The Positive Impacts & Best Practices Of Youth Participation In Planning: Strengthening Theory & Application Through Diverse Contexts The Community Design Initiative Case Study In The Kingston-Galloway/ Orton Park Priority Neighbourhood Scarborough, Ontario By: Jennifer L. Gawor A report submitted to the School of Urban and Regional Planning In conformity with the requirements for The degree of Master of Planning (M.Pl.) Queen’s University Kingston Ontario, Canada January 2013 Copyright © Jennifer L. Gawor, 2013 “Cities have the capability of providing something for everybody, only because, and only when, they are created by everybody.” Jane Jacobs (The Death and Life of Great American Cities, 1961) TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... I Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... IV Terms & Definitions .......................................................................................................................V List of Tables Table 1: Selected Literature Review for Methodology .....................................................18 Table 2: A Comparison of Benefits Experienced by Youth Who Participated in Planning .............................................................................................................................35 Table 3: A Comparison of the Benefits Communities Experienced as a Result of Youth Participation in Planning ....................................................................................................48 Table 4: A Comparison of the Suggested Best Practices for Youth Participation in Planning .............................................................................................................................62 CHAPTER ONE .............................................................................................................................1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................1 CHAPTER TWO ..........................................................................................................................14 Methodology & Research Approach ................................................................................14 Academic Literature on Theory and Practice of Youth Participation In Planning ............15 Selected Literature Review ...............................................................................................16 CDI Case Study Interviews ................................................................................................21 Analysis & Results ............................................................................................................22 Research Limitations & Strengths ....................................................................................22 Safety & Ethical Considerations .......................................................................................24 CHAPTER THREE ......................................................................................................................25 Research Results & Analysis ............................................................................................25 Case Study Profile .............................................................................................................25 A Brief Profile of the Kingston-Galloway/ Orton Park Priority Neighbourhood (KGO) Scarborough, ON ......................................................................................25 TABLE OF CONTENTS Community Design Initiative (CDI) .....................................................................28 Comparison & Analysis of Research Findings .................................................................31 How Do Youth Benefit From Participation In Community Planning?..............................32 Development of Skills, Knowledge, and Awareness .............................................34 Development of Psychosocial Qualities, Positive Attitudes and Behaviours ........39 Strengthened Youth Influence and Empowerment in the Community ..................42 Breakdown: Best Practices of Youth Participation In Planning ........................................43 How Do Communities Benefit from Youth Participation in Community Planning? ........45 Greater Knowledge of Community and Access to Resources ...............................49 Development and improvement of community infrastructure ...............................50 Enhances Overall Civic Participation and Democracy ..........................................53 Breakdown: Community Benefits From Youth Participation In Planning ........................56 Best Practices of Youth Participation In Planning .............................................................58 Create a Firm Foundation for the Planning Project Through Youth/ Planner/ Community Support and Commitment ..............................................................................63 Support and Educate Professionals In Youth Participation ...................................66 Support and Empower Youth in Planning .............................................................70 Breakdown: Best Practices of Youth Participation In Planning ........................................74 CHAPTER FOUR .........................................................................................................................77 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................82 APPENDIX ....................................................................................................................................88 A: Ladder Of Citizen Participation ...................................................................................88 B: Ladder Of Youth Participation .....................................................................................89 C: United Nations Convention Of The Rights Of The Child (1989) .................................90 D: CIP Statement Of Vales And Code Of Professional Practice (2004) ...........................92 E: OPPI Professional Code Of Practice (2009) .................................................................94 F: Recruitment Script & Letter Of Information ................................................................96 G: CDI Research Interview Questions ..............................................................................97 H: Demographic Information About The KGO Priority Neighbourhood ........................98 I: Information & Supporting Documents About The CDI ...............................................106 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The United Nations recently criticized the Canadian Government for lacking a unified federal policy for child programming; lacking a clear strategy in the development of youth rights, opportunities, and initiatives; and averting accountability as there is no assurance that these programs are effective due to the absence of evaluative methods. The UN went on to highlight that addressing these issues in Canada is particularly important for “vulnerable” youth such as Aboriginal, black, immigrant, and disabled children. Youth- that being anyone between the ages of 15 and 24- have been greatly, if not completely excluded from research that informs public policy and planning, and barred from the opportunity to meaningfully participate in planning processes that affect their lives. This has left industry professionals with a large anomaly when it comes to ensuring inclusive, effective, and sustainable planning practices within communities. Of the limited research that has been conducted, the majority is largely focused on the cognitive capacities of young people when participating within the adult dominated realm of planning. Overwhelmingly, researchers discover that young people do in fact have the ability and motivation to effectively participate in planning, and that when they do their communities experience a wealth of positive impacts as a result. Despite the evidence, research into youth participation is still relatively fragmented and lacks contextual diversity (i.e. different abilities, classes, ages, genders, ethnicities, and socioeconomic environments). This has left planners with very little information in how to effectively engage and plan for their young participants, and has reinforced serious misconceptions about young people’s abilities to effectively plan. The declining neighbourhood conditions within the City of Toronto suggest a need to engage a diverse spectrum of young people in planning. Attention towards inclusive and effective planning is emphasized among Priority Neighbourhoods, as they face marginalization, poor access to resources, and declining infrastructure. As Toronto is home to a sizeable youth population, utilizing them in community planning would be a viable opportunity for comprehensive urban planning and revitalization. Though, even with the strong need for youth participation within the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), there is little to no overarching policy or framework in place to support or sustain such beneficial programs. As planners we are legally and ethically obligated to seek out and properly facilitate opportunities to discuss and utilize the opinions and concerns of all community membersincluding youth. This is indicated within the Canadian Institute of Planners (CIP) Statement of Values and Code of Professional Practice (2004), the Ontario Professional Planners Institute (OPPI) Professional Code of Practice (2009), and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)(1989). To simply include youth is not enough to ensure that their voices are being heard or that planning projects/ initiatives reflect their actual needs, wants, and concerns. For planners in Canada, this problem is far-reaching, demonstrating the urgency for young people to be active agents in planning. In doing so, planners will be able to identify more clearly the reality and best practices of youth participation, arming them with information with which to enact the most relevant and effective best practices for planning. I To do this, there needs to be an increase in contextually variant research on the participation of young people in planning in order to gain comprehensive knowledge of its impacts. With approximately seventy-five percent of people being under the age of eighteen, and worldwide, youth accounting for approximately one-third of the world’s population, the evolution of our ability to successfully plan relies on the continued research of planning impacts and effective methods, and our awareness of opportunities in which to do so. For these reasons a diverse spectrum of youth and societal conditions were analyzed in order to assess the limited discourse on youth participation, and to propose a set of best practices in which to prevent the intermittent success of youth participation facilitation in the future. In this study a multiple-method triangulated research approach was employed. By using widely held academic theory on youth participation in planning and practice to gain insight into its current status, findings from selected academic case studies on youth in planning were compared with case study findings from the Community Design Initiative (CDI) revitalization project within the Kingston-Galloway/ Orton Park (KGO) Priority Neighbourhood in Scarborough, Ontario. By doing do, this report aimed to diversify the reality of young people’s participation in planning, and derive a deeper understanding of how youth and communities benefit when youth participate in planning, and develop a more comprehensive and relevant set of best practices for its successful facilitation. When youth acted as resources communities improved their social, physical/environmental, and economic infrastructure, and strengthened democratic processes. Case studies frequently cited assessing community resources, and supporting planners and youth through programming as effective methods in facilitating young people in planning. Diverse community contexts were shown to experience these benefits in equal and greater ways, resulting in a reduction of stigmatization, and strengthened socio-economic conditions. This study highlighted a variety of areas in which improvements need to be made for successful youth participation in planning, with the following five recommendations being the most salient for planners at this time in its successful facilitation, and in achieving inclusive, effective, and sustainable community planning practices: 1. Ensure that a backbone organization is in place before initiating youth participation in community planning. 2. Employ an ongoing mentorship program for professionals and planners who work with youth. 3. Involve youth in the creation of the framework, vision, and goal setting during the initial stages of the planning project/ initiative. 4. Ensure that participation frameworks and activities are flexible and diverse. 5. Periodically evaluate youth participation planning frameworks and facilitation methods. At this stage in the discourse on youth participation in planning there is an alarming need to II further develop and conduct research that showcases diverse youth contexts, is longitudinal in nature to better evaluate the effectiveness of their participation over time, and features mixed research methods to ensure that a wider spectrum of youth and communities can benefit from their participation. Only then will planners have the information in which to effectively facilitate and support youth in the planning process, ultimately creating the societal conditions needed for the more comprehensive planning of inclusive and vibrant communities for the present and for the future. In doing so, Canada would move towards fulfilling the UNCRC (1989) treaty ratified in 1991, and uphold its international reputation as a mecca of human rights and equality, and home to some of the best cities in the world. III ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report marks the completion of my two-year long journey at Queen’s University School of Urban and Regional Planning, and I must now use this opportunity to thank those individuals involved in my education, success, and research endeavors. First, to my family, whose support made it possible for me to achieve success in my academic career- without your help and support I would assuredly not have been as successful as I am today. Second, I would also like to thank the staff and students at SURP, who made my experience at Queen’s University a memorable one. I must thank especially my supervisor Andrejs Skaburskis for his insight and patience, and also to my advisor Leela Viswanathan who was an intuitive mentor during the process of writing this report. A thank you also goes out to SURP Director David L.A. Gordon for his academic guidance. A thank you must also go out to the brilliant Michael Jesus Turnbull for his support during the writing of this report. A special and sincere thank you also goes out to the incredibly outstanding and talented staff at the East Scarborough Storefront in the Kingston-Galloway/ Orton Park Neighbourhood in Scarborough, Ontario, and a huge thank you as well to the dedicated and extraordinarily innovative professionals involved from Sustainable.TO and archiTEXT Inc. for their help with this research. In conjunction, a special thank you goes out to the youth involved in the Community Design Initiative for inspiring me with your brilliance, dedication, and gusto. Finally, I want to thank everyone who believed in me, took the time, supported me, and gave me the chance to actualize my education. A little faith goes a long way… and I’m about to show you just what I mean. IV TERMS & DEFINITIONS Action for Neighbourhood Change (ANC) is a neighbourhood initiative that works with community members on neighbourhood-wide issues by engaging them in relevant issues and building their capacity as community leaders (Storefront, 2012). Backbone Organization is an organization usually within a community that supports projects/programs/initiatives and professionals by acting as a mediator in communication and context issues inherent to the area and residents (Storefront, 2012). Design Charrette is an intense and time-sensitive effort to solve any architectural and/or design problem. A Charrette includes three elements: Listening to the suggestions of stakeholders, working together to understand and support shared goals and limitations; Envisioning the combined suggestions to produce a realistic, creative, and interesting proposal, accounting for feasibility; and speed in the way the creative team can design, create, and build a tangible model of ideas to allow for instant communication (Charrette Communication Design, 2005). Community Revitalization has evolved over time, but can be understood as a blend of community organizing, development, and building, that reforms political, economic, social functioning, and built-environment renewal in communities (Randal D. Pinkett, 2000). Community Speak is a periodical public forum that occurs in the Kingston-Galloway/Orton Park (KGO) Priority Neighbourhood, in which residents come together to discuss community issues that are important to them. Here, residents have the opportunity to be heard by different agencies in the community and the offices of local politicians. Community Speaks have been a very effective tool for organizing and mobilizing community members (Storefront, 2012). Neighbourhood Action Partnership (NAP) is a City of Toronto initiative designed to increase the capacity of city departments and not-for-profit agencies to serve at risk communities through collaboration. In the East Scarborough community, which includes the KGO Priority Neighbourhood, it is the vehicle by which local service providers communicate, plan and envision solutions with communities to create a thriving community (Storefront, 2012). Priority Neighbourhood is a neighbourhood with low access to services and facilities, educational attainment, and median income, while having high crime rates, visible minority population, and rate of poverty and unemployment, and exhibits a declining population in comparison to other neighbourhoods in the GTA (United Way of Greater Toronto [UWGT], 2005). Public Participation is the practice of involving the public in decision-making process that directly impacts their lives. Public participation shares information with participants, and promotes sustainable decision-making and meaningful contributions, and clearly communicates the impacts of their input. Examples of public participation can include public meetings, surveys, and workshops (International Association for Public Participation, 2013). Residents Rising is a community-led group in East Scarborough, Ontario, with the purpose of raising community awareness and participation among the people who need a way to connect V with their community. Residents Rising brings community members together to speak with their fellow residents about community aspirations, to actively participate in community events, and to spread the word about what services are available, what events are happening, and where people can best connect to make their voices heard (Storefront, 2012). Youth are identified as persons between the ages of fifteen and twenty-four years of age. However, it is recognized that young people are a heterogeneous group in constant evolution, and that the definition of “youth” can vary greatly across regions and within countries (United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], 2012). Youth Participation in public policy is a process of involving young people in the institutions and decisions that affect their lives. It includes efforts by young people to take initiative and organize around policy issues that concern them, by adults to involve them in policy proceedings of public agencies, and by youth and adults to work together in intergenerational policy partnerships (Barry Checkoway, 2005). VI CHAPTER ONE Introduction Since the progressive introduction of advocacy and pluralism in urban planning during the mid 1960s- popularly articulated by Paul Davidoff (1965)- there has been a spirited evolution in the way the public is involved in community planning processes (Brian W. Head, 2010). Though planners have held their reserve towards involving the public, their participation has nevertheless proven itself to be an effective part of the standard planning practice, and a critical factor in the inclusive, effective, and sustainable building of communities over time (Sherry R. Arnstein, 1969; Penny Gurstein, Chris Lovato, Sally Ross, 2003). In addition to providing planners with invaluable knowledge and resources, public participation acts to strengthen the democratic practices and social ‘fabric’ of communities. Academics such as Barry Checkoway (1994), Paul Davidoff (1965), Peter Marris (1994), William Peterman (2004), and Arza Sadan & Elisheva Churchman (1997), have all greatly contributed to the general understanding and research of advocacy and pluralistic planning practices resulting in a substantial collection of literary theory on the impacts surrounding effective facilitation. While investigation into the merits and best practices of public participation in planning has been widely established among adult community members, surprisingly, youth have been greatly if not completely excluded from such research and public policy. Consequently, this has left industry professionals with a large anomaly when it comes to ensuring inclusive, effective, and sustainable planning practices within communities. Of the limited research that has been conducted, the majority is largely focused on the developmental and cognitive capacity of young people to participate within the adult dominated realm of planning (Kathryn I. Frank, 2006; Hart, Collette Daiute, Selim Iltus, Davod Kritt, Michaela Rome & Kim Sabo, 1997). What has been 1 widely discovered through the limited research is that young people do in fact have the ability and motivation to effectively participate in planning and that communities experience a wealth of positive impacts as a result (Frank, 2006; Hart et al., 1997; Head, 2010; Ruth Sinclair, 2004). Even so, research into youth participation still lacks contextual diversity resulting in generalized assumptions of its effects and poorly identifies successful methods for facilitating youth participation in the planning process. This lack of research has left planners with very little information in how to effectively plan for youth and has reinforced serious misconceptions about young people’s abilities to effectively plan. Consequently planners’ and policy-makers ideas about young people’s ability to plan are based in flawed information that is limited in scope and lacks substance and accountability, weakening their ability to effectively plan for all members of society, and stifling opportunities in which to do so. Various United Way and City of Toronto status reports and policies have highlighted the declining economic and social/ physical infrastructure in Toronto and Scarborough (i.e. Poverty By Postal Code [1981-2001], 2004; Strong Neighbourhoods Task Force: A call to action, 2005). These reports highlighted thirteen “Priority Neighbourhoods” as needing urgent attention, which was reflected by City of Toronto’s statistics and Neighbourhood, and Ward profiles, and also demonstrated significant demographic and population changes among youth and their communities (City of Toronto, 2006). Despite the challenges, Toronto is home to a sizeable youth population and there are many potential resources for more comprehensive urban planning and utilizing them in community planning would be a viable opportunity for urban revitalization. Unfortunately, there are major themes in the challenges that face youth policy and programming in Toronto and Scarborough. 