Content uploaded by Meaghan Vosz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Meaghan Vosz on Aug 05, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Enabling young people’s
participation in residential care
decision-making
Meaghan Vosz
Lynne McPherson
Natalie Parmenter
Kathomi Gatwiri
February 2020
Young people’s participation in residential care decision-making
2
Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 4
Understanding participation ......................................................................................................... 5
Access to information, understanding and awareness ............................................................... 6
Having a voice, having a say and expressing views .................................................................... 7
Listening to, and giving weight to young people’s views .......................................................... 10
Influencing outcomes and making a difference........................................................................ 12
Participation for groups of young people .................................................................................... 13
Participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people ......................................... 13
Participation of young people with disability .......................................................................... 15
Participation of young people leaving care .............................................................................. 16
Participation amongst sexuality and gender diverse (LGBTIQ+) young people .......................... 17
Why is participation important? ................................................................................................. 18
Children and young people’s rights ......................................................................................... 18
Benefits of participation for young people .............................................................................. 22
Tokenism and negative experiences of participation ............................................................... 23
Organisational benefits of young people’s participation .......................................................... 23
Participation and ethics .......................................................................................................... 25
Models of participation .............................................................................................................. 25
Voice is not enough (Lundy, 2007) .......................................................................................... 26
Young people’s participation in residential care decision-making
3
Typology of Youth Participation and Empowerment (TYPE) (Wong et al., 2010) ....................... 27
Pathways to participation (Shier, 2001) ................................................................................... 27
P7 model of youth participation (Cahill & Dadvand, 2018) ....................................................... 29
Young people’s participation: implications for practice ............................................................... 30
Enabling participation in care and case planning and review ................................................... 34
Implications for organisations ................................................................................................. 35
Participation in service, program and policy design ..................................................................... 37
References ................................................................................................................................. 44
Young people’s participation in residential care decision-making
4
Introduction
The literature on how young people participate in decision-making in residential care identifies three
main aspects of participation: being able to access information to take part in decisions that matter;
having opportunities and capabilities to express their views freely; and having an impact on the outcome
of the decision-making process (Bessell, 2011, 2015; Lansdown, 2018; Sinclair, Vieira, & Zufelt, 2019).
These key aspects of meaningful and authentic participation also include having the space and time to
reflect, form a view, change one’s mind, and consult with an advocate that may shift the inherent power
imbalance in residential care decision-making (Davis, 2019; Wong, Zimmerman, & Parker, 2010).
Because young people in residential care have experienced an extreme intervention in their freedoms
and rights, participation should necessarily involve more than having a say in individual matters and
include expressing views and being taken seriously in matters relating to policies and systemic decisions
that affect their lives (Davis, 2019; Lansdown, 2011).
Yet in the most recent survey of 321 children and young people in residential care in NSW, 60% of whom
were aged 15-17 years old, only 49% said they usually get a chance to have a say and usually feel listened
to; 21% said they don’t usually get to have a say and don’t usually feel listened to, and these rates were
worse amongst females (Robertson, Laing, Butler, & Soliman, 2017). When this survey was repeated in
2018 with 143 young people, the percentage who reported that they usually get a chance to have a say
and usually feel listened to reduced to 48%; and the proportion who don’t usually get to have a say and
don’t usually feel listened to increased to 25% (NSW Department of Communities and Justice, 2019).
This brief addresses the following issues in young people’s participation:
Understanding participation
Participation for groups of young people in residential care
Why is participation important?
Benefits of participation
Models of participation
Enabling practice: implications for practitioners and organisations
Young people’s participation in service, program and policy design.
Young people’s participation in residential care decision-making
5
Understanding participation
Youth participation is broadly defined as ‘a process of involving young people in the institutions and
decisions that affect their lives’ (Checkoway, 2011). The daily lives of young people living in residential
care, or going to school, young people living in rural and remote communities, young people with
disability, or young people of different ages and cultures may be different, yet their rights to participate
in the decisions that affect their lives persist (Lansdown 2011). In a qualitative study with 11 young
people recently transitioned from residential care in Queensland, two core themes included ‘having a
say and own space’ and ‘being involved in decisions’ (Queensland Child and Famliy Commission, 2018).
Quotations from the participants demonstrate the level of exclusion many young people feel in
residential care, and very different experiences:
“‘There is a reason they [young people] are running away. They have tried to have
their voices, opinion heard and weren’t so they remove themselves from the
situation.’
‘When I say leave me alone, I mean leave me alone [listen to me].’
‘I could leave whenever I liked. They would wait for me to return...placement was
always available.’
‘At the house there was no privacy, they were monitoring that I was in my room at
night. They would come into my room.’
‘We could choose – our own linen… buy our own meals... paint our own room…
choose what you want for dinner... cook if we wanted to but I didn’t’” (Queensland
Child and Famliy Commission, 2018, pp. 14–15)
These quotations concur with wider research in highlighting core themes for young people: prior
experiences of not being listened to; the need for privacy, space and time; the importance of knowing
what they are entitled to; the role of advocates; developing the skills and confidence to participate; and
that young people want to participate in ‘important decisions’ like administrative, procedural or judicial
matters as well as everyday matters; only some young people want to participate in formal meetings
and care planning (Bessell, 2011; Commission for Children and Young People, 2019; Davis, 2019;
McDowall, 2018; Queensland Child and Famliy Commission, 2018). Research identifies young peoples
Young people’s participation in residential care decision-making
6
common experiences of exclusion from decision-making in residential care, in particular: at entry to
care, in the court system, in case planning and review, decisions about school location, family and sibling
contact, cultural planning, and leaving care (Balsells, Fuentes-Peláez, & Pastor, 2017; Bessell, 2015;
Davis, 2019; Diaz, Pert, & Thomas, 2018; Franklin & Goff, 2019; McCarthy, 2016; McDowall, 2016, 2018;
Moore, McArthur, Death, Tilbury, & Roche, 2017, 2018; Thomas, 2011). This section highlights key
concepts in the literature relating to participation of young people in residential care decision-making.
Access to information, understanding and awareness
Participation involves more than ‘having a say’ or ‘having a voice’; it involves knowing one’s rights and
entitlements, understanding the possible consequences of decisions, and having access to information
about themselves, their family, and about the residential care system. NSW Child Safe Standards for
Permanent Care reflect young people’s rights to:
access information about care decisions in a manner which they can understand, and
to be provided with information about how to raise and use complaints systems, information
about proposed carers or residence, that support participation in decision-making processes
(Office of the Children’s Guardian, 2015).
The right to access information includes planning documentation and processes, and information about
how to make contact with family members (Glynn & Mayock, 2019; Lansdown, 2011). It also includes
more sensitive information, such as information about therapeutic treatment plans, why contact with
certain people might be restricted, being informed about safety risks they might be exposed to in
residential care and what institutions do to protect their safety (Glynn & Mayock, 2019; Lansdown,
2011; Larkins et al., 2015; Moore, 2017). On a practical level, it involves tailored information about life
skills for living independently beyond the residential care system, and the right to attend review
meetings to access information that is discussed verbally but rarely written down (Roesch-Marsh,
Gillies, & Green, 2017). As the quotation below illustrates, superficial information that is not tailored to
young people’s needs and interests, can result in their withdrawal from participation altogether:
“All of the young people leaving residential care described some level of life skills
training that involved, for example, cooking lessons, money management and/or
safety information but, almost universally, these lessons were considered to be
Young people’s participation in residential care decision-making
7
superficial and insufficient to meet the demands of living independently...
Disappointments of this nature sometimes led to young people opting out of
training courses of this kind.” (Glynn & Mayock, 2019, p. 86)
Having a voice, having a say and expressing views
The right to participate is often referred to as the ‘voice of the child’; 2/3 of 86 articles reviewed for this
research-to-practice brief involved research conducted directly with young people about their views
about participation in residential care decision-making using qualitative, quantitative and mixed
methods research. A study with 151 young people aged 16-22 in care in the USA measured perceptions
of the amount of voice they were able to exercise in decision-making in their case, compared to their
preferred level of voice, and the amount of voice exercised by others (Beal et al., 2019). 64% said that
their voice made up less than half of the decisions made. They felt most decisions were made by
caseworkers, legal representatives, caregivers and parents. When asked what they preferred, all young
people sought more voice in decision-making about their case, with a preferred increase from 43 to 57%
of influence over decisions. These results indicate that while young people in this research want more
of a say, they want to collaborate with others in important decisions about their lives. They do, however,
want a say about who is involved (Beal et al., 2019).
In Australia, young people’s voice is consistently found wanting in a series of reviews, evaluations and
research in residential care decision-making (Commission for Children and Young People, 2019;
McDowall, 2018; Queensland Child and Famliy Commission, 2018; Robertson et al., 2017) (QFCC 2018,
CCYP 2019, McDowall 2018, Robertson 2017). CREATE Foundation’s survey of more than 1200 children
and young people across Australia in 2018 found that young people in residential care were less likely
than in other placement types to have a say about education matters, family contact and placement
changes (McDowall, 2018). When asked what ‘having a say’ meant, some respondents in CREATE’s 2018
survey said:
“I don’t want to go to residential care but they say there’s nothing else. Because it’s
all they have got, I have to go. No one tells me what to expect. No one cares that I
don’t want to go. I like the carers I’m with now, but they are old and I have to leave
at the end of March. (Male, 14 years)’
Young people’s participation in residential care decision-making
8
When my carer and caseworker have come to my brother and I, “Do you want any
family visit or contact?” and I will be able to have a say about our family contact
and if we want to see them or not. (Female, 14 years)
That I can get involved in my Indigenous heritage and get a proper education.
(Male, 12 years)”. (McDowall, 2018, p. 58)
Young people want to have a say about their care, about family contact, the school they attend, what
activities they participate in, cultural and religious practices. Beyond everyday matters, young people
should also have opportunities to participate in formal meetings where key stakeholders meet. While
these meetings can be intimidating, they are an opportunity to influence the rules, policies and cultures
of institutions and systems that influence young people’s lives (Lansdown & O’Kane, 2014; McDowall,
2018; Sinclair et al., 2019). They also want to have a say about important social issues that affect their
lives, like school subjects, community services and urban planning (Bessell, 2011). Having a say includes
being able to express views in different forums, giving feedback to people involved in decision-making
about their lives, and being able to make complaints (McDowall, 2018; McDowall, 2013; Moore, 2017).
CREATE Foundation’s 2018 survey found that 30% of 1000 respondents had experienced treatment in
care that they wanted to raise a complaint about, but did not follow through. 36% of these young people
felt fear or anxiety about the impacts of a complaint on themselves, carers or their family, and 11%
thought no one would listen, or they would not be believed (McDowall, 2018). Evidence of children and
young people’s inclusion in decision-making at key stages is unclear, and not uniform across countries
and organisations (Beal et al., 2019).
