confidential working draft fyap report to mayor

8/3/2019 Confidential Working Draft FYAP report to Mayor

1/29

Macintosh HD:Users:macbookpro:Downloads:lenbrownsagendatorailroadyoungpeoplerevealed:Confidential WorkingdraftFYAPreporttoMayor.doc

Confidential Working draft: 29 September 2011

Report Name: Establishing a local and regional youthparticipation and development programmeFile No.:

Executive Summary

When elected, Mayor Len Brown announced the establishment of an interim regional youth bodyas one of his 100 days projects. A Foundation Youth Advisory Panel (FYAP) was established inFebruary 2011 to develop a permanent youth participation model, and in particular, recommend alocal infrastructure to replace the legacy youth councils and forums by 2012.

This report sets out four proposed models for a new local-level youth participation and youth

development programme for Auckland, explains the process used to design the models, andinvites local boards to resolve on which model they wish to apply in their respective areas.

The four models outlined in Part A and B of the report are:

1. Ward-affiliated youth board2. Local Board-affiliated youth board

3. Local Board-affiliated youth caucus

4. Pan-local youth body

After providing general background, the report is broken into two parts. Part A reflects the viewsand formal advice of the Foundation Youth Advisory Panel (FYAP). This section summarises:

the development and consultation processes the FYAP has followed,

the FYAPs proposed regional youth participation model,

a summary of the three local youth participation models the FYAP has developed,

a summary of the strengths and weaknesses of each of these local models, reflectingfeedback from consultation,

principles of youth engagement, and

implementation issues from the FYAPs perspective.

Part B contains information prepared by Council officers. This sets out the proposed fourth modelfor local youth participation, provides indicative costings for all models and proposes animplementation plan. The reports attachments provide more detailed information about the fourmodels, consultation feedback, youth engagement principles, the status of the legacy youth

councils and forums, and proposed selection and recruitment processes for the local and regionalyouth participation bodies.

Following the formal consultation period undertaken by the FYAP with youth and stakeholdersacross Auckland, it was clear that Option 2 the Local board-affiliated youth board was the

preferred option for structuring youth participation at the local level. Subsequently, informalfeedback was received from some local boards and Council staff, indicating that establishing 21

separate youth bodies as proposed could be challenging for some local boards to implement andresource. Further, in some cases, local boards might already be working together as a cluster, andmay prefer to work collaboratively with a single pan-local youth body. Accordingly, officers havedrawn up Option 4 to address this possibility.

Regardless of which model/s are adopted by individual local boards, each local board area willsend one representative to sit on a regional Youth Advisory Panel.


2/29

Macintosh HD:Users:macbookpro:Downloads:lenbrownsagendatorailroadyoungpeoplerevealed:Confidential Working

draftFYAPreporttoMayor.doc Page 2

Recommendations

1) That the report be received.

2) That local boards consider the models for structuring youth participation presented in thisreport and resolve on which model they would prefer to implement in their local area.

3) That local boards note that Option 2, the Local Board-affiliated youth board model, is the

Foundation Youth Advisory Panels recommended model. This would see 21 local youthboards established with scope to run additional forums, events and activities for young peoplein each local board area.

4) That local boards note that the resolution requested at (2) above indicates their preference in

principle. However, implementation of the model will be subject to adequate resourcecommitment from Council.

5) That local boards note that they are encouraged to work with their local youth board/caucus inalignment with established principles for youth development.

6) That local boards note that a regional youth advisory panel structure is being proposed to theGoverning Body in December.

7) That local boards note that their resolutions relating to (b) above will be reported to theGoverning Body for their information.

Background

We can contribute to the positive development of young people by creating opportunities for them toinfluence, inform, shape, design and contribute to an idea or activity

Learning by doing, and being involved in decision-making, is part of young peoples contribution to changesin society. Providing opportunities for young people to be involved in real issues in partnership with adultsshows young people that their skills, ideas and views are valued.

From Keepin It Real (Ministry of Youth Development)

(Respect for the views of the child):When adults are making decisions that affect children and young people,children and young people have the right to say what they think should happen and have their opinions takeninto account.

From Article 12: United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child!

Council has both a statutory and moral obligation to involve young people in its decision-making,

and the Mayor has identified Putting Children and Young People Firstas a key approach tobuilding strong communities. Working directly with youth also helps to ensure that Council will offeryouth activities, programmes and engagement opportunities at all levels that will work for young

people and meet their needs. Council can play an important role in creating a framework for young

people to participate constructively in decision-making about their communities. Providingopportunities for young people to problem-solve real issues in partnership with adults shows youngpeople that their contributions are valued, and plays a key part in developing citizenship andengagement throughout life.

Creating a regional infrastructure for youth participation

During 2010, representatives of the seven legacy youth councils worked together to advocate for a

regional youth council and mechanisms for youth participation in decision-making at the local levelto be incorporated into the new Auckland Council. After making written and verbal submissions to

the Auckland Governance Reorganisation Bill, the combined representatives held discussions withthe Auckland Transition Agency and submitted a proposal for establishing an interim youth counciltasked with developing a permanent youth participation infrastructure for Auckland.

When elected, Mayor Len Brown announced the establishment of an interim regional youth body

as one of his 100 days projects. The Foundation Youth Advisory Panel (FYAP) was established in


3/29



February 2011 to serve an interim term, and each of the seven legacy youth councils and forums

nominated three young people to serve on the panel.