2 These include creating and implementing effective strategies for youth outreach, maintaining youth membership and interest, sustaining funding and resources during youth policy implementation and programming activities, effectively integrating that youth-developed research and ideas into revitalization policies and programs, and that their ideas maintain “weight” within professional, political, and academic spheres (Barry Checkoway, Kameshwari, Pothukuchi & Janet Finn, 1995; Cook, P. & Blanchet-Cohen, N., 2006; Frank, 2006; Ontario Ministry of Children and Youth Services [OMCYS], 2005). The most notable challenges include the media’s stigmatization of youth and Priority Neighbourhoods, excessive bureaucratic regulation within local government, and the ability to collaborate effectively with youth (Checkoway et al., 1995; Cook & Blanchet-Cohen, 2006; Community Research Connections [CRC], 2008; Frank, 2006; UWGT, 2005, 2008; United Way of Toronto [UWT], 2004; 2008). Even though there is a strong need for youth policy within the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), there is little to no overarching policy or framework in place to support or sustain such beneficial youth policy and programs (City of Toronto, 2001; 2005; OMCYS, 2005; UWGT, 2005; 2008; Toronto City Summit Alliance, 2003; UWT, 2008). Of the youth engagement programs and policies that do exist, many are stand-alone and fragmented, with limited resources and much overlap (CRC, 2008; UWGT, 2008). To highlight the urgency and importance of addressing these problems in Canada, the United Nations recently criticized the Canadian Government for lacking a unified federal policy for child programming; lacking a clear strategy in the development of youth rights, opportunities, and initiatives; and averting accountability, as there is no assurance that these programs are effective due to the absence of evaluative methods (The Canadian Press, 2012). The UN went on 3 to highlight that addressing these issues in Canada is particularly important for “vulnerable” youth such as Aboriginal, black, immigrant, and disabled children (Public Health Agency of Canada, 2012). Creating a unified engagement policy for young people would help build a solid foundation for their participation in planning, and reinforce the social networks needed for planners to efficiently utilize community resources and effectively address neighbourhood conditions (Barry Checkoway, 1995; Cook & Blanchet-Cohen, 2006; CRC, 2008; Frank, 2006). Programs that promote youth leadership, activism, and debate in political, professional, academic settings increase their agency and empower them in the public realm, encourage community stewardship, and foster mutual trust and respect between adults and youth to incorporate the opinions of young people into public policy and programs (Checkoway et al., 1995; Cook & BlanchetCohen, 2006, CRC, 2008; Frank, 2006; Head, 2010). Providing youth with the opportunity to participate in community decision-making is critical, not only for the present status of communities, but also for the future. In Western Society, approximately seventy-five percent of people are under the age of eighteen, and worldwide, youth account for approximately one-third of the world’s population (Frank, 2006). It has been estimated by the World Bank (2003) that by 2015 there will be three- billion people under the age of twenty-five, accounting for almost half of the world’s population as we know today (BenAttar, 2010). Logistically in Canada, planners have the obligation to investigate strategies in how collaborate with young people, now and for the future. They pay taxes, can obtain drivers licenses, can join the army, and can vote. Nonetheless, this demographic is frequently marginalized in matters of political influence, public voice, and decision-making power 4 regarding their lives and lived environments, and even more so when they face racial stigmatism and socio-economic challenges (Ben-Attar, 2010). This statement should be particularly concerning for the planning community, as we have had a troubling history of top-down/unitary planning methods in the past (Davidoff, 1965; Peterman, 2004). It would be pragmatic for planners and policy-makers to understand that youth participation is not just an inclusive gesture towards young people; but instead is an act that can strengthen the democratic fabric of our society as a whole (Head, 2010). Many academics and policy-makers agree that participation frameworks that facilitate young people in planning processes are a major factor in successful and sustainable community development (Checkoway et al., 1995; Frank, 2006; Head, 2010). Still much of the literature today holds youth solely responsible for their willingness to engage and participate in community planning by their capacity and ability to do so. It is not realistic to expect that youth to be able to alter their capacities and abilities in order to meet adult knowledge and skills with which to plan; rather, it is up to planners to make planning practices accessible and inclusive to all citizens, no matter what their experience level and skill-set. These rigid ideas of what youth are capable of have done much to alter planners’ understanding of what youth participation constitutes. Not only that, the concept of “youth participation” is quite vague, undoubtedly contributing to its overall misconception within their policy-making communities (Sinclair, 2004). In order to develop sound practices for the participation of young people, the concept needs to be securely defined. In many schools of thought youth participation in planning is understood as “… the direct involvement of children in decision-making about matters that affect their lives, whether individually or collectively” (Malcolm Hill, John Davis, 5 Alan Prout & Kay Tisdall, 2004:83). This definition is quite ambiguous, and resides in the idea of “consultation”, which is often initiated by adult decision-makers (Hill et al., 2004:83). In this case, consultation could mean nothing more than enabling youth to engage, which by definition is not participation, but in fact a substitution in that decisions are made through an adult interpretation of the information young people provide, and without the direct involvement or impact of youth (Hill et al., 2004). According to Selium Iltus & Roger Hart (1995), “Participation has become a catchword in many play design projects but this usually involves only a token involvement for the children, commonly consultation through drawings, but with no feedback about the use of their ideas”(p.362). For the purposes of this report then, Roger A. Hart’s (1992, 1997) definition of youth participation will be used as a point of reference, as it highlights young people’s inclusivity, autonomy, and an equal level of impact, in community decision-making, thus being more relevant to comprehensive planning practices (Frank, 2006; Iltus & Hart, 1995). Drawing from earlier models of public participation, such as Sherry R. Arnstein’s (1969) “Ladder of Citizen Participation” (Appendix A) that articulated and critiqued various levels of tokenistic citizen consultation in urban planning literature, Hart (1992, 1997) developed his own model that comprehensively articulated the power differentials that youth can experience within public participation, arguing that government-processes rarely take seriously opportunities for youth to effectively participate in matters affecting their own lives. According to Hart’s (1992, 1997) “Ladder of Youth Participation” (Appendix B), young people’s roles can be broken down into eight levels of agency, building from non-participation in the lower levels (Manipulation, Decoration, and Tokenism); to instances where youth participants are consulted and/or assigned specific roles/activities by adults (Assigned but informed; Consulted and informed); to instances where youth share discussion and decisions with adults who initiate 6 participation (Adult initiated shared decisions with youth); to the highest levels of authentic participation wherein youth initiate participation, direct activities, and share decisions and equal partnership with adults (Youth initiated and directed, Youth initiated shared decisions with adults)(Hart, 1992, 1997). Though, many researchers have idealized Hart’s model as a prescriptive standard, this model is meant to act as a guide in identifying youth’s participatory roles within urban planning (Head, 2010). Like other community members, youth have diverse skills, abilities and experiences in which to effectively contribute both politically in decision-making, and developmentally in planning their communities. In saying that, external and individual factors such as the nature of the project or youth context may not support the various planning levels Hart mentions (Head, 2010; Iltus & Hart, 1995). Nevertheless, the model provides a clear guide for participation that highlights a general standard to implement while enlisting the involvement of young adults. Frameworks that reflect Hart’s youth participation model can greatly aid planners in developing sustainable and livable communities for future generation. However, simply including youth in is not enough to fulfill their full democratic rights as citizens. True citizenship requires that they are active agents in the decision-making that affects their lives (Barry Checkoway, 2010; Barry Checkoway & Katie Richards-Schuster, 2003; Frank, 2006; Hart, 1992, 1997). As planners in Canada we are legally and ethically obligated in to ensure that young people participate in the planning of their communities as youth participation in planning explores the rights to participate in the decisions that affect their lives (Kimberly L. Knowles-Yanez, 2005). Foundational to the implementation of such rights-based principles was the official introduction and adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1989. Upon signing 7 this treaty, Canada, among many other nations, is obligated to ensure that its ethical standards on children’s rights are being met. Alongside themes such as protection and provision, the UNCRC (1989) importantly highlights the right for youth to voice their opinions in matters affecting their lives (Appendix C). For example, article 12(1) of the UNCRC (1989) states that: States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child. Furthermore, according to article 12(2): For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law. Finally, in article 13(1), it is highlighted that youth have the right to obtain and share information: The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice. These articles work together to inform us that all young people have the right to various opportunities in expressing political opinions, engaging in political processes, and participating in decision-making. As Checkoway & Richards-Shuster (2003) explain, “When youth participation is framed as a political right, it elevates the rationale for participation to another level of discourse” (p.23). Coupled with Hart’s (1992, 1997) Ladder of Youth Participation, the UNCRC (1989) acts as a guide in the development of a framework that upholds the rights of youth when participating in planning processes. In Ontario, the planning practice has both indirectly and directly promoted the involvement of young people, as reflected by the Canadian Institute of Planners (CIP) Statement of Values and 8 Code of Professional Practice (2004) (Appendix D), that also work in conjunction with; and inform, the Ontario Professional Planners Institute (OPPI) Professional Code of Practice (2009), and Practice Standards as outlined in Schedule B of the OPPI General By-law (1-86) as amended (2012) (Appendix E). According to the CIP Standards for Codes of Professional Conduct (2004), members shall, …Practice in a manner that respects the diversity, needs, values and aspirations of the public and encourages discussion on these matters… (Section 1.1); and to, Identify and promote opportunities for meaningful participation in the planning process to all interested parties… (Section 1.4). The CIP Statement of Values (2004) strives, To respect and integrate the needs of future generations (Section 1); To balance the needs of communities and individuals (Section 6); and, To foster public participation (Section 7). The CIP values act as a guide in the utilization of the OPPI Professional Code of Practice (2009) which states that OPPI members, ... Have a primary responsibility to define and serve the interests of the public. This requires the use of planning theories and techniques that inform and structure debate, facilitate communication, and foster understanding (Section 1.0). All planner members are responsible for upholding the Professional Code of Practice, and as such are subject to disciplinary provisions by the OPPI By-law 1-86 as amended (2009). Therefore, both CIP and OPPI ethics statements entitle young people to participate in planning practices and processes. Young people’s civic right to participate in the planning and decision-making processes also provides benefits that stand to occur as a result. A growing body of academic researchers maintains that young people’s participation in planning builds important knowledge and skills, increases psychosocial abilities, and reinforces youth agency in their public realm (Checkoway et 9 al., 1995; Frank, 2006; Perpetua Kirby & Sara Bryson, 2002). The abilities that youth bring to the planning process are mutually beneficial to planners, as youth act as invaluable resources in community development, aiding planners in both community needs and refining planners ability diversify their planning approaches (Kirby & Bryson, 2002). Communities also experience benefits when young people are properly supported and their participation is successfully facilitated. Researchers agree that young people’s participation improves community policies and programming, social, physical/environmental, and economic infrastructure (Janet L. Finn & Barry Checkoway, 1998; Frank, 2006; Kirby & Bryson, 2002), and that they act as a catalyst in the overall democratic strength of communities (Checkoway & Richards-Schuster, 2003; Kirby & Bryson, 2002). Notwithstanding the merits that young people’s can bring to the planning process, their acceptance still remains intermittent. Major themes as to why young people have been excluded relate to pre-conceived notions and beliefs about youth’s cognitive capacities and abilities, interest in community dynamics, and interpersonal skills which cast doubt on their potential to effectively and significantly contribute to the development of their communities (Frank, 2006; Head, 2010; Hill et al., 2004). Other societal views that cast doubt on youth participation include ideas that youth are “problems” and/or “vulnerable” instead of ideas that youth are invaluable “community resources” (Barry Checkoway, Tanene Allison & Colleen Montoya, 2005; Checkoway & Richards-Schuster, 2003; Brian Simpson, 1997). The socio-political dynamics that surround youth significantly differentiate them from other disenfranchised groups in that they are to be seen, and not heard (Checkoway et al., 1995; Hill et al., 2004; Simpson, 1997). These pervasive and many times unfounded views of young people have greatly limited society’s, and in this case planners’ confidence in young people’s abilities (Checkoway et al., 2005; 10 Checkoway & Richards-Schuster, 2003; Hill et al., 2004; Simpson, 1997). This atmosphere has done much to limit the amount of in depth research on the reality of young people’s participation affects society, and furthermore successful and ethical ways in which to implement it. In Toronto Priority Neighbourhoods, challenges in the successful participation of youth surround an poor social infrastructure, media stigmatization and limited access to amenities and resources include networking with other community organizations to connect similar goals and projects and pooling resources, all of which support opportunities for program collaboration, funding, and resource-sharing to help to build solid foundations for increased and sustainable youth participation (CRC, 2008; City of Toronto, 2001; UWGT, 2004; 2005; 2008). Not coincidentally, the participation of youth in planning has been met with indifference, frustration, and intermittent success from both adults and youth (Checkoway et al., 1995). In an attempt to address the intermittent success, engagement, and interest of younger generations in planning activities and projects, an overwhelming amount of industry professionals have conducted a fairly limited body of research into the possible solutions and causes of this participation obstacle. Each time, the scope of their research has been too narrow, focusing on the ability of young people to participate, rather than the suitability of planning activities for the abilities and capacities of youth participants; the level of support for planners and youth; and the level and extent to which young people are challenged and impact on their communities. Furthermore, much of the available research regarding the impacts of young people’s participation in community planning have not been cross-referenced among different contexts such as disadvantaged neighbourhoods, diverse ethnicities, different abilities, genders, and different economic backgrounds. The resultant frameworks and methods used in the facilitation of young people in planning have reflected this defect in the research, as shown by 11 their intermittent success in the planning practice. In this regard, the context in which young people’s capabilities and strengths have been tested and judged has been disingenuous to youth as a disenfranchised group, while planners’ goals of inclusive, effective, and sustainable community planning remains unfulfilled in large way. In order to escape the cycle of poorly incorporated and irrelevant participation frameworks currently in use, industry professionals need to educate themselves about youth participation, and do so within diverse demographic and lived contexts. In order to do this organizations to increase opportunities to conduct contextually variant research on the participation of young people in planning to gain comprehensive knowledge in its impacts in order to devise a set of successful methods for its best practices. In doing so, Canada would move towards fulfilling the UNCRC treaty that was signed in 1989, ratified in 1991, and uphold it’s international reputation as a mecca of human rights and equality. As planners, the evolution of our ability to successfully plan relies on the continued research of planning impacts and effective methods, and our awareness of opportunities in which to do so. A systemic approach to analyzing research concerning youth participation in planning needs to occur. While the majority of academic literature and strategy reports on youth participation theory and practice in planning provide detailed information on single case studies, they are rarely cross-referenced, consequently leaving planners with a linear understanding of the issues. Integrating case study findings leads to deeper insight, particularly when the practice is fresh in the planning community (Cavet, J. & P. Sloper, 2004; Fischler, R., 2000). Therefore, the purpose of this study is to gather existing theory on youth participation in planning and test its validity against a diverse spectrum of societal conditions, in order to add to 12 the limited discourse on youth participation, and propose a set of best practices for the successful facilitation of youth participation. By using a selected literature review of fifteen youth participation case studies situated within applicable contexts, and comparing them with case study findings from Community Design Initiative (CDI) youth participation project in the diverse and socio-economically challenged Kingston-Galloway/ Orton Park Priority Neighbourhood in Toronto, Ontario, this study analyzed the benefits and facilitation methods of young people’s participation in community planning. The CDI was chosen for its challenging socio-economic status and diverse demography, acting to contextually broaden research findings in the planning discourse. Analyzing if these factors influence the benefits, and how they manifest across a diverse spectrum will test the reality of widely held theory and practice of youth participation in planning to support its successful facilitation within communities. The latter is argued to foster effective and sustainable planning methods and outcomes, while guarding against superficial and tokenistic attempts at youth participation that only act to degrade effective planning, and the true spirit of democratic and collaborative planning processes. To reduce the occurrence of unsuccessful frameworks and planning practices, and encourage civic agency and empowerment of youth within our society, an overarching set of best practices needs to be further researched and developed for planners to implement when working with youth. In the next chapter, the methods used to collect, analyze, and synthesize the research findings, followed by a description of study constraints, are presented in detail. 13 CHAPTER TWO Methodology & Research Approach The report tests widely held theories on the benefits and best practices of young people’s participation in community planning, against those from a diverse backgrounds and neighbourhoods. This was done in order to further contextualize and address the reality of young people’s participation in planning and identify a more comprehensive set of best practices for its successful facilitation. Since in reality youth embody a diverse array of ages, cultures, ethnicities, races, and socio-economic classes, research needed to be multidisciplinary to gain insight into the social and environmental nuances that make their participation in planning so unique. Most importantly, the embedded perceptions of youth that society has historically and currently holds needed to be critically weighed in order to analyze the atmosphere in which youth operate and function in today. The majority of academic literature and strategy reports on youth participation theory and practice in planning provide detailed information on single case studies, meaning there is a discrepancy in cross-referenced information. Consequently, this leaves planners with a linear understanding of the issues in youth participation. For these reasons, a multiple-method triangulated research approach was used in this study wherein multiple observers, theoretical perspectives, sources of data, and methodologies are analyzed and synthesized to shed light on the research topic. The use of a multiple-methods approach results in “… different ‘images of understanding’, thus increasing the ‘potency’ of evaluation findings” (Sandra Mathison, 1988:13), in addition to increasing the validity, reliability, and credibility of the research findings. To do this, a systemic approach to analyzing research concerning youth participation was used. This research approach helped to explain the casual links between context and phenomena that would otherwise be too complex for other approaches due to its subjectivity, allowing for a more 14 intimate review of the dynamics of social infrastructure (Robert K. Yin, 2009:19-20). Integrating case study findings leads to deeper insight, particularly when the practice is fresh in the planning community (Cavet & Sloper, 2004; Fischler, 2000; Frank, 2006). Following the multiple- methods triangulated research approach, this study pulled information from three different types of sources. First, peer-reviewed academic literature on youth participation planning theory and practice, second; selected academic literature case studies of youth participation; and third, findings from interviews with professionals directly involved in the founding and development of the Community Design Initiative (CDI)- a youth-led neighbourhood revitalization initiative -located within the Kingston-Galloway/ Orton Park (KGO) Priority Neighbourhood, which is a multicultural and socio-economically challenged area of Scarborough, Ontario. Publically available information about the CDI and public/private sector reports on youth policy within Canada and Ontario were also used to supplement the report topics and research approach themes. The following describes the details and rationales regarding the information sources that were used to inform this report: Academic Literature on Theory and Practice of Youth Participation In Planning First, this study sought peer reviewed academic literature to develop perspectives and theory of existing discourse on youth participation in planning. These sources consisted of peer-reviewed academic journals featuring theory and practice on young people’s participation across planning processes. Some of these sources were not used in the methodological selected literature review but helped to develop the research questions, introduce the current status of youth in planning, and reinforced research themes. 15 Selected Literature Review The selected literature review for the methodology is guided by the principles of a literal replication approach for multiple case studies to efficiently assess existing research in which to address the research question (Yin, 2009:53). The literal replication approach for multiple-case studies was chosen as a conceptual framework as results are considered to be more compelling and thus more robust than a single-case study investigation, and also because there are explicit guidelines in how studies will be found, included, and analyzed, which works to eliminate selection and publication bias (Yin, 2009:53-54). As such, a set of criterions was created in pursuing the literature to be used for the methodology. First, the literature sought was to include both primary and secondary-source studies of youth participation in community planning. Using a spectrum of empirical studies allowed for both qualitative and quantitative information on the participation of young people in community planning helping to demonstrate the differences in perceptions of their participation in theory and action. This links back the idea that societally held values of youth’s abilities and capacities may influence their effectiveness in planning (Checkoway & Richards-Schuster, 2003). Secondly, case studies had to adhere to similar definitions of young people’s participation and community planning. The definition of, “youth participation” was classified using Hart’s (1992, 1997) Ladder of Youth Participation (Appendix B), wherein youth are considered to be actively participating when activities adhere to the top four levels of the ladder – “consulted and informed”, “adult-initiated with children’s participation”, “child-initiated with children’s participation”, and the highest level- “childinitiated with adult participation” (Iltus & Hart, 1995:362). This definition was chosen as a measure since it concisely presents a spectrum of young people’s participation in an “adult” context (political/public) and emphasizes citizen agency through democratic decision-making, 16 complimenting the tenants of the UNCRC (1989), CIP (2004), and OPPI (2009). It is important to point out that in fact not all youth have the ability, or may want to participate at the higher levels of Hart’s (1992, 1997) model, nor is it always necessary. Regardless, opportunities for youth to participate at the highest levels must have been present within the selected literature case studies in order to be considered relevant for this study (Iltus & Hart, 1995). Third, for case studies to meet the definition of, “community planning” the definition given by Checkoway et al. (1995) was used. Checkoway et al. (1995) described, “community planning” as assessing local conditions and community needs, formulating action plans and recommendations, and building support for implementation (p.135). All case studies needed to include two or more of Checkoway et al. (1995) definition of community planning to be considered in this study. This definition of planning directly corresponds to the descriptions given by Hart’s (1992, 1997) Ladder of Youth Participation wherein “action research”, “environmental planning, design, and construction” are considered examples of youth participation in planning. Fourth, to ensure validity of the findings, youth subjects in the case studies needed to adhere to the UN definition of youth, defined as persons between the ages of fifteen and twenty-four years of age (UNESCO, 2012). Finally, the literature collected needed to be based within a Western socio- political context to strengthen both its comparative relevance with the CDI case study interview findings, and the validity of results. The selected literature review examined fifteen detailed case studies of relevant research and practice of youth participation in community planning from a wide spectrum of discourses (see Table 1). Drawing from multiple academic disciplines uses “scholarship of integration”- an approach that contributes to the enhancement and development of a discourse by drawing from various academic disciplines and professional fields (E. Boyer, 17 Table 1. Selected Literature Review for Methodology Reference Title Description of Study Research Focus Barry Checkoway (1998) Involving Young People in Neighbourhood Development Drawing from US studies on youth participation and organizational resources that contribute to capacity, this study identifies and evaluates existing and future roles of young people in neighbourhood development. Benefits to youth and neighbourhoods; types of participation; obstacles; best practices. Barry Checkoway, Tanene Allison & Colleen Montoya (2005) Youth Participation in Public Policy at the Municipal Level Barry Checkoway, Kameshwari Pothukuchi & Janet Finn (1995) Youth Participation in Community Planning: What are the Benefits? Draws extensively upon youth participation literature in planning, and a national study on program planning for youth in the US to identify the benefits and best practices of young people’s participation in planning. Barry Checkoway & Katie Richards-Schuster (2003) Youth Participation in Community Evaluation Research Barry Checkoway, Katie Richards-Schuster, Shakira Abdullah, Margarita Aragon, Evelyn Facio, Lisa Figueroa, Ellen Reddy, Mary Welsh & Al White (2003) Young People as Competent Citizens Examines and evaluates literature and a case study in Washington Participation roles; obstacles; best DC on youth participation to evaluate the roles, obstacles, and best practices. practices for the successful facilitation of young people’s participation in planning. Benefits to youth and communities; Using a cross-site analysis of strategies for youth participation in obstacles; best practices. community-based organizations within the US, this study examines the impacts and processes of young people’s participation and the factors that facilitate and limit the process. Laurie Day, Liz Sutton & Sarah Jenkins (2011) Children and Young People’s Participation in Planning and Regeneration Using case study interviews and literature reviews to examine the roles of youth in planning, design, and regeneration in the UK and internationally, the best models of youth participation in the planning practice and decision-making are evaluated. Benefits to youth and communities; obstacles; best practices; evaluation methods. Janet L. Finn & Barry Checkoway (1998) Young People as Competent Community Builders: A Challenge to Social Work Examines youth-based initiatives across the US in which youth are active participants in solving problems, planning programs, and providing services at the community level to offer lessons for social work practice. Benefits to youth and communities; best practices. Obstacles; best practices. Using the San Francisco Youth Commission as a case study, it is argued that more knowledge of youth participation is needed to include them in public policy at the municipal level. 