Increased Youth Participation in Decision-Making Processes

Outcome

evidence of increased youth participation in decision-making processes at the [local / regional / national] level

This qualitative indicator captures change in the degree and quality of youth participation in public decision-making processes - such as community planning, participatory budgeting, policy dialogue, or governance platforms.

Determine the indicator’s value by using the following methodology:

1) With key project partners and other relevant stakeholders, discuss and define clear indicator criteria and definitions.

• Define “youth” according to national or project criteria.

• Define “increased participation.” This can be defined as “a positive change as a result of the intervention” in one or more of the following dimensions:

  • Representation: Youth presence in decision-making bodies.

  • Engagement: Frequency and quality of youth participation in discussions or decision-making.

  • Institutionalisation: Existence of formal mechanisms ensuring ongoing youth participation.

  Participation that is merely symbolic (e.g. attending without contributing) should not be counted unless it demonstrates intent to engage (e.g. asking questions, signing petitions, contributing feedback). Increased participation does not imply influence over decisions, and the definition of increased participation should reflect this distinction.

• Specify the “decision-making processes” to be assessed - e.g. community councils, township committees, participatory planning sessions, youth councils, or national policy platforms.

• Clarify the level of analysis (local, regional, national).

2) Determine what constitutes “evidence” of increased youth participation. Acceptable evidence includes a combination of at least two of the following sources:

• Official documents documenting youth participation: meeting minutes, policies, resolutions, action plans.

• Records of participation mechanisms: youth councils, consultations, advisory groups, public hearings.

• Reports or media coverage confirming youth involvement in decision-making processes.

• Testimonies or statements from youth, authorities, civil society organisations (CSOs), or independent observers confirming meaningful youth participation.

3) Set the reference period for which you will collect evidence of increased youth participation. Collect data for a defined time frame, typically the current reporting year or project period (e.g. the last 12 months).

4) Develop a tool to record evidence of increased youth participation. Prepare a simple tool - e.g. a table or database - to document the types of changes and evidence of youths’ increased participation in decision-making processes according to the predefined criteria (step 1). The tool may record for example the following information for each observed case of increased youth participation:

• level (local / regional / national)

• period / date

• type of decision-making process or mechanism

• number or type of youth group(s) participating

• description of participation and how it changed

• type of stakeholder(s) who contributed to change

• significance of change

• source of verification / evidence

• project contribution

• external contribution

5) Collect evidence through two or more of the following methods:

• Document and media review:  Examine meeting minutes, participant lists, attendance sheets, plans, policy documents, media reports, or social media posts to verify youth involvement or representation.

• Key informant interviews: Interview youth participants, local authorities, CSO representatives, or community leaders to confirm how youth engagement has evolved and what changed.

• Focus group discussions: Conduct discussions with youth groups to explore youth participation in decision-making processes and related evidence. Consider asking the following questions:

  • In your view, how has youth participation in local decision-making changed in [specify the period]? What has contributed to this change?

  • How do different groups of young people usually express their opinions or contribute to local decisions? Can you describe any specific examples?

  • How significant is this change? Why? How is the current participation different from the situation [specify the period]?

• Observation: Where possible, attend decision-making meetings to directly observe youth participation dynamics.

• Surveys: Conduct a short survey with young people to capture self-reported changes in participation behaviour. The survey can assess whether young people attended decision-making meetings more often, spoke up or shared views, submitted proposals, joined youth forums or committees, or followed up on decisions at the local, regional, or national level.

6) Document information in the tool you designed in step 4 and store evidence. Retain meeting minutes, policy drafts, participant lists, testimonies (e.g. from group discussions and interviews), media reports, photos, or videos verifying increased youth participation.

7) Report on the indicator. Provide a narrative description of the indicator’s achievement using the collected evidence and the information recorded in the developed table or database (step 4). In your reporting, combine any available quantitative information (e.g. number of decision-making processes or locations where youth participation increased) with qualitative interpretation that explains the nature, depth, and significance of the observed changes in youth engagement.

Report and interpret findings with reference to relevant contextual factors such as the level of governance (local / regional / national), type of decision-making process (e.g. planning, budgeting, policy), and geographic area (urban / rural), as feasible and appropriate.