The Foundation Youth Advisory Panel (FYAP)

The FYAPs central task has been to develop and consult on options for a permanent regionalyouth participation model, and in particular, a local infrastructure to replace the legacyarrangements by 2012. Their Terms of Reference state that, The primary role of the Foundation

Panel will be to develop the final model for the Youth Advisory Panel and the best approach toengage with Auckland youth and to develop a long-term model for youth engagement at both thegoverning body and local board levels by November 2011. (Refer Attachment 1)

There have been four key phases of the FYAPs work:

March to May - defining their role, agreeing terms of reference, meeting practices, scope oftheir advice to Council and their work programme

May to June - developing options for the permanent local and regional youth participation

infrastructure

June to August - consulting with young people and stakeholders to gain feedback on theyouth participation models and youth engagement strategies

August to September - refining recommendations for the principles and the local andregional infrastructure for youth engagement

Part A: Advice of the Foundation Youth Advisory Panel

This section of the report outlines the Foundation Youth Advisory Panels advice andrecommendations to Council for developing a youth participation programme for Auckland.

General principles of youth engagement

Young peoples relationship with Council and local boards needs to be meaningful, give youngpeople ownership and choice over their participation, connect them to decision-makers and providea big picture of what is happening in Auckland.

Young people want to have a strong relationship with Council, and, as a minimum, be consultedand informed about decision-making. They want to be more visible, to be given opportunities toengage meaningfully and to ensure their needs and wants are taken into account in planning,policy and expenditure decisions. Ideally, young people want Council to come to where they are,rather than expect young people to know how to navigate Councils consultation and decision-making processes. It is important that the relationship with local boards (and Council as a whole)be clearly defined for those young people choosing to join youth bodies.

See Attachment 6 for a more detailed set of guiding principles for youth engagement.

Regional youth participation model the Youth Advisory Panel

The basic structure and remit of the regional Youth Advisory Panel will reflect other special interest

regional advisory panels already established and will follow the purpose from the council approvedTerms of Reference and Delegations of the Governing Body, committees, sub-committees, forumsand panels.

The proposed purposes of the regional Youth Advisory Panel (the Panel) are as follows:

Identify and communicate to Council the interests and preferences of the youth of

Auckland in relation to:

o the content of the strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws of the Council, especiallythe economic development strategy; and

o any matter that the Panel considers to be of particular interest or concern to the

youth of Auckland.

Advise the Mayor and the Councils governing body and local boards, of the Councilprocesses and mechanisms for engagement with the youth in Auckland, and

Consider any regional issues raised by the local youth bodies.


4/29



Membership of the Youth Advisory Panel

It is proposed that membership of the regional body will be made up of young people aged 12-24years nominated from their local board area. Presence of half of the members (if an even number)or a majority (if an odd number) will constitute a quorum.

It is recommended that members will serve a two-year term. Each year, half of the members termwill end and be replaced by new members. This will help to ensure sustainability for the Panel.

Local boards can co-opt a new representative for their local board area in cases where theirnominated representative resigns from the Panel. Where a member of the Panel is unable toattend a meeting a proxy from the local board may attend. Proxies do not have voting rights on the

panel. The panel would like to recommend a July-June membership term be trialled, withrecruitment for members starting in Youth Week. This fits well with the financial year of Council.

See Attachment 5 for further information about the regional Panel.

Local youth participation model Options 1-3

A subcommittee of FYAP members was formed to develop several options for the local level youth

infrastructure, informed by the combined youth councils submission to the select committee andthe ATA.

The sub-committee considered but discounted several models for local youth engagement based

on larger sub-regional cluster structures. The main reasons for this were that the clusters coveredtoo great an area to be manageable, young people were unlikely to identify with an entire sub-region compared with a smaller area, and the clusters would not connect readily into the Local

Board structure. After considering the strengths and weaknesses of 8-10 possible models, thesubcommittee proposed three models of local youth engagement, which the Foundation YouthAdvisory Panel approved for further consultation on 13 June 2011.

A table summarising the key features of the three options is provided below for quick reference,followed by a brief narrative description of each model and a summary of the key strengths andrisks. Detailed descriptions and a full list of the strengths and risks of each option are provided asAttachment 4.

Local youth participation models quick reference table

Model No. ofbodies

Local board clusters Key benefits Key risks

(1)

Ward-affiliatedyouth body

13Based on AucklandCouncils 13 wards

More cost effective - feweryouth bodies to support

Provides adequate coverageof the region

Local boards could worktogether on youth-relatedissues and opportunities

Structure aligns with existingboundaries

Young people may notidentify with larger areas

Very local-specific issues maynot get discussion time

Harder for members to gettogether

Youth bodies could beovertaxed during major workperiods

(2)

LB-affiliatedyouth board

21 Voluntary and informal

More manageable territory to

cover means more realisticworkload, fewer stakeholders

Works well new council co-governance structure

Youth board structureprovides focus and drive - canstill run youth forums as well

Current budgets and staffresources are insufficient tosupport

21 youth boards could spreadthe pool of young people toothin


5/29



(3)

LB-affiliatedyouthcaucus

21 Voluntary and informal

Relaxed and youth-friendly wider appeal

Facilitates involvement ofyouth organisations

Able to focus on a broadrange of topics, not justCouncil-identified issues

Manageable territory size,fewer stakeholders

Works well with new co-governance structure

More casual structure may beless sustainable

Core members would still

have to function much like ayouth board to providenecessary focus and drive

Some local boards want

youth body to be act as aquick reference group ifboard needs fast turnaround

Please note: a quick reference to Option 4 developed by officers is on page 9, in Part B of this report.

Option 1: Ward-affiliated youth board

This option would establish 13 separate youth boards, comprised of local young people committedto working with the local board(s) and other local stakeholders in their ward. The youth boardwould have a formal committee/working group structure with a set membership base. Memberswould meet regularly to identify, discuss and provide feedback on local issues from a youthperspective, work on local youth projects, gain valuable skills and learn about local government.

The youth board would go out to engage other youth in the ward through one-off workshops,forums and events.