18 Benefits to youth; obstacles; best practices. Table 1. (Continued) Reference Title Description of Study Research Focus Kathryn I. Frank (2006) The Potential of Youth Participation in Planning Benefits to youth and communities; obstacles; best practices; lessons for effective practice. Penny Gurstein, Chris Lovato &Sally Ross (2003) Youth Participation In Planning: Strategies for Social Action Brian W. Head (2010) Why Not Ask Them? Mapping and Promoting Youth Participation Selim Iltus & Roger Hart (1995) Participatory Planning and Design of Recreational Spaces with Children Perpetua Kirby & Sara Bryson (2002) Measuring the Magic? Evaluating and Researching Young People’s Participation in Public Decision Making Assessing Participation in Youth Community Action Projects: Opportunities and Barriers Youth-Led Research and Evaluation: Tools for Youth, Organizational, and Community Development Summarizes and analyzes international empirical studies of young people’s participation in terms of its impacts on youth and communities, youth capacity, and lessons for effective practice in community planning. Case studies of young people’s participation in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, Canada, is examined, focusing on youth’s perspectives of planning and participation in order to formulate best practices. This study examines and evaluates Australian policy frameworks of youth participation to demonstrate the benefits and best practices of youth participation in planning. Concepts and examples from The Children’s Environments Research Group are used in conjunction with young people to design children’s recreational settings in New York City, to argue for collaboration between all ages in the development of communities. Examines existing evidence on young people’s participation and decision -making in the UK, subsequently analyzing issues and gaps in the research that need to be addressed for its successful facilitation. Using Youth Community Action (YCA) projects in New York State as a case study, the extent of young people’s participation in community service, community development, and other community projects are examined. Evaluates the effectiveness of Youth-Led Research, Evaluation, and Planning, and its benefits to youth, communities, and organizations, to derive best practices of young people’s participation in community planning. Benefits to community; obstacles; best practices. Kristi S. Lekies, Barbara Baker & JoAnne Baldini (2009) Jonathan K. London, Kristen Zimmerman &Nancy Erbstein (2003) Daniel F. Perkins, Lynne M. Borden, Francisco A. Villarruel, Annelise Carlton-Hug, Margaret R. Stone & Joanne G. Keith (2007) Participation in Structured Youth Programs: Why ethnic minority urban youth choose to participate- or not to participate Uses two case studies from the US to examine the effects that ethnicity, culture, and socio-political status has on the impacts and best practices of youth participation in planning. 19 Obstacles; best practices. Benefits to youth and communities; obstacles; best practices. Benefits to communities; obstacles; best practices. Impacts on youth and communities; obstacles; best practices, evaluation methods. Benefits to youth, communities, and organizations; obstacles, best practices. Benefits to youth and communities; obstacles; best practices; contextual factors. 1997). The purpose behind drawing from multiple academic disciplines is to help make sense of general ideas behind youth participation in order to strengthen the knowledge of its practices. To ensure methodological quality of the selected literature review, all literature collected had to consist of peer-reviewed academic journals; official government reports; and must have been published within the time frame of relevant youth participation practice (in the last forty years). References were identified and collected by means of key word searches among electronic databases and by reviewing the bibliographies of the peer-reviewed academic literature that was collected. All references chosen had a study focus that paralleled with the research themes of this report: positive impacts for youth (10), positive impacts for communities (11), and the best practices to use in facilitating youth participation within the planning (15). The selected literature for the methodology was published between the years 1995 and 2011, peaking in the early 2000s. Selected studies originated from Australia, Canada, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States, with the majority originating from the US. Studies were conducted at both the neighbourhood and national level, ranging from rural to inner city communities. Of the studies chosen, youth subjects age ranged from 12-30 years, the majority in middle childhood and adolescence. The majority of youth were recruited via community groups/clubs and schools. Studies ranged from several weeks to two years in length. In the majority of the studies, the level of youth participation adhered to Hart’s (1992, 1997) definition of youth participation, in that case studies were based on, “adult initiated, shared decisions”. In the majority of studies, the authors wrote and/or conducted the research. Main methods of data collection within the selected literature included multiple case studies, surveys, workshops/ charrettes, direct/ indirect observation, focus groups/ interviews, and Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA). Methods were both qualitative and quantitative in nature. Analysis consisted of mainly open coding techniques. 20 No studies demonstrated that youth subjects were unable to effectively participate in community planning activities. Using a spectrum of research methodologies allowed for a more comprehensive snapshot of young people’s participation within community planning processes. CDI Case Study Interviews In conjunction with the selected literature review, key participants in the CDI were identified and contacted for interviews by means of a recruitment script and letter of information (Appendix F). Participants consisted of professionals and staff directly involved in the CDI including Principal Architect from Sustainable.TO. Toronto Architecture Firm; the CEO and Founder of Architext Inc. (a multi-disciplinary design consultancy and creative think-tank) that operates out of Toronto; an Interior Designer from Architext Inc.; the Director of the East Scarborough Storefront; and the Special Projects Coordinator of the East Scarborough Storefront. The interviews took place over a two-day period at the East Scarborough Storefront (4040 Lawrence Avenue East, Scarborough, Ontario) and at a public location in Toronto, and were conducted on an individual basis and in small focus groups of up to three people. Interviews were formal, semi-structured, and open ended to allow for a wide array of information to be collected and to reduce the occurrence of research bias. There was an overall focus on the origins and development of the CDI, the nature of youth participation in the CDI, the impacts of the CDI with regards to youth, professionals, and the KGO neighbourhood, and finally suggestions for best practices (see Appendix G for interview questions asked). Questions asked were chosen to expand on the limited discourse surrounding the topic of youth participation, while attempting to provide contextual guidelines for its integration into the planning process. Findings were amplified and given contextual relevance through dissemination area information which included demographic and statistical profiles on the neighbourhood and ward of the case study; newspaper 21 articles and online multimedia sources; building blueprints and design renderings; and background information on the East Scarborough Storefront and CDI. Analysis & Results Analysis of the selected literature review and CDI interviews consisted of coding the findings according to the three report topics. The findings were further organized into subcategories highlighting the major themes as expressed by the literature and interviews. Subsequently, the research findings were described, comparing, contrasting, and connecting findings across the broader literature to determine the similarities and/or differences to justify and/or rival the relative benefits of young people’s participation within planning, and ultimately to develop a comprehensive set of best practices to utilize within a diverse youth and neighbourhood context. As a guide, research findings by category and respective subcategory are presented in tables within each topic section. Although the tables may indicate that the findings presented can be generalized across youth participation within planning, this is not necessarily true. Since young people’s participation within community planning is still arguably in its infancy, such findings could just be a product of the limited research and discourse that is available and that has been conducted. Research Limitations & Strengths There were several limitations in using this research methodology. First, the literal replication approach of the selected literature review only presents results across case study research (Yin, 2009). This means that the selected literature review results are used in isolation and not compared to other characteristics across case studies, i.e. age of youth or specific planning activities. Second, case study interviews were excusive to the CDI professionals and did not 22 include youth. This was a result of the time and ethics constraints surrounding Queen’s University research approval. However, the interview participants were able to elaborate on the experiences of what the youth have shared with them, and gave insight into the workings of authentic youth participation within a community-planning project. Ultimately the absence of primary and anecdotal information from the youth to build upon and challenge that of the professional interview results detracts from the applicability and validity of the findings, although, it opens up new avenues for future research. Much of what I introduce in this study could and should be elaborated on given the complexity and growing discourse on this topic. Further research should include youth participation in community planning in different sociopolitical and economic contexts; include the opinions of youth; include a mixed-methods approach combining qualitative, quantitative, experimental, and longitudinal research; and address organizational and participant evaluation methods and standards to ensure comprehensive and rigorous research regarding the participation of young people within community planning. Third, the relative scarcity and piecemeal nature of the available literature on youth participation in a Canadian and diverse demographic and socio-economic context required that inferences be made, and conclusions be drawn based on discourse outside of planning academia, and draw from non-Canadian research findings. Lastly, it should be understood that the literature chosen for this report is not representative of all research conducted on youth participation in community planning for methodological and research interests. Instead, this study uses available research to create a snapshot of the current status of young people in planning. Overall, the method and materials used for this study proved to be an in-depth source to draw upon when formulating preliminary conclusions and recommendations for the participation of young people within planning. 23 Safety & Ethical Considerations The KGO neighbourhood is not considered a high-risk neighbourhood, but has been identified by the media and local law enforcement services as a moderate-to-high-risk crime area. To ensure safety all research was conducted during daylight hours in established offices and public locations. Safety precautions were taken to the standard of the Queen’s University Off- Campus Activity Safety Policy (OCASP). Privacy and confidentiality were an overarching goal of the research, however, it was made aware that as professionals and stakeholders in their respective professions, of which have established reputations in their fields, cannot be guaranteed confidentiality due to their public profiles. Any notes, information, questionnaires, and audio recordings from the participant were password protected, and if not possible, under lock and key. In addition, all hard-copy information and data was stored under lock and key until the completion of the study, upon which the information would be shredded and deleted in a timely and efficient manner. The research participants were informed of their right to withdraw at any time during the interview process (including their right to omit information before the final draft of this report), as well as the confidentiality procedures employed in this study. Anyone who was not competent to consent was not interviewed. Regarding the ethical validity of this research, because KGO is a Priority Neighbourhood it is considered more vulnerable to negative representation and stigmatism. Thus, as a researcher, it was extremely important to maintain constant awareness of the wording and tone of research expression. As an ethical standard and professional courtesy, this study was submitted to the Storefront staff, Architext Inc., and Sustainable.TO professionals to ensure that the research accurately depicted CDI experiences and the KGO community to ensure validity of the report content. In the next chapter, findings from the selected literature review and CDI interviews are described and discussed. 24 CHAPTER THREE Research Results & Analysis In the first part of this chapter, relevant background information on the CDI case study is described providing a brief demographic and statistical profile of the dissemination area. This is done to give context and meaning to the analysis of the research findings. In the second part, results from the selected literature review and CDI interviews are analyzed by research topic, beginning with an overview of what is known about each through peer-reviewed academic literature on youth participation theory in practice in planning. Research findings are summarized and presented in a series of tables within each topic section, and subsequently analyzed. Finally, a summary of preliminary conclusions is presented and described. Case Study Profile A Brief Profile of the Kingston-Galloway/ Orton Park Priority Neighbourhood (KGO) Scarborough, ON The KGO neighbourhood is located in the southeastern region of Scarborough, Ontario, and is designated as one of the thirteen Priority Neighbourhoods of Toronto (Appendix H.1). The KGO boundaries have been established as west of Scarborough Golf Club Road, east to Manse Road, north past Ellesmere Road, to south of Kingston Road. The KGO neighbourhood is part of Ward 43, located in Toronto, Ontario (Appendix H.2). The City of Toronto and UWGT Strong Neighbourhood Task Force (SNTF) reports identified the KGO neighbourhood in 2004 as one of Toronto’s areas in need of social infrastructure investment (Daswani, Girish; Bunce, Susannah & Cummings Maggie, 2011). As a Priority Neighbourhood KGO is identified as having higherthan-average poverty levels and lower-than-average provision of social services and 25 programming when compared to the rest of the City of Toronto (Daswani et al, 2011; SNTF, 2005). The KGO neighbourhood has a population that fluctuates at around 23,042 residents, and is home to a diverse community with an overall visible minority population of (61.4%) in 2006 (City of Toronto 2006)(Appendix H.3). Within Ward 43 major home languages spoken include English and Tamil, the latter representing 5.7% of the total population among many others (City of Toronto 2006)(Appendix H.4). In addition to being a multicultural neighbourhood the KGO area is profiled as a low-income area, with 29% of its residents at or below the low-income cutoff (LICO) after taxes (City of Toronto 2006)(Appendix H.5). Within KGO there is an occupational emphasis on retail, service, and small businesses (City of Toronto 2006)(Appendix H.6), which, because of their changeable nature, are thought to contribute to job instability (Kaplan Drukker& Van Os, 2005). In addition to the KGO’s marginal affluence approximately 5.4% of the population in Ward 43 is unemployed, with an unemployment rate exceeding that of the city of Toronto by 1.2% (City of Toronto 2006)(Appendix H.7). The neighbourhood’s low job security and below average income rates are thought to contribute to the majority of residents that live in apartment- style housing (Drukker & Os, 2005), as almost half of KGO tenure is rented and of social housing (City of Toronto, 2006)(Appendix H.8). In addition to KGO’s low job security, the neighbourhood shows a low level of completed education when compared to the rest of Toronto (City of Toronto 2006)(Appendix H.9). This is thought to contribute to the high unemployment rate, lack of services available, and population decline (Drukker & Os, 2005). Regarding diversity of age, KGO is a fairly youthful neighbourhood with approximately 35.6% of the population under the age of 25 years (City of Toronto 2006)(Appendix H.10). Due to the large presence of youth, there is an exceptional opportunity for that demographic to make major impacts on local planning processes in the KGO community. This is especially feasible when 26 planning for youth participation using the CDI framework, as such models allow for more inclusive and comprehensive planning, with an acute emphasis on community engagement (Peterman, 2004). This desire and need for youth engagement is reflected in the KGO neighbourhood through a resident survey conducted in 2009 (ANC, 2009)(Appendix H.11). The need for community investment, engagement, and stewardship is heightened by the fact that the KGO neighbourhood lacks accessible and abundant social infrastructure and amenities, and that the neighbourhood is markedly isolated due to its suburban location and limited accessibility to public transport (City of Toronto 2006)(Appendix H.12). These negative neighbourhood characteristics are thought to contribute to a transient resident demographic as the KGO area has experienced a population decrease of about 7.2% between 2001 and 2006 (City of Toronto 2006), with a decline in youth population of 5.1% between 2001 and 2006 (City of Toronto 2006)(Appendix H.13). It is argued that involving, engaging, and strategizing with community members- particularly the youth- in KGOs local community planning, would contribute to a sense of investment resulting in residents acting as long-term stewards advocating for, and maintaining a more sustainable and positive environment (Checkoway et al., 1995). Although KGO faces significant socio-economic challenges, it holds unforeseen strength. The KGO neighbourhood embodies an organized and active resident base; successful advocacy for changes in policy; a spectrum of social, recreational and educational activities organized by diverse groups and agencies; is committed to environmental justice and food security; has received awards for youth environmental innovation and safety; has been cited by academic institutions for their creative approaches to service provision and community development; and holds robust connections to academic institutions, and professional communities in law, architecture, and urban planning (Cowen & Parlette, 2011; Storefront, 2012). In saying that, the opportunities for 27 local youth to engage, participate, and implement lasting and positive changes in the KGO neighbourhood is heightened. Currently, the collaborative approaches in which the youth, residents, organizations, and other sectors within the community have built their relationships through have proven to be a noteworthy characteristic of the KGO neighbourhood (Cowen & Parlette, 2011). The Community Design Initiative (CDI) The CDI is a partnership between Architext Inc. and the Storefront (a community hub owned by the City of Toronto) to create a strategy that aims to help reduce poverty, stigma, and marginalization within the KGO Priority Neighbourhood through impressive architecture designed and built by local youth (Architext, 2010; Sustainable.TO, 2012). Every week approximately twenty to thirty KGO youth, Storefront staff, and industry professionals collaborate in seminar-style design classes at the Storefront to develop a strategy in which to create and construct a phased renovation and building addition that will transform the Storefront into a large, fully-accessible, state-of-the-art, energy-efficient, and green community resource Centre (Sustainable.TO, 2012)(Appendix I.1). Industry professionals include planners, designers, architects, artists, landscape architects, general contractors, project managers, and filmmakers. Youth participants generally range between the ages of fourteen to eighteen, come from different classes, ethnicities, and backgrounds, and embody different skills and abilities (Coordinator, personal communication, July 17, 2012). Some of the youth participants are also newcomers to the KGO area. The youngest youth participant is approximately ten years old, while the oldest has been as old as twenty-four years of age (Coordinator, personal communication, July 17, 2012). Each Phase of the Storefront’s renovation has utilized modern design and planning strategies such as consideration of existing site amenities; energy-efficient building materials and 28 design; water conservation and efficiency; passive and active solar systems, off-grid and gridconnected design systems, green landscaping; automated and strategic heating, ventilation and air conditioning; recycled exterior and interior building materials, and finally deep green retrofitting of the existing Storefront building (Sustainable.TO, 2012). Due to the large scope of this project, the CDI has divided the building expansion and revitalization into several phases (Appendix I.2). The completion of each phase is dependent on multiple factors, most notably youth engagement and participation, community and stakeholder support, and access to resources such as community amenities and adequate funding (Storefront, 2012). Led by a set of ten overarching goals (Appendix I.3), the CDI aims to design an accessible and environmentally sustainable community space; involve the local community in public decision-making and network building; provide economic opportunities for local residents; support youth in their involvement and develop their skills and capacities; involve youth and professionals in cocreational approach, using a multi-media activities; and finally to create a model that can be replicated across KGO area. The CDI involves the renovation and expansion of the existing Storefront building to include a west extension, a second floor, and a roof overpass intended for increased community meeting space (Laidlaw Foundation, 2012; Sustainable.TO, 2010)(Appendix I.4). This expansion also includes the interior renovation of the Storefront and the rehabilitation of the exterior landscape (Laidlaw Foundation, 2012; Sustainable.TO, 2010). In conjunction with the overarching goals, the youth facilitation framework/curriculum that was developed by Architext Inc., Sustainable.TO, and the Storefront, governs the CDI process (Appendix I.5). The curriculum includes design classes that are structured to be inclusive and welcoming to KGO youth no matter what their skills and abilities. The CDI curriculum includes interesting and interactive learning avenues such as field trips, educational films, and guest 29 speakers, to add diversity, excitement, and entertainment to the learning process (Interior Designer, personal communication, July 17, 2012). Activities range from traditional design methods such as drafting to hands-on conceptual methods in which youth build and construct models using a variety of materials (Interior Designer, personal communication, July 17, 2012)(Appendix I.6.). Aside from technical design, youth learn about effective planning processes and how to efficiently and pragmatically make decisions. Youth also learn about urban design, architecture, landscaping, green building, and the KGO neighbourhood with other local youth in order to create opportunities for learning and facilitation community planning and design within the KGO neighbourhood, and are encouraged to think and act expansively about planning within alternate Priority Neighbourhoods in the city, province, and country (CEO, 2011; Interior Designer, personal communication, July 17, 2012). Unlike most youth participation frameworks, young people from KGO are being consulted as peers and not being shown what to do. Instead, youth are given information and guidance on how to make decisions and how to