Practitioners should explore a range of tools to support young people’s voice, from creative, play-based
and story-based techniques that may be more effective with younger children, to more conversation-
style interactions with older young people (Grace, Miller, Blacklock, Bonser, & Hayden, 2018), as well as
digital opportunities for speaking out and networking online (Lansdown, 2018). Creating safe spaces and
allowing time for young people to form and express views in decision-making hinge on trusted and
inclusive relationships, accessible and inclusive communication including the use of interpreters and
communication devices (Bessell 2015, Franklin 2019, Grace 2019, Lansdown 2018). Having a say can be
empowering for young people, where ‘voice’ is an equal voice, where views are listened to, and where
young people feel they can have a say about who is involved in decision-making about their
lives(Lansdown, 2018; Lundy, 2007; Mannay et al., 2019; Sinclair et al., 2019).
Young people’s participation in residential care decision-making
9
Youth Consult for Change, a consultative group of young people with lived experience in out-of-home
care contributed to the development of the NSW Care Leavers’ Charter of Rights, which guides
practitioners working with young people in care. An excerpt is included in Box 3 below (NSW
Department of Communities and Justice (Families and Community Services) 2019).
Box 3: excerpt from NSW Care Leavers’ Charter of Rights
Participation is more than being physically present in meetings or shown a finished
plan, it’s making room for us to use our voice and take control of our lives
Remember that leaving care is our journey, not a task or a meeting
Involve us from the beginning to the end, don’t leave planning conversations till
the last minute
Find creative ways to help us understand and be involved in the process
Listen to what we want and need, ask questions, help us understand ourselves
and our options so we can make good decisions
Young people’s preferences vary about their desired level of autonomy in decision-making, yet across
the board they want to be more informed, have more voice or input into decisions, and to be listened
to. Young people want child protection workers and legal professionals to contribute less to decision-
making, but not to eliminate their contributions altogether; indeed, for young people with complex
experiences of abuse, they may desire more involvement of legal professionals (Beal et al., 2019).
“when adults have supportive, warm, and nurturing relationships with adolescents
and are less controlling, adolescents provide more voice in decision-making” (Beal
et al., 2019, p. 67)
Trusting and inclusive relationships between care workers, case planners, reviewers, legal professionals
and young people are critical to their involvement in decision-making, both in preparing or capacity
building, in participating, and in debriefing (Bessell, 2015; Commission for Children and Young People,
2019; Roesch-Marsh et al., 2017). Having a say about the location and timing of meetings is critical for
young people, and most young people do not want to have case planning meetings at their school
(Roesch-Marsh et al., 2017). Importantly though, there may be individual differences for different young
Young people’s participation in residential care decision-making
10
people. Some young people will not want to participate, and should not be forced to do so; however
they may change their minds over time. Most young people want to know that their views are views
represented even if they do not attend, and want to be kept informed about what is being said about
them in their absence, decisions taken and any documentation (Sinclair et al., 2019).
Some organisations focus on ‘voice’ at the expense of listening to young people and giving weight to
their views in decision-making. McDowall’s (2016) review of participatory practices notes that a focus
on consulting with young people on their views can allow organisations to use consultation as a proxy
for meaningful participation, with decisions made without young people and no feedback provided.
Similarly, using young people’s words, images or creative expression does not guarantee young people’s
views are heard or given serious consideration (Mannay et al., 2019). UNICEF notes in its guidelines for
implementing the child’s right to be heard, “it is not possible to represent the best interests of children
without taking account of their experiences, concerns and preferences. Mechanisms must be
introduced to ensure that children in all forms of alternate care, including institutions, are able to
express their views and have them given due weight in matters affecting their daily lives” (Lansdown,
2011, p. 86).
Listening to, and giving weight to young people’s views
“Listening to children and young people and working hard to understand their
views, in whatever format they are able to express them, should be at the heart of
all social work practice and is the first step in any participation process” (Roesch-
Marsh et al., 2017, p. 904).
Listening to young people and giving weight to their views in decision-making shifts the focus of
participation to the obligations of practitioners, organisations and policymakers – the audience for
young people’s expression of views, and the response of those who are listening (Lansdown, 2018;
Schoenfeld, Bennett, Manganella, & Kemp, 2019). It involves taking their views seriously, in all aspects
of decisions that affect their lives. Young people in residential care have experienced a range of
practices, systems, spaces and places where they have had limited involvement in decision-making, and
their frustrated attempts to get involved in decisions relating to the most significant issues: their safety,
family relationships, where they live and who is involved in their lives (McCarthy, 2016; McDowall, 2013,
2018). In recognition of these significant failings, and the vulnerability of children and young people who
Young people’s participation in residential care decision-making
11
live in alternate care, justice and health systems, UNICEF suggests children should be guaranteed their
views will be listened to and given due weight, based on each young person’s evolving capacities and
full access to all relevant information, including establishing communication with each child by whatever
means necessary (Lansdown, 2011).
“The only reason I’m absconding is because I don’t feel safe there. They don’t listen
to me, I don’t feel valued (Imogen, residential care, 16).
Some workers don’t listen. I have really bad anger issues and when I’m already mad
and I ask them to go away they keep biting and then they snap at me and they
blame me (Kerry, residential care, 15).”
(Commission for Children and Young People, 2019, pp. 173, 238)
Young people are more likely to participate if they feel they will be listened to, if their contributions will
make a difference and if the people they speak to have the power to influence change (McDowall, 2013,
2016). Demonstrating that young people’s views have an influence on the process and outcomes of
decision-making is critical to fulfilling their rights, and can be achieved through requesting feedback
from young people about their experiences of participation, and providing feedback when consulting
with young people about their views (Lansdown & O’Kane, 2014; Moore, 2017). In a study investigating
independent reviews of young people’s care arrangements in Scotland, half of the young people said
that participating in review meetings made them feel cared for, and a few said these were meetings
where they felt they would be listened to and could get things done or decisions changed (Roesch-Marsh
et al., 2017).
In a qualitative research project conducted with 121 Australian children and young people about their
experiences of safety in institutions during the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child
Sexual Abuse, children and young people emphasised the importance of being listened to and taken
seriously (Moore, 2017). Their advice included organisations being transparent about how decisions are
made, involving them using a range of strategies such as surveys, peer workshops and regular group
discussions, giving feedback about the influence of their contributions, and having ‘adult champions’ to
support complaints (Moore 2017). This study also highlighted the significance of power in children and
young people’s decision-making mechanisms like youth advisory groups. Such groups should be given
authority so that schools or residential care providers are required to listen and take their views into
Young people’s participation in residential care decision-making
12
account (Moore 2017). Without this important element of power and influence, young people may
disengage and become cynical about participation.
In a study examining the influence of children and young people’s preferences in 147 cases of residential
care decision-making in Sweden, inspectors reported difficulty in giving due weight to the views children
and young people expressed in interviews (Pålsson, 2017). They cited a range of reasons, saying the
issues children and young people raised were unconnected to the regulations, inspector’s authority
didn’t align to children’s expectations, and inspectors felt the views needed to be substantiated through
evidence - processes which they found overly complicated. Some inspectors were hamstrung by being
unable to influence the outcome of the concerns, with others “persuading the managers outside the
formal inspection process to heed the children’s opinions” (Pålsson, 2017, p. 37).
Influencing outcomes and making a difference
Young people are entitled to influence decision-making at all stages of child protection and OOHC
decision-making, including judicial, administrative, planning and policymaking. Making a difference to
decision-making is most critical for young people at removal and entry to care, planning and school,
with regard to family contact and reunification, placement decisions, location and type of placement,
future planning and leaving care (Beal 2019, Bessell 2015, Lansdown 2011, McDowall 2013). In the
Family is Culture review of Aboriginal children and young people in OOHC in NSW, Davis (2019) states
that the magnitude of the impact of removal of a child from their family of origin is ‘difficult to
overstate’, requiring that procedural justice be afforded to the family and child, ensuring “that their
views are not only listened to, but heard, and that they have the opportunity to engage with the
representatives of the state to craft a safe and secure life for their children” (Davis, 2019, p. 314).
At organisational and systemic levels, trust is supported through transparent processes of accountability
for decision-making so that young people can see the outcomes of their participation, through feedback,
coordination, open communication and documentation of influence (Keenan, 2014). Young people who
are empowered to participate on an individual level are more likely to participate in policy-level
processes, and in these processes they feel respected when decision-makers show up to hear them, or
indeed, to engage in policymaking collaboratively over time (Sinclair et al., 2019).
Young people’s participation in residential care decision-making
13
Social workers’ group decision-making processes can also be used to subtly influence young people’s
cooperation with workers’ decisions, rather than allowing young people time to freely consider their
views and preferences or engage with trusted supporters, advocates or family members (Hitzler &
Messmer, 2010). These forms of influence include decisions by default, an agreement to revert to a
previous decision if no new arrangement can be reached; decisions made based on workers’ depiction
of facts that influence assessments, rather than the facts themselves or young people’s interpretations;
implicit decision-making, in which certain details about decisions are unstated to prevent lengthy
discussions, yet the details are unknown to young people and have consequences for their lives (Hitzler
& Messmer, 2010). In each of these cases, young people can be left out of group discussions or
influenced to agree with decisions already made. Child and family advocates, human rights officers and
independent reviewers can be critical influencers in young people’s participation holding organisations
and governments to account, and in building young people’s capabilities to exercise their agency, such
as chairing care planning and review meetings (Clive, Pert, & Thomas, 2019; Glynn & Mayock, 2019;
SNAICC, 2018).
Participation for groups of young people
Participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people
The participation rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait young people in care are bound up with three
important concepts of kin, culture, and County: their rights to be in contact with family and extended
family members of their choice, to cultural connection, and to know and be connected with Country
(Davis, 2019; SNAICC, 2018). Recent reviews of the New South Wales (Davis, 2019) and Victorian out-
of-home care systems (Commission for Children and Young People, 2019) have found Aboriginal young
people are often missing out on all three of these aspects of participation despite the existence of
cultural plans. Building an understanding of culture and cultural connections through contact with kin
and Country enables young people to develop a strong sense of pride in culture and historical continuity
with different places and nations (Davis, 2019). Practitioners should demonstrate active efforts in
supporting young people’s connection to kin, culture and Country, including:
Young people’s participation in residential care decision-making
14
early identification of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander background, recognising the impacts
of intergenerational trauma, colonisation, historical and present-day disparities on young
people’s sense of cultural identity, which may be complex;
strengths-based assessments, early intervention and holistic supports to families promoting
interconnected emotional cognitive, cultural and spiritual elements of wellbeing;
development of cultural support plans in collaboration with young people, their families and
communities;
active support to access services, including financial support and transport;
collaboration with Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations (ACCOs);
engagement with Aboriginal Family-Led Decision-making, including trained Aboriginal
convenors and shifting power to the leadership and cultural authority of young people, their
families and communities to make decisions;
ensuring young people’s needs are the focus of decision-making as much as adults’ needs,
including allowing young people to identify those who they identify as safe;
ensuring young people and families have time to consider their views and options without
professionals present;
case management that meets the principles outlined in the Aboriginal Case Management Policy,
including being culturally embedded, supporting self-determination, holistic, preventive, and
accountable;
supporting young people and families through reunification planning and supports (AbSec,
2018; Lindstedt, Moeller-Saxone, Black, Herrman, & Szwarc, 2017; SNAICC, 2018).