Strengths and risks

On balance, a youth board-led model (with scope to run forums as well) is likely to offer moreadvantages than a caucus-led model (see Option 3). The ward affiliated-youth board is more cost-effective than the other two models, as it requires less administration and support. However, itwould still require the participation, and therefore resourcing, of a large number of young people many of whom would have further to travel to meet with other young people in their ward. Thereare concerns around the high workload for members, and questions as to whether young people

would identify as easily and work as effectively across these larger areas. Further, working as a

ward would force some local boards to collaborate, regardless of their approaches to/prioritiesaround youth engagement.

Option 2: Local board-affiliated youth board (FYAP-recommended option)

This option would establish 21 separate youth boards, comprised of local young people committedto working with their local board and other stakeholders in their area. The youth board would havea formal committee/working group structure with a set membership base. Members would meet

regularly to identify, discuss and provide feedback on local issues from a youth perspective, workon local youth projects, gain valuable skills and learn about local government. The youth board

would go out to engage other youth in the local board area through forums and one-off workshops,and events. !Strengths and risksA very clear consensus emerged that this is the preferred option for structuring youth participationat the local level. The majority of young people, local board representatives and youth sector

stakeholders indicated their support for this model. With 21 youth boards rather than 13 (as in theward-based model), groups would have a more manageable territory to cover and only one localboard to engage with. This would make a real difference to the quality of input they can provide.Being drawn from a smaller local area than the ward model, participants should have a better

understanding of local issues and opportunities, a sense of pride in their area, and a clearinvestment in the success of local projects and activities. This model also ties in effectively withCouncils new local boundaries and governance structure supporting a strong identification and

relationship with the local board. The youth boards can still elect to work in ward-level or sub-regional clusters where it makes sense to do so.

Unlike the looser caucus-led model, a dedicated youth board serving an annual term could provide

the necessary focus and drive to identify local issues and concerns, develop ideas and initiatives in


6/29



response, and follow up on commitments made to their local boards and other stakeholders.

However, choosing this model would not preclude the holding of youth forums on an as-neededbasis, and many participants supported this option with the caveat that youth forum events shouldstill be held regularly. Holding youth forums as well means that local young people who are unlikely

to engage in more formal settings can still participate.

Option 3: Local board-affiliated youth caucus

This is a more casual, less structured model of youth engagement, establishing 21 separate youthforums that may choose to link together in a cluster on an occasional or regular basis. The youth

caucus model consists of a series of informal meetings/events attended by fluctuating numbers oflocal young people, supported by a core working group of young people to ensure continuity.Regular or semi-regular forums would be staged throughout the year, to give local youth an

opportunity to express their ideas, opinions and needs to decision makers, communitystakeholders or other youth. These could be convened around an issue, theme, opportunity or

need for consultation, or on a calendar basis. The core working group would be supported to helpplan and organise youth forums, work on local youth projects, gain valuable skills and learn aboutlocal government.

Strengths and risks

This option was the second most-preferred model. The main appeal of the youth caucus format isthat it is more relaxed, youth-friendly, and likely to attract a wider variety of young people than themore traditional youth board/youth council format. Caucus events are also likely to cover a broader

array of issues than formal youth board meetings, because they offer a more flexible, responsive,grassroots-led environment for discussion. However, choosing the youth board model does not

preclude the holding of forums on a regular basis.

Again, the local-board affiliated youth caucus option ties in effectively with Councils new local

boundaries and governance structure, and groups organising youth forums and events can stillelect to work in clusters. With 21 youth bodies groups would have a more manageable territory to

cover, only one local board to engage with and a stronger focus on local issues and opportunities.However, relationships are unlikely to be as close or productive as with the youth board model, dueto the more informal nature of youth forums and the fluctuating involvement of local young people.The caucus model relies in large part on securing a committed working group of young people toprovide the necessary focus and drive to identify local issues and concerns, develop ideas andinitiatives in response, help organise and lead the forums, and work in partnership with their localboards and other stakeholders. However, in the absence of the more explicit membership

commitment of a youth board, it is a risk to rely on this happening organically.

Implementation issues

Selection processes

Selection of young people to youth participation structures is critical to the success of the young

peoples engagement. Legacy youth councils and forums have mixed models for selection and

recruitment ranging from open membership, nominations, school elections, and applications.

Selection and recruitment processes have been a critical debate for the FYAP in considering thedevelopment of new youth engagement structures. The debate has considered how youth

engagement structures are able to represent the diversity of Auckland youth and establish a strongmandate for young people to represent their peers through democratic processes. There is a need

to grow youth participation structures reach to engage youth not usually represented or attracted totraditional youth councils. The focus they have agreed follows an approach that grows activecitizens and supports all young people to step up, represent and have a voice.

The FYAPs preferred system for local youth body selection is to follow a nomination/self-nomination and youth election process. For the recruitment to the Youth Advisory Panelrepresentatives are to be nominated to the panel by the ward or local youth board which has been

elected. In the situations where a local board follows the caucus model or where local board doesnot have a youth board, the representative should be democratically elected by peers to sit onpanel. FYAPs recommendations around selection of youth body members are appended as


7/29



Attachment 7. Further guidance on this will be provided in an implementation toolkit for local

boards.

Ensuring a balance between regional consistency and local flexibility

Whichever option local boards select, there is a need for Council to ensure a balance of regionalconsistency and local flexibility with regard to youth participation. It is important for local youngpeople to be able to structure their youth body in a way that suits their geographical area, works for

them and their peers, and reflects their communitys identified priorities. At the same time, youngpeople need confidence that they will be engaged meaningfully and constructively regardless ofwhere in Auckland they live. This means that all local youth bodies should ideally be organisedusing established best practice principles for youth participation, and have a minimum commitment

from Council sufficient to resource and support their activities.

