made up of repre-
sentatives of youth action councils (YACs). YACs may be existing youth
organizations in local communities or groups that YNA members help
create. Sharon says that YNA is like the congress of the YACs because,
"Logistically I couldn't transport and feed hundreds of kids, so that's the
only reason that it can't be a bigger group, larger than 30." Core members'
responsibility is to bring youth issues from their communities through the
YACs to the attention of policy makers to promote understanding and ac-
tion.
YNA is the body responsible for implementing the County Council's policy
on youth involvement. It has almost complete control over the activities and
the policies that govern their project. Core members are responsible for al-
locating a budget of $72,500 in January of each year. Once they subtract Sha-
ron's salary and van expenses, food and lodging (for conference visits where
42 Youth Participation in Community Planning
expenses cannot be covered by sponsors), and other administrative costs
(supplies, food for meetings), they are left with about $35,000 or $40,000 to
spend. They have always chosen to do mini-grants and decided to pay them-
selves stipends for doing speaking engagements. Sharon has an office on the
37th floor of one of Seattle's downtown skyscrapers. Her cubicle contains her
computer, paperwork, posters, other memorabilia from community events,
and photographs of young people and her family. There is not much room
for people to meet and work, although Sharon and occasionally one or two
core members take care of the administrative tasks there. Monthly core meet-
ings are held in a conference room at the Seattle Center. Subcommittees meet
in locations all over the county, at shopping malls, core members' homes, or
other places that work out for the individuals in the committees, who may
live many miles from each other.
The work of organizing and planning all YNA activities happens at the
core group and subcommittee meetings. Three-hour monthly core group
meetings are usually facilitated by Sharon. She prepares the agendas from a
combination of ongoing discussions and projects, issues that YNA members
bring to her attention (including the need for member orientation and train-
ing, which is described in more detail below), requests for YNA advocacy
services that have come up since the last meeting, and administration issues.
As facilitator, Sharon calls on youth to report, asks for volunteers for activi-
ties the group has agreed on, restates decisions that were made, proposes
ideas, asks the youth for ideas, raises and focuses questions for the group to
consider, and brings up administrative items. She does not make decisions
for the group. The youth participate by providing input, opinions, and ideas,
and making decisions and volunteering for tasks. They raise questions, con-
cerns, and disagreements and interrupt bad process, such as when people
are having side conversations or getting the group off the agenda. During
meetings, Sharon and the youth members share responsibility for reporting
on subcommittee meetings, giving background on issues that require discus-
sion, and making announcements. Sharon is often the one who brings out
into the open the questions and issues that need to be decided, although the
final decisions are all made by the young people.
Part 3. Youth-Based Initiatives for Youth Empowerment and Community Change 43
Figure 4. The Youth-N-Action Organizational Structure
(as drawn by a YNA member)
There are subcommittees for all the of YNA's projects. In December each
year, YNA holds a youth summit in which young people from all over the
county identify the most pressing issues for youth in King County. In 1998,
those issues were: youth advocacy and involvement, violence and com-
munication, teen health issues, education, and attitudes/apathy. At the
beginning of the year, the core group selects the projects to address those
issues. The core group allocates its money for those projects. Subcommit-
tees are created for each project. During the year, other goals and project
ideas come up and the group votes to take them on and then new subcom-
mittees are added. Subcommittees meet regularly—once a week if they
have events coming up, less often if their activities are not so immediate.
The youth in those subcommittees facilitate their own meetings, although
Sharon will sometimes also attend.
In 1998, YNA's project subcommittees included administration, the
youth summit, mini-grants, media and public relations, a web page, and
new member orientation. There used to be a subcommittee for the most
44 Youth Participation in Community Planning
A YNA core group meeting.
Gene Alberts
important of YNA's activities, public
speaking, but that is now taken care of
at core meetings or through arrange-
ments with Sharon. Not an official
project, recruitment is also an impor-
tant YNA activity.
Sharon is the primary adminis-
trator for YNA, but core members
do have occasional roles as well.
The core group allocates its fund-
ing to projects at the beginning of
each year. Two subcommittees have
primarily administrative roles. The
mini-grants committee, as described
below, develops and evaluates mini-
grant applications. The YNA report
addendum committee was respon-
sible for writing a section of the YNA
progress report and responding to
the Children and Family Commis-
sion's requests for clarifications on YNA's 1998 work plan. Because of the
size of the budget and logistical constraints, there is a limit to how large
the core group can be. So, YNA has had to come up with a way to screen
and orient potential new members.
Another development also created a need to establish some guidelines
for participation. The new guidelines require current members to be
interviewed about their present level of commitment as a way to help
everyone clarify their responsibility to the group. New core members are
required to attend two core meetings, be interviewed or write about their
reasons for wanting to join, and attend an orientation and public speaking
training. The YNA New Member Orientation Committee evaluates new
members' applications on the basis of age, geographic representation,
attitude, communication skills, their support of a positive lifestyle, and
respect for others.
YNA recruits. Sometimes alone, but more often with core members, Sha-
ron goes to meetings of various organizations to enlist new YNA members.
In these visits, they primarily try to reach populations and geographic areas
that are underrepresented in the group and in youth leadership programs
everywhere. Recruiting missions have taken them to juvenile detention
and treatment facilities, tribal schools, and young women's empowerment
programs. Outreach efforts also include attending the events of other or-
ganizations to build and maintain connections and support the actions of
youth throughout the county.
The attitude in the state regarding youth offenders has been a hindrance
to recruitment and advocacy on behalf of incarcerated youth. Despite the
success the group has had with helping convicted youth turn their lives
around, and the importance of injecting the reality of those young people's
lives into discussions of crime prevention, YNA constantly battles the bu-
reaucracy of the juvenile justice system when trying to get into the deten-
tion facilities to get the voices of those youth heard. Sharon explains that,
in the current political climate in Washington state,
it's very, very difficult politically to get into an institution like Echo
Glen or Woodinville Treatment Center no matter what you want to
do, especially now when they're really trying to deny kids rights to
any kind of activity outside of the institution. It takes a lot of phone
calls and you really have to know someone in there. The lockdown of
all after care facilities is hurting our youth member who’s in there, be-
cause he can't participate in positive things and he's about to get let out
and so he needs to have positive ways to be involved in the community
as a safety net for him so that he's not even in a position to entertain
getting back involved in that old element. That is one of my biggest
challenges as a coordinator.
Roles of youth. There are two basic roles for youth in YNA—core mem-
bers and members at large from YACs. Core members are those who make
the commitment to regularly attend monthly meetings. If they are unable
to make a meeting they have to let someone know that they will be gone.
Absences are excused if they relate to school, family, or work. Absences
are designated as unexcused when members do not call, or when they had
agreed to speak at an event and then do not show up. Two unexcused ab-
sences are allowed per year before a core member becomes inactive. Core
members have first priority on and are paid for speaking engagements.
They represent the views of the members of their YACs.
YAC members make up the second tier of participation in YNA. Every
young person in a YAC that is represented in YNA is a member of YNA.
They may attend core meetings, help on projects, and come to events
sponsored by YNA, such as the Youth Summit. They may also take speak-
ing engagements although they would not get paid and would not be the
first ones that Sharon would contact when she is calling around to line up
speakers. They also do not vote in core meetings.
The coordinator's role. The coordinator is a conduit for information to
YNA’s youth participants. The youth recognize that because she is employed
almost full time for the county as a community organizer, she has access to
information that can benefit their advocacy work. She brings that information
to the youth and organizes it based on the priorities that the youth identified
at the beginning of the year. Even though Sharon has access to information
on opportunities for activism, she does not advocate for issues. She tells the
youth about the opportunities to give input and helps them get to the places
where they can give it. If someone asks her opinion, she refers them to the
young people in the organization. Amir explains that Sharon functions in the
role of agent for the youths' activism. People call her to find youth to speak,
do workshops, sit on committees. “When people want to get to YNA, she's
kind of our agent, so they go to her about the activities, or the retreats that
they want us to do, stuff they want us to teach. They go to Sharon with that,
and then Sharon has it on the agenda at the next meeting.”
Sharon fields the calls, and then she calls the young people who have
expertise, from their lives, in the issue they have been invited to speak
Part 3. Youth-Based Initiatives for Youth Empowerment and Community Change 45
There are two basic roles for
youth in YNA—core members
and members at large from
YACs. Core members are those
who make the commitment
to regularly attend monthly
meetings. If they are unable to
make a meeting they have to let
someone know that they will be
gone. Absences are excused if
they relate to school, family, or
work. Absences are designated
as unexcused when members
do not call, or when they had
agreed to speak at an event
and then do not show up. Two
unexcused absences are allowed
per year before a core member
becomes inactive.
on. Kaleem says, “If there's an educational issue we're not going to put
somebody out there who doesn't know anything about education but
might know more about violence." There used to be a subcommittee that
delegated speaking engagements to the appropriate youth, but the group
decided that Sharon was familiar enough with the youth and their areas
of expertise that she could act as their agent. When possible, she asks
people to volunteer for engagements at the core group meetings, but if
there is a request made between meetings, then she will call the youth who
she thinks will be best suited. The individual youth make the decisions
whether to take the engagement. However, if the engagement is not within
the priority topic areas selected by the youth for the year, or if the request
is made in a way that is not inclusive, representative, or respectful of all the
youth (e.g., if they say they cannot have youth who have been incarcerated
or only want one youth to represent a huge and diverse county), or if the
event is not significant, Sharon will screen those out and “just bring the
important stuff to the core group.”
The coordinator also handles the logistics behind YNA member activi-
ties. As Sharon puts it:
They [the YNA members] don't have time to be persistent, calling,
calling, calling. The logistics, I arrange the logistics and then they
show up. They say, “Sharon, can you get us an audience with council
member Gossett?” They can call on their own, but they just usually
ask me to do it. Just so I can keep track and arrange transportation and
everything. It's not a power thing, it's just the most effective way to get
the appointment.
Renee says, "Sharon signs the papers and provides transportation." Not
only does she provide the transportation, she is the driver. She frequently
traverses the county from end to end, hours of driving, to transport the
youth to their engagements.