Self-determination of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is another key concept linked to
participation, but with a different meaning. Self-determination has varied meanings, and may include a
system of independent self-governance as a collective, or people “making meaningful decisions about
their lives” as individuals (Davis 2019). It is recognised in the United Nations Expert Mechanism on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the 2019 Independent Review of Aboriginal children and young people
in OOHC in NSW, and was distinguished from participation because participation assumes that services
or offerings to young people and families are, to some extent, already determined. Whereas self-
determination assumes Indigenous autonomous decision-making, “the devolution of power from the
state to Indigenous peoples” (Davis, 2019, p. 85).
Young people’s participation in residential care decision-making
15
Particularly in the case of Aboriginal young people in residential care, the danger of tokenistic
participation, or missed opportunities for young people to express their views and to have their views
given due weight in decision-making can be devastating to their health and wellbeing (Davis, 2019;
Lindstedt et al., 2017). Practitioners should embed practices of critical reflection into their work with
Aboriginal young people in residential care, to enhance their application of participation principles, and
avoid compliance ‘ritualism’ where processes of compliance with expected practices, forms or checklists
become part of daily practice at the expense of relational ethical practice that supports real participation
and recognise the meaning of self-determination (Davis, 2019). Building strong relationships with local
ACCOs and AbSec, NSW peak for Aboriginal OOHC, creates a network of support for staff and young
people in residential care.
Participation of young people with disability
The Victorian systemic inquiry into the experiences of children and young people in out-of-home care
in 2019 found that placement instability is more likely to be experienced by children and young people
with intellectual disability and those who have experienced complex trauma, and that young people in
these circumstances are less likely to have regular contact with their parents (Commission for Children
and Young People, 2019). Placement is noted as a foundation stone in pathways to adulthood for the
health, mental health and employment of young people leaving care (Stein, 2015). The Committee on
the Rights of the Child (United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2019) has also highlighted
the need for greater action in Australia to prevent abuse and violence against children with disability in
institutions and alternate care, including forced sterilisation of young women with disability without
their full and informed consent. UK evidence demonstrates that in residential care, young people with
disability, and in particular young people with communication-related impairments, experience multiple
barriers to accessing information, are denied access to decision-making, and the supports they need to
communicate their views (Franklin & Goff, 2019).
“Communication is not just a technical matter, it is embedded in the emotional,
personal context and scripts which inform the life of the young person, the
messages they have inherited about their own value, what they understand, the
extent to which they have been supported to develop their communicative capacity,
Young people’s participation in residential care decision-making
16
and their own sense of their rights and place within a home or setting.” (Franklin &
Goff, 2019, p. 100)
It is the role of practitioners to identify and build the capabilities for communication with young people,
and to ensure their rights to communicate, express their views and have their views given due weight
are upheld (Franklin & Goff, 2019). In their research with young people with complex communication
needs, Franklin and Goff (2019) found that young people want workers to learn their unique way of
communicating, to demonstrate interest in who they are as people with their own interests, and to
respect that they want to be informed and involved, even when decisions involve ‘bad news’. Franklin
and Goff also found that workers need to use both low- and high-tech methods of assistive
communication devices, like hand-drawn symbols for communicating as well as laptops with dedicated
communication apps. Workers also need to be able to champion a culture of respect for young people’s
communication preferences and abilities to participate in organisations, to prevent tokenistic processes
and exclusion. Having opportunities to express dissatisfaction and being heard at all levels of the
organisation was critical to young people, rather than being interpreted as ‘challenging behaviour’,
resulting in restraint or exclusion.
In NSW, CREATE Foundation delivers The Ability Project, which includes supported decision-making
training workshops for young people with disability who are leaving care, designed to enhance young
people’s transition to independence. An evaluation in 2017 found that the workshops and follow-up
from CREATE staff served to support young people with disability to improve their community inclusion
and social connection, improved their wellbeing, and improved their control of decisions and awareness
of rights and advocacy during this important transition phase (Notara et al., 2017).
“We have a right to make decisions, that’s what I picked up and we can make
mistakes as well…We learnt about supporters too because sometimes when you
have a big decision you need someone to help.” [Participant] (Notara et al., 2017, p.
14).
Participation of young people leaving care
Influencing decision-making takes on greater significance during adolescence as a critical capability for
all young people. For young people ageing out of care, participation is an opportunity to prepare for an
Young people’s participation in residential care decision-making
17
critical transition that can also establish and sustain their social and emotional wellbeing (Arnau-
Sabatés, Marzo, Jariot, & Sala-Roca, 2014; Glynn & Mayock, 2019; Lansdown, 2018). Yet research
consistently demonstrates that young people’s experiences of participation in transition planning, when
it does occur, is likely to be a rapid, one-off planning experience, even if they do experience ongoing
contact with support workers (Glynn & Mayock, 2019; Mendes, Johnson, & Moslehuddin, 2011). This
gap in planning and sustained involvement in decision-making occurs right at the time when young
people leaving care are adjusting to the end of care, finding housing or experiencing homelessness,
making decisions about ongoing training and education, searching for employment and experiencing
significant financial stress (Mendes et al., 2011). Young people leaving care may be hopeful about
freedom from the constraints of residential care and may have deeply held goals for their independence
and adult lives that leaving care planning can facilitate (Narendorf, Fedoravicius, McMillen, McNelly, &
Robinson, 2012). Without involvement in evolving leaving care planning and ongoing support, including
transitional and aftercare programs, young people’s goals can easily be derailed. Leaving care planning
should commence early, provide detailed capacity building and skills training for young people, as well
as ongoing holistic support and adaptable case planning with significant financial support and
accommodation arrangements (Mendes et al., 2011).
Practitioners can support young people leaving care into employment through developing participation
‘competencies’ (Arnau-Sabatés et al., 2014). Competencies can be developed over time and supported
through participation in individual and group processes, and include self-organisation, decision-making
and problem solving, teamwork, communication, perseverance, professional project development,
flexibility and responsibility (Arnau-Sabatés et al., 2014). Analysing transition-from-care programs,
Cassarino-Perez (2018) found that the relationship between participants and mentors or practitioners
was central to young people’s experiences of support, building networks and that, in addition to tailoring
the content of programs to individuals, they needed to promote participation to achieve outcomes.
Participation amongst sexuality and gender diverse (LGBTIQ+) young people
There were few references to the experiences of LGBTIQ+ young people in residential care in the
literature. CREATE Foundation identifies a lack of resources for supporting sexuality and gender diverse
young people and carers in residential care decision-making (McDowall, 2018).
Young people’s participation in residential care decision-making
18
“Lack of resources and education for carers and residential workers looking after
LGBTIQ+ young people and children. More check-ins from caseworkers to the young
people who have just entered a new home. (Trans man, 15 years).” (p. 25)
It is recommended that practitioners seek training, support and collaboration with headspace,
Twenty10 or ACON when supporting young people who may be lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender,
intersex, queer or questioning their sexuality and gender diversity.
Why is participation important?
SNAICC’s (2018) guide for implementing the Aboriginal Placement Principle states that the participation
of children and young people and their chosen family members ensures the inclusion of their expert
knowledge, views and preferences in decision-making, and that decisions reached with their
involvement are more likely to be supported and implemented by families and young people.
Participation is also a fundamental right of children and young people, a pillar of their future
development as citizens, and brings benefits for them as individuals and for the organisations and
communities that involve them. Beyond this, participation of children and young people is prescribed in
the ethical codes for practitioners in social work, community work, psychology and other fields,
presenting an opportunity for practitioners to reflect on the gap between rhetoric and reality for young
people in residential care.
Children and young people’s rights
The right to participation is recognition of human equality: every person should have a chance to
influence decisions that affect their lives. Where this involves children and young people who have not
yet reached legal autonomy, the experience of holding those in power to account is also an expression
of human dignity (Lansdown, 2018). Children and young people’s right to participate in decisions that
affect their lives is enshrined in several articles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child (UNCRC, United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, 1989), which has been signed and
ratified by Australia. The UNCRC marked a shift from seeing children and young people as objects of
care and protection to full citizens with rights and capacities to be involved in decisions (Lansdown,
2001). The Committee notes in its General Comment 12 that this shift involves a movement to one of
Young people’s participation in residential care decision-making
19
information sharing, dialogue, mutual respect and accountability to young people for the outcomes of
their participation (United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2009). State signatories like
Australia are bound by its obligations, including government and non-government agencies and private
sector organisations that provide services to young people (Lansdown & O’Kane, 2014). In Australia, the
UNCRC is enshrined in state and territory child protection legislation and in NSW, the Department of
Communities and Justice has developed a Charter of Rights for 13-17 year olds and one for young people
leaving care.
The right to participation is also identified in Standard 6 of the NSW Child Safe Standards for Permanent
Care. The standard states “[w]here children and young people are able to form their own views
regarding their safety, welfare and wellbeing they must be given an opportunities to express their views
freely and their views should be given due weight” (Office of the Children’s Guardian, 2015, p. 11).
Inscribing children and young people’s participation in the standards for permanent care is an important
step to ensure their participation rights, and needs to be supported by cultural, policy, and budgetary
practices (Lansdown 2018). In their analysis of the rights of children and young people internationally,
and with complex communication disabilities, Lansdown (2018) and Franklin (2019) might contend with
this standard. They confirm that all children and young people are capable of forming their own views,
and they have a right to express their views on all matters that affect them, not only on matters such as
their safety, welfare and wellbeing. Indeed, sociologists question the use of age alone as an indicator of
capability, and instead point to children and young people’s rights to participate and exercise agency
about what matters to them (Fattore, Mason, & Watson, 2016).
The right to participate is framed by the interlocking of several articles in the UNCRC, but primarily
Article 12 which recognises young people’s right to express their views in all matters affecting them,
and the obligation to give due weight to their views according to their age and maturity (Lansdown &
O’Kane, 2014). Other articles highlight the role of guardians in recognising their evolving capacities, and
young people’s rights to freedom of expression, religion, conscience, association, assembly, privacy and
information (Lansdown, 2018). The United Nations (UN) Guidelines for Alternative Care of Children (UN
General Assembly, 2010) note the importance of children and young people’s participation at all stages
of decision-making regarding care matters, including the decision to be taken into care, placement
arrangements, family contact, provision of services, involvement of guardians, carers and parents in
Young people’s participation in residential care decision-making
20
decision-making, care planning and leaving care, health and education matters, and the critical role of
cultural and religious practices.
In its 2019 review of Australia’s performance under the UNCRC, the UN called for investment in
measures “to ensure that children, their families and communities participate in decision-making in
order to guarantee an individualized and community-sensitive approach” (2019, para. 34). It also called
for measures to reduce the numbers of children in care, to prevent removal to care of Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander children through implementing community-led initiatives, to ensure the same
rights and protection from abuse of children with disability and those with mental health issues in care,
and to improve training of the out-of-home care workforce, particularly to prevent the drift of young
people in care into the juvenile and adult criminal justice systems (UN Committee on the Rights of the
Child, 2019).
Participation rights are not limited for young people with complex communication needs and other
disabilities; rather, professionals and organisations have a “responsibility to recognise, develop and
encourage children’s communication, especially within residential settings” (Franklin & Goff, 2019, p.
100). Similarly, Vis & Fossum’s (2015) research also notes that ‘difficult’ young people, and those
experiencing the impacts of trauma or other mental health issues, still retain their rights to participate,
placing the onus of enabling participation on the organisations and professionals who work alongside
young people in residential care.