The following basic assumptions will apply to youth bodies across the region, regardless of whichof the models is selected in each local board area:

All of the models will need to work with existing youth groups, networks and bodies

All models will rely on engaging a diverse range of young people to represent thepopulation of young people in the area

Council will need to provide adequate resourcing for local youth engagement to be effective

Meanwhile, local boards and participating young people themselves - will need to have flexibilityto respond to local needs and circumstances in structuring and running their local youth body.

Further information around the flexibility of implementation will be provided by officers and in atoolkit being developed for local boards. Accordingly, although guidance will be given to boards

who request it, this report does not make firm recommendations on the following aspects:

Number of members

Regularity and structure of meetings/forums

Organising more locally within the local board area

Financing of local youth events/activities/programmes


8/29

Establishing a local and regional youth participation and developmentprogramme

Attachment 1: Terms of Reference for the Foundation YouthAdvisory Panel

Mayors Vision

This project supports the Mayors vision of making Auckland the most liveable city with thefocus on creating cohesive resilient communities with strong local identity, engaging diversecommunities in Aucklands future, and ensuring that all our people feel they belong. Thisvision and focus are underpinned by values of being specifically inclusive, courageous,

prudent, fair and innovative.

1 - Background

Auckland Council Youth Advisory Panel

To meet the Mayoral Vision of creating the worlds most liveable city, the Auckland Councilis serious about Auckland being a great place for young people to live, learn, work andthrive.

Youth representatives of the seven legacy youth councils and forums made submissionsrecommending a regional youth voice and vehicle for engagement with the AucklandCouncil.

The establishment of a Youth Advisory Panel was highlighted early on as one of the Mayorspriorities for the Auckland Council, to ensure youth are included in council decision-making

and the governance of Auckland. As a result, the Youth Advisory Panel is included in theMayors 100 projects. This demonstrates Auckland Councils commitment to youth and theextent to which it values young people and their contributions to their city and communities.

The Youth Advisory Panel will foster conversations between young people and the AucklandCouncil and connect young people with council decision-making, programmes and events.To support this engagement Councillor Goudie has been chosen as the Council Liaison for

the Youth Advisory Panel.

Auckland Council Foundation Youth Advisory Panel (Foundation Panel)

At the end of 2010, it was agreed that a Foundation Youth Advisory Panel (Foundation

Panel) be established by February 2011. The Foundation Panel will have a single termduring 2011 from March November. The Foundation Panel will act as an interim paneluntil the form, function and selection processes for the ongoing Youth Advisory Panel andlocal youth forums are established.

The Foundation Panel will have representatives from youth councils and youth forums of theprevious seven territorial local authorities in the Auckland region. In addition, it is proposedthat these existing forums remain in place as transitional arrangements until future local andregional structures are agreed. Funding for legacy youth councils and forums is includedwithin the Auckland Council 2010-2011 budget.

Below is a broad framework that defines the terms of reference for the Foundation Panel.

This draft terms of reference is a guide to assist the foundation panel during its huiorientation.


9/29


10/29

term model for youth engagement at both the governing body and local board levels (byNovember 2011).

There will also be opportunities for the Foundation Panel to provide input into other councilbusiness as outlined below.

4.1 Key strategies and plans, for example:

Auckland Plan Auckland Council Strategy and Policy

Local Board plans

4.2 Issues referenced:

Council Committees and Forums

Local Boards Maori Statutory Board

Other Council Advisory Panels

5 - Meeting Protocol

5.1 Representation

Panel members may be represented by proxies should they be unable to attend a

meeting.

5.2 Chairing of meetingsThe chairperson and deputy chairperson for the Foundation Youth Advisory Panel will beelected from nominations at the first meeting of the panel.

5.3 Role of Councillor Goudie

Councillor Goudie will act as a liaison between the Foundation Youth Advisory Panel and theAuckland Council.

5.3 Decision Making

Decision making will focus on consensus building, where consensus cannot be

reached a voting system may be elected. The Foundation Panel will engage with stakeholders to develop and test concepts and

models for the Youth Advisory Panel.

The Foundation Youth Advisory panel will utilise the following decision makingprocesses (points A-D, or C-D may be repeated, in refining and checking the YAPmodel):

a) Framing (clarify purpose, boundaries timelines of the decision);

b) Deciding (define how the decision will be made, based on what information,and who needs to be involved);

c) Communicating and gaining feedback (consultation and engagement);

d) Refine and redevelop model;

e) Implementing;

f) Evaluating.

5.4 Confidentiality


11/29

Members agree that all business shall be confidential and shall not be discussed outside themembership of the Panel, except, where it has been agreed by a majority.

5.5 Schedule of meetings

The Forum will meet nine times during 2011

6 - Resources and Budget

The Foundation Panel will be supported by staff skilled in youth engagement anddemocracy services

The Foundation Panel will be appropriately resourced to support their engagement andcommunication with stakeholders and the other tasks of the panel

Auckland Council will be responsible for contributing the required officer time and

budget for the effective operation of the Foundation Panel


12/29

Establishing a local and regional youth participation and development programme

Attachment 3: Additional feedback from consultation

The central purpose of the consultation phase was to seek the views of key stakeholders on the

three options for local youth participation. However, a secondary intention was to gather generalfeedback and guidance on shaping youth engagement in Auckland, and many helpful points weremade by participants. This feedback is summarised below.

Underlying principles for youth participation

Key messages and conclusions:

There must be clear processes for ensuring young people find out how their feedback wasreceived, by who, how their ideas will be turned into actions, and how long it could take tosee change

Recognition of Maori, Te Tiriti O Waitangi and tikanga Maori must be built into the structureand processes of the chosen model, with appropriate training provided for participants toensure understanding

Representation of Aucklands diverse cultural, ethnic and religious communities and youngpeople with disabilities is critically important

Other points:

Council needs to be clear about how participating will benefit youth

The Youth Development Strategy Aotearoa (YDSA), and best practice around effectiveyouth participation should be used as a philosophical underpinning for the chosen model.Following best practice ensures that Council is developing effective programmes thatenhance our reputation and follow a philosophy that youth services and youth arecommitted to.