Sharon advocates for them when necessary. Martin explains, “She'll say,
‘You guys, these people are saying this about you and I don't like it, and
I want you guys to do something about it. What do you think we should
do?’ She says we, but she means us.” As an advocate for the youth in YNA,
Sharon also points out injustices in society to motivate youth to action and
to the serious task at hand. She gives encouragement and helps them get
information on the issues for which they will be advocating. Sometimes
she tells them what she feels needs to happen to make an action suc-
ceed. She uses stories of how good a job someone did, or how something
bombed because people were not prepared.
Sharon is also a recruiter. Even though she almost always travels with
YNA core members on recruiting ventures, she is the person in the group
that new members often connect with in a way that builds trust and
motivation to get involved. She is an encourager, advocate, mentor, and
champion, helping the young people see their value to YNA and to their
communities
Decision-making power. Consider Renee’s comment on who holds the
decision-making power within YNA.
Who has the power? We do. The youth, we have the power. Our group
is youth organized. We make the decision on what we're going to do,
how we're going to do it, why we're going to do it. We decided on the
structure, that there would be committees. We call each other and say,
“We're going to have the committee meeting here at such and such a
time.” [In committee meetings] we focus on our main idea and then
we call everyone else in YNA and tell them what's going on or we tell
them at the next meeting.
46 Youth Participation in Community Planning
Young people in YNA insist that they are the ones who control the decisions,
focus, and activities of the group. They are also adamant that the coordinator’s
role is important, but they clarify that the differences between her role and their
roles are not about power but about function. Her role is also different because
she is an adult who has a lot of organizing experience to share with the youth.
Also, because she both cares deeply about their rights to be heard and also is
an adult in an adultist society, she can advocate for them in situations in which
those rights are being threatened, such as when they're not taken as seriously
as an adult when they call the governor's office.
Accomplishments
Mini-Grants. Sharon says that the mini-grants program came about be-
cause "YNA core members decided they wanted to fund other groups that
are doing positive things in the community. They fund groups in Seattle as
well as everywhere else in King County." The grants are for up to $500 for
youth-led projects that reduce drug use and violence in the King County
community by addressing one or more of the five issues prioritized at the
youth summit.
Unlike many programs that seek to reduce drug use and violence, YNA
recognizes that youth involvement and empowerment in all areas of their lives
is the key to preventing self-destructive and community-destructive behaviors.
The projects that have been funded include performance art on youth issues,
leadership training for incarcerated and other youth, youth community gar-
dens, initiating peer mediation programs, curriculum development, career de-
velopment, cross-cultural understanding and diversity training, development
of local youth leadership, and conferences.
Part 3. Youth-Based Initiatives for Youth Empowerment and Community Change 47
YNA core members facilitate
discussions among participants to
identify the most important issues
facing youth in King County.
SYPP
Media and public relations. YNA has de-
veloped a media campaign to raise aware-
ness on youth issues and recruit members.
The campaign includes a public service
announcement that is aired on local TV
and radio stations. The announcement has
brought many inquiries from youth who are
interested in joining YNA as well as from
curious and supportive adults.
Web page. A subcommittee is working with
an adult volunteer from Microsoft to develop
a web page. Currently displayed are pictures
and statements form the core group members
and information on the organization. The page
is still being developed.
Public speaking, advocacy, and consulta-
tion activities. YNA's public speaking and
advocacy take place at conference hotels,
retreat centers and camps, elected official's offices and meeting rooms,
schools, community centers, detention centers, and agency offices. People
call Sharon to invite YNA to speak at their events or meetings.
Many of the YNA’s speaking engagements are by invitation to local work-
shops and conferences. They have done presentations for the Washington
State Parent Teacher Association about what needs to change in schools to
get kids to start participating in programs. The Seattle Police Department in-
vited them to do a Campaign Against Violence Brown Bag Forum. They did
a presentation for Project HELP (Helping Everyone Live Peacefully) of Asian
Pacific Islanders Rising Above. They have also spoken at state and national
substance abuse prevention conferences, and one YNA member was hired to
cofacilitate the Washington State Substance Abuse Conference.
YNA members have been on televised panels including one on which
they shared the stage with the former governor, Seattle Chief of Police, and
the county executive and spoke about drug prevention and teen apathy.
They were on a town meeting TV program on drinking and driving. Many
of YNA's presentations are to youth audiences, such as their workshop on
activism at the Partners in Prevention camp, and their seminars on how
to establish YACs at the Seattle Center Peace Academy and the Stop Auto
Fatalities Through Youth Efforts (SAFTYE) 1997 Conference.
YNA members also attend conferences and workshops as participants.
For example, Sharon and several members attended a two-week community
leadership and nonviolence training workshop. They have also attended a
big annual youth conference of the Seattle Youth Involvement Network.
YNA members meet with county and state elected officials, police chiefs,
and other policy makers to advocate on issues of concern to youth in King
County. They lobby on youth issues in the state capitol, in other Washington
cities, and in Washington, D.C., as when they were on U.S. Senator Patty
Murray's Senate Advisory Youth Involvement Team and when they repre-
sented one member's YAC, called Students Against Destructive Decisions
(SADD). They have met many times with the governor, lieutenant governor,
and attorney general. Their advocacy work also includes participation in ral-
lies and marches.
YNA members were often being asked to speak at various functions, but
many members had no formal training in public speaking. Consequently, the
consistency and quality of the work they were doing in the community was
starting to be questioned. Amir gives an example: "I've had people come up
and say that person wasn't even talking. Is she a part of your group? Or what
was she, or he, doing there." Lorraina also described a problem when she said
that some people who were signed up to be speakers and were being paid
were not actually participating as presenters at their engagements.
Training for public speaking had always been informal. A solution that
was tried was to have a youth subcommittee delegate speaking engagements
to those youth that they knew were good speakers. The subcommittee did
not work very well because the people on it felt uncomfortable having to
judge their peers and make that kind of decision and also because the people
who were not chosen were not getting any chances to improve their skills
and gain experience. That was when YNA decided that Sharon should be the
one to call people who were knowledgeable on the topic and ask if they were
interested in speaking. A new subcommittee was formed to develop some
new guidelines for participation in speaking engagements.
In their advocacy, YNA members serve as a link between their own
YACs and elected officials and policy makers. For example, Kaleem will
work with the coordinator at Echo Glen, the youth detention center, to try
to go to a youth group meeting to get input from young people there. In
the meantime, while they are working through the red tape of that plan,
he talks to some of his friends on the phone and brings their ideas to YNA
meetings. He says:
they got some kids at the youth group in Echo Glen that have a long time
there so they won't be able to start going to the programs out here for a
long time, so I call back and get their input because their voices need to
be heard more than anybody, because some of the things that they say
make so much more sense than anything else. There's a lot of gang vio-
lence at Echo Glen because they put everybody together and I talk about
that because it needs to stop out here first. As soon as people out here
figure out it's not what's in anymore, gang affiliation is not in anymore,
they won't bring it in to the institution. Also, school. People at Echo Glen
tend to be behind other people in the community, so I want to bring up
48 Youth Participation in Community Planning
the issue of schooling at the institutions. Kids are getting out of there one
or more grade levels behind. There's hardly any science classes. They
may end up graduating, but what grade level will they graduate at?
YNA is not an organization that provides services. It does not create
programs and services for youth, but it does provide input and advice
for people who are creating programs and services. In their consulting,
they provide direct advice on program development for community-
based activities like teen centers and after-school programs. They give
input about how to develop the programs so that people will come and
how to get the information out to the youth. They provide training for
adult-led organizations, such as youth service agencies and health de-
partments, on how to increase youth involvement and set up new pro-
grams. For example, Kaleem says that he always recommends they "find
a couple of youth in the community who are leaders and have those
youth go out and get everybody else, because youth will listen to other
youth." They have met with jail directors to provide technical assistance
on strategies for getting the word out on prevention for both incarcer-
ated and nonincarcerated youth.
YNA members serve on planning and hiring committees, such as the one
for HBO's show "Faces of Addiction," and the King County Health Action Plan
Teen Workgroup. They helped Partners in Prevention plan its annual camp and
sat on the hiring committee for a Youth Involvement Coordinator of the South
King County Youth Violence Committee Community Mobilization Project.
YACs include both groups that YNA helps set up in different communi-
ties as well as organizations that already existed and now have representa-
tion in YNA. Sharon gives some examples.
Maple Valley, their youth group asked YNA to come and do a work-
shop about how to set up a youth action council. So, they had already
decided that they were going to do something, but they didn't know
how, so YNA spent a whole day out there and now we have two youth
from Maple Valley in our group and twice now they have been funded
for mini-grants for their activities. Their thing was how do we mobi-
lize and get a skateboard park out here, and they've already got their
skateboard park and so it bore fruit, so that's one of our big successes.
In Enumclaw they wanted the same thing. They did get the money and
the council did approve it, but now the neighborhood is protesting. All
the ducks are in a row. We'll see what happens.
They also tell youth who attend presentations that YNA will provide
guidance on how to set up a YAC.
While paying youth activists stipends for their work is something that
YNA members voted for, it seems like its more important to the young
people that their contributions are recognized and validated than that they
are paid. Sharon explains,
It's interesting because they fought very, very hard to get those $25
stipends, and once they got those stipends actually the amount of
speaking engagements went down. It wasn't money, it was the fact
that they wanted to be validated and recognized for their contribu-
tion of giving input and also they handle their transportation costs
and food on the way there and time off from missed work, that kind
of stuff. So, really you can’t say that money inspired any of the kids
because we still have hundreds and hundreds of dollars left in our
stipend budget that hasn't been spent. They just want the acknowl-
edgment and the respect and the audience, and that carries a lot
more weight than getting paid.
Part 3. Youth-Based Initiatives for Youth Empowerment and Community Change 49
YNA is not an organization that
provides services. It does not
create programs and services for
youth, but it does provide input
and advice for people who are
creating programs and services.
In their consulting, they pro-
vide direct advice on program
development for community-
based activities like teen centers
and after-school programs
Stipends promote young people's connection to YNA because the youth
feel it is a place that respects and values their input, and stipends are one
way that respect is shown.
Kaleem stays involved because:
every intention of this group is good. We don't do this so that we can
make the money. We do this because we want to make a change. We
get paid $25 for going to speak, but we don't go out to speak because
we want to earn the $25. When I started YNA I didn't know that I was
going to get $25 for speaking. I did it just because I wanted to help out
and express my opinion as well as other people's opinions. I did my
one speech two weeks ago, and I still haven't turned in my form to get
paid because I went to the PTA convention to let people know what we
need in school for other youth, not for the money. Being able to help
somebody out, that just does enough for me.