Internationally, one key challenge for researchers has been to measure children and young people’s
participation in residential care decision-making (O’Hare, Santin, Winter, & McGuinness, 2016; ten
Brummelaar et al., 2014, 2018). UNICEF’s work to implement adolescent participation broadly across its
wide constituency of organisations is highly accessible and caters for varying locations, cultures,
geographical and political contexts in which young people live (Lansdown, 2018; UNICEF, 2017). Box 1
below is a summary of a useful conceptual guide developed by UNICEF in its application of the UNCRC
to an outcomes framework for measuring young people’s participation (Lansdown, 2018).
Young people’s participation in residential care decision-making
21
Box 1: Key concepts in participation rights (Lansdown 2018)
All young
people
Opportunities should be created for young people who experience marginalisation to
participate: girls, young people with disabilities, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
and CALD young people, refugee and asylum seekers, and LGBTI young people.
A means and an
end
Participation helps young people realise other rights. For example, it is not possible
for young people to access to justice if they are denied a hearing.
As individuals
and as a group
Young people have a right to participate in decisions affecting them personally, as
well as matters affecting them collectively, such as new programs, or the
development of policies or budgets.
All matters
affecting them
Young people have rights to participate not only to issues of immediate relevance to
their lives, such as OOHC, education or health but also wider issues relating to the
environment, transport, economics or immigration.
Not removed by
protection
In protecting the safety, welfare and wellbeing of children and young people, adults
must not create barriers to their participation.
Different from
adults
Young people don’t have the same legal standing as adults. Adults supporting their
participation should adapt to different young people’s capacities, change as they
develop over time, and promote their best interests.
Builds
empowerment
and citizenship
Participating is empowering, with young people developing new knowledge, skills,
confidence and practice, and adults sharing power with young people. Participating
and sharing power develops citizenship individually and as a society.
A right, not an
obligation
Young people can choose whether to participate and should never be compelled.
Enabling the realisation of these rights and addressing the barriers to participation are critical challenges
faced by residential care workers in everyday practice (Larkins et al., 2015; McDowall, 2018). Research
into the perspectives of 121 children, young people and 19 parents in the UK found that the participation
of children and young people in decision-making was critical for social workers attempting to balance
the rights of children to parental contact with rights to stable placements and healthy lives (Larkins et
al., 2015). In this research, young people themselves held unexpectedly balanced and wise views about
the right level of contact for them. Engaging children, young people and birth parents in decision-making
Young people’s participation in residential care decision-making
22
about contact over time led to more stable placements and satisfaction of all parties with social work
practice.
Benefits of participation for young people
“I have come to realise that my voice is just as valuable as my peers. It has made
me realise that I create change now rather than waiting for someone else to do it.”
(Young Person, Dixon, Ward, & Blower, 2019, p. 18)
Beyond their rights to participate, young people’s contributions can also offer significant benefits,
individually, to organisations, and the development of more effective programs and policy. When
participation is meaningful, transparent, and accountable to young people in residential care, and when
they are given opportunities to build their capacities to participate with support, the benefits can be
empowering and long-lasting. Benefits identified in the research literature for young people
participating in residential care decision-making can be grouped thematically, and extend from building
personal identity and agency to developing social networks, skills and capacities for employment and
future participation, including:
building social and emotional wellbeing, including identity, belonging, healthy emotional security
and emotional regulation (Commission for Children and Young People, 2019; Diaz et al., 2018;
Graham & Johnson, 2019; McCarthy, 2016; O’Hare et al., 2016).
developing agency, communication skills, resilience, mastery and sense of power over their lives
(Burford & Gallagher, 2015; Davis, 2019; Franklin & Goff, 2019; Glynn & Mayock, 2019; Graham &
Johnson, 2019; McDowall, 2018; Schoenfeld et al., 2019; SNAICC, 2018).
enhancing young people’s safety, including building capacities to report abuse and violence in care,
assess risk, challenge injustice and discrimination; in this way participation leads to better protection
(Borgne, 2014; Lansdown, 2018; Moore et al., 2018).
opportunities to connect to culture, kin and country, including cultural rights and safety and use of
language, meaningful contact with chosen family members and cultural community (Commission
for Children and Young People, 2019; Davis, 2019; SNAICC, 2018).
forming and sustaining relationships and social networks, including professional and personal
relationships related to work, education, and social activities (Commission for Children and Young
People, 2019; Narendorf et al., 2012).
Young people’s participation in residential care decision-making
23
educational benefits, including improved grades, school completion rates and transition to
employment for ‘at-risk’ communities of young people involved in partnership-based therapeutic
relationships (Sinclair et al., 2019).
developing employability skills, including problem-solving, teamwork and collaboration, managing
and resolving conflict, self-confidence/self-esteem and communication skills, acquiring new
knowledge, critical thinking and making decisions (Arnau-Sabatés et al., 2014; Dixon et al., 2019;
Lansdown, 2018; O’Hare et al., 2016).
skills to support transitioning from care, including emotional, social, cultural and practical skills
(Cashmore 2002 cited in Davis, 2019; McCarthy, 2016).
capacities for civic and political participation (Lansdown, 2018; McDowall, 2016).
Tokenism and negative experiences of participation
It should be noted, however, that many young people in residential care have had negative experiences
of ‘participation’ that are tokenistic and inauthentic. These include not being adequately informed about
the reasons for entry into care, not being prepared for care planning and review processes, and having
their most significant preferences ignored or not responded to, such as frequency of contact with
siblings, family, or location of school (Bessell, 2011, 2015; Commission for Children and Young People,
2019; Diaz et al., 2018; Glynn & Mayock, 2019; McDowall, 2018). In a study of reunification processes
in Spain, young people reported they are not given enough time to adjust to decisions but merely told
to pack and then move – into care, between placements, and back to birth parents – which prevents
young people’s participation and can risk the success of reunification processes (Balsells et al., 2017).
Organisations may also engage in consultation activities that are poorly coordinated and their views
interpreted by third parties, where decision-makers are absent, and may not receive feedback about
how their views contribute to making a difference (Keenan, 2014). The result of these negative
experiences can include withdrawal from participation, disengagement, cynicism, feelings of
helplessness and lower self-confidence (O’Hare et al., 2016; Roesch-Marsh et al., 2017; Thomas, 2011).
Organisational benefits of young people’s participation
Significant benefits are available to organisations willing to embrace authentic engagement with young
people, moving beyond the rhetoric of participation, addressing barriers to inclusion, and committing
Young people’s participation in residential care decision-making
24
to transparent processes that are coordinated and accountable to young people (Graham et al., 2018;
Keenan, 2014; NSW Government Office of the Advocate for Children and Young People, 2019).
Organisations may gain renewed vision and commitment to collective purpose for those involved in
youth programs, especially where they are able to design services and programs closely with young
people that are sustainable (Schoenfeld et al., 2019).
Operationally, organisations may develop ‘culturally competent care environments’ co-designing with
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people (Morgan, Faldon & Palmorales, cited in Commission
for Children and Young People, 2019). Participation can achieve improved placement stability and care
plans that better reflect young people’s preferences (Davis, 2019; Moore et al., 2018), more effective
house meetings, residential care environment and decision-making processes (Brady et al., 2019; Moore
et al., 2018). Involving young people in residential care also leads to improved staff retention and
stability in relationships and understanding of worker’s roles (Moore et al., 2018; Schoenfeld et al.,
2019).
Organisations can benefit from drawing on young people’s lived experience in the development of
procedures, documents and policies, that reflect their concerns, culture, and interests (Calheiros,
Patricio, & Graca, 2013; Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian, 2012;
McDowall, 2016; NSW Government Office of the Advocate for Children and Young People, 2019). Youth
advisory groups, youth reference groups and board positions are increasingly being introduced as
industry-standard practices in organisational development (Schoenfeld et al., 2019). Youth participation
also serves to develop cultures of reciprocity, collaboration and improved relationships between staff,
managers and young people (Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian, 2012;
Dixon et al., 2019).
Partnering with young people in coproduction and co-design of new programs, such as aftercare and
transition programs of support, can benefit organisations through building their capacities for
innovation and extending business development (Commission for Children and Young People and Child
Guardian, 2012; Dixon et al., 2019; McDowall, 2016; NSW Government Office of the Advocate for
Children and Young People, 2019). The lived experience of young people, together with the professional
experience of workers and service managers is increasingly acknowledged in innovation practice as
evidence by policy-makers (Purtell et al., 2019). Participation and children’s rights researchers call for
Young people’s participation in residential care decision-making
25
greater accountability for decision-making to young people (Borgne, 2014; Keenan, 2014; Lansdown,
2018) (Keenan 2014, Lansdown 2018, Le Borgne 2014), and that co-research and peer review can
enhance organisational evaluation (Dixon et al., 2019).
Participation and ethics
Another reason to ensure young people’s participation is the gap that exists between the rhetoric and
practice of participation. In their analysis of state and federal policies, Graham et. al (2018, p. 2) note
the potential ambiguity of participation as a ‘hurrah’ concept “widely lauded and broadly applied, but
lacking the rigour and momentum to achieve the cultural and systemic changes necessary to realise its
full potential”. Organisations and programs will take different approaches to valuing young people’s
participation, yet practitioners in residential care can enable participation through their everyday
practices: listening to young people, ensuring access to information about their rights, building their
capacities to participate, addressing barriers to participation, delivering on commitments, ensuring
transparent processes and clear feedback to young people (Larkins 2015, McDowall 2016, Roesch-
Marsh 2017). In addition to the obligations contained in the UNCRC, the codes of ethics of the Australian
Association of Social Workers, the Australian Psychological Society and the Australian Community
Workers Association all codify respect for people’s right to participate in decisions that affect their lives.
Models of participation
There are many theories informing child and youth participation, including childhood studies theory,
geography of childhood, children’s citizenship theory, and child-centred political accountability (Le
Borgne 2014). Similarly, various models can be used to implement and evaluate youth participation.
Each has strengths and limitations, and are variously referred to in the literature as models, frameworks,
theories and typologies. Those included here are drawn from research involving young people’s
participation in residential care, or have been used effectively in engaging young people facing multiple
forms of disadvantage.
Young people’s participation in residential care decision-making
26
Voice is not enough (Lundy, 2007)
One approach commonly informing rights-based child and youth participation is drawn from Lundy’s
research with over 350 stakeholders in education, published in a paper titled ‘Voice is Not Enough’.