The term youth councils carries connotations from past structures and may discourage

some young people from becoming involved. Could consider youth boards youththinktanks or youth panels as alternatives

Structural issues


Even if the caucus model were adopted, focused working groups with committed memberswould still be required to organise and lead forums, see resulting work through and toprovide a reference group for the local board between forums

Even if the youth board model were adopted, forums should still be a key tool for youthcouncils and local boards to regularly involve larger numbers of young people in a moreinformal way

It is preferable for local boards to work in clusters as they wish/need, rather than beingcompelled to do so

There may be a need for some youth councils/forums to organise another layer ofsubcommittees, meetings or forums that works on a more local level than the ward/local

board area especially in larger or more heavily/diversely populated areas

Other points:

Great Barrier and Waiheke Islands will need to find a solution that works for their special

circumstances


13/29

The model could include seeking formal youth representation on, or input into CCOs(Council-Controlled Organisations)

Resourcing


Adequate resourcing will be critical to the success of any of the models. Council hasdemonstrated willingness to invest in supporting local board community engagement thisshould include facilitating the youth voice

Young people will want to see positive evidence that their priorities are being reflected inlocal and regional planning processes and accompanying budgets

Other points:

In the absence of cost analysis it is difficult to assess which model is most viable, andresourcing will be influenced by Council and local board financial allocations

Council officer time allocated to supporting youth engagement should be concentrated at

the local board level. Local boards could resource many of the other costs themselves

It is unclear who will cover the costs of running the youth participation model at the localboard level for the first six months of 2012 i.e. prior to negotiation of local boardagreements for the 2012/13 financial year

Relationship with local boards


Aucklands young people represent 20% of the population so local boards have both amoral and practical responsibility to help resource meaningful engagement with them, andto ensure their needs and wants are reflected in planning, policy and expenditure decisions

It is important that the relationship with local boards (and Council as a whole) be clearlydefined for young people serving on local youth bodies. For example:

o What can they expect on a week-to-week, month-to-month basis?

o Who will hold the relationship on Councils side? Is there one board memberspecifically delegated to work with them? Who should they contact with questions?What will the role of Council officers be?

o How often will they meet with the board/board members or be asked to contributeto the boards work?

o Will they be consulted on general business as a matter of course, or only on key

local plans/policies, or only on youth-specific policies, or?

o Will they be advised of/involved in meetings between the local board and otheryouth sector stakeholders from the local area?

o What will happen to any contributions they make/feedback they give?

o Will they be publicly acknowledged if so how?

o How is the local board going to be supporting their work (e.g. contributingresources, paying their expenses, public acknowledgement)?

Some local boards want their youth council to be willing to act as a standing referencegroup if youth feedback is sought between formal business meetings

Some boards have already set up their own youth councils or advisory boards these will

need to be incorporated into the new structureOther points:


14/29

Some decision-making and/or expenditure could be formally delegated by local boards totheir youth councils e.g. spending funds for youth events and activities

Has the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board set a precedent by granting formal youthrepresentation with speaking rights? What would stop other special interest groups from

demanding this kind of representation?

Need to educate local boards about informing young people on a range of issues, not justyouth issues

Training for local boards would create opportunities to upskill adults in engaging with youngpeople

There could be scope to run a formal internship programme for young people providing a

clear pathway for future civic leaders

Working with other stakeholders


The new local youth bodies should establish close links with existing youthcrews/groups/networks in their areas, and ensure clarity for all parties in terms of thenature, purpose and conduct of these relationships

The youth advisory panel should consider how it would like to relate to key agencies like the

Office of the Childrens Commission, the Ministry of Youth Development and Youthlaw.

Council officers should undertake a comprehensive survey of existing youth organisations,groups and networks in each area for the local board/youth body

Dont want to take away from the strength and mandate of existing youthcrews/groups/networks need to be clear that the new structure wont replace orsupersede what is already there

Membership of youth boards


There is a need to ensure local youth bodies represent young people who are:

o from a wide range of ethnic and cultural groups, reflecting local communities

o disabled

o of intermediate school age

o in alternative education, special education units or distance education

o in tertiary education

o not in formal education

o in apprenticeships or vocational training

o in work

o young parents

o international students

This may not be possible on every youth body, but should be seen as the ideal. In manycases, a diverse group will not be able to be achieved without some co-opting or proactivelyseeking nominations from organisations working with special interest communities andmore marginalised youth


15/29

It will be important to ensure high school students dont make up a disproportionate numberof youth council members, as historically many youth councils have been run as a school-oriented initiative, with places given as a reward for achievement

Being well connected in local youth communities is an important criterion for selection. In

many cases, young people who are street will have their finger on the local youth pulse

more than the civic-minded high achievers

2012 may need to be a transitional year with co-opting/seconding /nominations to fill places,with these members tasked with working out a fairer/more robust/etc. selection process to

apply locally in future years

There was a consensus that each youth body should be able to agree its own process forappointment (probably in consultation with their local board), but it will need to be affordable

and result in a representative and workable group. Council officers could prepare guidelinesaround the various options and their risks and benefits

Numbers and make-up of youth councils should be left completely open, at least for the firstyear, so individual groups can do their best to reflect their circumstances

Other points:

There are several options for how members could be appointed by nomination, self-nomination, election from forums or via social media, co-option, registration of interest,

lottery, interview/CV Should the local boards play a role in deciding who the members oftheir local youth body will be? How will diverse representation be ensured?

There are concerns about electing members as whether elections are real-world (e.g.

run at forums) or virtual (e.g. via Facebook), membership of youth bodies would depend onwho could marshal the most supporters in a short time

Existing youth crews/groups/networks/student bodies etc. could be asked to send delegatesto sit on new local youth councils/working groups

Should eligibility for youth council membership be based on area of origin, term-timeresidence or school/work locations?