Credibility. Through their accomplishments, YNA members have built
credibility as experts and effective advisors, advocates, and public speak-
ers. Sharon says,
They basically have the ear of the Washington state attorney general.
Any time they want to come to Olympia and her schedule permits, she'll
see them. The same with the county council, certain members of the coun-
cil. They have some credibility behind them.
Martin agrees. “I know the Lieutenant Governor Brad Owen pretty well.
Basically he uses my picture and my identity for some of his presentations.
He says this guy is doing really well in Seattle, and what I’m involved
with.”
Because of the structure and credibility of YNA opportunities open up to
them to have a voice in policy-making arenas. Kaleem says,
Some adults are intimidated by youths' opinions. With the structure of
YNA and the rapport that we have already built over the last two years
with the lawmakers, we have a little bit of status now. I don't think that
any individual youth would be able to get into the places that YNA
attend to voice their opinions. With youth having YNA to voice their
opinions, we're doing something good.
Outcomes for the Community and for YNA Participants
The following comment by Amir points out a crucial difference between
organizations created to keep kids out of trouble and those that are about
empowering young people as community change agents. He says,
For a little bit I was really frustrated with what my youth council
actually can do and now I can see it more as a group that the com-
munity put together for the youth to do positive things, so it would
improve the youth in it more than that it does things for the com-
munity. I can't say nothing bad about the youth council because
they have started a mentoring program for the elementary school
kids. They are setting up a youth center and skate park. But when I
think about it, YNA does a lot more for the community than one of
these little youth councils. I think YNA is one of the strongest groups
when it comes to outcomes.
Although it is often difficult to judge the effectiveness of groups that
rely on lobbying and public speaking and don't have direct roles in mak-
ing decisions about public policy, YNA members attest to some important
outcomes of their work.
YNA has helped to change the community's perception of the role of
young people in society. According to Kaleem:
50 Youth Participation in Community Planning
A couple of years ago, adults were not looking for any kind of
youth opinion, whereas now, every week YNA has two to three
things to go to and talk about. Adults are getting more enthusiastic
about taking youths' opinions into consideration. YNA has done a
lot to open up the minds of people, to get organizations running
and youth programs started. Nine times out of ten they want us to
come back and speak again. YNA has changed adults' opinion of
youth very significantly.
YNA provides advice in the form of information and guidance to young
people as they build their own organizations, advice that is easier for them
to hear and more effective in reaching them, partly because it is coming
from other youth, and partly because it is grounded in the reality of the
lives of other young people like them. As Kaleem says:
Youth will listen to youth a lot better than they will listen to adults.
Most youth will tend to do the exact opposite of what adults say, so if
a youth is out there telling them they should do this, they'll say, “Let's
go see what that's all about.”
Angie, a young woman who had heard YNA give a workshop for youth
in Yakima, describes how YNA's approach worked for her:
When I saw you guys at the convention in Yakima I felt great. It gave
me focus. It was great to know about you guys because I thought
the only support was people at Narcotics Anonymous meetings, but
they were the worst when they got out of rehab. You helped me see
that, if you want to do something, you can do it. Helped me see that
I could do more to help other people, like to start programs to help
other youth. And now we are starting all these things where I live.
I've used what I've learned from YNA, like how to start programs,
and I continue to get ideas for things to do, like we're going to do a
dance. Things we can do to support people to prevent problems in
the first place.
Part 3. Youth-Based Initiatives for Youth Empowerment and Community Change 51
Youth share important issues at a YNA
Summit: “Breaking the Ice, Melting
the Differences,” September 7, 1996.
SYPP
For both youth and adult audiences, the fact that the
input is coming from young people who have lived the
lives they are talking about is essential. YNA has provided
valuable input that adults can use to make better decisions
about youth programming and policy. Young people can
follow advice that is founded on the reality of other young
people's successes and failures. Renee explains the impact
that youth presenters have on an audience. “The panel was
boring until we started talking and our comments were so
much stronger than everybody else's, because we're youth
and we're talking about the things that are going on right
now and things we are going through.”
YNA has had a significant impact on networking
among youth and youth leadership organizations in
Seattle. The YNA mini-grants program provides youth
leaders with funds they need for youth-initiated proj-
ects. Youth organizations also network at the annual
YNA summit. YNA members are also recipients of the
benefits of other organizations, such as when Kira re-
ceived an award from the Seattle Youth Involvement Network. YNA
has also collaborated on projects with other youth organizations, such
as when they funded the SYIN’s Youth Yellow Pages as a service to all
youth in King County.
The networking comes naturally as a result of the shared membership
between YNA and the YACs. Amir explains that, although not an official
part of core group meeting agendas (because there is not a time during
meetings at which each person reports on what is going on in his or her
youth council), networking does occur at the meetings.
I see networking as a case-by-case basis. If somebody needs information,
like I’ve talked to [the representative from the Kirkland Youth Council]
before about how her youth council is structured between her different
groups and everything. So I can take that back to my youth council.
YNA had the Power of Hope retreat [on the agenda at a meeting] and,
though YNA didn't pick up on the opportunity, we brought one of the
flyers back to the youth council and then our youth council went to that
retreat and it turned out to be one of the best things ever. If you really
wanted to network, you could with YNA. It’s on an as-needed basis. If
somebody's doing something great, come tell me about it, I'll go. And
then if my youth council is doing something great, I go and tell people
about it, and then if they have questions on how we do that or whatever,
they can come talk to us and we can go talk to them.
The youth councils represented in the YNA core group benefit from the
skills, leadership, and information that their representatives gain in YNA.
Amir describes the value to his core group.
I think they get more from me being involved in YNA. All the skills
I've gotten through YNA. I think that I can more effectively work with
the youth council and, seeing what the other youth councils do, I can
see more what we are capable of. I think it's a great idea to have every
youth council have a representative in YNA.
As to what they gain individually from their participation in YNA, young
people cite the opportunities given to them that they would not have other-
wise. Sharon and the youth make a real effort to recruit young people who, as
Sharon says, are "diamonds in the rough, the kids with leadership potential
who you can then see turn into really good leaders," but who may not have
had opportunities to learn and develop organizing, advocacy, and leadership
skills. Kaleem feels that he is an example of someone who has been given
such an opportunity. Even though he is no longer in the detention facility but
is living in a group home with more freedom, he still has limited opportuni-
ties to participate in the life of the community. However, YNA provides a
mechanism, a peer group and the necessary moral and logistical support, to
take the opportunities as he is ready. As Kaleem explains:
I haven't been doing a lot of stuff with YNA yet, because I kind of
wanted to go in kind of slowly because I don't have a lot of opportuni-
ties like other people because of where I'm at right now at the group
home. It's harder for me to get around. I have to go through a lot of
permissions and stuff. I've been turning down a lot of things that they
want me to do just so that I can take it kind of slow at the beginning.
Now, in 1999, his status demonstrates that he has indeed grown as a
leader and advocate for youth. He is now one of the most active and well-
respected activists and public speakers in the group. And he is planning
to go to college.
Not only does he recognize that he has gained the benefits of learning
leadership skills, Kaleem also sees that his participation in YNA has helped
him stay on a positive track. During his time in detention, he was in a
youth group that introduced him to leadership, organizing, and advocacy
and helped him gain a vision for the possibility of a life making his com-
munity a better place. YNA has helped him make that dream a reality.
52 Youth Participation in Community Planning
I knew I needed something when I got out into the community that
would keep me away from gang involvement, going back to crime. I
knew if I had YNA as a place to go with friends that were trying to get
out of all that I'd be able to stay away. It was a group of people that I
already knew that were away from that so I didn't have to come out
and try to find a group of people. I also wanted to be involved in what
they were doing because they were doing a lot to try to improve things
and they were really involved. I used to be involved heavily in gangs,
but even though I still represent where I used to come from I don't
have to go out there and act all violent. I know right from wrong now.
I know where my head’s at. I tell my friends it's not the time to do all
that. I feel like if I'm going to talk the talk in YNA, I have to walk the
walk. If I'm out there telling people you shouldn't be doing violence
you need to be doing good in school, then I need to set an example
by doing it for myself. If I was never involved in YNA, or any youth
group, I probably wouldn't have made it back to the community as
fast, I'd probably still be incarcerated, I'd still have the same kind of
thinking, gangs, violence, I'd want to get out and sell dope. Without
YNA or some kind of youth group, I wouldn't have no kind of positive
thinking at all.
Amir and Renee also have found that being involved in YNA has helped
them to have a positive direction to their lives–not only staying out of trou-
ble, but also helping them create a vision for their future, helping them figure
out who they are and what they want to become. For many YNA members,
that vision includes community activism. Consider Amir’s statement:
See, I’m an immigrant, I came to the United States in ‘89. I was born in
Afghanistan, lived in Pakistan and Iran for a little bit, and Germany.
Then I moved to Seattle. I was young and have really no direction. I
didn't speak the language. . . . When I finally got adapted. . . I didn't
have the greatest friends, so I got into trouble, I got arrested a couple
of times. . . . Then, when we moved to where I live now, I got into the
youth council scene and then joined YNA. . .and that was when I really
got set into who I want to be, where my focus was, with community
work, that's what I was going to be focused on completely, politics and
that stuff. That's where I saw my drive at the time. Since then, I've been
sticking with community work and staying out of trouble. Now, the
future is wide open for me. I have had some thoughts about politics,
something like the UN. I really want to go back and help out my coun-
try. Anything with major decision making is what I'm looking at, that's
what I want to do. Before YNA, I was thinking, back then, no college, I
don't think so. I just want to get through high school. Maybe do some
kind of apprenticeship with being a mechanic or something. A com-
fortable living. No risk taking. After YNA and after youth council and
after all my different groups, I decided, no there's too many things that
need to be changed, too many things that I can do to just sit back and
be a mechanic or whatever. Yeah, I definitely trace it back to YNA.
Sharon's care and the admiration Renee has for her and other people in
YNA have helped her stay positive and be a happier person. Martin, who
is Renee's cousin, says about Renee, “If it wasn't for YNA, I don't think
she'd be in school right now. If it wasn't for YNA and [her job], I don't think
she'd be here right now, smiling and glowing. Society probably would
have taken over.”