Lundy’s approach informs the Conceptual Framework for Measuring Outcomes of Adolescent
Participation developed by UNICEF (Lansdown, 2018), various research projects with children and young
people in care in the United Kingdom and Ireland, and the Australian ‘Kids Say Project’ (Grace et al.,
2018). ‘Voice is Not Enough’ identifies four principles that must be satisfied for the meaningful
participation of young people, drawing from the UNCRC: space, voice, audience and influence. The
principles are detailed in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1: Lundy's four principles of meaningful participation, including adaptations from UNICEF's conceptual framework
(Lansdown 2018) and rights-based research with young people in OOHC
•Young people should have
direct access to people who
can make decisions and have
the power to enact change
•Adults must ‘give due
weight’ to their views,
describing channels of
communication to decision
makers if not in audience
•Views must be acted upon,
reflecting their age and
maturity
•Decisions, processes and
reasons should be explained
•Giving due weight cannot be
abandoned by deciding it is
in the best interests of a
young person or group
•All young people should be
facilitated to freely express
their views in a medium of
their choice
•Respecting young people
supports right to voice, in
everyday matters, informal
settings, formal /judicial
matters and institutions
•Address barriers to access,
disadvantage and inclusion
•Young people must be
assured time and space to
form views, ask them which
matters impact on them and
whether they want to
participate
•Young people seen as an
integral to decision-making
•Safe, friendly, accessible,
culturally safe and inclusive
spaces Space Voice
Audience
Influence
Young people’s participation in residential care decision-making
27
Typology of Youth Participation and Empowerment (TYPE) (Wong et al., 2010)
This model emphasises the development of critical consciousness in the empowerment of young people,
interaction between young people and adults, and the role of participation in the positive development
of young people (Wong 2010). The empowerment approach offers young people a way to see their
situations as constructed through social and political structures, building their own agency as actors in
bringing about social change (Wong 2010). While youth-driven participation may be ideal, such as young
people chairing their own planning meetings or convening an action group to design a new program of
support for young people leaving care, TYPE recognises that empowerment depends on the
relationships between individuals, organisations and communities, especially where the conditions do
not allow for young people to act autonomously (Wong et al 2010). In Figure 3 below, the TYPE model
illustrates five scenarios. The pluralistic participation type may have high relevance for young people in
residential care, where they are actively involved in decision-making but share control with adults,
potentially through different roles (as opposed to adult led / controlled decisions).
Figure 2: Typologies of youth participation and empowerment (Wong et al 2010).
Pathways to participation (Shier, 2001)
The NSW Advocate for Children and Young People (ACYP) includes Shier’s Pathways to Participation
(2001) in Engaging children and young people in your organisation (2019), along with essential tools for
capacity building of young people and staff and model participation projects. Shier’s model frames
Young people’s participation in residential care decision-making
28
questions for adults about their commitments to five levels of participation, and has been implemented
in international development contexts including children as leaders, researchers and policy actors
(Shier, Méndez, Centeno, Arróliga, & González, 2014). The commitments are: opening, the intent to
undertake young people’s participation by an individual; opportunity, when the resources and spaces
for participation are available; and obligation, when a level of participation is committed to as the policy
of an organisation, program or group (Shier 2001). The levels are described in Figure 2 below, along with
the questions to consider at each level.
Figure 3: Shier's Pathways to Participation (2001)
Young people’s participation in residential care decision-making
29
P7 model of youth participation (Cahill & Dadvand, 2018)
More recently, Cahill and Dadvand (2018) reconceptualised participation to account for the ways young
people may move between different modes and levels of participation within the one decision-making
process, organisation or event, and identify the potential consequences of young people’s agency. Their
P7 model illustrated in Figure 4 below offers a framework for bridging between theory and practice, and
thus has keen relevance for practitioners working with young people in the challenging practice context
of residential care. The model involves seven domains of participation that interconnect in theoretically
informed youth participation; each of the domains is subjected in their paper to critical reflection and
application to practice using field examples including child protection.
Figure 4: P7 Model A thinking tool for visioning, planning, enacting and evaluating youth participation (Cahill & Dadvand 2018,
p 248)
Each of the models included here draws on key social and psychological theories relating to young
people’s rights: empowerment and citizenship; relationships of power between young people and
adults; and the value for young people, organisations and society in having young people develop
capacities to exercise agency in decision-making over their lives. The models selected here can be
reviewed in more depth through the authors’ papers, available for free access through ResearchGate.
Young people’s participation in residential care decision-making
30
The challenge in everyday work with young people is enabling their participation rights, and the next
section provides an overview of findings from research that have implications for participation practice
in residential care.
Young people’s participation: implications for practice
Enabling young people’s participation starts with recognising their existing agency; the efforts and
activities they already undertake to form and express their views, and to be heard in decisions that
affect their lives. Burford & Gallagher’s (2015) research with young people in the child welfare and
justice systems in Vermont, USA, found that young people experience a multitude of exclusions in these
systems, and that for the (mostly white) cohort of young people in the study, family group conferencing
improved their satisfaction with participation.
“The rules for who can speak, when they can speak, the language they must use,
and the decorum they must display must seem to young people like deliberate
attempts to frustrate them. Yet, young people risk peril if they ignore or treat the
adult processes with disrespect or disdain, as their behaviour may be taken as
evidence of their incapacity to make decisions and understand consequences.
Frequently their mere presence in meetings, especially if their family is also present,
raises concerns that they could be traumatized, or retraumatized, and hence should
be excluded from participation “for their own good” (Burford & Gallagher, 2015, p.
228).
This quote demonstrates the extent of young people’s exclusion from residential care decision-making
processes: the language used, ‘air-time’ for speaking, therapeutic frameworks and cultural practices of
decision-making meetings can all work against their involvement. Box 2 below synthesises research into
practice advice for people working with young people in residential care, presented in themes based on
providing access to information, allowing space for young people to form their views, supporting young
people to express views, listening to and giving weight to their views, and ensuring young people’s
influence on outcomes.
Young people’s participation in residential care decision-making
31
Box 2: Practices that enable young people’s participation
Access to information, awareness and understanding: building cultural safety and inclusion
• Cultural safetyi: identify your cultural background and invite young people to identify theirs, providing
positive reinforcement about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture and connection to ACCOs.
Read and implement SNAICC’s guidelines. Provide access to trusted family members and Aboriginal
convenors in Aboriginal Family Led Decision-making (AFLDM).
• Inclusion: make information available in easy-read formats, accessible and inclusive for all young
people with disability. Young people with disability generally want to be included directly in planning,
not have other people speak for them. Use CALD and AUSLAN interpreters, assistive communication
devices and technology. Use gender-neutral language, name your preferred pronouns (her/him/they),
and invite young people to name theirs. Be open to sexuality and gender diversity.
• Inform young people they can bring a support person with them, a friend, family member or worker of
their choice. Explain the reality of the situation prior to entry into care; how, when and where they
can participate in decisions; explain how placement decisions are made. Provide information about
residences prior to arrival; information about the location and contact arrangements for family
members and key workers.
• Be honest, don’t tell half-truths; provide age-appropriate information and capacity building to
increase understanding of OOHC processes. Explain possible consequences of decision-making and
how young people can change their minds.
• Provide information about complaints mechanisms and how to access them.
Space to form views: building safety and establishing trust
• Ensure young people have privacy and control over their personal space, a sense of security and
reliability about the space; being able to change it to their own taste and preferences and to decide
who comes in and who doesn’t; they should have a key and be able to enter and leave unless unsafe
or legally restricted.
• Use youth-centred decision-making processes: they have a say about who is involved, location and
timing of meetings, the agenda, ensure feedback and prioritise their concerns.
Young people’s participation in residential care decision-making
32
Box 2: Practices that enable young people’s participation
• Provide transport, financial and practical support to participate. Spaces should be able to be adapted
to individual preferences for lighting/ temperature; include colourful / modern design and
comfortable seating; ease of entry/egress; have snacks and drawing materials available.
• Allow young people to access and consult a support person, chosen family member, friend or worker.
• Establish a warm and trusting relationship, be open-minded and caring, aligned to young people’s best
interests, be ‘down to earth’. Work to equalise power imbalances in relationships: recognise how it
distorts young people’s voices and impacts case work, relationships, and agenda-setting; strive to earn
trust and establish a respectful, collaborative dialogue with young people about their lives.
• Engage in youth-adult developmental relationships such as mentoring to promote resilience, develop
social networks and provide socioemotional support for realistic goal development and participation.
Having a voice, having a say, expressing views: relationships and respect
• Allow young people to experience and talk about ambivalence, especially regarding family, parental
and sibling contact. Give them a chance to ask questions, and to change their minds.
• Assume young people want to have a say about matters outside of care; ask their opinions on a range
of issues; show interest and give them a choice about HOW they participate.
• Use trauma-informed principles of practice and support young people to develop language and skills
for expressing their views over time.
• Use creative art/craft/music and story techniques, in everyday decision-making, planning, and groups.
• Support young people to make complaints and follow them through, including accessing appeals
processes and advocates if they are not satisfied with results.
• Support young people to take on diverse roles and leadership, where there are shared values and
beliefs, to gain more control over their lives and build capacities for participation
Being listened to and having views taken into account: listening and accountability
• Recognise that young people may not have had their views listened to in the past. Recognise the
impacts of being ignored, excluded and tokenistic participation.
• Listen well: try to understand from their perspective; demonstrate empathy, compassion and
kindness; be honest, informal but professional, reliable and respectful; feed back what you have
heard; be an ally.
Young people’s participation in residential care decision-making
33
Box 2: Practices that enable young people’s participation
• Take young people’s views seriously: prioritise, respect and value them; consider what they say and
the different perspectives it holds; consider the changes that are required to achieve their wishes;
engage them and others in considering their best interests; make commitments to them and follow
through; report back to them on what action you have taken.
• Be honest about what decisions they can influence, and what decisions are not able to be influenced.
If you have the power, be flexible and use discretion with rules to adapt to young people’s
preferences.
• Transparency: make the decisions reached in meetings explicit where clear commitments are called
for, where conflicts arise, and where it is essential for the young person to understand fully for the
plan to be implemented effectively. Provide documentation of plans, judicial and administrative
decisions to young people.
• Recognise that young people may have different emotional responses to participation, provide
feedback and debrief afterwards to build understanding and capacities for future participation.
Influencing decision-making outcomes: co-creating impact
• Learn and practice protocols for working in culturally safe and respectful ways with Elders and ACCOs
early and consistently to ensure long term impact of decision-making.
• Take action on any commitments/plans in a timely manner and be accountable to young people.
• Take time to feed back and discuss the change that has occurred in young people’s lives and the
change they have enacted in the world, including the efforts they made that were not successful, and
the positive traits they demonstrated.
• Explain decisions that are not aligned to young people’s expressed views and wishes including
reasons, complaints and appeals processes available.
• Co-create solutions with young people. Young people’s messages and learnings can be
produced/published in creative outputs and shared with their permission.
Young people’s participation in residential care decision-making
34
Enabling participation in care and case planning and review
‘In 20 case plans I was only ever present for one. The only reason was because I
broke the door down to get in.’
‘Some meetings were at my school and some were after school at the Department.’
‘They would say “oh we did your case plan but you were at school”. They should
have taken me out of school for it.’
‘Never told about them [planning meetings]. Don’t know when they happened.’”
(Queensland Child and Famliy Commission, 2018, p. 18)
A significant body of research involves the participation of young people in care and case planning, and
review of planning meetings and processes. In the most recent review of the Victorian OOHHC system,
some children and young people had positive experiences of planning meetings, but most either were
unaware of them or felt their participation was tokenistic (Commission for Children and Young People,
2019). Young people may have opportunities to be involved in meetings of multiple adults such as family
group conferencing, case planning or review meetings regarding their lives and care. Research
conducted with 10 young people about their participation in Child In Care review meetings in England
found that seven young people had no say at all when and where the meeting would be held, the agenda
and who was going to be invited (Diaz et al., 2018). Three young people in this research chaired their
own meetings, and eight reported that they would prefer fewer people to attend meetings about their
care. Having multiple strangers involved in meetings about young people’s care acts as a barrier to their
participation (Diaz et al., 2018; Diaz, Pert, & Thomas, 2019; Thomas, 2011).