Numbers could reflect the number of members of the local board as a starting point, thoughothers argue that these numbers are too small and experience shows that larger groupsfunction better given the many demands on young peoples time

Working out numbers based on local youth populations would be another option

Forums


Regardless of the model chosen, youth forums/events are seen as an important tool for

engaging a wide range of young people who are unable or unwilling to make a regularcommitment, and should be held regularly at least one per term

Forums will need experienced youth-friendly people to run them if they are to succeed.

Ideally forums will be led by local young people with skilled adults working alongside tosupport them

Forums should be informal, comfortable environments and have several incentives to getyoung people along, not just food, but another reason to come e.g.:

o sports (touch, volleyball, tag) or other fun activities

o kapa haka

o music and entertainment

o screening major sports events or movie nights


16/29

o prizes

o visiting speakers (celebrities?)

o finding out about local education, training and employment opportunities

o creative workshops

o CV-writing clinics

Timing of events should work for young people, not just fit in with Councils schedule

Other points:

Forums are fantastic provided that they are youth-centred and not convened bygovernment as a bureaucratically-driven consultative exercise

Running similar events at the same time every year helps to build a fan-base and ensurepeople will plan to attend

Forums could be run in/for/by individual local board areas, or be supported by a cluster

Providing childcare/crche facilities would enable young parents to attend

Forums could tackle more than one topic no need to restrict it too much and not focusingtoo narrowly could help get a wider group along. Young people should take the lead on

identifying the issues most important to them

The YAP


It is important that the right connections get made at the right level, and intelligence isshared between the different layers of the structure i.e. setting clear systems in place toensure the YAP is kept abreast of important local issues, and regional issues flow backdown to the local youth bodies

Generally, it will be important to clearly define the two layers local and regional and the

connections between them, different roles and responsibilities, official lines ofcommunication etc.

YAP representatives could be chosen by officers and youth representatives through anomination and selection process to ensure diversityasking the question who is best to

represent regional issues?

Other points:

How will youth councils/forums select their representative to the YAP? As with membershipof the local youth bodies, there are several options for how members could be appointed

Some people have concerns that there is too big a jump between the local board andregional level, and make the case for having some sort of interim layer. An example couldbe regional issue/theme-based forums or working groups reporting to the YAP, involvingany members of local youth councils/forums who want to volunteer

Communicating with young people


Council needs to do more work around finding out how young people prefer to be engaged

the Auckland Plan postcards were a great idea but didnt work for everyone languageissues, types of questions, timeframe for feedback etc.

Youth councils/forums should have as a key part of their mandate the requirement to try to

engage with harder-to-reach groups on their own turf if necessary (schools, malls,churches, sports clubs, the youth justice system, on the street)


17/29

The local and regional youth bodies and events should be widely publicised on theinternet, through schools, community and youth centres, parenting services, via existinggroups and youth communications networks/channels

Providing opportunities to comment, discuss, vote and find out about events and

opportunities online is really important. Online spaces can be accessed readily, are familiar

territory, and offer youth an easy way to contribute their views without having to commit tojoining a working group or speaking in public. Plus information can spread to a wideaudience very quickly

Local boards need to provide a consultation calendar so young people can fully participatein engagement exercises. Last-minute consultation can be interpreted as a lack of serious

interest or genuine intention to listen and understand

It must be clear who is responsible for following up when feedback is given by youngpeople and what the timeframe will be for hearing back

Young people want to get to know their councillors and local board members itsimportant to put a face to the name and establish a two-way relationship

Other points:

Many young people arent aware of what has existed in terms of supporting the youthvoice in their communities in the past, or what exists now so the message hasnt been

getting through previously

Key websites for young people are Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr and Google +. Discussiongroups/comment boards are seen as a key platform for seeking young peoples views, and

for publicising upcoming events etc.

Politicians taking the time to respond personally to youth boardss/forums will conveygreater respect than a form letter or contact from an administrator

Some young people said they had made contact with local boards but not received a reply

emails have gone unanswered etc.

Some young people also want to meet the officers working on reports/strategies they have

had input into, to get feedback on their ideas and find out more about what will happen tothem, who will read them and make the decisions, and by when

It will be important to explain Councils new co-governance structure to young people tohelp them understand the role (and clout!) of local boards, and ensure all language used

aligns with this

Practical aspects


Important to hold meetings as locally as possible and resource young people to attend andparticipate in person online options are not a substitute

Venues for meetings and events need to be youth friendly and consideration given to

comfort, accessibility, transport connections and safety (especially for after hours meetings)

Youth participants should receive an induction to prepare them for their roles and ongoingtraining to develop relevant skills and knowledge. Members should be mentored andsupported by adults who utilise an Adults as Allies approach

Other points:

Holding meetings in formal spaces and settings, with formal rules for speaking and workingthrough business, can hinder free and frank discussion and make young people feel

uncomfortable or intimidated. Sometimes the most useful conversations happen around the


18/29

edges of formal spaces and business. Small group situations tend to work better, thoughmost people feel comfortable speaking in front of everyone once they know the group

Some young people suggested a code of conduct for meetings agreed by the group, ratherthan a set of rules imposed from the centre

Young people think it is very important to have food available at meetings, forums andevents but served at the end to make sure people stay and participate

About this process

Some local boards have requested officers attend the meeting where this report ispresented to speak to it, to assist them to make the best decision for their area with fullknowledge of the implications

Some local board members acknowledged their lack of expertise in working with youngpeople, and suggested boards receive initial support from experienced officers to provideguidance around setting up their local youth council/forum, and advice on running it in a

meaningful, respectful and youth-friendly way

One sector stakeholder suggested that any model should be committed to positive youthdevelopment and have evaluation measures to assess efficacy and safety and includethese aspects into the proposal to ensure the connection between best practice andoperations


19/29


20/29


21/29


22/29

Weaknesses or risks

A more casual and informal structure may be less sustainable, as it requires support toensure momentum is sustained. Even with a core member group, organising events andmeetings and following up on outcomes of forums could get quite messy

Informality does not necessarily mean greater or higher quality participation young peoplefeeling comfortable is the key, not a lack of structure

Communication between local boards and the forum participants would inevitably be lessstructured as well and how will institutional knowledge be retained if members are free todrop in and out as they wish?