1) Use this indicator when describing the qualitative extent of change provides more meaningful insight than numerical measurement. It allows you to assess how youth engagement has become more active, meaningful, and influential, rather than relying on numerical attendance figures that may misrepresent progress. A qualitative approach helps determine whether youth participation has genuinely deepened, broadened, or become more inclusive over time.

2) This indicator measures the extent and quality of youth participation, not the extent to which youth inputs influence final decisions. Participation can be considered increased even where youth proposals are not adopted, provided engagement is meaningful, regular, and inclusive. If your project also seeks to understand influence, this may be included as an optional dimension within the assessment (e.g. Influence: evidence that youth perspectives are reflected in outcomes or official documents), but it should be analysed separately from participation.

3) Consider using Outcome Harvesting or Most Significant Change methodologies to capture meaningful change in youth participation. These qualitative methods are well suited to this indicator, as they help document what changed, how and why it changed, and why the change matters, as well as the project’s contribution. Outcome Harvesting can be used to identify and verify concrete instances where young people took initiative, contributed ideas, or influenced decisions, and to explain the significance of these changes. Most Significant Change can capture youth stories that describe how participation has evolved and why these changes are important from their perspective. Involving both youth and local authorities in reflecting on these findings can strengthen learning and validation.

4) Decide whether it is necessary to collect baseline considering the type or combination of methodologies you use and the type of evidence you collect.

5) Triangulate the data. Data and evidence become stronger when verified and validated against multiple sources, including supporting documents, external persons, other experts.

6) Interpret results and any scoring within the social, institutional, and political context at the relevant level of decision-making. Compare observed changes to the pre-intervention situation - using baseline data or respondents’ recall - and recognise that meaningful progress may look different across locations and levels. For example, young people speaking up for the first time in a village meeting may represent as meaningful a change as youth in a town beginning to submit written proposals or take roles in decision-making committees. When assessing progress, encourage partners to reflect on what steps would be needed to further strengthen youth participation in the next period, identifying enabling factors and barriers that shape youth engagement. This helps avoid inappropriate comparisons across contexts and provides insight into the conditions influencing change.

7) Given that civic space has many actors, to understand your contribution more in depth, examine how project activities may have influenced the observed changes in youth participation. Determine whether these shifts can be linked to project support. This can include assessing youth leadership or civic education training, facilitation of youth dialogue spaces, mentoring, outreach by supported youth-led CSOs, or communication campaigns.

8) If resources allow, consider also alternative or external factors contributing to change. These can be assessed by asking questions such as:

• How has the political context influenced this change / outcome, either positively or negatively?

• How did cooperation with other actors affect the achievement of this change / outcome? Which actors were involved, and in what ways did their involvement help or hinder progress?

9) If your project has a strong Gender Equality and Social Inclusion component, consider assessing whether marginalised or underrepresented youth groups - women, ethnic minorities, youth with disabilities - are also showing increased participation, and consider exploring any specific barriers they may still face.

10) If your project wants to assess the degree of participation rather than document evidence, you may consider reformulating the indicator to Extent of youth participation in decision-making processes at the [local / regional / national] level. Additional guidance on this approach, including practical considerations and illustrative examples, is provided in the two-page document linked below.

11) Where collecting or verifying qualitative evidence of increased youth participation is not feasible, consider using a quantitative indicator such as:

• Percentage of target youth who report increased engagement in decision-making processes at the [local / regional / national] level; or

• Percentage of target youth who report increased engagement in [civic activity, e.g. community meetings, advocacy, volunteering, public consultations, or elections] as a result of their exposure to the action.

These options capture self-reported changes in youth engagement through a perception-based survey, providing a quantitative yet meaningful measure of progress while requiring fewer qualitative verification steps.

12) For EU-funded projects, consider the following OPSYS indicator instead (more options can be found at the Predefined indicators for design and monitoring of EU-funded interventions website): Percentage of participants targeted by outreach and advocacy events who acknowledge having engaged further on the topic on their own initiative as a result of their exposure to the events.