The main themes of practice advice across the literature for care and case planning in the research can
be grouped into the following themes for practitioners:
Provide practical and emotional preparation including understanding reports; attending part or
whole meeting; understanding and contributing to agenda setting; building skills, trust and
participation over time; and/or chairing meetings. Support young people who cannot attend
meetings to influence agendas and make their wishes known through an advocate /
representative, through writing or creative expression (Roesch-Marsh et al., 2017; Sinclair et al.,
2019)
Young people’s participation in residential care decision-making
35
Ensure young people have a person they trust or have an established relationship with at any
planning meeting. Meetings can be made informal discussions with as few people as possible, and
young people choose who is present. Minimise the number of people who attend planning
meetings, particularly strangers and police unless young people know and trust them (Balsells et
al., 2017; Beal et al., 2019; Bessell, 2011; Calheiros et al., 2013; Commission for Children and
Young People, 2019; Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian, 2012)
Share power/work to equalise power through informality and power-sharing activities;
demonstrate collaboration with other practitioners and family members; ask others to wait, or not
speak over young people, to give them time to express their views; challenge disrespectful or
excluding language (Balsells et al., 2017; Beal et al., 2019; Bessell, 2011; Calheiros et al., 2013;
Davis, 2019)
Plans should be individualised and evolve with the changing capacities and circumstances of each
young person. Check back in with young people about their wishes and views – do they still want
things that way? Mutuality and checking-in builds relationships and trust over time (Graham &
Johnson, 2019; Hitzler & Messmer, 2010; Lansdown, 2011; Larkins et al., 2015; SNAICC, 2018)
Cultural plans should involve the young person, chosen family members and community; promote
contact with family, community and Country; name key people the young person can connect with
over time; specify activities that support cultural connection; evolve over time as the young
person develops; be supported by case work and monitored; and be lodged with the Children’s
Court (SNAICC 2018, Davis 2019).
Implications for organisations
Organisations can establish a participatory ecosystem to support the establishment, sustainability and
impact of youth participation (Fitzmaurice, 2017). Box 3 highlights the practices organisations can
implement to create and sustain such an ecosystem.
Box 3: Practices to support participation in organisations, program development and policy
Building capacity for safe and inclusive participation
• Invest in information, training and capacity building for young people and staff to support the
emergence and sustainability of participatory mechanisms within organisations: cultural safety and
inclusion; participation and facilitation; project management; grant writing and management;
Young people’s participation in residential care decision-making
36
governance and accountability. Develop information in collaboration with young people with lived
experience and compensate them financially for their contributions.
• Ensure culturally safe and accountable supports, including practical support and transport are
available to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people and families involved with your
organisation, and work with ACCOs to provide culturally safe support to young people.
• Ensure meeting times and locations are consistent, communication with members are sustained
and use young people’s preferred channels.
• Collaborate with other services to nominate and support young people with disability, LGBTIQ+
young people and other hard to reach groups during their participation.
Providing space for young people to form views
• Provide informal spaces within the organisation where young people can interact with staff,
including senior staff in relaxed and comfortable environments, including adapting board rooms or
typically adult centred spaces.
• Ensure holistic, flexible and sustained participation through allocation of financial, staffing and
infrastructure resources.
• Provide financial compensation for young people’s participation, and for transportation costs;
provide meals, and leftover food.
• Provide adult co-facilitators to youth participatory mechanisms to coordinate financial, emotional
and practical support and to create safe and inclusive spaces for young people’s participation
development.
• Recruit young people with lived experience in care as experts, leaders, co-facilitators, peer-
researchers and paid staff.
Recognition of young people’s lived experience expertise
• Establish youth participation mechanisms, invest them with decision-making power that can
influence policies and programs for young people as a group.
• Young people should be empowered to develop their own mission and rules of engagement
alongside organisational objectives.
• Include young people in review, inspection and regulation processes.
• Facilitators adapt to young people’s different and evolving capabilities to participate, to express
views and to lead.
Listening and being accountable to young people
• Executives meet young people directly and in youth friendly/designated spaces or in important
decision-making spaces such as board rooms.
• Use surveys, workshops and group discussions regularly to stay engaged with young people and
establish listening and feedback loops over time.
• Demonstrate active efforts in giving due weight to the views of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
young people, their families and Elders.
•
Be accountable, give due weight to their views, and deliver on commitments to young people.
Young people’s participation in residential care decision-making
37
Influencing outcomes and co-creating impact
• Consider what aspects of practice, policy and governance are open to young people’s influence
prior to engaging.
• Establish direct and ongoing relationships with young people, via group and 1:1 discussions, that
enable a relationship to be formed and young people to hold the decision maker to account for
outcomes of their participation through a relationship of trust over time.
• Adapt participatory mechanisms to the changing interests of members over time.
• Measure, monitor and promote outcomes of participation with young people’s permission.
• Inspectors, regulators and reviewers should meet with children and young people directly, as well
as meeting with staff, observing participation practice, and reviewing case files to gather a full
picture of participation.
Participation in service, program and policy design
“Adults must view children and young people as social actors with unique
perspectives to contribute, while also recognising their vulnerability. Decision-
makers must take steps to ensure that children and young people’s voices are not
filtered, and that children and young people who contribute their views are given
the opportunity to find out how those views influenced decisions.” (Fitzmaurice,
2017, p. 50).
Young people develop knowledge and skills through experience living in and leaving residential care -
knowledge that is not able to be gained through other sources and that reflects the care system as it is
experienced, not as it is intended or written in policies, programs or plans (Lansdown, 2011).
Recognition of this value is inherent in rights-based participation: lived experience is more than a
resource; it is the source of experience-based knowledge in human-centred design, which can drive
the development of services and programs for and by those whose lives are most impacted by them
(Dixon et al., 2019; Lansdown, 2011).
CREATE Foundation demonstrates the value of listening to young people’s lived experience in service
and program development, through their training of Young Consultants in speak up development
programs, a participation portal for children and young people in care, involvement of Young
Consultants in caseworker training, and a biannual conference co-designed by young people. Their
theory of change rests on an assumption that improving OOHC involves listening to those who are
Young people’s participation in residential care decision-making
38
experiencing it, first-hand (McDowall, 2018). As a result, the organisation was able to consult with
over 1200 children and young people in their 2018 review of the National Standards for OOHC in
Australia.
Recognition of young people’s lived experience involves providing support and capacity building to
young people to develop their advocacy skills (Purtell et al., 2019). While this capacity building may be
resource-intensive, it enables longer-term relationships between young people and adults, and
greater impact from participation activities. One common solution may be to collaborate with
programs that provide ongoing capacity building and support to young people, inviting them to
nominate participants for engagement and co-design processes (Fitzmaurice 2017). Adult co-
facilitators should be trained in co-creation and co-design methods of power sharing and creative
development with young people and engage in regular critical self-reflective practice (Sinclair et al.,
2019).
Involving young people at design, implementation and evaluation stages of programming, and via
multiple participation activities and levels within organisations, builds relationships and self-
confidence over time, while gaining their input into different aspects of program and organisational
development (Sinclair 2019). In discussing the application of participation to organisational and policy
settings, Purtell et al. (2019) also note the importance of providing forums where young people meet
with adults on an equal footing, and that opportunities for influencing change take a variety of forms,
from recruitment to policy and program design. This includes exploring young people’s experience and
expertise in advocacy, participation and co-design, and only making adaptations where they are
needed, so that young people don’t feel especially vulnerable or that their participation is ‘less than’
other professionals. Approaches to the participation in service design that value young people’s lived
experience expertise include: co-design and co-creation of services; engagement of young people in
service design within adult-centred organisations; and participatory research. Young people should
always be compensated or paid a living wage in recognition of their contributions, to facilitate access
and equity, and to equalise power with paid adults. Sustainability of organisational engagement with
young people relies on ongoing support, capacity building and recruitment of members, which can be
resource-intensive but deliver significant benefits.
Young people’s participation in residential care decision-making
39
Co-design, co-production and co-creation
Co-design and co-production are used in youth participation literature to describe varying approaches
to deep or genuine engagement with young people with lived experience alongside other key
stakeholders in service and program design or re-design (Davis, 2019; Dixon et al., 2019; Purtell et al.,
2019). Using co-design, young people’s expertise is valued and incorporated into the design phases of
a project from the outset; measures are taken to equalise power or even relinquish power to young
people in different phases of identifying collecting data about user experience, ideation, prototyping,
implementing solutions and evaluation. Co-design has been used in the development of transition
from care programs in England (Dixon et al., 2019), in the design of consultation for the Victorian
systemic inquiry into OOHC (Commission for Children and Young People, 2019), and is recommended
by SNAICC as a method for demonstrating active efforts in supporting strong partnerships with ACCOs
in policy and legislative development (SNAICC, 2018).
Co-production and co-design involve a deeper level of power sharing and collaboration between
service providers and service users than other forms of youth engagement (Tisdall, 2017). It has
potential to both elevate the role of young people in residential care through valuing their lived
experience, and to improve services and programs that are tailored to young people’s needs and
preferences. As Davis (2019) notes, however, co-design may be implemented in name only, and
processes may not achieve the significant redressing of power imbalances that exist between key
stakeholders.
In Aotearoa New Zealand in 2015, 78 young people were involved in a review of care, protection and
youth justice systems via interviews, co-design workshops and the engagement of a youth advisory
panel (Fitzmaurice, 2017). The co-design process was steered by an expert panel using a design
approach which incorporated some co-design activities, but importantly, involved sustained
engagement with young people their families and communities. Expert panel members reported that
this engagement influenced the outcomes of the service system overhaul, however, the conduct and
‘synthesis’ of interview data filtered their views rather than being in direct audience with adult
decision makers (Fitzmaurice, 2017). This example demonstrates the potential of co-design that is
planned, facilitated and sustained with direct relationships between young people and decision
makers, the challenges of measuring the impact of young people’s participation, and the potential for
Young people’s participation in residential care decision-making
40
compromising principles such as Lundy’s audience and influence (See Figure 1) where it is used within
larger participatory and policy making projects (Tisdall 2017).
Engagement within adult-centred organisations
Engagement in developing and implementing programs, events and materials involves
planning, dedicated staffing and program resources, capacity building and commitment to
follow through on young people’s contributions, including providing feedback and documenting
the impact they made on outcomes.
Needs and asset mapping including place-based engagement in identifying problems and
strengths, exploring the way they use systems, spaces and places, and identifying solutions may
be used at the start of planning processes including grant development. Young people should
be able to see the benefit of their participation for them, and any limitations of their impact on
outcomes should be made transparent at the outset. Place based engagement should include
local skilled facilitators and be embedded in community to ensure cultural safety and inclusion.