Renee feels YNA has helped her become stronger as a woman.
It's changed me mentally, physically, I care more about myself and
respect myself more, because you know how a lot of girls just get ran
over. As a woman, I feel like I have more power. Because a lot of times
men think they're dominant all the time. I'm a young woman, and I
Part 3. Youth-Based Initiatives for Youth Empowerment and Community Change 53
have a lot more knowledge than some old men. I feel good being able
to speak how I feel and to speak my mind and to let people know,
hey this is wrong, you need to do something about this because this is
what it's doing, it's affecting my life, and other people's life. And I feel
that people respect me more. Being somebody is about being in YNA.
That's what's making me feel like I'm going to be somebody, because I
have a role in this society that's important. I think it made me stronger
as a woman too because Sharon is a woman and she's a strong lady.
She inspires me a lot.
YNA members talk about how important the group has been for them
as they develop socially. Kaleem: “One thing that YNA and Sharon have
helped me with is learning to make friends because before I was resistant
to meeting people, and now I can talk with people and be able to trust
them, have conversations with them.”
Other impacts that members have traced to their involvement in YNA
include “learning things about all the issues. Sharon tries to educate us on
all the issues so that even if we have not lived the issue, we'd still have
some information on it. And also being with all kinds of different youth in
the YNA program who know about this and that, you pick up things from
each other.”
Kaleem, Martin, Renee, and others have also noticed they're doing better
in school. They are learning concrete skills, such as public speaking. Renee
says, "People who see me now are just like, Renee, you've changed. I could
always talk about my feelings, with my friends, but talking in front of large
groups, and in front of important people, I didn't know that I could do that
until I got involved with YNA.”
YNA members are already using the skills, knowledge, opportunities,
responsibilities they gain in other situations, not only in the commissions
and other organizations they are asked to join because of the exposure and
experience they get through YNA, but everywhere they go, everyday.
Kaleem:
Even when I'm sitting in class, even outside of YNA, I always bring up
the youth issues in class. Recently I ran into some adults that were talk-
ing about how rap music is affecting youths' thinking and so I brought
up what would the youth say, as if I was speaking for the youth. I try
to open their minds. I feel that being part of a group that is bringing
these issues to the table, even outside of there, that's what I think I
need to do, speak where the youth voices need to be heard. Without
YNA, I would have just kept on walking by, just let them have their
conversation. But when I seen that they were talking against the youth,
I felt like I needed to say something. I feel that I just need to bring up
youths’ issues in everything.
Amir also describes how he and other YNA participatnts are likely to
use their experiences in the future.
The experiences I'm getting out of this I'm going to be using in the fu-
ture. Youth are going to continue to be involved and I want to be a part
of that even as an adult, so I never forget that I did this as a youth.
54 Youth Participation in Community Planning
Part 4
Youth in
Policy Making
A
s young people respond to issues of importance to them, they seek a
voice at the table with adult decision makers. They want their voices
to be heard and understood; they want an opportunity to share power
in policy making. They want to make a difference in their communities by
working with policy makers to address issues related to the community’s
common good, bringing a fresh approach to community problem solving.
In some communities, youth are demonstrating that they feel confident
about collaborating with adults to effect sustained, necessary change.
Rather than minimizing their participation with adults in public policy
problem solving and decision making, they are instead collaborating
to achieve a shared, common purpose. They are generating visions and
strategies to address public issues such as quality of life, education reform,
sexual equality, and safe environments.
These youth are operating under different assumptions about adult
involvement than are the young people of SYPP and YNA. They are de-
veloping constructive processes, practicing skills for collaboration, and
defining a joint agenda for change. By bringing diverse perspectives to the
table, youth and adults can achieve results in nontraditional ways. Shar-
ing power is fundamental to this emerging model of civic participation.
The strategy is to find common ground on basic issues and forge working
partnerships with adults in leadership that go beyond limiting stereotypes.
These fresh thinking young people are expressing their citizenship in ways
that change their communities and their lives.
Several exemplary initiatives exist in which young people have insti-
tutionalized their role in policy making and are building relationships of
trust and respect with adult community leaders.
HONOLULU: KE ALA HOKU
Ke Ala Hoku, "charting the course," is an ambitious grassroots, ground-up
rather than a top-down, approach to community benchmarking. It is an
intergenerational project with youth and adults working together at every
level of planning and action. It also reveals that a working partnership
with adults can help meet another youth need: that of a supportive adult
role model.
Launched in the spring of 1995, Ke Ala Hoku is a collaboration of
business and human service agencies. Initial project partners include the
Aloha United Way, Hawaii Business Roundtable, Chamber of Commerce
of Hawaii, Hawaii Community Foundation, and the Hawaii Community
Services Council (which administers the project). These groups were joined
later by the Polynesian Voyaging Society. Funding support derives from
the Aloha United Way, Hawaii Community Foundation, Hawaii Commu-
nity Services Council, businesses, and nonprofits.
Fo r Mo r e In F o r M a t I o n
The Ke Ala Hoku program is managed by:
Tracy Janowicz or Rob James
Hawaii Community Services Council
680 Iwilei Road
Suite 665
Honolulu, HI 96817-5317
808-529-0466
808-529-0477 (fax)
Mission
The mission of Ke Ala Hoku is to bring together adults and youth to chart
the best future course for a sustainable Hawaii and to build community
through community benchmarking. Benchmarking is a process that trans-
lates a vision to specific outcomes and develops a system for tracking
progress towards these outcomes—a report card. Each outcome requires
identifying potential indicators—the vital signs of any society—to help
measure the progress towards achieving the vision. A benchmark adds
the time factor (the yardstick) and is the amount of change in an indicator
desired to take place within a specific period of time. Benchmarks provide
an opportunity, in a state budgetary process, to guide the allocation of re-
sources and evaluate the effects of policy choices, thus keeping institutions
accountable for results.
The goals of Ke Ala Hoku are to create a vision of what Hawaii should be,
to develop benchmarks to measure progress in achieving the vision, and to
set priorities. To develop that vision, the Ke Ala Hoku Project forged a unique
approach to community visioning: they turned to Hawaii's youth. Twelve
high school students, who represented the counties in the state and who were
recommended by a group of high school science teachers to serve on the Ke
Ala Hoku Steering Committee, met to pose a challenge to all the children
and youth in the state of Hawaii: "Describe the Hawaii you want to live in."
The proposal was distributed to the state Department of Education, private
schools, agencies who work with youth, and a variety of other channels.
An estimated 6,000 children and youth across the State of Hawaii re-
sponded with their visions describing the kind of Hawaii they wanted for
the future. These responses were analyzed by the Youth Steering Commit-
tee (described in more detail below), which crafted 13 vision statements.
As one member stated: "Every day the adults are making choices that affect
our future, and this is the first time we have a chance to make choices that
affect us.”
Along with the children's vision, the group of students created this
introduction:
On a voyage to the future, who better to chart the course than those
who will be living it? The youth of Hawaii have spoken, voicing their
description of the future we want to live in. A vision was created from
their responses, mapping the course. The voyage must begin now,
and all of the people of Hawaii must work together to stay on course
to reach this destination. Open your mind and envision the future of
Hawaii as the youth see it. Let this vision be the guide on our voyage.
This is their future. . . .
Through a process of state-level forums, countywide focus groups, com-
munity meetings, and events, the completed vision statement mapped the
course in 13 areas: environment, safety, development, economy, education,
preservation, society, drugs, native Hawaiians, transportation, recreation,
health, and technology. In the second phase of the benchmarking process,
58 critical and core indicators were selected to track progress towards that
vision. A data team was formed to find and analyze the baseline data for
all indicators. Roundtable discussions were held to refine the indicators.
More than 1,000 adults and youth participated in four statewide forums
to select these indicators with a report issued for further discussion and
distillation.
Early supporters who adopted the Ke Ala Hoku results-driven com-
munity planning framework include the Aloha United Way, the YWCA of
Oahu, adolescent health programs of the Department of Health, and indi-
vidual schools and neighborhoods across the state. For example, the Aloha
56 Youth Participation in Community Planning
United Way is building the capacity of its member agencies to benchmark.
It has committed to reorganizing its allocation process. The goal is to “al-
locate 75 percent of funds on the basis of results/outcomes and commu-
nity benchmarks by the year 2002.” It will allocate its campaign money to
achieve specific benchmarks towards the Children's Vision.
In April 1998, Ke Ala Hoku launched its second statewide community
campaign in partnership with a local television station and major newspa-
per. (The first was the creation of the Children's Vision and the 58 indica-
tors.) Hawaii residents were asked to rank the 58 critical indicators and
choose the top 10. Surveys were made available through daily newspapers,
television stations, web sites, and a variety of other distribution methods.
More than 5,000 people responded. The top 10 priority indicators were:
• Encouragepeopletolive"Aloha"
• Reducedrug,alcohol,andtobaccouse
• Preventfamilyviolenceandabuse
• Createmorejobs
• Improvethequalityoflife
• Preventyouthgangactivity
• Improveeducationalachievement
• Increasecommunityandschoolsafety
Part 4. Youth in Policy Making 57
• Improvebehaviortowardtheenvironment
• Increase number of competent, caring
teachers
An "indicator" measures the progress toward
a desired outcome. An "outcome" is the desired
result. The 58 critical indicators, and there-
fore, the 10 top priority indicators measure
change toward six preferred outcomes: Aloha
Spirit; Safe, Nurturing Social Environment;
Healthy Natural Environment; Educated Citi-
zens; Thriving, Diverse Sustainable Economy;
Civic Vitality.
Another phase in the process includes devel-
oping neighborhood, county, state, and private
sector indicators. Ke Ala Hoku is currently
working with select pilot communities to de-
velop ways for communities to develop their
own sets of indicators, analyze existing data for
accuracy and usability, and target action plans.
A Hawaii senate resolution passed in 1998 re-
mands a review and report to the 1999 legisla-
ture on the status of incorporating the Ke Ala
Hoku process of benchmarking into the state’s
financial and functional plans that comprise the
Hawaii State Plan. Although state departments
are working with Ke Ala Hoku in refining ap-
plicable indicators by measuring the impact of
policies on achieving state plan goals, there has
been no formal incorporation of the benchmark-
ing system in state plans as yet.
