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