Operational development and continuous improvement, engaging young people in monitoring
and review of existing services and programs, process and impact evaluation, recruitment of
staff and executive roles, quality improvement and complaints mechanisms. These
opportunities should identify and address risks of tokenism and ensure meaningful participation
so that young people feel safe, included and capable to participate alongside adults, so that
power is shared, and processes are accountable.
Governance and leadership roles can provide increased voice and audience of young people
within boards and leadership teams, although usually only offer ongoing opportunities to a
small group of 1 or 2 young people. Remuneration, developing the skills and capabilities of
young people to participate and ensuring they feel supported and listened to within broader
adult-centred groups are important. Youth identified positions, advisory boards and
communications strategies can improve the sustainability of these roles over time through
ongoing engagement with young people using services and in the broader community. Isolation
and disempowerment can be minimised through the direct interaction and mentoring by the
organisation’s executive.
Development of organisational and systemic policy can involve young people in care through
consultation (such as surveys, interviews and online engagement forums); creative arts
Young people’s participation in residential care decision-making
41
engagement; co-design and coproduction, where policy/decision makers engage directly with
young people’s lived experience along with other experts; involvement of young people in
budgeting and policy impact analysis. Budget allocations and policy outputs should demonstrate
accountability through clear links back to young people’s contributions.
Deliberative democracy is one approach to organisational and systemic policy development in which
policy makers engage directly with young people, listen and reflect on issues and problems together.
From 2015-2018, CREATE Foundation’s Young Consultants PLATFORM CREW has held three Hour of
Power (HOP) forums in Victoria in which young people advocated for improving kinship care, extending
leaving care programs, improving care for young mothers, supporting young people with disabilities and
supporting connections with siblings (CREATE Foundation, 2018). While this demonstrates empowering
systemic advocacy by PLATFORM CREW, it is also an example of engagement by policy actors in their
broader policy agendas. Attendees included senior care sector representatives, ministers responsible
for the Victorian youth justice and child protection portfolios, the Children and Young People’s
Commissioner and Aboriginal Children and Young People’s Commissioner. Victoria’s ‘In Our Own Words’
systemic inquiry into OOHC was announced by Commissioner Buchanan at the March 2018 HOP; and
following the HOP, an extended care trial was launched, funding OOHC to 250 young people up to 21
years old and their carers.
In a more sustained example, the Austin Youth Collective to End Homelessness (AYC) is a group of 12
young people with experiences of homelessness in one of ten national demonstration programs to
address systemic causes and end youth homelessness by 2020 (Schoenfeld et al., 2019). In this region
of USA, 76% of homeless young people have come from OOHC and / or youth justice systems, with high
representation of young people of colour, young parents, and LGBTIQ+ young people, making this
project relevant in Australia. AYC was established by an NGO as a youth advisory board with members
nominated by youth services, who shared their lived experience and insights into potential solutions
with the youth homelessness demonstration project team during project development. Rejecting a
model proposed by adult experts for a ‘host home’ approach resembling foster care, the AYC advocated
for an individually-responsive program including financial (rent and utilities) assistance, mediation and
trauma-responsive support services. The project community plan includes their program, and AYC
members are involved in assessing proposed projects (Schoenfeld et al., 2019). In their lessons learned,
Young people’s participation in residential care decision-making
42
the project team includes the following for organisations engaging with young people in adult-centred
program and policy development:
1. clarify the purpose of the group to ensure sustainability beyond single intervention consultation
2. allow the group to determine and clarify its structure, to ensure that structure does not divert
attention away from their purpose, through visioning activities
3. support the group to establish subcommittees to identify issues and work towards outcomes
4. support artistic expression in community engagement and participation
5. provide training and capacity building, not to represent youth issues in adult language, but to
equalise power when engaging with adults, e.g. cultural competency, project management,
professional etiquette, public speaking, and grant writing
6. provide an adult facilitator(s) to support and coordinate activities, organise meals, finances and
transport, and to create a safe space for young people’s inclusion
7. clarify young people’s roles and remunerate them, including position description,
responsibilities and core competencies for members
8. be consistent and flexible with meeting times, location and frequency, adapting to the changing
communication styles and needs of members, and ensuring that participation does not detract
from young people’s development and other commitments
9. ensure adequate funding and resourcing of the project to promote sustainability and impact
(Schoenfeld 2019).
Participatory research
Participatory research may include: peer research, where young people take on roles as researchers;
engagement of young people in research design, analysis and reporting; action research, in which
participants are engaged in processes of planning, learning, and taking action to improve their everyday
lives. These approaches can be particularly effective in engaging and empowering young people who
may be hard to reach or experience multiple disadvantage, and unlikely to participate in mainstream
youth engagement activities (Dixon et al., 2019). Being interviewed and engaged by peers can also be
more comfortable for young people to get involved as participants in research projects (Dixon et al.,
2019).
Young people’s participation in residential care decision-making
43
One example of participatory research included young people with lived experience as co-researchers
to facilitate change in alternate care services and transition services in Finland. Despite come challenges
in data collection, co-researchers were trained and supported to interview 53 young people about their
experiences of transitioning from care to independence, using semi-structured interviews with both
open and closed questions, and added their own questions if they chose. They contributed to research
design and dissemination, participating in an international collaboration as the study occurred in four
different countries. In addition to empowering young people with new skills and in the production of
new knowledge, the project championed the concept of experts by experience within adult-led research
parameters (Törrönen & Vornanen, 2014).
Young people’s participation in residential care decision-making
44
References
AbSec. (2018). Aboriginal Case Management Policy. Sydney: NSW Department of Communities and
Justice (Familiy and Community Services).
Arnau-Sabatés, L., Marzo, M. T., Jariot, M., & Sala-Roca, J. (2014). Learning basic employability
competence: A challenge for the active labour insertion of adolescents in residential care in their
transition to adulthood. European Journal of Social Work, 17(2), 252–265.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2013.802227
Balsells, M. Á., Fuentes-Peláez, N., & Pastor, C. (2017). Listening to the voices of children in decision-
making: A challenge for the child protection system in Spain. Children and Youth Services Review,
79(March), 418–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.06.055
Beal, S. J., Wingrove, T., Nause, K., Lipstein, E., Mathieu, S., & Greiner, M. V. (2019). The role of shared
decision-making in shaping intent to access services for adolescents in protective custody. Child
Care in Practice, 25(1), 64–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/13575279.2018.1521379
Bessell, S. (2011). Participation in decision-making in out-of-home care in Australia: What do young
people say? Children and Youth Services Review, 33(4), 496–501.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.05.006
Bessell, S. (2015). Inclusive and Respectful Relationships as the Bssis for Child Inclusive Policies and
Practice: The Experience of Children in Out-of-Home Care in Australia. In T. Gal & B. Faedi Duramy
(Eds.), International Perspectives and Empirical Findings on Child Participation (pp. 183–206). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Borgne, C. Le. (2014). What next? Ways forward for children’s and young people’s participation (pp. 1–
45). pp. 1–45. Stockley Park, Middlesex: World Vision International.
Brady, B., Kennan, D., Forkan, C., Tierney, E., Jackson, R., & Holloway, R. (2019). The participation of
children and young people in care: Insights from an analysis of national inspection reports in the
Republic of Ireland. Child Care in Practice, 25(1), 22–36.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13575279.2018.1537257
Young people’s participation in residential care decision-making
45
Burford, G., & Gallagher, S. (2015). Teen experiences of exclusion, inclusion and participation in child
protection and youth justice in Vermont. In T. Gal & B. Faedy Duramy (Eds.), International
Perspectives and Empirical Findings on Child Participation (pp. 227–282). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Cahill, H., & Dadvand, B. (2018). Re-conceptualising youth participation: A framework to inform action.
Children and Youth Services Review, 95(November), 243–253.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.11.001
Calheiros, M. M., Patricio, J. N., & Graca, J. (2013). Staff and youth views on autonomy and emancipation
from residential care: A participatory research study. Evaluation and Program Planning, 39, 57–66.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2013.04.003
Cassarino-Perez, L., Córdova, V. E., Montserrat, C., & Sarriera, J. C. (2018). Transition from care to
adulthood: A systematic review of intervention programs. Trends in Psychology, 26(3), 1683–1698.
https://doi.org/10.9788/TP2018.3-19En
Checkoway, B. (2011). What is youth participation? Children and Youth Services Review, 33(2), 340–345.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.09.017
Clive, D., Pert, H., & Thomas, N. P. (2019). Independent Reviewing Officers’ and social workers’
perceptions of children’s participation in Children in Care Reviews. Journal of Children’s Services,
14(3), 162–173. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCS-01-2019-0003
Commission for Children and Young People. (2019). ‘In our own words’: Systemic inquiry into the lived
experience of children and young people in the Victorian out-of-home care system. Retrieved from
https://ccyp.vic.gov.au/assets/Publications-inquiries/CCYP-In-Our-Own-Words.pdf
Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian. (2012). Responding to trauma and
attachment needs in residential care: What young people’s perceptions tell us about how well we’re
doing in Queensland (pp. 1–32). pp. 1–32. Retrieved from internal-pdf://198.211.23.236/What
young peoples perceptions tell us about h.pdf
CREATE Foundation. (2018). The Hour of Power: youth advocacy in action. Retrieved 7 January 2020,
from Hour of Power Youth Forums Report 2017-2018 website: https://create.org.au/wp-
Young people’s participation in residential care decision-making
46
content/uploads/2019/02/CREATE-Foundation-Hour-of-Power-HOP-Report-HOP-2017-2018.pdf
Davis, M. (2019). Family is Culture Review Report: Independent review of Aboriginal children and young
people in OOHC. Retrieved from
https://www.familyisculture.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/726329/Family-Is-Culture-
Review-Report.pdf
Diaz, C., Pert, H., & Thomas, N. (2018). ‘Just another person in the room’: young people’s views on their
participation in Child in Care Reviews. Adoption & Fostering, 42(4), 369–382.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0308575918801663
Diaz, C., Pert, H., & Thomas, N. P. (2019). Independent Reviewing Officers’ and social workers’
perceptions of children’s participation in Children in Care Reviews. Journal of Children’s Services,
14(3), 162–173. https://doi.org/10.1108/jcs-01-2019-0003
Dixon, J., Ward, J., & Blower, S. (2019). “They sat and actually listened to what we think about the care
system”: the use of participation, consultation, peer research and co-production to raise the voices
of young people in and leaving care in England. Child Care in Practice, 25(1), 6–21.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13575279.2018.1521380
Fattore, T., Mason, J., & Watson, E. (2016). Children’s Understandings of Well-being: Towards a Child
Standpoint. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-0829-4
Fitzmaurice, L. (2017). Children’s voices in system reform - A case study on children and young people’s
participation within the modernisation of Child, Youth and Family. Aotearoa New Zealand Social
Work, 29(1), 41. https://doi.org/10.11157/anzswj-vol29iss1id190
Franklin, A., & Goff, S. (2019). Listening and facilitating all forms of communication: disabled children
and young people in residential care in England. Child Care in Practice, 25(1), 99–111.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13575279.2018.1521383
Glynn, N., & Mayock, P. (2019). “I’ve changed so much within a year”: care leavers’ perspectives on the
aftercare planning process. Child Care in Practice, 25(1), 79–98.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13575279.2018.1521378
Young people’s participation in residential care decision-making
47
Grace, R., Miller, K., Blacklock, S., Bonser, G., & Hayden, P. (2018). The Kids Say Project: Supporting
children to talk about their experiences and to engage in decision-making. Australian Social Work,
71(3), 292–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2018.1447589
Graham, A., Bessell, S., Adamson, E., Truscott, J., Simmons, C., Thomas, N., … Johnson, A. (2018).