In essence, Ke Ala Hoku serves as a management tool for reallocating
resources to higher priority items and monitoring progress towards the de-
sired outcomes. It is an accountability mechanism for state and county ef-
forts, which can link community planning at the neighborhood level to the
statewide strategic planning goals and help direct community action and
policy making on key issues. It is a vehicle for nurturing youth leadership
in community benchmarking that attempts to create a genuine partnership
between adults and youth.
Ke Ala Hoku Youth Steering Committee
Adult and youth steering committees were formed early in the process to help
monitor the project. All the adult partners and youth work together on the
overall projects of Ke Ala Hoku, such as the ongoing community forums to de-
velop statewide indicators at the neighborhood level. On special projects, such
as the youth summit in October 1998, the Millennium Young People's Congress
in October 1999, or the statewide art contest on the Children's Vision, Youth
Steering Committee members participate on topic of interest to them. Adult
partners volunteer to help mentor the development and implementation of the
projects. These efforts involve partnering with other youth service programs,
such as the Girls Scouts, Department of Parks and Recreation (city and county),
YMCA, Boys and Girls Clubs, and the Hawaii Youth Services Network, which
provide both support from other adults and youth.
Since its inception in 1995, youth on the steering committee have served
two-year terms. Members are drawn from throughout the state, from both
schools and service organizations. The selection process is open to young
people, ages 13 to 18 years old. Youth fill out an application form and are
selected by their peers. The maximum size for the Youth Steering Committee
is 30 members. A limited number of college-level internships are available.
Accomplishments
The youth serve not as advocates but as conveners of other youth groups.
Their task is to look at data and information on what communities need
to make informed decisions about youth issues. They have made presen-
tations to the Hawaii State Legislature and community leaders that have
galvanized efforts via a legislated resolution that encourages public and
private agencies to use outcomes as a basis for policy, program, and budget
development relevant to improving the well-being of children, youth, and
families in Hawaii.
Ke Ala Hoku youth also worked with the board of education on school
safety projects, developed Vision Day Action projects to promote the Ke Ala
Hoku benchmarking process, and participated in environmental service work
projects. They develop their own projects and have been invited to participate
in a variety of strategic projects, such as the international Millennium People's
Congress, planned for Hawaii in 1999, as well as in strategic partnerships, such
as with the USA National Center for Rescue Mission Planet Earth, a world
organization that builds partnerships and collaborations for young people
implementing environmental action and sustainable development issues in
communities. For example, the youth of the Ke Ala Hoku Steering Commit-
tee developed their own peer-to-peer survey on violence and drug use in the
schools. Designed, implemented, and analyzed by youth, its format combines
graphic symbols with minimal narrative using the local vernacular language
(Pidgin) along with traditional survey questions to encourage a broad-based
response of all students. Survey results were presented to the board, and the
Department of Education, and other interested groups.
A statewide community workshop on safety included a facilitated pro-
cess to clarify the issues, causes, and effects, and to suggest a course of
58 Youth Participation in Community Planning
action. Key speakers were Alan Atkisson, a founder of Sustainable Seattle,
and Kara Palmer, formerly the executive director of Sustainable Seattle, a
nationally recognized leader in the community benchmarking movement.
Youth Steering Committee members were involved in a YouthMapping
process sponsored by the Aloha United Way and the Hawaii Commu-
nity Foundation. By canvassing neighborhoods, block-by-block, youth
surveyed the formal and informal resources available in the community
for them and their peers, identified those that were useful to them, and
where gaps existed. The evolving map is a dynamic and positive process
for changing youth perspectives of themselves and their community, and
is itself a resource. At the same time, the YouthMapping process fosters
healthy relationships between youth and adults, as well as valuable life
skills such as effective communication, team building, presentation, and
information gathering.
Na `Opio O Ke Ala Hoku is a youth grant-making program established
in Spring 1996 and funded by the Hawaii Community Foundation, with
the Ke Ala Hoku Youth Steering Committee serving as the advisory
board for the fund. The purpose is for youth to distribute grants to youth
programs that target and promote the indicators and to encourage youth
volunteerism. The fund has grown to more than $500,000, and more than
$67,000 in grants have been awarded to 32 nonprofits and schools. Awards
have funded gardens, youth peer education, environmental clean-up, and
a variety of service programs.
During the summer of 1998, a new Ke Ala Hoku Youth Steering Com-
mittee took over, as former members graduated high school and moved on.
Two major projects were undertaken. The first was the first Youth Summit
held in Hawaii on October 10, 1998. Funded by a $10,000 grant from the
Ronald McDonald House Charities, the youth summit focused on improv-
ing the effectiveness of youth volunteerism across the state. Youth oversaw
all aspects of designing, planning, and implementing the summit. More
than 260 young people and adults attended the all-day program that in-
cluded a service fair with 23 agencies and workshops on intergenerational
guidelines, community benchmarking, and community service.
The second project is the International Millennium Young People's Con-
gress, October 22-30, 1999, which will include representatives from more
than 150 countries, including the U.S. The purpose of the project is to forge
a global vision, indicators, and action strategy for sustainability in the
twenty-first century. Sponsored by Peace Child International, a nonprofit
based in London, England, and endorsed by the United Nations, the con-
gress will bring together 1,000 youth ages 15 to 18 as a follow-up to the
Rio Earth Summit Agenda 21 held in 1992, which mobilized youth in 120
countries. Ke Ala Hoku will train the Millennium Youth Stewards in col-
laboration with the Youth for Environmental Services (YES), who will host
the congress in Hawaii.
SAN FRANCISCO: THE YOUTH COMMISSION
The Youth Commission was established in November 1995 through a
proposition approved by the voters of San Francisco. Its purpose is to ad-
vise the Board of Supervisors and the mayor on issues relating to children
and youth. The commission operates under the jurisdiction of the Board of
Supervisors and is a program item in the board's budget. The Youth Com-
mission consists of 17 voting members between the ages of 12 and 23 years
at the time of appointment. It is a youth-run and youth-led organization
providing a voice for youth in city government. Youth learn leadership and
decision-making skills, invaluable experience about city government, and
ways to empower others.
Part 4. Youth in Policy Making 59
Fo r Mo r e In F o r M a t I o n
The contact for San Francisco’s Youth Com-
mission is:
Susan Kim, Executive Director
Youth Commission
City Hall, Room 345
1 Doctor Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102
415-554-6446; 415-554-6140 (fax)
youthtemp@ci.st.ca.us (e-mail)
www.ci.sf.ca.us/youth_commission
Membership
Each member of the board and the mayor appoints one member to the
commission. The mayor appoints an additional five members from under-
represented communities to ensure the commission represents the diver-
sity of the city. Commission members are selected who, according to Article
VI, Sec. 4.123(a) of the city charter, “have an understanding of the needs of
young people in San Francisco, or experience with children and youth pro-
grams or youth organizations, or involvement with school or community
activities.” Representation reflects the diversity of race, ethnicity, gender,
and sexual orientation of the City and County of San Francisco.
Mission
The main objective of the commission is to act as a bridge between the youth
of San Francisco and the formal political arena. Its purpose is to collect all
information relevant to advising the board and mayor on the impacts of
legislative policies, needs, assessments, priorities, programs, and budgets on
the children and youth of San Francisco. The commission reviews for com-
ment and recommendations on any matter that primarily affects children and
youth prior to the Board of Supervisors taking final action.
The commission's duties and functions are to:
• Identifyconcernsandneedsof children and youth; examineexisting
social, economic, educational, and recreational programs for children
and youth; develop and propose plans that support or improve these
programs; and make recommendations to the mayor and the Board of
Supervisors.
• IdentifytheunmetneedsofSanFrancisco’schildrenandyouththrough
personal contact with these young people, school officials, church lead-
ers, and others; and hold public forums in which both youth and adults
are encouraged to participate.
• Elicittheinterest,support,and mutualcooperationofprivate groups
and citywide neighborhood planning efforts for children, youth, and
families that initiate and sponsor recommendations that address the
social, economic, educational, and recreational needs of children and
youth in San Francisco. Advise the mayor and Board of Supervisors
about how such recommendations could be coordinated in the com-
munity to eliminate duplication in cost and effort.
• Adviseaboutavailablesources ofgovernmentalandprivatefunding
for youth programs.
• SubmitrecommendationstothemayorandBoardofSupervisorsabout
juvenile crime prevention, job opportunities for youth, recreational ac-
tivities for teenagers, opportunities for effective participation by youth
in the governmental process, and changes in city and county regula-
tions that are necessary to improve the social, economic, educational,
and recreational advantages of children and youth.
• Respondtorequestsfor comments andrecommendationson matters
referred to the commission by officers, departments, agencies, boards,
commissions, and advisory committees of the City and County of San
Francisco.
Accomplishments
Since its inception, the commission has developed various partnerships
and collaborations with community-based organizations throughout the
City of San Francisco. As part of their outreach to youth, the commission
60 Youth Participation in Community Planning
meets monthly in the community at a variety of venues: schools, youth-
serving agencies, and juvenile hall. Youth commissioners have initiated
all the projects and task forces and taken the lead in all matters, including
hiring staff (including the director) to budget managing. Their knowledge
of government has been shaped by on-the-job experiences.
In May 1997, the Youth Commission sponsored a youth-focused, youth-
run, and youth-led conference along with the Mayor ’s Office of Children,
Youth, and Their Families (MYOCYF). The Youth Empowerment Confer-
ence, developed and organized by and for young people, attracted more
than 1,300 youth and service providers. The objectives were to:
• highlightsuccessfulyouthleadersandgivethemapublicforum,edu-
cate and inspire participants with a variety of resources and network-
ing opportunities;
• provideinputto the Mayor'sFive-YearChildrenand YouthPlan and
increase youth participation in city government policy development
and planning;
• developnewyouthleadership;and
• empowertheyoungpeopleinSanFrancisco.
The Youth Empowerment Agenda focused on youth-initiated projects in
the community, youth on government/community planning and review
boards, and neighborhood-based youth councils and leadership.
