Youth voice: what we mean and where it comes from

First published: Convention adopted 20 November 1989, binding on the UK since 15 January 1992; General Comment 12 (CRC/C/GC/12), issued 20 July 2009

CYV summary of Article 12 (United Nations, 1989) and paragraph 134 of General Comment 12 (Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2009).

Use it when

Making the case that listening to young people is a duty, not a favour, or checking a process against the international baseline.

Don't use it for

A session plan. The requirements are conditions to meet, not a method: the Lundy model turns them into questions.

What its authors say

"Participation" is not a word Article 12 uses. The UN Committee adopted it for an ongoing, two-way exchange in which children learn how their views shaped the outcome, and says they should be able to challenge the result.

The main critique

Everything depends on adults acting, and children's views pass through adults twice: in what is selected, and in how it is interpreted. Critics also say its picture of the individual child speaking up reflects richer, Western countries and can turn into tick-box practice. (Tisdall (2012); Tisdall and Punch (2012))

Ages, and where it applies

Under-18s. Binding on the UK in international law; enforceable in Scotland for devolved matters since 16 July 2024, with exceptions; reflected in Welsh law through a "due regard" duty on ministers; not incorporated in Northern Ireland or England.

First published: Adopted 21 May 2003

Adapted from Council of Europe (2003).

Use it when

Working with 18 to 25-year-olds, or arguing that young people need resources and structures, not just an invitation.

Don't use it for

Legal arguments: it is a recommendation to local and regional authorities, not binding law.

What its authors say

The Charter says participation means more than voting or standing for election. For under-18s, the Council of Europe's 2012 Recommendation on participation comes with a Child Participation Assessment Tool (2016): ten indicators, with ten outcome indicators added in 2023.

The main critique

Its model of permanent youth councils and parliaments has known problems: UK youth councils have often been set up by adults, and can mask the voices of many young people. (Matthews (2001))

Ages, and where it applies

No age range is set, which makes it a natural bridge for work with 18 to 25-year-olds. A European reference point across the four nations; no UK law gives it force.

First published: Launched in 1996 after the second UN Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II); UNICEF UK programme launched 20 November 2017

From UNICEF UK and council announcements. Redbridge, Derry City and Strabane, and Lambeth are recognised as Child Friendly Communities. No UNICEF logo is used without permission.

Use it when

A council wants a whole-place commitment to children's rights, with an external standard to work towards.

Don't use it for

A single service or project. It is a long, place-wide programme, and in the UK recognition lasts up to three years.

What its authors say

UNICEF's 2018 handbook makes meaningful and inclusive participation one of three minimum criteria for recognition.

The main critique

A study of three Child Friendly Cities found their plans stressed children's "voice" far more than redistributing resources, which limited what they could do about urban injustice. (Taylor, Muddiman, Powell and Power (2024))

Ages, and where it applies

Children and young people under 18. Recognised places in Wales, Northern Ireland and England. UNICEF UK stopped overseeing the programme in the UK in June 2026; councils already in it can carry on.

First published: Children's Participation: From Tokenism to Citizenship, Innocenti Essay 4, UNICEF

Adapted from Hart (1992), in the original rung order. Redrawn by CYV; not the UNICEF graphic.

Use it when

Starting a conversation about the difference between real participation and decoration or tokenism.

Don't use it for

Scoring a project or setting a target to "climb". Hart said it was never meant as a tool for evaluating work.

What its authors say

In 2008 Hart said the ladder had served its purpose. Readers took higher rungs as always better; it assumes individualist cultures; and children should help design evaluation tools themselves. He wanted each child to be able to choose their level.

The main critique

Lundy argues that classing tokenism as non-participation was a flaw, since imperfect involvement can still benefit children. Wong and colleagues argue the top rungs undervalue what adults contribute. (Lundy (2018); Wong, Zimmerman and Parker (2010))

Ages, and where it applies

Written about children; widely used up to 25. No standing in UK law.

First published: Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4)

Adapted from Arnstein (1969). Redrawn by CYV.

Use it when

Asking honestly how much power has moved, especially in consultations run by public bodies.

Don't use it for

Rating youth projects. It was built for adults and assumes more control is always better.

What its authors say

Arnstein called the ladder a simplification. Real programmes have many more rungs, it leaves out barriers such as racism and paternalism, and neither citizens nor powerholders are all alike.

The main critique

It treats participation as a straight line, assumes citizen control is always the goal, and looks at end users rather than the people who make participation happen. (Wong, Zimmerman and Parker (2010))

Ages, and where it applies

Written about adults, so no age limit. A US planning model with no standing in UK law.

First published: Children & Society, 15

Adapted from Shier (2001). Level names and questions paraphrased; redrawn by CYV.

Use it when

Reviewing how ready your organisation is, with a clear next step.