identify factors that need to be considered (Coordinator, personal communication, July 16, 2012). The CDI youth also learn about planning processes by interacting with the KGO community at public meetings called “Community Speaks”, in which local community members, affiliated agencies, and local politicians discuss neighbourhood issues and initiatives (Appendix I.7). An important element of the CDI youth facilitation framework is the mandatory and progressive mentorship program that professionals must undergo in order to work with youth in the KGO neighbourhood. The mentorship program was designed to address the needs of both the professionals and youth in order to help create a firm foundation on which to support the CDI. The mentorship program highlights the uniqueness of the KGO neighbourhood; the Storefront’s vision and values (Appendix I.8); the Storefront’s commitment to youth; professional and 30 volunteer conduct and safety; and how to facilitate youth engagement and support their emotional and language needs through the program structure and interactions (Storefront, 2010). The program was created not only for the benefit of the youth, but also to help the professional mentors become more comfortable and effective in their approach to youth participation in community planning within KGO. The CDI mentorship program is maintained by periodical feedback to accommodate the changing dynamics and needs of the youth, professionals, and community as the CDI evolves (Storefront, 2010). Currently, the CDI has completed Phase one to four of the building revitalization and has recently started Phase seven (as funding for the tasks involved has arrived). The preceding Phases five and six, are on hold due to funding, while the balance of Phase seven is awaiting further funding as well. Prior to the CDI, the Storefront struggled to sustain successful youth engagement programs in the KGO neighbourhood (Director, personal communication, July 16, 2012). Today, the local success of the CDI has helped to generate and build foundations for other youth participation projects/initiatives in KGO such as The Bridging Project and the Eco Food Hub (Coordinator, personal communication, July 16, 2012) (Appendix I.9). In effect, what began as a building revitalization project for the community evolved into an exciting renewal project for the whole KGO area (Storefront, 2012). The success and support of the CDI has contributed to positive neighbourhood-wide dialogue on youth participation, and as a result the CDI program will continue as a youth engagement strategy for KGO when the Storefront building revitalization is complete (Coordinator, personal communication, July 16, 2012). Comparison & Analysis of Research Findings In this section, major findings from the selected literature review (see Table 1) and CDI interviews are categorized and summarized according to research topics derived from exiting 31 academic theory on youth participation in planning. Research findings are then compared to clarify the contextual reality of youth participation in community planning. For a full list of interview questions asked during the interview process, please refer to Appendix G. How Do Youth Benefit From Participation In Community Planning? Academics widely acknowledge that the participation of young adults in community planning can have positive impacts on their development. Checkoway et al. (2005) summarize this by stating that participation can positively affect youth while, “strengthening their knowledge, practical skills, social values, and civic competencies” (p.1150). Academics reason that youth can develop and strengthen facets such as critical thinking, civic competence, greater awareness of their abilities, knowledge of different peoples, cultures, and global/local events through participation in planning (Checkoway et al., 1995, 2005; Checkoway et al., 2003; Day et al., 2011; Kirby & Bryson, 2002; Sinclair, 2004). Kirby & Bryson (2002) highlight that this type of awareness and understanding can foster positive impacts for youth, resulting in greater education and employment and manifest as an especially important learning avenue for less-academically inclined and alienated students. Research has shown that many youth develop an interest in utilizing their newfound awareness, skills, and education, and in becoming increasingly involved in civic affairs, although more research is needed to understand the long-term effects of youth participation (Lekies, et al., 2009). The literature also suggests that participation in planning can be an exceptionally engaging activity for young people. As Frank (2006) explains, “A key draw to participation for youth was that the processes were fun, and this was achieved through socializing, learning new skills, and exploring outside the classroom” (p.368). Such psychosocial benefits of youth participation are suggested to have particular influence and importance for youth who are marginalized or at-risk. As Checkoway et al. (1995) explain, “Community 32 participation provides [youth] with structure and discipline, a sense of personal integrity, and social supports unavailable elsewhere” (p.136). Consequently, when planning activities are engaging, supportive, and fun, they can create a sense of belonging and identity with the community among youth, contributing to a sense of empowerment, future civic stewardship and community pride, even after the planning project is over (Kirby & Bryson, 2002; Lekies et al., 2009). Though not widely mentioned in the available research, it has been suggested that youth participation in community planning can have important benefits for socially oppressed and marginalized youth, including those who come from disadvantaged communities. Opportunities for learning important skills and knowledge are considered powerful avenues in empowering youth, strengthening their social networks and civic contributions in community planning, which would otherwise be unavailable to them (Checkoway et al., 1995, 1998; Finn & Checkoway, 1998; Iltus & Hart, 1995; Kirby & Bryson, 2002). Other researchers suggest that the positive outcomes youth experience from participation in planning, can have lasting effects over their lives, such as increased educational and employment capabilities (Checkoway et al., 1995; Finn & Checkoway, 1998; Kirby & Bryson, 2002; Lekies et al., 2009; London et al, 2003; Perkins et al., 2007). Although young adults stand to positively gain from their participation within planning, several of these studies also highlighted the negative consequences that ‘pseudo’ participation can have on the intra/ interpersonal and civic capacities of young participants (Frank, 2006; Kirby & Bryson; 2002; London et al., 2003). These studies underscored that ineffective and disingenuous forms of participation, such as those outlined by Hart’s (1992, 1997) lower levels of youth participation (Manipulation, Decoration, and Tokenism) create frustration, lower self-esteem and morale among young participants, actively disenfranchise them, degrade youth-adult relationships, and greatly reduce future participatory attempts 33 amongst young people (Checkoway, 2010; Checkoway & Richards- Schuster, 2003; Frank, 2006; Kirby & Bryson, 2002). Reports of such negative outcomes are substantially rare, though; planners should take into account the negative impacts of poorly orchestrated participation frameworks to prevent these occurrences from happening. As summarized in Table 2, both the selected literature review and CDI findings analyzed in this report support that youth benefit in exceptional ways when they participate in planning, and that young people from ethnically diverse and socio-economically challenged neighbourhoods benefit differently. Generally speaking, participation in planning builds youth’s ingenuity, inter/ intrapersonal qualities, increases their desire to utilize these skills, and engage in their communities in the future. Referring to Table 2, the detailed findings are organized below according to the benefits as identified by the literary theory: 1) Development of skills, knowledge, and awareness 2) Development of psychosocial qualities, positive attitudes and behaviours 3) Strengthens youth influence and empowerment in the community. Development of Skills, Knowledge, and Awareness Developed interpersonal skills. Several of the case studies within the selected literature review reported that young people strengthened interpersonal skills such as teamwork, conflict resolution, and better communicative abilities as a result of participation in community planning activities (Checkoway et al., 2003; Day et al., 2011; Finn & Checkoway, 1998; Kirby & Bryson, 2002). Similarly, the CDI interviews described young people as gaining effective communication skills and refining their group work abilities through collaborating and designing with their peer 34 Table 2. A Comparison of benefits experienced by youth who participated in community planning Selected Literature Review Findings CDI Case Study Interview Findings Development of skills, knowledge, and awareness Youth Benefits Interpersonal, executive, practical, and technical skills; computer literacy Enhanced performance in academic and career development Awareness and knowledge of community planning processes Interpersonal, executive, practical, and technical skills; computer literacy Enhanced performance in academic and career development; exploration of career and education opportunities Awareness and knowledge of KGO community dynamics; effective and equitable participation and decision-making processes Development of psychosocial qualities, positive attitudes and behaviours Confidence, pride, self-efficacy, and assertiveness Self awareness, self-esteem Created lasting relationships and social networks with community members Encouraged youth to avoid neighbourhood malaise Confidence, pride, self-efficacy, and assertiveness Feelings of achievement, self-esteem, sense of belonging Created lasting relationships with CDI professionals and community members; acceptance of community diversity Encouraged youth to avoid neighbourhood malaise Strengthens youth influence and empowerment within the community Empowers youth and increases opportunities for community leadership 35 Empowers youth and increases opportunities for community leadership groups and the professional mentors during weekly design classes (Coordinator, personal communication, July 16, 2012). The weekly design presentations that are part of the CDI curriculum helped youth to develop confidence in their public speaking abilities and improve communication with their peers, Storefront staff, professional mentors, and the wider KGO community (Coordinator, personal communication, July 16, 2012). Developed executive skills. Youth were reported as developing exceptional confidence in executive skills such as decision-making, group facilitation, and project management (Checkoway, 1998; Checkoway et al., 1995; Finn & Checkoway, 1998; Frank, 2006; Head, 2010; Kirby & Bryson, 2002). Most notably, a case study conducted by Finn & Checkoway (1998) on the Youth as Resources (YAR) program in Indianapolis, US, found that young people successfully identified and solved community concerns, developed proposals, applied for grants, and planned and facilitated workshops in both their local and neighbouring communities. Equally, the CDI reported similar results in executive skills such as meeting and activity facilitation during design classes and during KGO community speaks, which included taking on organizational and leadership roles, guiding new members within the CDI process, and helping the professional mentors plan and facilitate design classes (Architect, personal communication, July 17, 2012). Seemingly, young people from the CDI became more comfortable with project responsibilities as they pursued leadership roles developed a variety of successful techniques surrounding facilitation and collaboration strategies. Through encouragement and ample opportunities these young people gathered the skills to lead successful project activities (Architect, personal communication, July 17, 2012). 36 Developed practical and technical skills. Much like executive skills, youth were found to have significantly improved practical skills in research, analysis, and writing. Subsequently they became comfortable projecting creative skills such as problem solving and proficiency in art and filmmaking (Kirby & Bryson, 2002; London et al., 2003). These skills were reported as boosting young participants academic achievements and capacity for community organizing (London et al., 2003). In one case study by Frank (2006) it was demonstrated how these learned practical skills translated into technical skill proficiency surrounding professional planning and designing tools, communications media, and greater computer literacy overall. Likewise, young participants within the CDI learned practical skills that were more “hands-on” than academically inclined. These included design and model-building experience in the weekly design classes, and volunteer experience (Coordinator, personal communication, July 16, 2012). More specifically, the CDI observed a substantial increase in the skills needed to successfully build architectural models as they showed a progressive understanding of blueprints and floor plans (Architect, personal communication, July 17, 2012). The CDI reported noteworthy comprehension in design software such as Google Sketchup, and the GNU Image Manipulation Program (GIMP)(Coordinator, personal communication, July 16, 2012). Enhanced performance in academic and career development. As a result of participating in community planning, positive effects on youth’s academic achievement, success in school, career performance and development, and relationship building have been reported (Checkoway et al., 1995; Checkoway & Richards-Schuster, 2003; Finn & Checkoway, 1998; Frank, 2006; Head, 2010; Kirby & Bryson, 2002; London et al., 2003; Perkins et al., 2007). Most notably in a study conducted by Finn & Checkoway (1998) on multiple youth community planning initiatives 37 in the US, it was observed that young people gained marketable skills, experience, and school credits while they were participating in community planning. The CDI highlighted successful school presentations and leadership activities were a result of participation (Coordinator, personal communication, July 16, 2012). They observed that this was a result of a shift of perspective that opened youth up to the potential for community building (Director, personal communication, July 16, 2012). Moreover, the CDI professionals reported that learning about creative careers and educational opportunities by collaborating with a wider spectrum of professionals, community members, academics, and peers has inspired KGO youth to research, explore, and aspire to higher educational and career goals such as attending university in the pursuit of professions in engineering, urban design, architecture, and not-forprofit management (Coordinator, personal communication, July 16, 2012). Awareness and knowledge of community planning processes. Young participants gained substantive knowledge of their communities’ dynamic planning processes, developed an awareness of community advocacy and policy, and increased awareness and participation in community planning and development activities (Checkoway et al., 2005; Frank, 2006; Kirby & Bryson, 2002). In one study Frank (2006) found that: “Youth gained a better understanding of their physical and social environment, especially in terms of seeing their communities as dynamic networks”, and “…increased youth awareness of themselves as a group with organizational capacity to create change” (p.359, 360). In terms of cultural understanding and awareness, Kirby & Bryson (2002) found that youth developed a greater respect for equality and discrimination issues in their communities. 38 Similarly, the CDI observed that the framework used for facilitating meaningful youth leadership (Appendix I.5) have made these participants an effective and equitable part in community planning processes: … We have taken the youth to two major planning consultations in the past, which were facilitated by non-local professionals, and even though they tried to be authentic it became clear that they already had the design ideas in mind. The CDI youth recognized this and they became upset, ultimately showing that they’ve learned what good planning and consultation process is (Coordinator, personal communication, July 16, 2012). Through the CDI they gained the awareness needed to enact and create community changes through participation and engagement (Director, personal communication, July 16, 2012). Development of Psychosocial Qualities, Positive Attitudes and Behaviours Developed confidence, self-efficacy, and assertiveness. Researchers from the selected literature review observed that when young people participated in community planning activities, their feelings of pride and achievement increased. They developed confidence and assertiveness in their abilities, and began to believe that their ideas mattered and needed to be heard (Day et al., 2011; Lekies et al., 2009). Collaborating with professionals in planning activities provided an environment of trust and responsibility, and fostered the belief that they can accomplish change in their community (Checkoway & Richards-Schuster, 2003; Frank, 2006; Kirby & Bryson, 2002). Internationally, Frank (2006), reported that: “Youth became proud of their communities, confident, and comfortable expressing their opinions and immigrant cultures” when they played an active role in community planning and development (p.360). The CDI reported similar findings, with KGO youth exhibiting a distinct increase in feelings of pride and accomplishment as a result of participating in the CDI (Director, personal communication, July 16, 2012). Such feelings of pride and accomplishment were attributed to the CDI framework, 39 “… All youth ideas are put into the design in the best way possible… this validates the youth for life” (Interior Designer, personal communication, July 17, 2012). This was well demonstrated when a design suggestion to integrate wording typographic elements throughout the floor tiles of the Storefront lobby was incorporated into the final design (Coordinator, personal communication, July 16, 2012) (see Appendix I.10). Moreover, The CDI professionals reiterated the importance of developing and expressing creativity, linking it back to an increase in confidence that has played a large role in the personal development and communicative abilities of the youth. This newfound confidence was reported as greatly encouraging the CDI youth to attempt and volunteer themselves for public speaking and leadership roles within the KGO community (Architect, personal communication, July 17, 2012). The CDI also expressed that the confidence youth have gained through the CDI has made it easier for them to ask questions and communicate with adults: … Now [the youth] approach professionals as their peers, so when they pursue careers or undertake interviews, the confidence and interpersonal skill-set shines through… [The youth] are not intimidated, but instead focused and receptive to new knowledge (CEO, personal communication, July 17, 2012). Developed self-esteem and self –awareness. When participating in planning activities and received feedback from adults (Frank, 2006), there were significant Significantly psychosocial benefits had therapeutic effects on young people from marginalized and disadvantaged backgrounds (Head, 2010). Youth with chronic illnesses, disorders, and physical disabilities deepened sense of “self-awareness” (Frank, 2006; Kirby & Bryson, 2002; Lekies et al., 2009). Checkoway et al. (1995) reported in one of their studies that community participation resulted in a sense of “personal identity” for a group of “at-risk” males in a Chicago inner city housing project (p.136). 40 Within the CDI it was observed that young people strengthened their feelings of self-worth and belonging through their positive experiences in collaborating with professionals, KGO residents, and their fellow peers (Architect; Coordinator, personal communication, July 16; 17 2012). Created lasting relationships with community members. Several case studies reported that intergenerational relationships between adults and peers had benefitted their lives by acting as support networks, giving youth a sense of mattering, and in some cases acting as surrogate family functions (Checkoway et al., 1995; Finn & Checkoway, 1998; Kirby & Bryson, 2002). In one study it was observed that many enjoyed participation activities and developed friendships with their peers and other community members (Kirby & Bryson, 2002). Within ethnically diverse and socio-economically disadvantaged communities, researchers found that when collaborating in planning activities with their communities they increasingly challenged stereotypes, accepted people from other traditions, strengthened their understanding of racism and disability awareness, learned about rights, and developed positive attitudes towards their communities (Kirby & Bryson, 2002). Subsequently this effected positive reinforcement that helped inner-city youth avoid gang affiliation (Checkoway, 1998). In the CDI, youth improved their relationships with adults and peers during the weekly design classes by fostering the same understanding and acceptance of other genders, races, ethnicities, etc. (Coordinator, personal communication, July 16, 2012). The positive reinforcement through the relationships, support, and enthusiasm of the youth’s success in the CDI has helped them to “stay on the right path, away from trouble [in the KGO Priority Neighbourhood]” (Architect, personal communication, July 17, 2012). One young member who was considered ‘at risk’ by the CDI professionals has since been hired by ERA Architects in Toronto as a youth ambassador for the CDI. He has since invented a “Sky- 41 o-swale” (water collection, filtration, and irrigation system) for the Storefront since participating in the CDI. He is 18 years old. Moreover, his enthusiasm encouraged attendance of KGO community events and such as periodical community speaks, and new neighbourhood initiatives and developments (Director, personal communication, July 16, 2012). Strengthened Youth Influence and Empowerment in the Community Empowers youth and increases opportunities for community leadership. With instilled confidence and higher self-esteem, young people made educated decisions, set goals, successfully organized and implemented community programs and policies, and became involved with the avocation of collaborating with various community members in an enterprising and lasting way (Checkoway et al., 2005; Checkoway & Richards-Schuster, 2003). As Kirby and Bryson (2002) observe, “… Student participation [impacts] beneficially on self-esteem, motivation, sense of ownership and empowerment and that this in turn enhances attainment” (p.24). Importantly, in two studies, youth demonstrated an active interest in community stewardship and political efficacy by envisioning future roles for themselves and their community’s institutions when they successfully participated within community planning processes – and particularly so when they originated from low-income neighborhoods (Checkoway, 1998; Frank, 2006). The CDI reported that youth felt empowered by their responsibilities and challenges (CDI tasks, decisions, and designs) and have taken them very seriously (Architect, personal communication, July 17, 2012). This was demonstrated by their significant enthusiasm and effort in collaborating and planning towards successful fundraising, building, designing, outreach, and problem solving within the CDI (CEO, personal communication, July 17, 2012). Enthusiasm for the CDI was also reported as influencing older CDI youth to adopt leadership roles within the project, guiding new 42 participants through the CDI process and directly and indirectly acting as stewards in a nonadult organized way (Architect, personal communication, July 17, 2012). Breakdown: Youth Benefits from Participation in Planning My research findings propose that youth flourish while participating in community planning. They developed knowledge, skills; improved their educational performance, and experienced a strong sense of empowerment and belonging. In analyzing the research findings, there were an extensive amount of benefits young people experienced as a result of participation, and a number of factors as to why this may be. The simple answer is that participation in community planning is inherently beneficial for young people. This outcome has remained prominent regardless of demographic differences such as ethnic and socio-economic age differences. Also, frameworks of participation that are guided by Hart’s Ladder of Youth Participation (1992, 1997) encourage greater opportunities for skill-building, require young members to adopt project responsibilities, face larger challenges, while fostering equality, respect, and understanding between adults and youth which encourages young people to develop on an individual level. Some benefits were highlighted more among young people from the KGO Priority Neighbourhood. These included increased confidence, self-esteem, motivation for civic participation, and overall improved relationships between adults and peers. Significantly, areas where KGO youth were most positively impacted centered on interpersonal skill building and improved psychosocial abilities. The selected literature review tended to focus more on tangible benefits that were technical in nature, such as job experience and computer skills. This divergence may be due to the methodologies used in the case studies of the selected literature – which consisted of observational and finite relationships between researchers and subjects- as opposed to the working- relationships based on equality and trust that were developed over time between the 43 CDI professionals and KGO youth. These deeper relationships may actually provide a more accurate representation of the effects that participation has on young people in general, and may also help explain why KGO youth were reported as experiencing these benefits more intensely. On the other hand, the skills and abilities, experiences gained from working in the CDI could also be the result of tapping into the already existing potential of the KGO youth, as limited access to resources and marginalized backgrounds may blunt the opportunities for youth to actualize their potential. Moving forward, young people stand to benefit in a large way when given opportunities to participate in planning their communities. Although limited in scope and chronology, my findings propose that the positive impacts youth experience transcend diverse demographic and socio-economic categories, and have a significant impact on marginalized youth from vulnerable neighbourhoods. The preliminary findings also demonstrate that there are notable gaps within the scope of planning research contexts. Research found that youth from low-income areas and marginalized backgrounds have an acute interest in learning and using knew skills that they gained from participating, and that the relationship they built with adults had positive and immediate impacts on their day-to-day lives, motivating them to avoid social malaise. It is essential for planners to collaborating with young people in order to create the appropriate frameworks to facilitate successful youth participation and results no matter what their background, as the utilization, support, and development of youth’s abilities and needs plays an invaluable role in the inclusive and sustainable planning of communities. 