The all-day conference, attended by more than 1,200 young people,
included workshops with topics addressing such issues as anti-violence,
policy and advocacy, entrepreneurship, young women's issues, juvenile
justice, drugs and alcohol, HIV and AIDS, lesbian and gay youth, peer
resources, gardening internships, and how adults can play a supportive
role in guiding young people to positions of leadership. Other conference
activities included a resource fair, featuring more than 70 youth-serving
organizations, neighborhood networking sessions, and an evening em-
powerment jam and a music industry network exhibition featuring local
professionals who could speak to young people interested in a career in
the music industry. A youth survey and a youth needs assessment de-
veloped by the Youth Commission and MYOCYF was distributed at the
conference. The second Youth Empowerment Conference was held May
22, 1999, and attracted more than 500 participants. It featured workshops
on numerous topics, including service learning, dating violence, tobacco
myths and facts, housing and homelessness, issues related to children
ages 1 through 5, youth empowerment, sexual health, and youth legal
rights.
Youth commissioners helped plan the 1998 Mayor's Children and Youth
Summit sponsored by MYOCYF. The purpose of the summit was to de-
velop a long-term strategy to make San Francisco more responsive to the
needs of children, youth, and families. Commissioners also participated
in the six community summits held at schools in different neighborhoods
throughout the city. The commission also evaluated the Children's Services
Plan, which is the annual plan for implementing the San Francisco Chil-
dren's Fund. The fund, established in 1991, requires the city to set aside a
portion of tax revenues for funding children's services until the year 2002.
Commissioners assisted the mayor's office in the development of Youth
Works, a new youth employment program, to ensure that youth have a
voice in planning and participating in the program. Youth Works matches
job-ready youth with trained career mentors in any of the 65 city depart-
ments. Other projects included:
Part 4. Youth in Policy Making 61
• developingYouthLine,acall-intelephoneandonlineserviceforyoung
people to learn about services and resources in the community from
their own peers;
• testifyingbeforetheBoardofSupervisors;
• helpingtoplanskateboardparksinthecity;and
• participatinginvarioustrainingsandpublicforums.
The Youth Commission has helped create two tasks forces: the Lesbian,
Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning, and Queer (LGBTQQ) Youth Task
Force and the Sexual Assault Against Girls and Young Women Task Force.
LGBTQQ Youth Task Force, established in summer 1998, is the result of a
hearing held by the Youth Commission and the Human Rights Commission
in fall 1996 to examine the needs of LGBTQQ youth in San Francisco. Six of
the 15 voting members are appointed by the Youth Commission, with three
members appointed by the Human Rights Commission, five members by
the Board of Supervisors, and one member appointed by the mayor. The
task force includes six nonvoting members representing city departments
and the San Francisco Unified School District. The mission is to develop
a plan for specific city departments to implement based on recommenda-
tions from the 1996 Human Rights Commission hearing concerning the
needs of LGBTQQ youth. Current projects include development of legisla-
tion to mandate sensitivity training for all employees or volunteers who
work directly with youth and whose agencies receive money from the city,
and development of an emergency shelter for LGBTQQ youth.
The Task Force on Sexual Assault of Girls and Young Women is com-
posed of an Adult Advisory Council and a Young Women's Council. The
Young Women's Council consists of young women between the ages of
9 and 24. The task force assesses, evaluates, and reports on prevention
and intervention services available in San Francisco and makes recom-
mendations to the Board of Supervisors concerning possible changes
in service needs. As a youth-led and youth-developed task force, the
Adult Advisory Council members, who represent city departments and
community organizations, serve as mentors and resources for the Young
Women's Council. It is an opportunity to improve services as well as to
develop leadership skills. The Sexual Assault Task Force is working with
the For Girls Coalition to help them apply for a TANF (Temporary As-
sistance for Needy Families) grant to provide sexual assault training for
young women.
Another project is the Youth Initiated Project (YIP), which empowers
young people in the San Francisco community by providing needed sup-
port to turn project ideas into action. Young people with creative commu-
nity solutions apply to YIP, partner with an adult ally, and may access YIP
staff training or technical assistance for their application. A review board,
comprised of a majority of young people, selects the projects to provide
funding support. YIP is a collaborative venture of the Youth Commis-
sion, the Youth Leadership Institute, Linking San Francisco, and the San
Francisco Volunteer Center, and is funded in part by the Mayor's Office of
Children, Youth, and Their Families.
Since the first funding cycle in summer 1998, YIP has given an estimated
$100,000 to 50 youth-led organizations in three funding rounds. Ninety-
three groups of young people have applied to YIP for a total request
of $250,000. Specific neighborhoods are targeted for potential funding,
selected for criteria like number of young people in the neighborhood,
diversity of youth, and the amount of violence in the community. Youth
projects funded include camping trips for urban kids, poetry nights, youth
62 Youth Participation in Community Planning
microbusiness, training on the justice system for young women, oral histo-
ries with seniors, an arts publication, and bilingual workshops.
According to ex-Commissioner Kent Khounsombath, formerly Vice-Chair
of Legislative Affairs, a number of key elements help a community create a
policy-making youth commission like San Francisco's.
• Adultsneedtogivepowertoyoungpeople.
• Youth advocates are vital to lobby for establishing a youth commis-
sion.
• Networkingandcoalitionbuildingarecriticaltoolsfordevelopingthe
platform for a youth commission.
Once a youth commission is established, it is necessary to:
• buildaconstituency;
• instituteaccountability
• establishasolidworkingrelationshipwiththeadultdecisionmakers
• changetheperceptionofyouthbyexample
• leverageresources
• besensitivetothepoliticalenvironment
• createopportunitiesforotheryouthingovernment
• providewaysforbusinesstosupportyouth
• networkwiththecommunitytodefineyouthissues;and
• bridgethepoliticalgapbetweenyouthandgovernment.
TORONTO: THE YOUNG PEOPLE’S ADVISORY BOARD
In 1991, encouraged by the success of the Kidsviews project (see Part 2 of
this report), which was considered a key component of the Cityplan '91
review, and by the interest generated by the initiative, the Toronto Plan-
ning and Development Department recommended to the city council that a
young people's advisory board be established. The board would be a living
classroom for first-hand experience in learning planning and political reali-
ties, and would serve as a catalyst for creative problem solving. City Hall
would become more accessible and at the same time benefit from fresh,
new viewpoints. The board would be modeled after similar programs in
Seattle and Edmonton.
The Toronto City Council directed the Healthy City office to set up a
young people’s advisory board, targeted to young people ages 12 to 24.
In 1992, the board was initially established as a two-year pilot program to
advise the council “on issues pertaining to youth in Toronto and advocate
for the rights of young people at the municipal level.”
Membership
"Youth" is defined by the City of Toronto as continuing "up to age 24." To
ensure adequate representation to reflect the broad range of youth interests
and the socioeconomic and ethno-racial backgrounds, board membership
includes the following:
• Oneyouthactiveinacommunitygroup
• Twoyouthincare
• Twostreetyouth
• Twoworkingyouth
Part 4. Youth in Policy Making 63
Fo r Mo r e In F o r M a t I o n
The advocate for the Young People’s
Advisory Board is:
Councillor Olivia Chow
Children and Youth Advocate
Council Members Offices
2d Floor
100 Queen Street, W.
Suite C50
Toronto M5H 2N2
416-392-4044
416-392-4120 (fax)
• Fouryouthfromthesecondaryschools
• Oneyouthfromagrade7and8school
• Twoyouthfromapost-secondaryinstitution
• onerepresentativefromtheTorontoAreaSchoolCouncils(TASC)
• oneyouthworker
• one(ormore)staffperson(s)fromanycitydepartmentinToronto
The same system that applies to all committees set up in the City of
Toronto applies to establishing the board: a person interested in the Youth
Board applies and a selection committee of youth and other members se-
lect and interview participants. To supplement the diverse views fostered
by the make-up of the board, surveys are used, on an ongoing basis, to
solicit concerns and comments from elementary schools (grades 6 and
below), grades 7 and 8, high schools, and postsecondary institutions (e.g.,
colleges, technical institutes, etc.).
Structure and Procedures of Operation
The key issue identified during the inception of the Young People's Ad-
visory Board was the need to place the board within the City of Toronto's
organizational structure to ensure the appropriate linkages between the
board and council and the various department programs subsumed in city
government. The Healthy City Project, with its three priority areas--equity,
environment, and economy--was the logical umbrella. It was well-posi-
tioned within the government structure in the chief administrative office.
And the types of issues addressed by the Healthy City initiative are the
issues identified as specific youth concerns.
The staff in the Healthy City office serves as the general information
resource on the City of Toronto and its bureaucracy, keeping the Young
People's Advisory Board members current on the issues related to the
board's priorities being addressed via the council process. At the same
time, the staff works with the board to identify the opportunities for board
input into the political process. Healthy City staff also link the advisory
board to the appropriate department or committee for board issues that
are not being addressed through the council approval process, which helps
to pull together the required information and other resources to work
with the board. Consequently, the corporate director, Healthy City Project,
through the Healthy City office, is responsible for managing the board,
with the accountability for ensuring the board's success shared throughout
city government.
Accomplishments
Toronto's Young People's Advisory Board serves as an innovative way of
fostering responsible citizenship and civic participation and awareness
and as an effective youth forum that spans across Canada. The board has
taken leadership in facilitating speak-out events and forums to identify
youth issues and to empower youth with the skills and confidence to make
themselves heard in critical areas such as youth unemployment, home-
lessness, affordable education, violence, and youth empowerment. Youth
Power Speak Out is a workshop series designed to empower young people
to create change at the municipal level.
Board members have also developed partnerships, made presenta-
tions, facilitated workshops, participated in conferences, and helped to
raise funds to promote and galvanize the community around addressing
these issues.
64 Youth Participation in Community Planning
Part 4. Youth in Policy Making 65
In anticipation of the formation of the "Megacity," the youth board, along
with other youth organizations that support youth in decision making,
created workshops to mobilize young citizens for the elections for the new
city council. These workshops explored the impact of the changing politi-
cal environment on young people's lives and the importance of using the
power of youth to participate in the political system and mobilizing other
youth to vote. The workshops help youth practice skills and techniques in
public speaking as a tool for communicating youth perspectives to others.
Ange Valentini, former co-chair of the board, described the latest urban
phenomenon in Toronto: Squeegee Kids (young people who offer to wash
the windows of automobiles at major city intersections).