Don't use it for

Points scoring. Shier meant each "no" to start a discussion and an action plan.

What its authors say

Shier offered it alongside Hart's ladder, not as a replacement. He sets level 3, views taken into account, as the minimum for anyone that has endorsed the Convention.

The main critique

The questions are written for adults to answer, which keeps adults as the judges, and none of them ask which young people are involved. It grew from work with children aged 8 to 12. (Wong, Zimmerman and Parker (2010); Shier (2001))

Ages, and where it applies

Written about children; widely used up to 25. No standing in UK law.

First published: Save the Children training manual; The Concerned for Working Children, Bangalore; Department for Education and Skills handbook; American Journal of Community Psychology, 46

Adapted from Treseder (1997), Wong, Zimmerman and Parker (2010) and Kirby et al. (2003, Open Government Licence). Redrawn by CYV.

Use it when

Choosing the right kind of involvement for a particular decision, or questioning the idea that youth-led is always best.

Don't use it for

Claiming every arrangement is equally good, or measuring empowerment: the TYPE authors call their pyramid a hypothesis still to be tested.

What its authors say

Kirby and colleagues said the right level depends on the context, task, decision and people involved. Reddy and Ratna called "ladder" a misnomer. Cahill and Dadvand's seven Ps (2018) go further, replacing levels with seven design questions: purpose, positioning, perspective, power relations, protection, place and process.

The main critique

Presenting every arrangement as equal can hide that some youth and adult partnerships are worth more than others, and youth-initiated work can put a heavy load on young people. The TYPE pyramid is built from theory and has not been tested. (Wong, Zimmerman and Parker (2010))

Ages, and where it applies

Children and young people. Kirby's handbook was written for English public services and TYPE for US adolescent health programmes; Reddy and Ratna's is one of very few models from the Global South.

First published: British Educational Research Journal, 33(6)

Adapted from Lundy (2007). Redrawn by CYV.

Use it when

Planning any participation process from start to finish, or finding where a process broke down.

Don't use it for

Describing what kind of activity you run. The typology does that.

What its authors say

In 2018 Lundy defended imperfect participation as better than none, if feedback is full, child-friendly, fast and followed up. She also said feedback is not a cure-all and that the evidence is partly anecdotal.

The main critique

Few documented examples show its elements applied in practice, and a South African study found it assumes more democratic spaces than hierarchical classrooms provide. (Kennan, Brady and Forkan (2019); Long and Grant (2024))

Ages, and where it applies

Built on the Convention, so framed for under-18s, but widely used with young adults. Ireland's National Framework (2021) is built on it, and Northern Ireland's 2015 co-operation Act grew partly from Lundy and Byrne's work.

First published: Developed with children and young people; first published in 2013, with a version for use with children in 2016

Rule titles from Children and Young People's Commissioner Scotland (2013).

Use it when

Training staff, planning a session, or giving young people a checklist they can use themselves.

Don't use it for

Measuring quality: there is no scoring method.

What its authors say

The Commissioner says anyone working with children and young people can use the rules, and publishes versions for children, young people and adults.

The main critique

They largely restate General Comment 12 in friendlier language, and we found no published evaluation of their use. (CYV literature review (2026))

Ages, and where it applies

Written for children and young people in Scotland, but usable anywhere.

First published: Hear by Right: Youth Participation Framework (National Youth Agency, 2024)

Summarised from the National Youth Agency's 2024 framework document. Redrawn by CYV.

Use it when

An organisation wants a recognised self-assessment with a level to work towards. Reassessment is recommended every three years.

Don't use it for

Independent proof of quality: it is self-assessed.

What its authors say

The 2010 edition said the evidence for each standard should include input from children and young people. The 2024 framework puts young people in charge of the assessment at Flagship level.

The main critique

It is self-assessed, and we found no independent validation of it. (CYV literature review (2026))

Ages, and where it applies

Written for statutory and voluntary organisations, mainly in England. No legal standing.

First published: Children and Young People's National Participation Standards; The Right Way: A Children's Rights Approach in Wales

Summarised from Welsh Government (2016, 2026), Children's Commissioner for Wales (2017) and Freitas, Hayes and Day (2026).

Use it when

Working in Wales, or looking for a model that links participation to children's rights.

Don't use it for

A quick fix. The government's 2026 review found organisations juggling overlapping schemes.

What its authors say

The Commissioner presents The Right Way as a whole approach, with participation as one of five linked principles rather than a separate activity.

The main critique

The 2026 review found strong support for the standards but weak enforcement, no national audit, under-resourced Young Inspectors and limited reach beyond children's and youth services. (Freitas, Hayes and Day (2026))

Ages, and where it applies

Children and young people in Wales. Sits under the Rights of Children and Young Persons (Wales) Measure 2011, a "due regard" duty on Welsh ministers.