44 How do communities benefit from youth participation in community planning? A major proponent for the participation of young people in community planning is the belief that it holds substantial short and long-term benefits for communities such as sustainable and efficient development; the effective building of social networks and capacity; long-term civic competencies; and greater community involvement (Day et al., 2011; Frank, 2006; Head, 2010; Kirby & Bryson, 2002). As Sinclair (2004) explains, “Consulting with children enables services to be improved and adapted to meet changing needs, that children can help define” (p.108). Head (2010) posits that youth participation can lead to economic benefits as, “Understanding the views of and interests of service users is required for service improvement and therefore should also improve the cost-efficiency of services” (p.543). In addition, youth participation within planning is said to provide better access to resources, enhance problem-solving opportunities, and create stronger social networks within communities (Day et al., 2011). For urban planners, this opportunity to utilize youth as a sustainable resource sets an amazing precedent for sustainable and effective planning. Unfortunately, Head (2010) highlights that unlike many private organizations, media networks, and political parties, planners and government institutions have become more conservative, negating the voices and interests of youth within planning, development, and evaluation practices. Similarly, Frank (2006) explains that the levels at which youth are permitted to participate in the planning of their neighbourhoods is inadequate, particularly since they often share the concerns and interests of their communities. As such, the literature suggests that it is crucial to facilitate youth participation in neighbourhoods and other civic avenues as it inspires present and future stewardship, civic responsibility, and community strength (Checkoway et al., 1995; Day et al., 2011; Frank, 2006). 45 In addition to revitalizing the “civic spirit” of communities, Hancock (1994) suggests that participation within planning helps young people to develop skills such as leadership and collaboration, and encourages the application of such skills to be used in addressing current and future social issues within communities. This is thought to be significant in terms of disadvantaged neighbourhoods, as community members who have been historically marginalized have amazing opportunities to empower themselves by increased democratic influence and ability to effect change through their youth (Iltus & Hart, 1995). The literature also highlights the prospect of building of altruistic relationships among community members as a result of youth participation in planning (Frank, 2006; Kirby & Bryson, 2002). This is important for long-term community development and increased inclusivity, as youth are commonly described as being weary of engaging in planning projects and activities, and exhibiting cynicism and frustration at real or perceived devaluation by adults, which is particularly common within disadvantaged neighbourhoods (Kirby & Bryson, 2002). It is believed that this is a consequence of pre-existing ideas that young people are inferior to adults in competency and moral development, which has sadly resulted in very few working relationships, shared responsibilities, day-to-day dialogue, and collaborative opportunities for adults and youth, resulting in poorly developed and unsustainable planning projects (Head, 2010; Kirby & Bryson, 2002; Finn & Checkoway, 1998; Frank, 2006). However, it is maintained that those adults, organizations, and professionals that do engage youth in constructive and nondiscriminatory dialogue report a more comprehensive understanding of young people’s needs and capabilities, a greater sense of organizational belonging and purpose, and ultimately improve their own communication and decision-making skills (Checkoway & Richards-Schuster, 2003; Lekies et al., 2009). As we learn to trust one another and work in equal partnerships, there is greater opportunity for project generation and 46 achievement, and networking and resource exchange, which creates a symbiotic relationship that, reinforces the partnership between the two parties (Checkoway & Richards-Schuster, 2003). Similarly, as youth learn how to communicate through teamwork experience, shared responsibility, respect and understanding in planning activities and projects, their ability to collaborate with peers and other community members is said to be strengthened (Kirby & Bryson, 2002). These benefits are ideally carried over into the wider community (Kirby & Bryson, 2002; Lekies et al., 2009). Through the increased participation of young people within planning, Checkoway et al. (2005) explain that adult-youth partnerships have the ability to increase supportive connections between both parties, in that youth are viewed as “assets”, rather that as “burdens”, diminishing negative views that prohibit youth from participating in community planning processes (p.1151). Therefore, greater opportunities for youth to exercise and increase their skills for future civic participation, knowledge of effective community development, strengthened social networks, economic sustainability, and adult-youth relationships, does much to increase both planners’ ability to utilize accurate and effective knowledge and support in building inclusive and sustainable communities, and also sets an important precedent for the future development of quality planning. The following analysis of the selected literature and CDI findings present direct evidence that the participation of youth in planning benefits communities, with key findings listed in Table 3. The findings presented here parallel those found in the literary theory of youth participation, wherein participation in planning processes acts to increase inclusive, effective, and sustainable communities, and provides additional findings that shed light on how ethnically diverse and socio-economically challenged neighbourhoods benefit. Overall, youth participation in planning 47 Table 3. A Comparison of the benefits communities experienced as a result of youth participation in community planning Selected Literature Review Findings CDI Case Study Interview Findings Greater knowledge of community and access to resources Community Benefits Awareness of youth and community needs; efficiency in community planning, policy development, and service-delivery Awareness of KGO youth and community wants and needs; efficiency in service-delivery and infrastructural development for KGO community Development and improvement of community infrastructure Social Physical and environmental Economic Social/ reduces stigma Physical and environmental Economic Enhances overall civic participation and democracy Promoted equality and inclusivity for all community members Increased opportunities for social action and community leadership Increased youth’s sense of responsibility and stewardship 48 Promoted equality and inclusivity for all community members Increased opportunities for social action and encouraged community leadership Increased youth’s sense of responsibility and stewardship is a mutually beneficial process for communities and planners. Increased resources and knowledge of community dynamics, the strengthening of social, physical/ environmental and economic infrastructure, and increased community leadership through stewardship are all benefits of young people’s participation in planning. Referring to Table 3, the detailed findings are organized below according to the benefits as identified by the literary theory: 1) Greater knowledge of community and access to resources 2) Development and improvement of community infrastructure 3) Enhances overall civic participation and democracy. Greater Knowledge of Community and Access to Resources Awareness of youth and community needs, efficiency in community planning, policy development, and service-delivery. When adults and youth acted as partners in planning there was a rise in greater provision information and problem solving, improved knowledge and access to resources, and improved relationships between youth, residents, and government (Day et al., 2011; Frank, 2006). Youth participation provided planners with an insight into unique concerns and needs of local residents and their communities (Frank, 2006). Youth acted as resources in the support and implementation of community initiatives and programs and helped effectively shape and evaluate programs that addressed both their concerns and those of their communities (Checkoway & Richards-Schuster, 2003; Finn & Checkoway, 1998). Several studies demonstrated that both youth and adults shared a strong interest in resolving community issues such as crime, homelessness, environmental degradation, drug and alcohol abuse, as well as education and school conditions. This developed a passion towards projects that addressed cultural awareness, peace, racism, and environmental sustainability (Checkoway, 1998; 49 Checkoway et al., 2005; Finn & Checkoway, 2008; Frank, 2006; Gurstein et al., 2003; London et al., 2003). The CDI reported that youth supported the architects, designers, and planners with a wealth of information, and dedicated their energy and time towards project fundraising, promotion, and success in the KGO community (Architect, personal communication, July 16, 2012; Coordinator, personal communication, July 17, 2012). During the initial design charrette in downtown Toronto, youth participants from all over KGO collaborated, brainstormed, and expressed in detail their views, opinions, and solutions to issues that affected KGO with industry professionals, local government, and other stakeholders (CEO, personal communication, July 17, 2012) (Appendix I.11). As a result the CDI professionals were better able to effectively strategize and problem solve in context of the KGO neighbourhood (Coordinator, personal communication, July 16, 2012). Development and improvement of community infrastructure Social infrastructure. Youth participation developed a strong social structure in communities by building relationships and support networks between youth, their peers, adults, and local residents. These relationships were founded through trust, mutual respect, and concern for one another, which increased cultural awareness, organizational accountability among institutions and community members, as well as the capacity for effective organization and advocacy (Day et al., 2002; Finn & Checkoway, 1998). The participation of young people increased positive interactions between adults and youth, and particularly so in low-income neighbourhoods (Kirby & Bryson, 2002). The CDI youth participants played an intrinsic role in linking community members and supporting community initiatives. The CDI project bridged youth with academic institutions, 50 local agencies and organizations, government, residents, and other KGO stakeholders providing a strong network for future projects (Director, personal communication, July 16, 2012). The success of the CDI has also reduced the stigma surrounding the KGO Priority Neighbourhood through positive publicity within the media and increased stakeholder interest, Tons of people are at the table, and all kinds of people are interested in [the CDI]. We have a couple of newspaper write-ups recently- The Star, The Globe, The Mirror (Coordinator, personal communication, July 16, 2012). This has also generated positive international attention as its youth participation framework is currently being studied in an academic institution in Europe: … There are a few Master’s students at the University of Copenhagen who are modeling their Master’s theses after the work that [the CDI] is doing, and they are trying to gain traction globally through Architecture for Humanity by engaging youth in the design of schools that youth will be using (Architect, personal communication, July 17, 2012). The CDIs encouragement of youth in community decision-making reduced community stigma by creating positive networking opportunities and bridging initiatives with professionals outside of the KGO community (Director, personal communication, July 16, 2012). Physical and environmental infrastructure. Youth participants were found to have a distinct interest in street-level revitalization. This was shown through the creation of public art and taking steps towards improving their community’s physical and environmental infrastructure (Frank, 2006; Finn & Checkoway, 1998). This was done through the renovation, rehabilitation, and improvement of housing for community members (Finn & Checkoway, 1998). They also participated in raising community awareness and working towards solutions for environmental safety concerns such as natural areas, toxic sites, community cleanups, housing, graffiti, vacant lots, and safer parks for community members (Checkoway, 1998; Frank, 2006). Young people showed a distinct interest in developing communal public spaces and were successful in assessing neighbourhood and community needs (Frank, 2006). By preparing housing and 51 transportation plans and forming planning committees, they were able to make recommendations that were implemented through their local planning boards (Checkoway, 1998). Similarly, young participants in the CDI shared community concerns about their environment and had a distinct interest in improving the conditions and extent of public space in KGO: Fairly recently we have been talking to the property owners of the two [residential] towers behind [the Storefront building] and we now have funding to take down the fencing between the Storefront and the apartments to engage residents… maximize green space, share recreational space and parking space to reduce the number of driveways and reclaim them as community space (Director, personal communication, July 16, 2012). In addition to the creation and improvement of safer and more connected community space, CDI youth worked towards improving the environmental health and aesthetic value of the KGO neighbourhood overall: [The CDI] aims towards the greening of community space, so we will be removing the asphalt and replacing it with permeable pavement, interlocking stones, no-mow grass, or gardens- the youth haven’t decided yet (Coordinator, personal communication, July 16, 2012). In effect, the participation of the KGO youth played an important role in the overall approach to KGO’s neighbourhood revitalization strategy through its framework, The finished Storefront building will be beautiful, and we want the rest of the community to match (Director, personal communication, July 16, 2012). The intention of the CDI is to surpass the jurisdiction of KGO and resonate throughout the East Scarborough region as an urban renewal model for other organizations and communities to use and adapt (Director, personal communication, July 16, 2012). Economic infrastructure. The participation of youth in planning fostered entrepreneurship, career and educational aspirations, and opened networking avenues in the community. By generating opportunities to collaborate with professionals, youth learnt about different professions, built relationships, and helped planners and organizations improve service-delivery 52 and create sustainable amenities (Checkoway & Richards-Schuster, 2003; Day et al., 2011; Head, 2010). Participating in community planning increased their graduation rate, job opportunities, strengthened entrepreneurial skills, and provided experience in resume writing, application and grant writing, occupational safety, finance management, and in some cases they even received monetary reimbursement for their achievements (Checkoway, 1998). The CDI noted that opportunities to explore creative careers in the CDI have helped many of their participants develop innovative problem solving abilities that acted as transferable skills which were utilized in their schools and jobs outside of the CDI, [The CDI design curriculum] shows the youth that no matter what career or job they go into, they can approach it in a creative manner… a creative field such as architecture has helped youth look at problems with a broader perspective (CEO, personal communication, July 17, 2012). Participation in the CDI broadened young people’s career opportunities by increasing their selfesteem, expanded their skill set, and motivated them to explore higher educational paths and alternative careers to those available in their community (CEO, personal communication, July 17, 2012). The networking and relationship building between organizations, residents, professionals, and youth in the KGO community has increased the socio-economic opportunities of the youth and residents in the KGO Priority Neighbourhood by acting as a launch pad for grass-roots initiatives and other programs that aim to increase efficiency and sustainability in community resources (Appendix I. 9)(Director, personal communication, July 16, 2012). Enhances Overall Civic Participation and Democracy Promoted equality and inclusivity for all community members. Accepting youth as partners and consultants on a peer level through their participation in planning strengthened democratic and civic rights/ability throughout the wider community (Finn & Checkoway, 1998). Youth as a 53 political group were inseparable form their communities social dynamics and external environment, addressing issues and concerns such as safety, public space, crime prevention, homelessness, discrimination, education, the environment (Checkoway et al., 2005). Young people used their agency to address and draw attention to widely held community issues, Youth leaders within a group at any age make it possible for more people to be engaged in activities, as opposed to the model where everyone has to wait for the adult to teach them (Lekies et al., 2009:356). In a similar vein the framework for the CDI was structured to be inclusive to all community members and youth from KGO, The CDI was set up in such a way that we accommodate the entire range [of youth] regardless of ability of perceived ability (Coordinator, personal communication, July 16, 2012). Many of the participants were, … Youth who have been marginalized in the system, youth whose opinion are not traditionally sought… they weren’t ‘joiners’ (Coordinator, personal communication, July 16, 2012). The CDI framework also enabled members to share equality with their adult counterparts, their peers, and other KGO community members through collaboration in the weekly design sessions and Community Speak meetings (Coordinator, personal communication, July 16, 2012). Increased opportunities for social action and community leadership. When organizations successfully facilitated youth participation frameworks and initiatives into their operations, communities began to efficiently and effectively organize (Kirby & Bryson, 2002). Participation provided young people with the platform needed for them to enact tangible changes within their communities and adopt many different civic and democratic roles such as study subjects, evaluators, consultants, partners, and directors (Checkoway & Richards-Schuster, 2003; Frank, 2006). They adorned key roles in community action groups, development agencies, 54 neighbourhood-based youth initiatives, and citizen action groups. In doing so youth also collected and synthesized data, began engaging and organizing other community members, and produced feasibility reports, which they presented and implemented recommendations to planning boards and institutions such as their schools and local government (Checkoway, 1998; Frank, 2006). These findings were consistent across all categories, as youth in some of the lowest-income areas solved community problems, organized action groups, and planned and developed new programs and services that connected people to organize and make decisions Checkoway et al. (2003). As Checkoway et al. (2003) explain, youth, do not fit the image of a group that is “withdrawn” from society, or “disengaged” from democracy, rather youth are, “… active participants and competent community builders (p.303). Similarly, youth efforts in working within and promoting the CDI generated neighbourhoodwide interest and activity from political and institutional spheres: Since the City Councilor is on board, what we are trying to eventually do is develop a model wherein a local planning board is created, so that based on the designs of the youth, and perhaps some more sophisticated conversation by a small group of people, the City Councilor would have a reference group. So when a new developer comes into the neighbourhood there would be a reference group to speak to (Director, personal communication, July 16, 2012). This has generated positive attention towards the KGO Priority Neighbourhood, and motivated other communities and organizations to participate in their own neighbourhood revitalization, demonstrating the influence that young people’s participation in the CDI has had on communities: This summer the Centre for City Ecology is working with the Storefront to photograph the entire neighbourhood and submit it to Google earth and then use Google Sketchup with various communities across the neighbourhood to envision how the neighbourhood could change (Director, personal communication, July 16, 2012). 55 Increased youth’s sense of responsibility and stewardship. Young people were motivated to engage in civic activities due to the positive attitudes and relationships they developed while participating in community planning (Finn & Checkoway, 1998). Participation in planning and evaluation developed the knowledge needed for social action. This allowed them to exercise their political rights, share in the democratization of knowledge, prepared them for active participation in society, and strengthened their social development (Checkoway & Richards-Schuster, 2003). Those participating within the CDI were motivated to engage in community activities such as Community Speaks when they saw the positive influence it had on their lives and the lives of their peers (CEO, personal communication, July 17, 2012). Participants sustained engagement as a result of the positive reinforcement they experienced through their new relationships, and the support they received from the CDI curriculum, staff, peers, and professional mentors (Coordinator, personal communication, July 16, 2012). Breakdown: Community Benefits From Youth Participation In Planning Preliminary research findings indicate that when planners successfully facilitate the participation of young people in planning, communities thrive. By opening up opportunities for adult-youth collaboration young people acted as invaluable resources, helping policy-makers create effective programs, and planners achieve their goal of comprehensive planning. Young people were motivated to use the newfound knowledge and skills they developed from participating in various community revitalization projects/ initiatives. Their will to become involved in civic and democratic processes inspired other local residents to do so as well. Youth participants were catalytic in diversifying and reinforcing social networks, ultimately improving their community’s infrastructure, safety, and mobility. These positive impacts are attributed to youth participation 56 frameworks that promoted inclusivity, had real impact on community dynamics, and created novel opportunities for adult-youth collaboration. These results were consistent across the KGO Priority Neighbourhood, implying that such effects were applicable across various socio-economic and demographic contexts. Notably, the KGO Priority Neighbourhood experienced an increase in revitalization initiatives that improved neighbourhood conditions; improved social capital through renewed relationships with government, neighbouring communities and institution; and the reduced neighbourhood stigma through positive public publicity when young people’s participated in the CDI. The details surrounding KGOs stigmatization are beyond the scope of this study; however, preliminary research findings indicate that by increasing young people’s agency in democratic and decisionmaking processes, the stigmatism surrounding low-income neighbourhoods and ethnically diverse inner-suburban youth could be greatly reduced, opening up exciting opportunities for community growth. Overall, findings from the CDI case study suggest that the benefits that neighbourhoods with diverse ethnicities and socio-economic conditions may manifest differently when compared to more homogenous and financially secure neighbourhoods. As such, more research is needed to understand the effect that young people’s participation in planning has on communities of a diverse socio-economic milieu. These preliminary findings have amazing potential for Toronto’s Priority Neighbourhoods, since the CDI case study suggests that when young people successfully participate, the absence of social networks and amenities that KGO suffers from were effectively remedied. Discrepancies in participation research only act to undermine planners’ ability to comprehensively plan by assuming that only a narrow set of outcomes can occur in the midst of changing neighbourhood dynamics and demographics over time. By undertaking contextually 57 variant research, planners have an amazing opportunity to expand their knowledge in how young people can help their communities prosper. In the next section, factors surrounding the successful facilitation of young people in planning are analyzed in order to derive successful methods for the facilitation of young people in planning. Best Practices of Youth Participation In Planning Research surrounding young people’s capacity and ability to effectively participate within planning has dominated popular discourse in the academic, planning, and policy-making community. Not surprisingly, there is