Navigating the ambiguous policy landscape of student participation. Journal of Education Policy,
00(00), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2018.1527945
Graham, S., & Johnson, D. (2019). Trauma therapy: Exploring the views of young people in care.
Residential Treatment for Children & Youth, 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0886571X.2019.1644981
Hitzler, S., & Messmer, H. (2010). Group decision-making in child welfare and the pursuit of
participation. Qualitative Social Work, 9(2), 205–226.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325010372156
Keenan, P. (2014). Walking or talking participation? Evidencing the impact of direct participation with
children and young people in the development of departmental policies, strategies, legislation and
services. Belfast.
Lansdown, G. (2001). Promoting children’s participation in democratic decision-making. Florence, Italy:
UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre.
Lansdown, G. (2011). Every child’s right to be heard: A resource guide on the UN Committee on the rights
of the child general comment no. 12 (p. 159). p. 159. London: Save the Children, UNICEF.
Lansdown, G. (2018). Conceptual framework for measuring outcomes of adolescent participation (pp.
1–23). pp. 1–23. Retrieved from https://www.unicef.org/media/59006/file
Lansdown, G., & O’Kane, C. (2014). A toolkit for monitoring and evaluating children’s participation.
Booklet 5: Tools for monitoring and evaluating children’s participation (pp. 1–29). pp. 1–29.
London: Save The Children Fund.
Larkins, C., Ridley, J., Farrelly, N., Austerberry, H., Bilson, A., Hussein, S., … Stanley, N. (2015). Children’s,
young people’s, and parents’ perspectives on contact: Findings from the evaluation of social work
Young people’s participation in residential care decision-making
48
practices. British Journal of Social Work, 45, 296–312. https://doi.org/10.1093/BJSW
Lindstedt, S., Moeller-Saxone, K., Black, C., Herrman, H., & Szwarc, J. (2017). Realist review of programs,
policies, and interventions to enhance the social, emotional, and spiritual well-being of Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander young people living in out-of-home care. The International Indigenous
Policy Journal, 8(3), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.18584/iipj.2017.8.3.5
Lundy, L. (2007). ‘Voice’ is not enough: conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on
the Rights of the Child. British Educational Research Journal, 33(6), 927–942.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920701657033
Mannay, D., Staples, E., Hallett, S., Roberts, L., Rees, A., Evans, R., & Andrews, D. (2019). Enabling talk
and reframing messages: Working creatively with care experienced children and young people to
recount and re-represent their everyday experiences. Child Care in Practice, 25(1), 51–63.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13575279.2018.1521375
McCarthy, E. (2016). Young people in residential care, their participation and the influencing factors.
Child Care in Practice, 22(4), 368–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/13575279.2016.1188763
McDowall, J. (2013). Participation of children and young people in decision-making in out-of-home care
in Australia. Developing Practice: The Child, Youth and Family Work Journal, (36), 41–51.
McDowall, J. (2016). Are we listening? The need to facilitate participation in decision-making by children
and young people in out-of-home care. Developing Practice: The Child, Youth and Family Work
Journal, (44), 78–82.
McDowall, J. (2018). Out-of-home care in Australia: Children and young people’s views after five years
of national standards. Retrieved from CREATE Foundation website: www.create.org.au
Mendes, P., Johnson, G., & Moslehuddin, B. (2011). Effectively preparing young people to transition
from out-of-home care: An examination of three recent Australian studies. Family Matters, (89),
61–70.
Moore, T. (2017). Children and young people’s views on institutional safety: It’s not just because we’re
little. Child Abuse & Neglect, 74, 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.08.026
Young people’s participation in residential care decision-making
49
Moore, T., McArthur, M., Death, J., Tilbury, C., & Roche, S. (2017). Young people’s views on safety and
preventing abuse and harm in residential care: “It’s got to be better than home”. Children and
Youth Services Review, 81, 212–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.08.010
Moore, T., McArthur, M., Death, J., Tilbury, C., & Roche, S. (2018). Sticking with us through it all: The
importance of trustworthy relationships for children and young people in residential care. Children
and Youth Services Review, 84, 68–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.10.043
Narendorf, S. C., Fedoravicius, N., McMillen, J. C., McNelly, D., & Robinson, D. R. (2012). Stepping down
and stepping in: Youth’s perspectives on making the transition from residential treatment to
treatment foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(1), 43–49.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.08.031
Notara, D., Robinson, S., Fisher, K. R., Notara, D., Robinson, S., & Fisher, K. R. (2017). Evaluation of the
CREATE Ability Project, Year 2 (TAP2): Final Report (pp. 1–28). pp. 1–28. Lismore, NSW: Centre for
Children & Young People, Southern Cross University.
NSW Department of Communities and Justice. (2019). The views of children and young people in out-of-
home care in NSW: Results from the 2018 NSW Out- Of-Home Care and Residential Care Surveys.
Retrieved from https://www.facs.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/765874/FACSIAR-
Report-NSW-OOHC-Survey-2018-FINAL.pdf
NSW Department of Communities and Justice (Families and Community Services). (2019). Care Leavers’
Charter of Rights. Ashfield: NSW Department of Communities and Justice (Familiy and Community
Services).
NSW Government Office of the Advocate for Children and Young People. (2019). Engaging children and
young people in your organisation. Sydney: NSW Government Office of the Advocate for Children
and Young People.
O’Hare, L., Santin, O., Winter, K., & McGuinness, C. (2016). The reliability and validity of a child and
adolescent participation in decision-making questionnaire. Child: Care, Health and Development,
42(5), 692–698. https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12369
Office of the Children’s Guardian. (2015). NSW Child Safe Standards for Permanent Care (pp. 1–40). pp.
Young people’s participation in residential care decision-making
50
1–40. Retrieved from Office of Children’s Guardian
Pålsson, D. (2017). Conditioned agency? The role of children in the audit of Swedish residential care.
Child and Family Social Work, 22(May), 33–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12234
Purtell, J., Westwick, L., Witnish, B., Butcher, J., [Withheld], A., Salera, R., & Bollinger, J. (2019). Learning
from lived experience in government care: Sharing gains in knowledge and practice in youth
participation with key care stakeholders. Scottish Journal of Residential Child Care, 18(2), 1–12.
Queensland Child and Famliy Commission. (2018). Young people’s perspectives of residential care,
including police call-outs. Brisbane.
Robertson, C., Laing, K., Butler, M., & Soliman, R. (2017). The views of NSW children and young people
in out-of-home care: NSW results from the National Out-of-Home Care and NSW Residential Care
Surveys (pp. 1–34). pp. 1–34. Sydney: NSW Department of Family and Community Services.
Roesch-Marsh, A., Gillies, A., & Green, D. (2017). Nurturing the virtuous circle: Looked after children’s
participation in reviews, a cyclical and relational process. Child and Family Social Work, 22(2), 904–
913. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12310
Schoenfeld, E. A., Bennett, K., Manganella, K., & Kemp, G. (2019). More than just a seat at the table: the
power of youth voice in ending youth homelessness in the United States. Child Care in Practice,
25(1), 112–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/13575279.2018.1521376
Shier, H. (2001). Pathways to participation: Openings, opportunities and obligations. Children and
Society, 15(2), 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1002/chi.617
Shier, H., Méndez, M. H., Centeno, M., Arróliga, I., & González, M. (2014). How Children and Young
People Influence Policy-Makers: Lessons from Nicaragua. Children & Society, 28(1), 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1099-0860.2012.00443.x
Sinclair, L., Vieira, M., & Zufelt, V. (2019). Youth engagement and participation in a child and youth care
context. Scottish Journal of Residential Child Care, 18(March 2019), 1–20.
SNAICC. (2018). The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle: A Guide To Support
Implementation (p. 84). p. 84. Retrieved from https://www.snaicc.org.au/the-aboriginal-and-
Young people’s participation in residential care decision-making
51
torres-strait-islander-child-placement-principle-a-guide-to-support-implementation/
Stein, M. (2015). Supportive pathways for young people leaving care: Lessons learned from four decades
of research. In J. K. Whittaker, J. F. del Valle, & L. Holmes (Eds.), Therapeutic Residential Care for
Children and Youth: Developing Evidence-Based International Practice (pp. 191–204). Centre for
Child and Family Research, Loughborough University, UK.
ten Brummelaar, M. D. C., Kalverboer, M. E., Harder, A. T., Post, W. J., Zijlstra, A. E., & Knorth, E. J. (2014).
The Best Interest of the Child Self-Report Questionnaire (BIC-S): Results of a participatory
development process. Child Indicators Research, 7(3), 569–588. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-
013-9225-3
ten Brummelaar, M. D. C., Post, W. J., Arkesteijn, P. A., Kalverboer, M. E., Harder, A. T., & Knorth, E. J.
(2018). Perceived living conditions of young people in secure residential care: Psychometric
properties of the Best Interest of the Child − Self-Report Questionnaire (BIC-S). Child Indicators
Research, 11(4), 1175–1192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-017-9460-0
Thomas, N. P. (2011). Care planning and review for looked after children: Fifteen years of slow progress?
British Journal of Social Work, 41(2), 387–398. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcr028
Tisdall, E. K. M. (2017). Conceptualising children and young people’s participation: Examining
vulnerability, social accountability and co-production. International Journal of Human Rights,
21(1), 59–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2016.1248125
Törrönen, M. L., & Vornanen, R. H. (2014). Young people leaving care: Participatory research to improve
child welfare practices and the rights of children and young people. Australian Social Work, 67(1),
135–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2013.868012
UNICEF. (2017). Adolescent and Youth Engagement Strategic Framework (pp. 1–21). pp. 1–21. Retrieved
from http://unicefinemergencies.com/downloads/eresource/docs/Adolescents/63792683.pdf
United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. Convention on the Rights of the Child. , Pub. L. No.
General Assembly resolution 44/25 (1989).
United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. (2009). General Comment No. 12: The right of the
Young people’s participation in residential care decision-making
52
child to be heard (CRC/C/GC/1, p. 28). CRC/C/GC/1, p. 28. Geneva: United Natios.
United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. (2019). Concluding observations on the combined
fifth and sixth periodic reports of Australia. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03174582
United Nations General Assembly. (2010). Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199560103.003.0005
Vis, S. A., & Fossum, S. (2015). Organizational factors and child participation in decision-making:
Differences between two child welfare organizations. Child and Family Social Work, 20(3), 277–
287. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12076
Wong, N. T., Zimmerman, M. A., & Parker, E. A. (2010). A typology of youth participation and
empowerment for child and adolescent health promotion. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 46(1), 100–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9330-0
i Advice relating to cultural safety and practices for working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young
people, families and Communities were drawn primarily from The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Placement
Principle: A Guide to Implementation (SNAICC 2018), supplemented by Family is Culture Review Report:
Independent review of Aboriginal children and young people in OOHC (Davis 2019).