We found a diverse group of youth from different backgrounds and
with varying degrees of education. However, there were several strik-
ing similarities among the people we interviewed. All of them viewed
"squeegeeing" as a form of employment. They all believed that squee-
geeing was their only alternative to begging . . . . The young people we
spoke with were taking responsibility for initiating a positive change
in their lives. . . . We need innovation and new solutions.
On January 1, 1998, the amalgamation of the City of Toronto with six
other municipalities created a new unified City of Toronto, the fifth largest
city in North America. Created by the Ontario government through legisla-
tion, this new governmental entity extends the youth board’s outreach.
TYPAB no longer exists. A new system has emerged. To bring the youth
initiatives from the six municipalities together, the mayor appointed a
Children and Youth Committee with a youth advocate position filled by
a local councillor. The 35-member Children and Youth Action Committee
(CYAC), made up of City Council members, school trustees, and commu-
nity representatives who work with children, is the vehicle for focusing a
coordinated approach on the well-being of children and youth in Toronto.
Chaired by the Children and Youth Advocate, CYAC's mandate is to de-
velop a civic Strategy for Children that invests in children as a top priority
and promotes and coordinates the cooperation of the various sectors that
provide services to children and families.
To represent the voice of young people, a Youth Cabinet was established.
Members reflect the diverse ethnic and geographical makeup of the new
city. The Cabinet reports to CYAC and has a core group of youth that serve
as a steering committee. Membership on the Youth Cabinet is open to all
youth ages 15-24. The Cabinet continues to lobby councillors on policy
issues, conducts protests, and develops initiatives and projects, such as
youth assemblies, newsletters, and a website.
REFLECTIONS
In each of these communities, young people involve themselves in inter-
generational partnerships. The perception is that there is a degree of mu-
tual respect and shared responsibility. This reflects Hart's eighth rung of
the ladder of participation; namely, these programs involve child-initiated,
shared decisions with adults. Young people involved in these programs
have shown the confidence and competence to directly participate with
adults in shaping policies that affect their lives and others in the com-
munity. Adults view youth as resources with information to direct public
problem solving. Intergenerational partnerships are instrumental in build-
ing the civic infrastructure, or the ability to work together to mobilize
resources for a common purpose.
Although these youth initiatives operate in institutional settings, there
are notable differences in organizational structure. Both San Francisco
66 Youth Participation in Community Planning
and Toronto formalized and, therefore, legitimized the role of youth par-
ticipation in governance. They recognize that public policy benefits from
the input of young people. By placing the Youth Commission under the
jurisdiction of the Board of Supervisors, San Francisco has ensured the
long-term viability and credibility of the youth voice in the political arena.
The demise of TYPAB shows the impact that a changing political environ-
ment can have on a Youth Advisory Board not strategically positioned
and, therefore, left vulnerable. The partnership in Ke Ala Hoku specifically
integrates business with the non-profit world, creating a less structured,
perhaps, more fluid youth participation initiative. However, its approach
to policy making via benchmarking community priorities towards a vision
of the future anchors the youth initiative in a potent and ongoing role in
public decision making.
Part 5
Conclusions
We have considered several approaches to involving young people
in the community planning and decision-making process. These
examples varied in the degree of genuine participation by the chil-
dren and youth.
The common approach was an adult-initiated activity (Hart 1992) with
varying degrees of shared decision making with the young constituents.
The Seattle Young People's Project is the only clear example what has be-
come an evolving youth-initiated and directed organization. The fact that
the organization is a significant voice in the community may be attribut-
able to the environment of the City of Seattle, which by the sheer number
of youth empowerment groups in place, appears to have established a
culture of youth participation.
Some of the cultural limitations to young people's participation at the
decision-making level are:
• alackofinterestbyadultsintheinputofchildrenoryouth;
• anexpectationthatyoungpeopledonothavethesamecompetencein
communicating as adults and, therefore, may be ignored, or must be
directed or controlled;
• thedifferenceinrealitiesbetweenadolescentsandadults;
• theprojectionsbyadultsof theirfearsanduncertaintyuponchildren;
and
• alackofunderstandingofhowyoungpeopleprocessinformationdur-
ing their different stages of development.
The quality of the feedback received as a result of these types of initia-
tives confirms the wealth of fresh ideas and the many practical suggestions
that young people have to offer. There is obviously much to learn from the
young. Their contributions should be viewed within the lens of age-spe-
cific differences in the way they perceive the world and their intelligence.
As children evolve from infancy to adolescence, each phase of their devel-
opment and growth is reflected in the unique voice that they contribute to
the public dialogue. Every effort must be made to make the connections
with the young: providing them with a more active voice and role in our
communities, including them, hearing them, and actually acting upon
what they share, and most of all, allowing them to contribute to the best
of their ability. When given the opportunity, young people will assume the
greater responsibility that comes with a greater voice.
Futurist Charles Johnston points out that "the pace of change today
means children walk in realities their parents have never experienced and
68 Youth Participation in Community Planning
often have a hard time imagining." He suggests that we need to appreci-
ate the gifts that youth have to offer, especially as they address the unique
challenges and uncertain times that confront us. We must forge opportuni-
ties for young people to attain civic competence, so they can help tackle
the issues that test our nation's resolve. Educator George Woods puts it
succinctly when he states that
We need young people engaged as democratic citizens. . .(who) will
have the ability to use academic skills to make a difference in the
world; a sense of the importance and value of their contribution to their
community; a commitment to fundamental democratic values such as
equity, justice, and cooperation; and the self-confidence tempered with
empathy that it takes to act on behalf of the common good.
Frances Moore Lappé and Paul Martin Du Bois concur:
We become full citizens by doing. . . . We become full citizens by en-
gaging with others, defining our own interests while we uncover their
interests. We become full citizens as we gain confidence --- confidence
that we do have something important to contribute. . . . "
In recent years, we, as a nation, have confronted the uncertainty and
uneasiness over the growth of the new global economy. Much of what is
occurring today in our society is undermining our sense of community:
downsizing, re-engineered jobs, the growing disparities between winners
and losers in the marketplace. In Habits of the Heart, the authors assert:
We are facing trends that threaten our basic sense of solidarity with
others: solidarity with those near to us (loyalty to neighbors, col-
leagues at work, fellow townsfolk), nominally in situations very differ-
ent from our own, those of other nations. Yet this solidarity—this sense
of connection, shared fate, mutual responsibility, community—is more
critical now than ever. It is solidarity, trust, mutual responsibility that
allows human communities to deal with threats and take advantage
of opportunities. How can we strengthen these endangered capacities,
which are first of all cultural capacities to think in certain ways
Appendix A
List of
References
and Suggested
Resources for
Curriculum
Development
Armstrong, Thomas. 1994. Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom. Alexandria, Va.: Associa-
tion for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Arnstein, Sherry R. 1969. “A Ladder of Citizen Participation.” Journal of the American
Institute of Planners 35 (July): 216-24.
Bellah, Robert, et al. 1996. Habits of the Heart. Berkeley, Calif: University of California
Press.
Berman, Sheldon. n.d. “Educating for Social Responsibility.” Educational Leadership 48,
no. 3: 75-81.
Checkoway, Barry. 1998. “Involving Young People in Neighborhood Development.”
Children and Youth Services Review 20: 765-95.
_____. 1995. “Six Strategies of Community Development.” Community Development Jour-
nal 30: 2-20.
_____. n.d. Adults as Allies. Battle Creek, Mich.: W.K. Kellogg Foundation.
_____. n.d. Young People Creating Community Change. Battle Creek, Mich.: W.K. Kellogg
Foundation.
Checkoway, Barry, Kameshwari Pothukuchi, and Janet Finn. 1995. “Youth Participation
in Community Planning: What Are the Benefits?” Journal of Planning Education and
Research 14: 134-39.
Driskell, David, Robin Moore, Daniel Iacofano, and Susan Goltsman. eds. 1990. The Play-
ful City Conference Workbook. Berkeley, Calif.: MIG Communications, July.
Eisen, Arlene. 1994. “A Survey of Neighborhood-based, Comprehensive Community
Empowerment Initiatives.” Health Education Quarterly, 21(2).
Elias, Maurice J., et al. 1997. Promoting Social and Emotional Learning: Guidelines for Educa-
tors. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Finn, Janet, and Barry Checkoway. 1998. “Young People as Competent Community
Builders: A Challenge to Social Work.” Social Work 43: 335-45.
Gardner, Howard. 1987. “Beyond IQ: Education and Human Development.” Harvard
Educational Review 57, no. 2: 187-93.
Guild, P., and S. Garger. 1985. Marching to Different Drummers. Alexandria, Va.: Associa-
tion for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Hart, Roger. 1997. Children’s Participation: The Theory and Practice of Involving Young Citi-
zens in Community Development and Environmental Care. New York: UNICEF.
_____. 1992. Children’s Participation: From Tokenism to Citizenship. Florence, Italy: Interna-
tional Child Development Centre, UNICEF.
Israel, B.A., Barry Checkoway, A. Schultz, and M. Zimmerman. 1994. “Health Educa-
tion and Community Empowerment: Conceptualizing and Measuring Perceptions of
Individual, Organizational, and Community Control.” Health Education Quarterly 21,
no. 2: 149-70.
Kemmis, Daniel. 1995. The Good City and the Good Life. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
KIDS Consortium. 1998. Reform, Resiliency, and Renewal: Kids in Action. Westbrook, Me.:
KIDS Consortium.
Kids Count Data Book: State Profiles of Child Well-Being. 1998. Baltimore, Md.: The Annie
E. Casey Foundation.
Kretzman, John P., and John L. McKnight. 1993. Building Communities from the Inside Out.
Evanston, Ill.: Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research, Northwestern University.
Kurkoski, Jennifer., Karla Markendorf, and Norma Straw. 1997. Youth Voice Begins With
You! Seattle, Wash.: WYVP/SYIN.
69
Kurth-Schai, Ruthanne. “The Roles of Youth in Society: A Reconceptualization.” The
Educational Forum 53: 113-32.
Lappé, Francis Moore, and Paul Martin DuBois. 1994. The Quickening of America: Rebuild-
ing Our Nation, Remaking Our Lives. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Myers, A.J. 1990. Gifts Differing. 2d ed. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Oldenburg, Ray. 1997. The Great Good Place. New York: Marlowe and Company.