very little information surrounding the best practices of implementing or evaluating such youth participation. To a large degree this demonstrates the lengths at which the planning profession still needs to go in order to comprehensively plan for communities. Nevertheless, there are many academics and policy-makers who see the inherent value in youth participation, and whose research has evolved from a focus on the capacities and abilities of youth, towards how to effectively facilitate youth participation within planning. Overwhelmingly, these researchers speculate that the ongoing education and support of planners; building youth abilities and capacities through increased and shared responsibility; using diverse participation styles; and fostering mutual respect and trust through clarity, equality, and collaboration are the best practices in facilitating young people’s participation in planning (Checkoway, 2010; Frank, 2006; Kirby & Bryson, 2002; Hart, 1997). As meaningful participation operates in conjunction with other professions, organizations and institutions, the successful facilitation of youth participation needs to be supported by all adults for success (Checkoway, 2010; Iltus & Hart, 1995). Educating planners and other professionals involved in youth participation projects and activities are thought to equate power imbalances and reduce the occurrence of manipulation and tokenism of youth (Frank, 2006; Hart, 1997). Therefore, as Iltus 58 & Hart (1995) explain, “… adults need to be educated early in the process about children’s capacity to plan and design” (p.371). This is also true for adults who support youth in planning but have unrealistic ideas and expectations about their capacity, which lead to a “romanticized” view of the contributions of young adults (Iltus & Hart, 1995). Kirby & Bryson (2002) also suggest that education needs to occur contextually, as planners need to be aware of neighbourhood characteristics and socio-economic dynamics to ensure successful facilitation and collaboration with youth. Furthermore, the literature highlighted that such education should be ongoing as adults benefit from guidance in how and when to react, relate, challenge, and speak with young people, particularly if adults are working within an unfamiliar or vulnerable neighbourhood (Frank, 2006; Kirby & Bryson, 2002; Sinclair, 2004). Once education is achieved, the facilitation of youth in planning projects should become much easier (Iltus & Hart, 1995). In addition to education, Kirby & Bryson (2002) highlight that supporting planners plays a key role in the successful participation of young people within planning, and is necessary as very few professionals who undertake such work tend to be supported or trained for it. This work can include developing young people’s capacities and skills, teamwork and conflict resolution, critical thinking and knowledge, and building their confidence (Kirby & Bryson, 2002). Oftentimes professionals who already have experience in working with young people also need support, particularly those who have not worked with vulnerable groups such as marginalized people from disadvantaged areas (Finn & Checkoway, 1998; Kirby & Bryson, 2002). Kirby & Bryson (2002) argue that support is essential due to the intense demands placed on planners, and also due to the radically new ways of thinking and working with young people that include being nondirective, flexible, and responsive. Professionals also need guidance and positive reinforcement in how they react to and work with youth as it requires shifts in power dynamics, 59 values, roles, patience and commitment, which sometimes can result in stressful situations during the planning (Frank, 2006; Hart, 1995; Kirby & Bryson, 2002). Ensuring that planners have the support they need greatly helps in providing young people with the foundation required to execute successful planning projects and activities (Kirby & Bryson, 2002). Youth also require support in their participation in order for planning activities and projects to have a greater chance of success. Given that young people do not traditionally have experience in planning, it is important for planners to help them refine the skills needed with which to effectively participate, Children cannot suddenly be involved in ways which demand high levels of skill, without having had other opportunities to gain experience and develop some measure of confidence and competence (Frank, 2006:366). Therefore, creating opportunities for young people to express their opinion and hold project responsibility can help build youth capacity and ability through shared knowledge, skills, confidence, and experiences (Frank, 2006). Moreover, the capacity of young people is reinforced when they participate in all aspects of the planning process- from conceptual to technical, and from beginning to end. In doing so, responsibilities and decision-making power between planners and young adults are shared equally, and they have the opportunity to gain the knowledge and experience necessary to effectively participate (Frank, 2006; Iltus & Hart, 1995). Although building youth capacity within more adult-oriented activities was important, there was an emphasis in the literature to adopt youthful styles of working. As Frank (2006) explained, Youth responded to techniques that were social, dynamic, interactive, expressive, constructive, and challenging (p.368). With regards to planning project style, the literature highly suggests using a diverse spectrum of activities to encourage a wider range of youth to participate in planning (Frank, 2006; Hart; 1995). Kirby & Bryson (2002) add that, “Ensuring groups have fun is important for keeping young people engaged in the process”(p.41). Finally, it was suggested within the literature that 60 equality between youth and adults could be established by mutually developing project goals, roles, and responsibilities, and striving for clarity and transparency in the process of youth participation in community planning (Iltus & Hart, 1995; Kirby & Bryson, 2002). Collectively collaborating on project goals and roles reassures youth that their views are being respected and taken seriously by planners, effectively encouraging participation and helping to develop trustparticularly among young people who have been marginalized and/or stigmatized in their communities (Iltus & Hart, 1995; Kirby & Bryson, 2002). Clarity within planning projects and activities also allows youth an equal playing ground on which to experiment with new roles and responsibilities and feel valued and respected for their contributions (Iltus & Hart, 1995). Shared goals through collaboration, and clarity through publicity, work towards creating an equal forum for both youth and planners to develop successful planning activities and projects (Kirby & Bryson, 2002). The benefits resulting from young people’s participation within planning has been attributed certain framework characteristics, practices, and solutions to obstacles encountered. Unfortunately, the majority of these conclusions have not indicated if there are variations in the findings when diverse backgrounds, lived-experiences, and low-income neighbourhoods are a factor. This section combines generally held findings from the selected literature and those from the CDI case study within the diverse and low-income Priority Neighbourhood of KGO, to distill a more comprehensive set of practices with which to successfully facilitate young people’s participation in community planning. Referring to Table 4, detailed suggestions for facilitation are described highlighting the following major findings: 61 Table 4. A Comparison of the suggested best practices for youth participation in community planning Selected Literature Review Findings Best Practices CDI Case Study Interview Findings Create a firm foundation for the planning project through youth/planner/community support and commitment Promote awareness and gain community support of youth participation project/ initiative Use incentives for youth to participate Integrate youth-friendly activities; encourage positive attitudes and behaviours between adults and youth Audit and assess available resources within the community; promote awareness and gain community support of youth participation project/ initiative Use incentives and diverse planning methods for youth to participate Celebrate and promote participant achievements and project milestones Support and educate professionals in youth participation Educate planners in sociopolitical and demographic contexts including youth capacity Employ training and periodical evaluation/feedback for adults in how to work with youth Create a mentoring program for professional mentors Employ periodical evaluation, feedback, and guidance Utilize a backbone organization Support and empower youth in community planning Clarity of project roles, goals, and responsibilities between youth and adults Encourage collaboration and negotiation in the initial stages in all planning project areas Create opportunities for youth leadership, responsibility, and voice 62 Establish common ground between project players Ensure that the project authentically utilizes youth participation Adapt to project 1) Create a Firm Foundation for the Planning Project Through Youth/ Planner/ Community Support and Commitment 2) Support and Educate Professionals In Youth Participation 3) Support and Empower Youth in Planning Create a Firm Foundation for the Planning Project Through Youth/ Planner/ Community Support and Commitment Promote awareness and gain community support of youth participation project/ initiative. Two studies reported that publicity and promotion of youth participation planning projects played a large role in community support, strengthening young people’s engagement, a wide array of youth feedback, and an increase of awareness and involvement of local youth (Checkoway et al., 1995; Iltus & Hart, 1995). Community awareness and support was achieved using public competitions, exhibitions and events, suggestion boxes, public information programs, community forums, and educational sessions (Checkoway et al., 1995; Iltus & Hart, 1995). Within the CDI, project promotion and community interest and support were achieved by conducting an initial audit and assessment of available resources and assets within the KGO community. Taking the time to familiarize themselves with the KGO community and build social networks was crucial in the CDIs strategy for project promotion and youth recruitment, An organization has to be able to audit their own resources and capabilities, building the networks of trust way before they even think about undertaking a project like this (CEO, personal communication, July 17, 2012). Due to the nature of the project, the resources required, and the challenging location, it was imperative for social networks to be built slowly in order to establish project stability and a high level of commitment to the CDI planning process: 63 The level of commitment, the level of risk, and the enterprising nature of the project – it was not just the [Storefront] coordinator and director of the project that had to be enterprising- it was everyone. The moment you enter this project it is seemingly little reward high-risk… it is an easy project to rally excitement for, but the commitment is the threshold where there will be a lot of loss [among professionals] (Architect, personal communication, July 17, 2012). Working with local government and community stakeholders to assess the risks involved helped distinguish the resources that were available and those that would be needed for the CDI. These resources and assets included materials, accessibility, information about KGO, and support and commitment from the community. Collaborating with Storefront volunteers, holding a design charrette with regional professionals, attending local Community Speak meetings building relationships with local government, and reaching out to the local media, all aided in creating public awareness and gaining community support for the CDI (Director, personal communication, July 16, 2012) (Appendix I.11), Use incentives for youth to participate. Several studies indicated that youth were motivated to participate if it meant they had an impact on community services/polices, adult perceptions of young people; received reimbursement, went on excursions, met new people, learned new skills, received positive reinforcement, were given responsibility, and had something fun to do in their spare time (Frank, 2006; Kirby & Bryson, 2002; Perkins et al., 2007). By conducing neighbourhood tours, leading creative exercises, and generating opportunities for intergenerational collaboration, youth developed knowledge of their community, generated enthusiasm, and elicited introspection regarding planning (Frank, 2006). Conversely, in one US study, incentives for the participation of multicultural urban youth in planning were diverse and not entirely motivated by immediate or tangible gratification. Instead they were motivated to participate because the planning project/program provided a safe place for them to go away from the streets and from “trouble”; provided them with language and skill development; and gave 64 them the chance to do something positive for themselves and the community (Perkins et al., 2007). Likewise, the presence of incentives helped stir the interest of KGO youth in the CDI. Opportunities to experience and learn new skills associated with “creative” professions such as architecture, design, and urban planning; to further their educational and career goals; gain volunteer hours; and increase their social networks, all acted to sustain the participation of young people within the CDI (Director, personal communication, July 16, 2012). Youth were drawn to the program since it provided fun after school activities in a comfortable and safe space, the chance to make friends, go on excursions, and enjoy pizza dinners (Coordinator; CEO, Architect, July 16-17, 2012). Integrate youth-friendly activities and encourage positive attitudes and behaviours between adults and youth. Youth were found to respond to methods that were social, diverse dynamic, challenging, constructive, artistic, spontaneous, and fun; and included activities that gave them new and exciting opportunities to learn new things, meet new people, and see new places (Frank, 2006; Kirby & Bryson, 2002). Ethnically diverse and urban youth participated in community planning because the project offered opportunities for fun and enjoyment in the form of games, sports, and spending time with friends (Perkins et al., 2007). The CDI presented similar findings, reporting that young people responded to a curriculum that was designed to mimic that of the designer’s and architect’s diverse curricula, which included a charrette, guest speakers, field trips, and the use of interesting design materials to manipulate and create with (Architect; CEO; Interior Designer, personal communication, July 17, 2012). The diversity and “spontaneity” of learning methods were reported to successfully reach young participants with different learning needs since the curriculum was more hands-on as opposed to 65 lecture-based (Interior Designer, personal communication, July 17, 2012). In conjunction with the diverse and interesting curriculum, KGO youth were largely motivated by the support and reinforcement they received from their relationships with professional mentors and peers. Supporting young participants through positive feedback, validation, enjoyment and camaraderie, and a sense of belonging encouraged participation (Checkoway et al., 2005; Kirby & Bryson, 2002; Lekies et al., 2009). Adult-youth relationships that provided reassurance and encouragement in expression, and nurtured their personal development and autonomy through counseling and advising, helped motivate youth and help them adapt to new roles and responsibilities when they were challenged in new ways (Checkoway et al., 2005; Lekies et al., 2009). The CDI highlighted that working relationships built on trust, mutual respect, and positive reinforcement through validation were the factors behind youth engagement (Coordinator, personal communication, July 16, 2012). As part of developing activities that fostered youth engagement, the CDI greatly emphasized that celebrating project accomplishments was a significant factor in participation (Director, personal communication, July 16, 2012). Youth participants were recognized for their contribution by receiving certificates of achievement after Phase One of the CDI was completed on May 2010. Local government, media agencies, organizations and institutions, and local residents were all there to share in the celebration, helping to build neighbourhood-wide motivation and support for the next several Phases (Director; CEO, personal communication, July 16; 17, 2012). Support and Educate Professionals In Youth Participation Educate and train planners in sociopolitical and demographic contexts including youth capacity. Ongoing education, training, and support were essential for adult professionals to 66 welcome shared power and responsibilities with youth in planning projects (Lekies et al., 2009). Educating and training professionals and other project members on the importance of including youth, their abilities and capacities, and the community’s sociopolitical and demographic context aided in the successful facilitation of planning projects (Iltus & Hart, 1995; Lekies et al., 2009). Using film and slide examples of successful youth facilitation in planning projects was reported as an effective way in which to educate adults about youth’s abilities and capacities (Iltus & Hart, 1995). Planners also need to exercise mindfulness in the socio-political and demographic context(s) of the communities in which they plan to ensure proper deportment, attitudes, and expectations when working with youth (Frank, 2006; Iltus & Hart, 1995). Knowledge of sociopolitical context(s) played a large role in the attitudes of planners towards community members, resulted in stronger support from the community, and increased youth’s ability to relate and commit to projects (Frank, 2006; Iltus & Hart, 1995; Perkins et al., 2007). Planning projects involving young participants also benefited from training adult professionals in youth facilitation strategies. Mentors and organizations found it to be “extremely demanding and challenging” to maintain a balance between meeting the goals of the planning project while simultaneously supporting and supervising youth (Kirby & Bryson, 2002:41). The manner in which professionals communicated with youth, both verbal and non-verbal, was reported as either supporting, or countering youth commitment and participation (Kirby & Bryson, 2002). In multiple studies, adult professionals and organizers did not have adequate training to effectively support and facilitate youth planning projects; and that professional training, support, and education is highly requested among professionals (Checkoway et al., 1995; Frank, 2006; Iltus & Hart, 1995; Kirby & Bryson, 2002; Lekies et al., 2009). This training included techniques and strategies in working with youth, providing support, mentorship, and guidance, deportment, and 67 how to effectively work with socially oppressed groups (Checkoway et al., 1995; Kirby & Bryson, 2002). In a Canadian study by Gurstein et al. (2003), youth participation frameworks that included “co-facilitation”, “co-leadership”, and “co-mentorship” fostered high levels of youth participation (p.267). Specifically, successful educational/ training programs included reviewing the effectiveness in the way professionals worked with youth; establishing open dialogues between the community and professionals; receiving regular feedback and evaluation from organizations, community’s, and youth; how to work with youth from diverse backgrounds and lived-experiences; and how to guide youth and support them in their lives (Kirby & Bryson, 2002). Similarly, guiding the CDI professionals in the way they reacted, worked, and collaborated with youth played a major role in the CDIs success, “You have to know what questions to ask, and how to ask them” (Director, personal communication, July 16, 2012). The CDI highlighted the importance of utilizing a “backbone organization” to help remedy the development of the CDI, support and consolidate professionals, acquaint them with the KGO community, and guide the effective facilitation of KGO youth during the planning project: … You have great architects and planners who are going to [engage in community revitalization] across the world, paired with a group of local interested youth… you need to have that connecting organization in the middle- which in this case is the Storefrontconnecting and translating until the two groups understand each other and can function independently. The backbone organization provides the infrastructure and support, linking and bridging, ensuring communication… if you don’t have that you could damage the whole project… the backbone organization balances the adult need to get things done with the abilities and motivation levels of the youth (Coordinator, personal communication, July 16, 2012). Working alongside the Storefront and implementing an educational/ training program for adult professionals was an essential component of the youth participation framework as it enabled the CDI to successfully develop. 68 Ensure periodical evaluation/feedback for adults in how to work with youth. Adults were frequently observed as playing the role of facilitator, mentor, and organizer for youth in community planning projects/ programs. Kirby & Bryson (2002) found that in order to remain on-task and work as an effective entity, it was essential that adults receive feedback in the form of evaluation and guidance. Within the majority of the selected literature however, adult training was reported only intermittently and it was not clear how, or if those adult professionals were evaluated. In one study by Checkoway & Richards-Schuster (2003), evaluation was an essential component of effective youth participation programing when conducted by both youth and adults, and had positive long-term effects on youth efficacy within their communities. Successful reflective practices and feedback/ evaluation reported by Kirby & Bryson (2002) included staff teams reviewing and questioning their work methods, attitudes towards youth, and establishing open dialogue and feedback between young people and adults to monitor and evaluate progression (p.46). Periodical feedback and guidance encouraged the stronger commitment of young people and professionals in the planning project, and better practice and facilitation through reflection (Kirby & Bryson, 2002:46). Implementing a mentoring program as part of the CDI framework helped ease relations between KGO youth and professional mentors. The Storefront recognized that many professionals in general do not have experience in collaborating with youth, and would benefit from an ongoing program to guide the professionals in working with youth: The mentoring of the professionals is a key success factor. The Storefront worked very hard with the professional mentors to teach them about living in a community like Kingston-Galloway/ Orton Park, and how to work with the youth (Director, personal communication, July 16, 2012). 69 Employing a mentoring program for professionals was vital in the facilitation and success of the CDI, and has strengthened collaborative relationships between the KGO youth and professional mentors (Coordinator, personal communication, July 16, 2012). Unlike the selected literature, the CDI highlighted that utilizing an educational/ training program was mutually beneficial for adult professionals in collaboration, making connections, and adapting to alternate professional languages and jargon: There was huge internal tension in the language of ‘how to’… Urban planners, architects, and urban designers are all trying to improve the community. Social workers are trying to do the same thing. But what we have noticed is that we don’t talk to each other… historically we don’t talk to each other. We’re both trying to do the same thing; we have different resources… so let’s not keep getting in each other’s way (Architect, personal communication, July 17, 2012). The CDI mentorship program also encouraged professionals by exercising their flexibility and reinforcing positive attitudes during project facilitation: A huge reason that no one talks to each other are that each profession thinks that they know best. You need to go in with a different attitude… a huge sense of flexibility and a huge sense of humility (Interior Designer, personal communication, July 17, 2012). Support and Empower Youth in Community Planning Clarity of project roles, goals, and responsibilities between youth and adults. Young people had difficulty participating fully in planning activities when they did not have knowledge of technical and community systems (Checkoway, 1998). Avoiding the tokenistic participation of young people in planning was accomplished when youth of all ages were clear about project/initiative aims, goals, purposes, and methods, and the benefits and limitations of the project (Head, 2010). Young people developed planning and civic capacities when they were clear about planning processes (Frank, 2006). Clarity of project roles, goals, and responsibilities fostered mutual trust and respect among youth and professionals, and helped develop their 70 capacity for planning (Frank, 2006; Kirby & Bryson, 2002). Youth became more confident in expressing their opinions and engaging in dialogue with professionals and organizations when planners to demonstrated that their views mattered and were taken seriously Kirby & Bryson (2002). Frank (2006) found that adults should be, … Honest with youth regarding the political and bureaucratic challenges, and that adults should adhere to and explicit code of ethics that includes acting in good faith and not exploiting youth”, in order to solidify a successful project (p.368). Tokenism is minimized and clarity increased when youth had the ability to negotiate goals and responsibilities with adults throughout the planning process (Frank, 2006). In the CDI, working towards clarity of project goals and mutual trust was an essential component of their success. As part of the youth participation framework, CDI mentors openly discussed and collaborated with youth about what decisions needed to be made, and what factors needed to be considered to complete the project. The professional mentors were there to guide the youth in the planning process (Coordinator, personal communication, July 16, 2012). The CDI mentors stressed that misleading youth and undermining their abilities and opinions is detrimental to their engagement, morale, and the future of the planning project: The youth go into the program and they think it’s going to be great, and then they’re treated just the same as every other adult treats them- and they’re crushed. How likely are they to be engaged again in future projects? Not likely (Coordinator, personal communication, July 16, 2012). For young CDI participants, transparency was especially important due to some of their backgrounds, and the difficult socio-economic context of their neighbourhood, which has been recognized as experiencing a higher level of social malaise, Adults have created a system that has disenfranchised youth, and when you’ve angered them they are less likely to engage. The next time you ask them to participate, forget it. Now whom will they be interacting with? (Coordinator, personal communication, July 16, 2012). 