Research and analysis

Youth engagement impact study: summary

Published 12 July 2023

Overview

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) funds youth engagement programmes including:

The UK Youth Parliament: a 2-year programme, involving 300 elected Members of Youth Parliament (MYPs), aged 11-18 to represent the views of young people at local and national levels.

The Youth Policy Development Group (YPDG): requires a 4-month commitment and involves 40 young people aged 16-25 in England. The group is consulted on policies by central government departments and ministers.

From April 2023, both programmes will be combined under the UK Youth Parliament, and delivered by the British Youth Council.

Ecorys UK and Participation People led the Youth Engagement Impact Study between October 2022 and March 2023. It aimed to understand participant experiences and the perceived outcomes for participants and policy making.

This mixed methods study involved:

Documentary analysis of documents (n=41) related to programme recommendations and policy outcomes.

Primary research with current and former programme participants via an online survey (n=175) and focus groups or interviews (n=68); non-participants (young people not involved in the programmes, n=45); delivery staff (n=10) and policy officials (n=14).

The emerging findings were validated with programme stakeholders in two workshops.

The Lundy model for child participation informed the study design.

Read the full youth engagement impact study report.

Programme awareness and reach

Participants found out about the programmes via school, involvement in a local or regional youth council, social media and word of mouth from peers and family.

Participants had an interest in politics and were motivated by a desire to:

represent young people’s views (69%)

make a difference (58%)

engage with policy makers (43%)

Secondary motivations included:

developing skills (25%)

having new experiences (22%)

to support future education (13%)

to support employment prospects (22%)

Barriers to participation among young people not involved in the programmes included: minimal awareness; worries of not ‘fitting in’ due to a limited understanding of politics; the time and cost of participation; perception the programmes would feel like school.

Programme experiences

The programmes provided participants with training about political systems, and a platform to campaign on the issues that young people care about. Hybrid delivery (online and in-person activities) made participation accessible, especially for those in rural areas. The UK Youth Parliament localised delivery model meant that MYPs had different experiences, support and opportunities. This was linked to the quality and capacity of local authority youth service infrastructures. MYPs with access to wrap around support (from local youth workers, schools, funding for transport) described more positive experiences. The youngest MYPs, those with right-leaning views and interest in devolved issues, did not always feel they had the space to have their say and be listened to. The YPDG’s delivery model had a smaller cohort and therefore had a dedicated staff member who provided participants with consistent and supported programme experiences. However, the policy issues they were consulted on were not always of interest to YPDG members. Both programmes relied on high quality youth work, trusted and supportive relationships with delivery staff supported participant’s skill development, confidence, and engagement.

Programme influence on political decision making

All stakeholders, participants, delivery staff and policy officials, agreed that the programmes were important vehicles to engage young people in the UK political processes and support youth-informed policy development. UK Youth Parliament participants mainly engaged local decision makers and were responsible for making these connections. Without support, MYPs found it difficult to engage decision makers. Participants welcomed the newly introduced policy roundtables with decision makers, organised by delivery staff and DCMS. The YPDG interacted with central government officials regularly, which were organised by the delivery team and DCMS. Evidence from stakeholders and the document review suggest the programmes influenced local and national government policy and decision making. Participants wanted more opportunities to meet with ministers (over policy officials) and suggested a need to improve feedback on the outcomes of their policy recommendations. Policy officials reported that awareness of the programmes across officials and departments could be improved.

Benefits for participants

Participants reported personal, social and vocational benefits of programme participation. In the short-term, participants learnt about political processes, developed communication and leadership skills, and received social and teamwork benefits. They reported a sense of achievement by participating and influencing change, which they felt benefited their self-confidence. In the longer-term, participants developed social networks of peers and professionals, gained transferable knowledge, skills and competencies, and participation helped to identify education and career pathways.

Conclusions and recommendations

Both programmes provided positive and enriching experiences for participants and supported youth-informed policy making.

The programmes may consider:

1. New promotion/recruitment activity and mitigating participation barriers to attract a broader range of young people.

2. Consistent delivery approaches, ways to better support voices of young, right-leaning or devolved nation participants.

3. Programme promotion across government to encourage their use, and improved feedback loops to young people.