Core members will still have to function like a youth board if they are to provide the

necessary focus and drive to capture, refine and follow up on the outcomes of forums withtheir local boards and/or other stakeholders

Some local boards want their youth body to be willing and able to act as a reference group i.e. if the board needs some fast feedback, quick impressions or suggestions from young

people on something between scheduled meetings and events. The reality is sometimes

there wont be time to organise a forum or wait for the next meeting in these cases boardswill need a fast turnaround time if young people are to be involved at all

This less focused structure requires very clear relationships to be established between the

community, local board and local youth networks

How would the people who participate the most be acknowledged?


23/29

Option 4: Pan-local youth body

In some cases notably in the West area local boards might already be working together as acluster, and may prefer to work collaboratively with a single youth body. In light of thesediscussions, officers have independently developed a fourth model for structuring local youth

participation, for adoption by boards in the event that either:

local boards have a strong desire to collaborate with neighbouring boards to develop andresource their work with local young people, and/or

sufficient resources are not forthcoming via the LTP and local boards are unable to meet thecosts of a dedicated youth body themselves.

Option 4 enables local boards to collaborate with one (or more) neighbouring boards to jointly

resource and work with one pan-local youth body. This option was not discussed during theformal consultation process, but aligns very strongly to Option 1 in principle and so is set out herefor boards consideration.

Option 4 would establish a youth board and/or forum comprised of a team of local young people

aged from 12 to 24, who provide a youth perspective to a cluster of two or more local boards and

other local stakeholders in those boards area.

This differs from Option 1 in that collaborating boards would self-identify as a cluster, and not

necessarily need to constitute or even be part of the same ward. However, it is anticipated thatboards would cover areas adjacent to one another, or have some other clear logic to underpin theirworking together on an ongoing basis for example, young people are already working or keen to

work across an area straddling local board boundaries.

The difference between the youth board and youth forum structures has been clearly set outabove, and is not reiterated here. Collaborating boards choosing Option 4 can select which of

these two overall structural emphases they prefer as an organising principle.

Each youth body would send one or more delegates to sit on the regional Youth Advisory Panel

(one delegate per local board in the youth bodys area).

Number of youth bodies

Given that this model allows boards to self-cluster using their own logic, the number of youthbodies for this option cannot be known in advance.

However, assuming every local board opted for this model, we would presume the minimum

number of youth bodies would be six one for each of the North, West, Central and South areas ofAuckland, with separate bodies for Waiheke and Great Barrier Islands (it is unlikely that theseboards could feasibly cluster with any other boards given transport costs). Larger clusters than thisare unlikely to be workable, and could also begin to duplicate the work of the regional YouthAdvisory Panel.

Meetings

The youth body would hold at least one meeting per term, and up to twelve meetings per year.

Strengths of this model

Local boards could identify potential synergies with neighbouring boards and work togetheron youth-related issues and opportunities across their areas

This is the most cost effective model because it would mean fewer youth bodies to resource

and support overall, while still providing adequate coverage of the region

Providing specialist staff support to each youth body will be a more manageable

proposition, especially during the initial inception stages when demand will be higher


24/29

Recognises the budgetary constraints that local boards are operating within, and providesan acceptable compromise if finances are the main driver for model selection. If it becameapparent later that specific areas needed to be split out to work effectively, that decision

could be taken then, with full knowledge of the additional cost implications

Enables young people working across local board areas to work and socialise with others

beyond their immediate community, and come to understand other communitiesperspectives

This model provides a structure that aligns with existing local board boundaries, albeit

multiple ones but therefore does not require political buy-in to new boundaries

Local boards could choose their own structure for working together and with the youthbody, and change this on a case by case basis

Any existing local youth forums could continue

Weaknesses or risks

Young people tend to identify more with their local neighbourhoods/suburbs rather than the

much larger area that the pan-local youth bodies would potentially cover they may be lesslikely to feel a sense of community than groups representing smaller areas, and it will beharder to physically get together

Very locally-specific issues may not get the discussion time they require, and members may

feel less able to make a difference for young people in the area they live in

Youth bodies serving two or more actively interested boards could be overtaxed especially during major work periods, e.g. when local board and annual plans are beingdeveloped

For some boards, the primary motivation for selecting this model may be resourceefficiency, rather than any inherent logic around quality engagement with young people

In some places, pan-local bodies may bring together very different locations/communitiesunder a single structure though this can also be a benefit by forcing members to increase

their mutual understanding and work together to solve issues

The pan-local model is unlikely to work for Great Barrier and Waiheke Islands as youngpeople cant be expected to travel for meetings regular travel would also be prohibitively

expensive

Multiple local boards will need to work together to establish shared priorities, where eventsor activities should be held, facilities located, etc. Collaborating boards would need to agreeclear ways of working together to ensure participating young people are adequately

resourced for their overall workload, are supported to navigate any political aspects ofworking with multiple boards, and do not have (avoidably) competing demands made on

their time

This model depends on young people from all local board areas being equally motivated. If

young people in one local board area were more motivated it could result in strongerrepresentation for this area, especially if the others dont turn up. Equally, if one local board

was more interested in working with young people than the others in their cluster, this couldskew the focus of the youth boards work, especially if that board was willing to provideadditional resources for local activities