71 In response to this disenfranchisement, the CDI understands that an atmosphere of genuine and mutual trust, respect, and equality is paramount for sustained youth engagement: There is a high level of trust- when we ask [the youth] for their opinion, they know that we are actually listening. The youth have attended other engagement projects and have come back frustrated because they said their questions and opinions were acknowledged (Interior Designer, personal communication, July 17, 2012). Careful attention to building trust between youth, Storefront staff, and the professional mentors encouraged them to participate and stay engaged in the CDI (Coordinator, personal communication, July 16, 2012). The youth were willing to participate because they knew that the Storefront wouldn’t lead them into a project that was superficial and without substance (CEO, personal communication, July 17, 2012). The framework of the CDI facilitated equality by ensuring that the youth and professionals shared accountability and responsibility equally, and encouraged relationships through collaboration on a peer level (Interior Designer, July 17, 2012). Collaborate and negotiate in the initial stages of all planning project areas. Multiple studies observed that adult professionals were hesitant and showed animosity towards the idea of sharing power, responsibility, and information with youth (Checkoway et al., 1995; Checkoway & Richards-Schuster, 2003; Frank, 2006; Iltus & Hart, 1995; Kowles-Yanez, 2005; Lekies et al., 2009). However, encouraging adults and youth to collaborate equally, particularly in the initial stages of a the planning project/initiative were shown to foster equality between project participants, commitment to the project/initiative, and secure young people’s participation within their communities (Iltus & Hart, 1995). Participation frameworks that included, … A co-facilitation, co-leadership, and/or co-mentorship component directly encourages a high level of youth participation (Gurstein et al., 2003:267). Conversely, collaboration during the initial stages of the CDI solidified project success. Both the Storefront staff and professional mentors agreed that the CDI would likely have not been as 72 successful -and not authentic youth participation- if the planning process and design of the CDI were mapped out from the start. Accommodations to include youth with different skills, abilities, needs, and backgrounds, and successfully incorporate their opinions and designs into each Phase was integrated: The brilliance of the project is that it’s emergent, and we learn as we go. The CDI was organic… it was a much more profound experience to have it grow the way it did, than to plan out five years of youth programming, and invite them to participate in it. Building as we grow, building it on who the players are, who the youth are, what they want to learn, what they are saying, what they are doing, who the architects are, who the residents are- I think it was a much netter experience for everyone (Director, personal communication, July 16, 2012). Create opportunities for youth leadership, responsibility, and voice. Youth participation frameworks that were based on the interests of young people such as opportunities to learn and contribute to their communities, gave youth the power to influence decisions and create change (Kirby & Bryson, 2002; Perkins et al., 2007). It was found that the level of leadership and responsibility administered to youth must be proportional to factors such as age, ability, context, and interest to ensure success (Kirby & Bryson, 2002:41). In the CDI, professionals were careful not to stifle the opportunities of the youth, explaining that the CDI design curriculum incorporated a strong commitment to authentic youth participationwhich differs greatly from general ideas of participation in other community projects/initiatives: There are other organizations in the city that are working with youth, but they aren’t doing it at the same level. The facilitators do not listen to the youth, but instead do it just for show. [The facilitators] aren’t engaging [youth] in the right way- be it intentionally or unintentionally (Interior Designer, personal communication, July 17, 2012). Instead, the CDI fully involved youth in the planning process, which has fostered strong social networks among youth and the KGO community, which has resulted in an avid interest and commitment to other community initiatives. This approach supports the proposed KGO planning committee, as it acts as a precedent for bottom-up planning in City of Toronto Priority 73 Neighbourhoods, to effect lasting neighbourhood change through understanding and equality within the KGO neighbourhood (Director, personal communication, June 16, 2012). Breakdown: Best Practices of Youth Participation In Planning Preliminary research findings suggested that using diverse multi-media activities; providing a pubic forum to freely express opinions; collaborating with youth in the initial stage of development; and educating/mentoring adult planners, act to facilitate successful youth participation in planning. In terms of diverse ethnic and socio-economic contexts, the CDI findings suggested that a more intimate understanding of residents and neighbourhood dynamics are needed in order foster the social networks and community support needed to maintain project success and participant commitment. Unlike the CDI, the selected literature review did not emphasize the development of a mentorship/ educational program for planners as a critical factor in the successful facilitation of youth participation. There was also no mention of the possible practice standards or evaluative methods needed to ensure its effectiveness. On what criteria would successful mentorship and educational knowledge be evaluated? What are the protocols for planners who do not meet the evaluative standards? Who gets to decide? These questions provide planners many avenues for further research in youth participation practices, and are important since such standards, measures, and criteria for professional educational/mentorship programs are inherently problematic without proper context or guidance into relevant neighbourhood dynamics and demographics. This relates back to theories of elitism and top-down-planning that act to curb effective and ethical planning processes. Without proper knowledge and guidance of neighbourhood dynamics, standard practices may oppress and marginalize a community while jeopardizing the future of and quality of planning projects/ initiatives. Notably, the CDI 74 underlined the importance of combing the adult mentorship/education program with the guidance of local backbone organization. A local backbone organization acts to bridge ideas and values, eases collaboration and communication barriers between actors, supports local residents and initiatives, and supports good process through knowledge of the community, its members, and its values. Most importantly, a backbone organization is already established within the community, acting to expedite networks of trust, provide invaluable sources of information, and better equip outsiders with and understanding of local neighbourhood dynamics. As Such, backbone organizations are better equipped and qualified to set mentorship/educational program standards, locate and utilize neighbourhood resources, and monitor the planning process as they have already earned the trust and resect of the neighbourhood. In the CDI, using a backbone organization helped ensure that the needs of the KGO youth were being met, and their voices were not being stifled, while balancing the adult need to meet goals with the ability levels of the youth involved. For these reasons, working in conjunction with a backbone organization would be an optimal and effective way for planners to facilitate youth participation in the planning practice across any context. In many ways, the status of youth in the planning practice has shed light on some of the more imbedded power imbalances between citizens and planners in general, while highlighting the significantly limited autonomy that youth have in society today. Quite frankly, it is disappointing to acknowledge that not only has the debate over youth participation been going over the last forty years, but also that there is little evidence that planners have done to investigate, and educate themselves in the matter. As planners, we have the responsibility to rightfully connect those we collaborate with to project success in order to ensure that motivation, community pride, and empowerment is freestanding upon project completion. This is especially important for 75 marginalized youth and communities as it has the potential to inspire future leadership roles within their communities. Clearly, the issue of youth participation is an important feature of inclusive and sustainable planning, and as planners in Canada we have the legal and ethical obligation to do so as reflected by the UNCRC (1989) and Professional codes of planning practice. Thus, planners’ preoccupation with the best practices of youth participation in the planning process needs to be met with an equal dose of responsibility and accountability for its success. In doing so, planners not only have a significant opportunity to empower and utilize the unique abilities of youth, but also have an amazing opportunity to more effective and sustainably planned neighbourhoods through their involvement and impact in the planning practice. In the next chapter, lessons learned in effective youth participation are outlined, followed by a set of recommendations for planners to utilize for the successful facilitation of young people in community planning across diverse contexts. 76 CHAPTER FOUR This study began by assessing commonly held academic theory that featured the potential benefits of youth participation in planning, in order to test their validity across a diverse spectrum of societal conditions. By using a selected literature review of youth participation case studies from around the world, and comparing them with a youth participation case study in a diverse and socio-economically challenged neighbourhood in Toronto, this study analyzed the benefits and frameworks of youth participation in planning, and if/how they manifested differently over a diverse community context. These findings were then used to justify/ rival commonly held theories of the benefits and best practices of young people’s participation in planning, and synthesized to derive a comprehensive set of best practices to help guide planners in its successful facilitation. Since available literature regarding young people’s participation in planning is lacking, both in terms of diverse and socio-economically challenged neighbourhood contexts, and particularly within Canada, this study had to draw from non-planning and non-Canadian sources. The absence of research that focused on youth facilitation strategies and practices was also disconcerting in terms of research. Notwithstanding the research limitation, the research findings overwhelmingly indicated that successful youth participation is a key component when it comes to the inclusive, effective, and sustainable planning of communities. Preliminary findings suggest that despite the fact that youth have the right to participate in planning and that planners are legally and ethically obligated to encourage their participation, there is little indication that they have effectively done so, and are doing so. This is particularly concerning as young people from stigmatized communities and backgrounds already face marginalization within society. Research findings repeatedly emphasized that youth not only 77 have an innate interest to participate in planning processes, but also that they are more than capable in which to do so at various skill levels. Young people were framed as being adaptive to new ideas, civic practices, responsibilities, and leadership roles, and effectively learnt and utilized new skills when given the right support- reinforcing the argument that young people have the ability to plan are very capable of doing so. These findings were emphasized among youth from socio-economically disadvantaged and diverse backgrounds. It was also found that young people’s participation is not solely dependent on their attitude and commitment to planning projects/initiatives, but that adult allies play supportive and essential roles in their participation when they are trained in working with them and have the right support themselves. Moreover, developing mutual trust, respect, and commitment between adults and youth are essential to their successful participation, and particularly so when youth from stigmatized neighbourhoods and marginalized lived-experiences interact. My research findings propose that when young people and planners collaborate in an equitable and authentic way young people substantially benefit by strengthening their knowledge of community, increasing their skills and experiences, and are empowered within their communities. Youth acted as community resources, improved community infrastructure, and fostered stewardship through enhanced civic participation. When young people’s participation was enacted within socio-economically challenged and ethnically diverse settings, significant opportunities for community development arose as young people improved neighbourhood conditions, reinforced social infrastructure, reduced neighbourhood stigma, and promoted civic equality throughout their community. This is important when youth have little opportunity to develop their autonomy, knowledge, skills, and civic efficacy in their environment. Accommodating alternate contexts such as ethnicity, gender, ability, class, and socio-economic 78 environments plays a significant role in reaching youth and fostering the successful and lasting participation of young people within planning processes. As such, the following is a set of best practices for planners to utilize when facilitating successful youth participation in community planning processes: 1. Ensure that a backbone organization is in place before initiating youth participation in community planning. In order to properly incorporate active participation you must create a stable foundation on which to pursue youth participation by mediating collaboration between young people, planners, professionals, and community members. Having a backbone organization increases planner knowledge of community conditions and members, provide avenues for resources, and ultimately help to build trust and support for the project. This is particularly crucial when working in socio-economically disadvantaged neighbourhoods. In using a backbone organization planning project/ initiative success is strengthened. 2. Employ an ongoing mentorship program for planners who work with youth. This is crucial for the success and longevity of the planning project/initiative. Mentorship programs aid adults in successful youth facilitation methods, educating them in how to effectively speak, react, and collaborate with youth; foster youth and planner commitment to the project/initiative; and support adults throughout the planning process. Mentorship programs promote positive youthadult relationships, and increase youth participation, equality, and mutual respect. 3. Involve youth in the creation of the framework, vision, and goal setting during the initial stages of the planning project/ initiative. Equal collaboration in goal-setting and role delegation between adults and youth develops successful youth participation frameworks. By accommodating and utilizing all available youth abilities, projects/initiatives goals and 79 framework design become more effective and sustainable. Collaboration between adults and youth allows for transparency, building trust, equality, and greater commitment as they share project responsibilities. Inclusivity in decision-making ultimately results in better planning outcomes. 4. Ensure that participation frameworks and activities are flexible and diverse. In order to maintain effectiveness and inclusivity when adapting to the changing needs and situations of youth and communities, planners must ensure that youth participation frameworks and activities are inherently flexible and diverse to sustain a higher level of commitment, active youth participants, idea generation, and community interest. 5. Periodically evaluate youth participation planning frameworks and facilitation methods. As an extension of the mentorship program for planners, it is imperative to evaluate the effectiveness and appropriateness of participation framework details and facilitation methods in order to ensure that the planning process is representative of community and participant needs. Periodical evaluations should include celebrating the achievement of goals and milestones together and recognizing the efforts and accomplishments of participants to garner motivation and enthusiasm among all project/ initiative members. At this stage in the discourse on young people’s participation within planning, there is an alarming need to develop and conduct research that showcases diverse youth contexts. Needed is longitudinal research to better evaluate the effectiveness of participation in the planning process, and the use of mixed research methods to derive a more comprehensive set of best practices for successful facilitation. Planners need to acknowledge the diverse spectrum of youth and neighbourhood contexts in order for successful planning to occur. My findings show that positive 80 outcomes of youth participation are intrinsically linked to the use of appropriate and contextual frameworks and facilitation methods. If planners are looking to become more successful in their field, they must adopt a focus towards youth that holds them on an equal playing field. Young people are invaluable resources to draw upon, they act as catalysts in their ability to effectively and sustainably plan. Simply including youth in planning activities will not effect the changes planners strive for in communities, their participation needs to occur and have impacts at municipal, provincial, and national levels to create real change. As futurists in urban theory today, we have an opportunity to evolve the discourse on planning practice. By creating the conditions for younger generations to meaningfully get involved in planning, we pave the way for the planning practice to evolve in a more substantial way, and help create the societal conditions needed for inclusive, effective and vibrant communities for the present and for the future. Youth, no matter who they are, or where they come from, have what it takes to assist planners in creating vibrant communities. They represent the future, but we have the power to make their contributions a reality of today. 81 REFERENCES Action for Neighbourhood Change [ANC] (2009). Resident Survey: Kingston GallowayOrton Park. Architext (2010). Architecture & Community: Community Design Initiative. Retrieved on 5 April 2012, from http://www.architextinc.com/projects/architecture-community-communitydesign-initiative Architext (2011). Community Design Initiative. Retrieved on 5 April 2012, from http://www.architextinc.com/25631/241050/home/community-design-initiativeArnstein, Sherry R. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. American Institute of Planning. 35.4, 216-224. Ben-Attar, Daniella (2010). Youth Participation in Development: Strategies & Best Practices. United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization [UNESCO] International Year of Youth. Boyer, E. (1997) Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. The Bridging Project at KGO (2011). Retrieved on 29 August 2012, from http://thebridgingproject.blogspot.ca Canadian Institute of Planners (2004). Codes of Professional Practice. Retrieved from http://www.cip-icu.ca/web/la/en/pa/C59DDE35F1184B5E89385E53506C19F8/template.asp Canadian Institute of Planners (2004). Statement of Values. Retrieved from http://www.cip-icu.ca/web/la/en/pa/D1A0C3168CB244E4BA8A9BBBF94F3BEA/template.asp The Canadian Press (26 September 2012). UN confronts Canada over lack of national child rights strategy. CTV News. Retrieved from http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/un-confrontscanada-over-lack-of-national-child-rights-strategy-1.972414 Cavat, J. & Sloper, P. (2004). The Participation of Children and Young People in Decisions about UK Service Development. Child: Care, Health & Development. 30.6, 613-21. Charette Communication Design (2005). What is a Charette? Retrieved on 29 August 2012, from http://www.charette.org/company.html# Checkoway, Barry (1994). Paul Davidoff and Advocacy Planning in Retrospect. Journal of the American Planning Association. 60.2, 139-143. Checkoway, Barry (1998). Involving Young People in Neighbourhood Development. Children and Youth Services Review. 20.9/10, 765-795. 82 REFERENCES Checkoway, Barry; Pothukuchi, Kameshwari & Finn, Janet (1995). Youth Participation in Community Planning: What are the benefits? Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14.134, 134-139. Checkoway, Barry & Richards-Schuster, Katie (2003). Youth Participation in Community Evaluation Research. American Journal of Evaluation. 24.1, 21-33. Checkoway, Barry; Richards-Schuster, Katie; Abdullah, Shakira; Aragon, Margarita; Facio, Evelyn; Figueroa, Lisa; Reddy, Ellen; Welsh, Mary & White, Al (2003). Young People as Competent Citizens. Community Development Journal. 38.4, 298-309. Checkoway, Barry; Allison, Tanene & Montoya, Colleen (2005). Youth Participation in Public Policy at the Municipal Level. Children and Youth Services Review. 27, 1149-1162. City of Toronto (2001). A Social Development Strategy for The City of Toronto. Retrieved on 25 March 2012, from http://www.toronto.ca/sds/pdf/sds_finalpolicy.pdf City of Toronto (2005). Strong Neighbourhoods Task Force. A Call to action. A Report of The Strong Neighbourhoods Task Force, 1-41. City of Toronto (2006). Kingston-Galloway/Orton Park Neighbourhood Profile. City of Toronto, Toronto. City of Toronto (2006). Involve Youth: A Guide To Meaningful Youth Engagement. (2nd ed). Retrieved on 25 March 2012, from http://www.toronto.ca/involveyouth/pdf/youth2inal.pdf City of Toronto (2009). City of Toronto Priority Investment Neighbourhoods. Retrieved on 30 March 2012, from http://www.toronto.ca/demographics/pdf/priority2006/priority_areas_with_neighbourhoods.pdf Community Facts, City of Toronto (2006). Retrieved 28 Mar 2010, from http://www.toronto.ca/demographics/pdf/priority2006/area_kingston_full.pdf Community Research Connections [CRC] (2008). Youth Engagement in City Planning. Retrieved on 25 March 2012, from http://crcresearch.org/research-tools/archive/youthengagement-city-planning Cook, P. & Blanchet-Cohen, N. (2006). Creative Tools: Civic Engagement of Young People. Institute for Child Rights and Development. Cowen, Deborah & Parlette, Vanessa (2011). Inner Suburbs at Stake: Investing in Social Infrastructure in Scarborough. Cities Centre University of Toronto. Daswani, Girish; Bunce, Susannah; Cummings, Maggie (2011). Citizenship and Urban Space: Intersections of Housing, Services, Identity, and Belonging for Newcomers in KingstonGalloway/Orton Park, Scarborough. CERIS-The Ontario Metropolis Centre. 86, 1-85. 83 REFERENCES Davidoff, Paul (1965). Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners. 31.4, 331-338. Day, Laurie; Sutton, Liz & Jenkins, Sarah (2011). Children and Young People’s Participation in Planning and Regeneration. Centre for Research in Social Policy. Design Exchange (2010). Community Design Initiative. Retreived on 1 September 2012, from http://www.dx.org/site/design_exchange/assets/pdf/2010_program_guide-1.pdf Drukker, Kapplan & Os, Van (2005). Residential Instability In Socioeconomically Deprived Neighbourhoods, Good Or Bad? Health and Place. 11.2, 121-129. E.R.A. (2012). East Scarborough Storefront In Toronto Tower Renewal. Retrieved on 12 September 2012, from http://era.on.ca/blogs/towerrenewal/ Finn, Janet L. & Checkoway, Barry (1998). Young People as Competent Community Builders: A Challenge to Social Work. National Association of Social Workers, Inc. 43.4, 335345. Fischler, R. (2000). Case Studies of Planners at Work. Journal of Planning Literature. 15.2, 184-95. Frank, Kathryn, I. (2006). The Potential of Youth Participation in Planning. The Journal of Planning Literature. 20.4, 351-371. Gawor, J. Media archive. 2009, 2012. Gurstein, Penny; Lovato, Chris & Ross, Sally (2003). Youth Participation in Planning: Strategies for Social Action. Canadian Journal of Urban Research. 12.2, 249-274. Hancock, M. (1994). Collaboration for youth development. Youth action programming. National Civic Review. 83, 139-146. Hart, Roger A. (1992). Children’s Participation: From Tokenism to Citizenship. UNICEF International Child Development Centre. 4, 1-39. Hart, Roger; Daiute, Collette; Iltus, Selium; Kritt, David, Rome, Michaela & Sabo Kim (1997). Social Justice. 24.3, 33-63. Head, Brian W. (2010). Why Not Ask Them? Mapping and Promoting Youth Participation. Children and Youth Services Review. 33, 541-547. Hill, Malcolm; Davis, John; Prout, Alan & Tisdall, Kay (2004). Moving the Participation Agenda Forward. Children & Society. 18, 77-96. Iltus, Selium & Hart, Roger (1995). Participatory Planning and Design of Recreational Spaces with Children. Arch.& Comport. / Arch & Behav. 10.4, 361-370. 84 REFERENCES International Association for Public Participation (2013). Public Participation. Retrieved on 30 March 2012, from http://www.iap2.org Kirby, Perpetua & Bryson, Sara (2002). Measuring the Magic? Evaluating Young People’s Participation in Public Decision-Making. Carnegie Young People Initiative: London. Knowles-Yanez, Kimberly, L. (2005). Children’s Participation in Planning Processes. Journal of Planning Literature. 20.1, 3-14. Laidlaw Foundation (2012). East Scarborough Storefront; Community Design Initiative. Final Report: Laidlaw Foundation. Lekies, Kristi S.; Baker, Barbara & Baldini, JoAnne (2009). Assessing Participation in Youth Community Action Projects: Opportunities and Barriers. Community Development. 