Rappaport, Julian. 1987. “Terms of Empowerment/Exemplars of Prevention: Toward a Theory
for Community Psychology.” American Journal of Community Psychology 15, no. 2: 121-44.
Riger, Stephanie. 1993. “What’s Wrong with Empowerment.” American Journal of Com-
munity Psychology 21, no. 3: 279-92.
Seattle Youth Involvement Network. 1997. Seattle Youth Report 1997. Seattle, Wash.: Se-
attle Youth Involvement Network.
Stoneman, Dorothy. 1988. Leadership Development: A Handbook from the Youth Action Pro-
gram of East Harlem Block Schools. New York: Youth Action Program.
“Students Glimpse into Lemon Grove’s Future.” The Lemon Grove Review, May, 18, 1995.
Toronto, City of. Planning and Development Department. January 1991. Kidsviews. To-
ronto, Ontario.
Wood, George. 1990. “Teaching for Democracy.” Educational Leadership 48, no. 3: 32-37.
Zimmerman, Mark A. “Empowerment Theory: Psychological, Organizational and Com-
munity Levels of Analysis.” In Handbook of Community Psychology, edited by J. Rap-
paport and E. Seidman. New York: Plenum Press.
The following resources provide a wealth of ideas for developing community planning proj-
ects and activities to involve children and youth. Most of them are available through APA
Planners Bookstore in Chicago, 312-431-9100, or the American Institute of Architecture
Bookstore in Washington, D.C.
APA Resources Newsletter. A quarterly publication for anyone interested in teaching
children about planning. Each issue highlights exemplary programs in both formal
and informal educational settings. Besides traditional planning, the newsletter covers
resources and programs in environmental education, historic preservation, design,
architecture, archaeology, and a variety of facets of the built environment. Selected
articles can be found online at www.planing.org, or call 312-431-9100.
Graves, Ginny. 1997. Walk Around the Block. Prairie Village, Kansas: Center for Under-
standing the Built Environment.
Hart, Roger. 1992. Children’s Participation: From Tokenism to Citizenship. Florence, Italy:
International Child Development Centre, UNICEF.
Kaplan, Matt. 1994. Side by Side: Exploring Your Neighborhood Through Intergenerational
Activities. Berkeley, Calif.: MIG Communications.
Lesko, Wendy S. 1992. No Kidding Around! Kensington, Md.: Information USA, Inc.
Lesko, Wendy S., and E. Tsourounis, II. 1998. The 26% Youth Solution. Kensington, Md.:
Activism 2000 Project.
Lewis, Barbara. 1991. A Kid’s Guide to Social Action. Minneapolis, Minn.: Free Spirit Publishing.
Moore, Robin C., and Herb H. Wong. 1997. Natural Learning. Berkeley, Calif.: MIG
Communications.
Mullahey, Ramona. 1994. Community As A Learning Resource. Honolulu, Hawaii: Ramona
K. Mullahey.
Slafer, Anna, and K. Cahill. 1995. Why Design? Chicago: Chicago Review Press.
Stine, Sharon. 1997. Landscapes for Learning: Creating Outdoor Environments for Children and
Youth. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Sutton, Sharon. The Urban Network Instructional Portfolio: An Urban Design Program for
Elementary Schools. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
Taylor, Anne. 1991. Architecture and Children: Learning by Design, Teachers Guide and Poster
Sets. Seattle, Wash.: Architecture and Children Institute.
Urban Land Institute. 1990. Dilemmas of Development. Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute.
70 Youth Participation in Community Planning
433. GIS: Assessing Your Needs and Choosing a System.
Lyna L. Wiggins and Steven P. French. August 1991. 28pp.
$28; PAS subscribers $14.
434. Personnel Practices in Planning Offices. Carolyn M. R.
Kennedy. August 1991. 24pp. $28; PAS subscribers $14.
435. Electromagnetic Fields and Land-Use Controls. Louis
Slesin, Matthew Connelly, and David Bergman. December
1991. 20pp. $26; PAS subscribers $13.
437. Airport Noise Regulations. Vince Papsidero. May 1992.
16pp. $26; PAS subscribers $13.
438. Innovative Tools for Historic Preservation. Marya Mor-
ris. September 1992. 44pp. $28; PAS subscribers $14.
440. Staying Inside the Lines: Urban Growth Boundaries. V.
Gail Easley. November 1992. 32pp. $28; PAS subscribers $14.
441. Affordable Housing: Proactive and Reactive Planning
Strategies. S. Mark White. December 1992. 76pp. $30; PAS
subscribers $15.
442. Capital Improvements Programs: Linking Budgeting
and Planning. Robert A. Bowyer. January 1993. 56pp. $30;
PAS subscribers $15.
443. Selecting and Retaining a Planning Consultant: RFQs,
RFPs, Contracts, and Project Management. Eric Damian
Kelly. February 1993. 44pp. $28; PAS subscribers $14.
444. Industrial Performance Standards for a New Century.
James Schwab. March 1993. 68pp. $30; PAS subscribers $15.
445. Manufactured Housing Site Development Guide. We l-
ford Sanders. April 1993. 46pp. $28; PAS subscribers $14.
446. Tree Conservation Ordinances: Land-Use Regulations
Go Green. Christopher Duerksen with Suzanne Richman.
August 1993. 108pp. $32; PAS subscribers $16.
447. Planning, Growth, and Public Facilities: A Primer for
Local Officials. Eric Damian Kelly. September 1993. 32pp.
$28; PAS subscribers $14.
448/449. The Transportation/Land Use Connection. Terry
Moore and Paul Thorsnes. January 1994. 140pp. $32; PAS
subscribers $16.
450. Preparing a Historic Preservation Plan. Bradford White
and Richard Roddewig. March 1994. 58pp. $30; PAS subscribers
$15.
451. Planning for an Aging Society. Deborah A. Howe,
Nancy J. Chapman, and Sharon A. Baggett. April 1994. 64pp.
$30; PAS subscribers $15.
452. Saving Face: How Corporate Franchise Design Can Re-
spect Community Identity. Ronald Lee Fleming. June 1994.
72pp. $30; PAS subscribers $15.
453. Presentation Graphics. Richard Langendorf. January
1995. 80pp. $30; PAS subscribers $15.
454. Design Review. Mark L. Hinshaw. February 1995. 34pp.
$28; PAS subscribers $14.
455. Neighborhood-Based Planning: Five Case Studies. We n-
delyn A. Martz. March 1995. 34pp. $28; PAS subscribers $14.
456. Traffic Calming. Cynthia L. Hoyle. July 1995. 28pp. $28;
PAS subscribers $14.
457/458. A Guide to Wellhead Protection. Jon Witten and
Scott Horsley with Sanjay Jeer and Erin K. Flanagan. August
1995. 104pp. $34; PAS subscribers $17.
459. Bicycle Facility Planning. Suzan Anderson Pinsof and
Terri Musser. October 1995. 44pp. $32; PAS subscribers $16.
460. Preparing a Conventional Zoning Ordinance. Charles
A. Lerable. December 1995. 61pp. $34; PAS subscribers $17.
461. Performance Standards in Growth Management. Doug-
las Porter, ed. January 1996. 44pp. $32; PAS subscribers $16.
462/463 Modernizing State Planning Statutes: The Growing
Smarts m Working Papers. Volume 1. March 1996. 190pp.
$24; PAS subscribers $12.
464. Planners' Salaries and Employment Trends. Marya
Morris. July 1996. 25pp. $28; PAS subscribers $14.
465. Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances and Transporta-
tion Management. S. Mark White. August 1996. 80pp. $34;
PAS subscribers $17.
466. Planning for Hillside Development. Robert B. Olshan-
sky. November 1996. 50pp. $32; PAS subscribers $16.
467. A Planners Guide to Sustainable Development. Kevin
J. Krizek and Joe Power. December 1996. 66pp. $32; PAS
subscribers $16.
468. Creating Transit-Supportive Land-Use Regulations. Marya
Morris, ed. December 1996. 76pp. $34; PAS subscribers $17.
469. Gambling, Economic Development, and Historic Pres-
ervation. Christopher Chadbourne, Philip Walker, and Mark
Wolfe. March 1997. 56pp. $32; PAS subscribers $16.
470/471. Habitat Protection Planning: Where the Wild
Things Are. Christopher J. Duerksen, Donald L. Elliott, N.
Thompson Hobbs, Erin Johnson, and James R. Miller. May
1997. 82pp. $34; PAS subscribers $17.
472. Converting Storefronts to Housing: An Illustrated
Guide. July 1997. 88pp. $34; PAS subscribers $17.
473. Subdivision Design in Flood Hazard Areas. Marya
Morris. September 1997. 62pp. $32; PAS subscribers $16.
474/475. Online Resources for Planners. Sanjay Jeer. No-
vember 1997. 126pp. $34; PAS subscribers $17.
476. Nonpoint Source Pollution: A Handbook for Local Govern-
ments. Sanjay Jeer, Megan Lewis, Stuart Meck, Jon Witten, and
Michelle Zimet. December 1997. 127pp. $32; PAS subscribers $16.
477. Transportation Demand Management. Erik Ferguson.
March 1998. 68pp. $32; PAS subscribers $16.
478. Manufactured Housing: Regulation, Design Innova-
tions, and Development Options. Welford Sanders. July
1998. 120pp. $32; PAS subscribers $16.
479. The Principles of Smart Development. September
1998. 113pp. $32; PAS subscribers $16.
480/481. Modernizing State Planning Statutes: The Grow-
ing Smartsm Working Papers. Volume 2. September 1998.
269pp. $28; PAS subscribers $14.
482. Planning and Zoning for Concentrated Animal Feed-
ing Operations. Jim Schwab. December 1998. 44pp. $32; PAS
subscribers $16.
483/484. Planning for Post-Disaster Recovery and Recon-
struction. Jim Schwab, et al. December 1998. 346pp. $34;
PAS subscribers $17.
485. Traffic Sheds, Rural Highway Capacity, and Growth
Management. Lane Kendig with Stephen Tocknell. March
1999. 24pp. $26; PAS subscribers $13.
486. Youth Participation in Community Planning. Ramona
Mullahey, Yve Susskind, and Barry Checkoway. June 1999.
70 pp. $32. PAS subscribers $16.
recent planning advisory service reports