40, 346-358. London, Johnathan K.; Zimmerman, Kristen; Erbstein, Nancy (2003). Youth-Led Research and Evaluation: Tools for Youth, Organizational, and Community Development. New Directions for Evaluation. 98, 33-45. Marris, Peter (1994). Advocacy Planning as a Bridge Between the Professional and the Political. Journal of the American Planning Association. 60.2, 143-146. Mathison, Sandra (1988). Why Triangulate? Educational Researcher. 17.2, 13-17. Ontario Ministry of Children and Youth Services [OMCYS] (2005). Child Welfare Transformation (2005): A strategic plan for a flexible, sustainable, and outcome oriented service delivery model. Retrieved from http://www.ontla.on.ca/library/repository/mon/13000/257323.pdf Ontario Professional Planners Institute [OPPI](2009). Professional Code of Practice. Retrieved from http://ontarioplanners.ca/Knowledge-Centre/Professional-Code-of-Practice Peterman, William (2004). Advocacy vs. collaboration: Comparing inclusionary community planning models. The Community Development Journal. 39.3, 266-276. Perkins, Daniel F.; Borden, Lynne M.; Villarruel, Francisco A.; Carlton-Hug, Annelise; Stone, Margaret R. & Keith, JoAnne G. (2007). Participation in Structured Youth Programs: Why Ethnic Minority Urban Youth Choose to Participate- or Not to Participate. Youth & Society. 38.4, 420-442. Pinkett, Randal D. (2000). Community Revitalization. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Retrieved on 30 March 2012, from http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~rpinkett/papers/revitalization.pdf 85 REFERENCES Public Health Agency of Canada. (2012, February 1). UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and Canada’s Role. Retrieved from http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncd-jne/bck-info-uneng.php Sadan, Elisheva & Churchman, Arza (1997). Process-focused and product-focused community planning: Two Variations of empowering professional practice. Community Development Journal. 32.1, 3-16. Simpson, Brian (1997). Towards the Participation of Children and Young People in Urban Planning and Design. Urban Studies. 34. 5/5, 907-925. Sinclair, Ruth (2004). Participation in Practice: Making it Meaningful, Effective and Sustainable. Children and Society. 18, 106-118. The Storefront (2012). History. In The East Scarborough Storefront Building. Retrieved on 29 August 2012, from http://www.thestorefront.org/about-us/history The Storefront (2012). Community Organizing. In Community. Retrieved on 1 September 2012, from http://www.thestorefront.org/community/our-community/community-organizing Sustainable.TO (2012). East Scarborough Storefront. Retrieved on 20 March 2012, from http://www.sustainable.to/2010/11/east-scarborough-storefront.html United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO] (n.d.). Acting with and for Youth. Social and Human Sciences. Retrieved on 30 March 2012, from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/youth/ United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization [UNESCO](1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. Retrieved on 25 March 2012, from http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/CHILD_E.PDF United Way of Greater Toronto [UWGT] & The Canadian Council on Social Development (2004). Poverty By Postal Code: The Geography of Neighbourhood Poverty (1981-2001). National Library of Canada. Retrieved from http://www.unitedwaytoronto.com/downloads/whatWeDo/reports/PovertybyPostalCodeFinal.pdf United Way of Greater Toronto [UWGT](2005). Strong Neighbourhoods Task Force: A Call Action. A Report. Retrieved from http://www.unitedwaytoronto.com/downloads/whatWeDo/reports/SNTF-web_report.pdf United Way Toronto [UWT](2008). Youth Policy: What Works and What Doesn’t? A Report. Retrieved on 25 March 2012, from http://www2.unitedway.ca/UWCanada/uploadedFiles/Learn/YouthPolicy.pdf United Way Toronto (2010). 13 Priority Neighborhoods Map. Retrieved on 28 March 86 REFERENCES 2010, from http://www.unitedwaytoronto.com/whatWeDo/neighbourhoodsMap.php United Way Greater Toronto [UWGT](2008). Toronto’s Youth Serving System: Fragmented Paths to Youth Development. A Report. Retrieved on 25 March 2012, from http://www.unitedwaytoronto.com/downloads/whatWeDo/reports/TorontosYouthServingSystem -fullreport.pdf Yin, Robert K. (2009). Case Study Research Design and Methods.Vol.5, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage Publications. 87 APPENDIX A: LADDER OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Sherry R. Arnstein’s Ladder of citizen participation (1969) American Institute of Planning [AIP]. 88 APPENDIX B: LADDER OF YOUTH PARTICIPATION Roger A. Hart’s Ladder of youth participation (1992) UNICEF International Child Development Centre. 89 APPENDIX C: UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD (1989) UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD (1989) PREAMBLE The States Parties to the present Convention, Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, Bearing in mind that the peoples of the United Nations have, in the Charter, reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights and in the dignity and worth of the human person, and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, Recognizing that the United Nations has, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenants on Human Rights, proclaimed and agreed that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, Recalling that, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations has proclaimed that childhood is entitled to special care and assistance, Convinced that the family, as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children, should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance so that it can fully assume its responsibilities within the community, Recognizing that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding, Considering that the child should be fully prepared to live an individual life in society, and brought up in the spirit of the ideals proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, and in particular in the spirit of peace, dignity, tolerance, freedom, equality and solidarity, Bearing in mind that the need to extend particular care to the child has been stated in the Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child of 1924 and in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child adopted by the United Nations on 20 November 1959 and recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (in particular in articles 23 and 24), in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (in particular in article ten) and in the statutes and relevant instruments of specialized agencies and international organizations concerned with the welfare of children, Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth," Recalling the provisions of the Declaration on Social and Legal Principles relating to the Protection and Welfare of Children, with Special Reference to Foster Placement and Adoption Nationally and Internationally; the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice ("The Beijing Rules"); and the Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and Armed Conflict, 90 Recognizing that, in all countries in the world, there are children living in exceptionally difficult conditions, and that such children need special consideration, Taking due account of the importance of the traditions and cultural values of each people for the protection and harmonious development of the child, Recognizing the importance of international cooperation for improving the living conditions of children in every country, in particular in the developing countries, Have agreed as follows: Article 12 1. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child. 2. For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law. Article 13 1. The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice. 91 APPENDIX D: CIP STATEMENT OF VALES AND CODE OF PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE (2004) Preamble CIP Statement of Values and Code of Professional Practice Since 1919, the Canadian Institute of Planners has been dedicated to the advancement of planning – an applied science and art based upon knowledge and wisdom gained through education and experience. Although planning philosophy, theory, and practice have evolved over the years, the essential values advocated by the Institute are derived from a long and honourable tradition. Planners work for the public good, taking health, aesthetics, equity and efficiency into consideration. Planning respects the land as a community resource, contributing to the conservation of natural and cultural heritage, and promoting healthy communities and improvements to quality of life. Being accountable to their clients, the public and future generations, members of the Institute must practice in an ethical and responsible manner. Hence, the Institute has created the following Statement of Values, which is intended as a source of inspiration and guidance for professional planners in Canada. The Code of Practice forms the basis of planning practice by members; it is enforceable through the disciplinary provisions of the national membership by-law or through the complementary Code of Practice and by- laws as may be adopted by the Institute's affiliates. Statement of Values 1) To respect and integrate the needs of future generations. CIP members recognize that their work has cumulative and long-term implications. When addressing short- term needs, CIP members acknowledge the future needs of people, other species and their environments, and avoid committing resources that are irretrievable or irreplaceable. 6) To balance the needs of communities and individuals. CIP members seek to balance the interests of communities with the interests of individuals, and recognize that communities include both geographic communities and communities of interest. 7) To foster public participation. CIP members believe in meaningful public participation by all individuals and groups and seek to articulate the needs of those whose interests have not been represented. Code of Practice 1.0 The Planner's Responsibility to the Public Interest Members have a primary responsibility to define and serve the interests of the public. This requires the use of theories and techniques of planning that inform and structure debate, facilitate communication, and foster 92 understanding. Accordingly, a CIP member shall: 1.1 practice in a manner that respects the diversity, needs, values and aspirations of the public and encourages discussion on these matters; 1.4 identify and promote opportunities for meaningful participation in the planning process to all interested parties. 4.0 Discipline All complaints regarding the conduct of the members will be addressed by affiliate discipline committees. If the complaint concerns International members, the national review committee will have authority over the matter. Investigations into such complaints will be governed by the rules, regulations and procedures of the affiliate or national review committee, dependent on jurisdiction. 93 APPENDIX E: OPPI PROFESSIONAL CODE OF PRACTICE (2009) 1. PREAMBLE Members of the Institute must practice in an ethical and responsible manner. The Code of Practice forms the basis of planning practice by members; it is enforceable through the disciplinary provisions of the OPPI By-law 1-86, as amended. In Ontario, all complaints regarding the conduct of the members will be addressed by the OPPI Discipline Committee which shall have sole authority over the matter. Further, the Institute refers Members to the CIP Statement of Values, which follows as a source of inspiration and guidance for professional planners in Canada, and, as well, to the Standards of Practice contained in Schedule B, Practice Standards, of the OPPI By-law. These should be read in conjunction with this Professional Code of Practice. In the event of conflict, the Professional Code of Practice shall prevail. CIP Statement of Values: To respect and integrate the needs of future generations. CIP members recognize that their work has cumulative and long-term implications. When addressing short-term needs, CIP members acknowledge the future needs of people, other species and their environments, and are to avoid committing resources that arc irretrievable or irreplaceable. To overcome or compensate for jurisdictional limitations. CIP members understand that their work has a potential impact on many jurisdictions and interests. They must therefore practice in a holistic manner, recognizing the need to overcome the limitations of administrative boundaries. To value the natural and cultural environment. CIP members believe that both natural and cultural environments must be valued. They assume roles as stewards of these environments, balancing preservation with sustainable development. To recognize and react positively to uncertainty. CIP members believe that the long-term future is unpredictable and that adaptable and flexible responses to deal positively with this uncertainty must be developed. To respect diversity. CIP members respect and protect diversity in values, cultures, economics, ecosystems, built environments and distinct places. To balance the needs of communities and individuals. 94 CIP members seek to balance the interests of communities with the interests of individuals, and recognize that communities include both geographic communities and communities of interest. To foster public participation. CIP members believe in meaningful public participation by all individuals and groups and seek to articulate the needs of those whose interests have not been represented. To articulate and communicate values. CIP members believe in applying these values explicitly to their work and communicating their importance to clients, employers, colleagues and the public. 2. CODE OF PRACTICE 1.0 The Planner's Responsibility to the Public Interest Members have a primary responsibility to define and serve the interests of the public. This requires the use of theories and techniques of planning that inform and structure debate, facilitate communication. and foster understanding. Accordingly, a member shall: 1.1 practice in a manner that respects the diversity, needs, values and aspirations of the public and encourages discussion on these matters; 1.4 identify and promote opportunities for meaningful participation in the planning process to all interested parties. 95 APPENDIX F: RECRUITMENT SCRIPT & LETTER OF INFORMATION School of Urban & Regional Planning Sample Professionals/ Political Authorities Recruitment Script Title of Research Project: Building Up – Not Down: The Benefits of Youth Engagement in Community Revitalization: The East Scarborough Storefront Building Expansion Project Good morning/ afternoon. I am a Graduate student from Queen’s University conducting research for an independent study regarding the process of community-based planning and youth involvement in the KingstonGalloway/ Orton Park neighbourhood. I would like to know if you would assist me by answering a few questions about the changes that are taking place at the East Scarborough Storefront building, the Kingston-Galloway/ Orton Park community, and the youth involvement. You do not have to answer all of the questions, and you may leave whenever you want. I anticipate that the interview will take about 20 minutes. I will be happy to schedule the interview at your convenience. The information you supply will be used to write a report that I will submit as part of the requirements of this course. You can reach me to schedule an interview or ask any questions about this study and our course by email at: jennifer.gawor@queensu.ca. You can also contact my Supervisor, Dr. Andrejs Skaburskis, with any questions at (613) 533-6000 x 77059 or by email at: skabursk@queensu.ca. Thank you very much for your time. Jennifer L. Gawor Queen’s University School of Urban and Regional Planning M.Pl Candidate 2012 96 APPENDIX G: CDI RESEARCH INTERVIEW QUESTIONS School of Urban & Regional Planning, 138 Union Street, Kingston, ON Building Up – Not Down: The Benefits of Youth Engagement in Community Revitalization: The East Scarborough Storefront Community Design Initiative Interview questions for study participants How did you become involved with the CDI? Why did you become involved in the CDI? What are your hopes and goals for the CDI? Do you see involving youth in the planning process as a positive trend in planning/ building? Do you see involving youth in the planning process as a sustainable practice in planning/ building? In your opinion, what are some of the strengths and weaknesses in involving youth in a project like this? Do you feel involving youth in projects such as this are supported by current government policies/ initiatives? Why? Why not? Do you think this will benefit the youth of the KGOP neighbourhood? Why/ why not? How? Do you think this will benefit the Kingston-Galloway/ Orton Park Neighbourhood? Why/ why not? How? How did you get the youth involved in the Storefront CDI? What were some of the obstacles in getting the youth involved in the CDI? What were some of the solutions? How have you maintained interest and capacity for this project? How do you see you/ your firm/ company/ hub engaging youth better in the future? How has the CDI grown over the last 2-3 years? If you could start the CDI again, knowing what you know now, would you have done anything differently? Why/ why not? 97 APPENDIX H: DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION ABOUT THE KGO PRIORITY NEIGHBOURHOOD H.1. Map of Priority Neighbourhoods in the Greater Toronto Area (City of Toronto 2006) APPENDIX H: DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION ABOUT THE KGO PRIORITY NEIGHBOURHOOD 98 H.2. Ward 43 – Scarborough East boundaries (City of Toronto 2006) APPENDIX H: DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION ABOUT THE KGO PRIORITY NEIGHBOURHOOD 99 H.3. Visible minority population in KGO (City of Toronto 2006) H.4. Prominent languages spoken in Ward 43 (City of Toronto 2006) APPENDIX H: DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION ABOUT THE KGO PRIORITY NEIGHBOURHOOD 100 H.5. Income of KGO (City of Toronto 2006) H.6. Dominant occupations in KGO (City of Toronto 2006) H.7. Employment in Ward 43 vs. the City of Toronto (City of Toronto 2006) 101 APPENDIX H: DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION ABOUT THE KGO PRIORITY NEIGHBOURHOOD H.8. Owned vs. rented tenure in Ward 43 (City of Toronto 2006) H.9. Level of education completed in KGO vs. the City of Toronto (City of Toronto 2006) 102 APPENDIX H: DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION ABOUT THE KGO PRIORITY NEIGHBOURHOOD H.10. Age variation in the KGO area (City of Toronto, 2006) Services Highly Needed in the Community H.11. Child and youth services needed in KGO (ANC Resident Survey 2009) Thoughts and suggestions for improving programs for children and youth from the participants: The participants suggested 103 full-day school days through all Ontario schools and more programs for youth. More parks and play ground, recreation programs that are fully free of charge for those poverty aread and low-income people. APPENDIX H: DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION ABOUT THE KGO PRIORITY NEIGHBOURHOOD Appendix A: Human Services Map of KGO Neighbourhood (Census 2006) H.12. Human Services Map of KGO Neighbourhood (City of Toronto 2006) 104 APPENDIX H: DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION ABOUT THE KGO PRIORITY NEIGHBOURHOOD H.13. Population changes in Ward 43 between 2001 and 2006 (City of Toronto 2006) APPENDIX I: INFORMATION & SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ABOUT THE CDI 105 I.1. Weekly CDI design class with KGO youth and professional mentors (ERA Architects, 2012) APPENDIX I: INFORMATION & SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ABOUT THE CDI 106 I.2. The Phases of the CDI. Adapted from the Laidlaw Foundation (2012) Phase 1 2 Goal Description Master Plan for Master plan creation with the CDI youth the facility and site Site Plan Approval/ Zoning By-Law amendment Process within the City The Employment and Resource Centre Creating and building a larger space for the public computer lab and Employment Ontario Job Search Centre Constructing 2 new offices to be used to accommodate 8 new partner agencies at the Storefront Creating a more aesthetically pleasing and comfortable atmosphere for the main entrance and lobby 3 The Eco Food Hub Construction of a commercial grade community kitchen to support and accommodate food certification and training courses; entrepreneurship opportunities; healthy eating and community food programs; environmentally sound food practices; and other community food inspired programs. 4 Green Retrofit Construction of Green heating, cooling, lighting, and water-use systems Use of recycled and natural building materials to ensure that the Storefront is a sustainable and using green programming West Building Expansion Construction of a 2,500 sq./ft. addition to the building’s ground floor on the west side Construction of 3 new offices for use by 12 new partner agencies Space will act to double gathering space for community meetings and forums; cultural, art, and health programs and activities; celebrations; and more Second Floor Expansion Construction of a 5,500 sq./ft. second floor addition Construction of 15 new offices for use by dozens of new partner agencies and meeting rooms Construction of a rooftop patio, greenhouse, and bridge connection to the outside community garden Site Landscaping and Integration with Apartment Towers adjacent Green Space Increasing and improving usable outdoor space through the planting of lowresource and low-maintenance vegetation The introduction of bio swales to collect and filter run-off and rain water The creation of public recreational space and walkways The development of a path system that connects the Storefront to the community garden, Morningside Park, and the Highland Creek ravine 5 6 7 APPENDIX I: INFORMATION & SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ABOUT THE CDI 107 I.3. The overarching goals of the CDI. Adapted from the Laidlaw Foundation (2012) Goals of the CDI 1 Design and build a safe accessible space at 4040 Lawrence that will support community members of all ages and cultures to find and share the supports and resources they need. 2 Design and build a community space in which the Storefront model can grow and flourish. 3 Support local youth to be the lead designers of the project. 4 Build the capacity of local youth by introducing them to the possibilities offered through various professions, including design, architecture, project management and numerous trades. 5 Use a co-creation approach to the project that would ensure reciprocal learning at all levels: professionals learning from the youth while youth learn from professionals and from each other. 6 Where possible, provide economic opportunities for local residents. 7 Include the broader community in guiding the overall direction of the project. 8 Use sustainable materials and reuse or reclaim wherever possible. 9 Develop and implement a community design process model that can be replicated by others. 10 Use a multi-media approach to capture the community design process and share it across the community. APPENDIX I: INFORMATION & SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ABOUT THE CDI 108 109 I.4. [Beginning on previous page, from top to bottom] Frontal rendering of the Storefront building before construction; after west expansion and revitalization; after second floor expansion and revitalization, and after rooftop overpass (Sustainable.TO, 2012) 110 APPENDIX I: INFORMATION & SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ABOUT THE CDI I.5. The framework/curriculum of the CDI. Adapted from the Laidlaw Foundation (2012) Facilitating Meaningful Youth Leadership 1 Engage youth to help them envision, articulate and share their overall dreams for their community...and their Community Centre. 2 Exploring with youth the materials and tools that can be used to design creative spaces. 3 Introducing youth to progressive, enthusiastic, respectful and fun professionals who will help them to learn the skills they need to bring creative spaces to reality. 4 Supporting design professionals to work authentically with local youth, ensuring that the youth are the one’s leading the design process. 5 Developing effective communication mechanisms to ensure a true partnership among professionals, residents and community organizers. 6 Exploring with youth the possible ways they can contribute not only to the design and building of their Community Centre, but possibilities for their future. 7 Trusting the youth and the process: making sure youth know what decisions that can make and then trusting that they will make them well. 8 Welcoming all local youth who want to contribute: university students, high school drop outs, youth with special needs etc. 9 Building curriculum and process that starts where the youth are adapts to the youth who are present at each planning day. 10 Developing meaningful curriculum that corresponds directly to the next phase of construction. 11 Putting every effort into securing funding and working out logistics so that the youth can see the realization of their planning and designs as immediately as possible. 12 Building curriculum and process that starts where the youth are adapts to the youth who are present at each planning day. 13 Developing meaningful curriculum that corresponds directly to the next phase of construction. 14 Putting every effort into securing funding and working out logistics so that the youth can see the realization of their planning and designs. 111 APPENDIX I: INFORMATION & SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ABOUT THE CDI I.6. A diversity of learning (from left to right) model building; design drafting (Architext Inc., 2011) I.7. Youth presenting building designs at a Community Speak meeting in KGO (Gawor, media archive, 2009) 112 APPENDIX I: INFORMATION & SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ABOUT THE CDI I.8. The East Scarborough Storefront Vision and Mission (Gawor, Media Archive, 2012) 113 APPENDIX I: INFORMATION & SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ABOUT THE CDI I.9. The Storefront supported KGO youth engagement opportunity (The Bridging Project at KGO, 2011) 114 APPENDIX I: INFORMATION & SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ABOUT THE CDI I.10. Youth “KGO” floor tile design idea (bottom left) (Sustainable.TO, 2012) I.11. KGO youth at the CDI design charrette at the Design Exchange in Toronto (Architext Inc., 2011) 115