There will still need to be 21 delegates to the YAP, but they would be drawn unevenly from

the pan-local youth bodies, in alignment with the local board areas


25/29


26/29


Attachment 5: Proposed model for a regional youth advisory panel

Terms of ReferenceThe Terms of Reference should be signed by Panel members at the start of their term andbe updated from the present terms to include:

The guiding principles of democracy, equity and fairness

Definitions of key terms

Meeting protocol and expectations of members

The responsibilities of the chairperson and deputy chairperson, and portfolio holders

A strengthened confidentiality clause

A conflicts of interest clause

A clause around how media comments are managed

Relationships

The FYAP recommends that the Panel agree an engagement strategy for managing itsrelationships with:

Councils governing body, through the Councillor appointed as liaison

Council committees and forums, as guided by the Councillor liaison

young people, and

youth sector agencies (e.g. Office of the Childrens Commission, Ministry of YouthDevelopment, Youthlaw, District Health Boards and National Youth Organisations).

Relationship agreements may be developed to underpin these relationships. The Panels

Terms of Reference will also specify guidelines for special relationships, such as the Panelsappointee to the Social Policy Forum.

Visibility and accountability

It is important for the Panels work to be visible and for the Panel to be accountable to itsconstituency. As such, the Panels advice to Council needs to be independent andautonomous in order that it can represent the needs and interests of young people. The

Panel will also outline a strategic plan at the start of each term and set out its planned workprogramme.

Recommendations from the Panel need to be visible to councillors to ensure youth voicescan be incorporated into decision-making directly. One way to do this is to have

recommendations from the Panel included in council agendas.The Panel seeks to act openly and transparently and recommends that the Panels budgetand expenditure is made visible to the Panel.

Support

Members of the panel should be provided with training and induction in Council processesand decision-making, governance, handling media interest, making submissions, meetingfacilitation, consultation principles and methods and youth development and leadership.Members should also receive mentoring by officers and the liaison Councillor to enable themto fulfil their role.


27/29


Attachment 6: Effective youth engagement

PrinciplesCouncil should be guided by the following principles in engaging young people:

Youth engagement strategies should be based on known principles of effective

youth engagement, drawing on the relevant research and established best practice.

Youth engagement does not happen in a vacuum. It requires taking the time anddeveloping strategies to build relationship, loyalty and momentum with youngpeople. This requires consistent, regular, visible, accessible and approachablecommunication.

Information provided by Council needs to be of high quality, yet simple andaccessible to cater to the diverse population of young people. Information also

needs to be transmitted to young people in a way that helps them understand thebig picture and navigate the complexity of Council processes. During consultation,young people said they want to have a broader awareness and understanding of

what Council does, and how its governance structures work.

Young people want Council to communicate with them in more interactive, visibleand personal ways. They want Council to make more use of interactive online

communication opportunities, using social media and other channels. ConsideringSiSoMo (Sight, Sound, Motion) techniques in information delivery is also importantto ensuring communications are engaging. Key messages, events, and informationneed to clarify for young people what is in it for them how is this relevant to themand what benefits are there in participating?

Young people need to be given enough time to be able to participate. Oftentimeframes for consultation are too short for young people to gain a goodunderstanding on an issue, consider their opinions and navigate Council processesto be able to make a considered submission. When young people do give theirfeedback they want to know who will be following up on their ideas and submissions,and when they can expect to hear back. Some young people found that even when

dealing directly with local board members it was hard to get a response to theirfeedback.

Communication channels

Below is a list of channels that the panel recommend using to engage young people.

Media channels Billboards TV Bus stop advertising

Student newspapers (and comparable new mediums)

Radio student and mainstream Our Auckland

Local newspapers National newspapers

Online

Facebook


28/29

More interactive but serious enough websites low-down styled guide (helps younavigate website)

YouTube

Social media

iPhone/smartphone apps

Localist website Interwebs

Face to face

Clinics and discussions Ambassadors/spokespeople

Forums and workshops

Networks Existing youth networks Through schools and universities

Through alternative education schools

Community coordinators and advisers

Other

Text alerts for events and activities

Participation in local events Commissioning relevant research

Giving away free stuff in exchange for participation in events, consultation etc

Hold monthly local board youth forums that are relaxed and work with the local youthcaucus


29/29


Attachment 7: Selection processes for local and regional bodies

PrinciplesSelection and recruitment processes have been a critical debate for the FYAP in consideringthe development of new youth engagement structures. The debate has considered howyouth engagement structures are able to represent the diversity of Auckland youth andestablish a strong mandate for young people to represent their peers through democratic

processes. There is a need to grow youth participation structures reach to engage youth notusually represented or attracted to traditional youth councils.

The focus they have agreed follows an approach that grows active citizens and supports all

young people to step up, represent and have a voice. It is critical that selection processesenable youth to select their own representatives. This ensures accountability and visibility ofyouth representatives in the local area and helps grow awareness. Whichever method is

used, it will need to be affordable, reflect the choices of local young people rather thanadults, and result in a representative and workable group.

Local youth body selection

The FYAPs preferred system for local youth body selection is to follow a nomination/self-

nomination and youth election process. There are different models that cater to differentlevels of resource capacity. Options for a nomination/self-nomination and election process

will be described in a toolkit for local boards which is currently being developed.

The FYAP agree that online election model would have broad appeal to young people.However, more investigation is required into the resource and implementation requirements

of such a model. Whichever model is selected, the process needs to follow the following

principles:

Be flexible to evolve and fit the local context

Be fair and transparent

Ensure a democratic youth election, where young people have choice over whorepresents their voice

Regional youth body selection

Selection for the regional panel needs to link to youth representation in the local board area.

Each local board area is to have one representative who is selected in a way that is fair,open and transparent.

In the case of a local youth board or ward youth board representatives are to be nominatedto the panel by the youth board which has been elected. In the situations where a local

board follows the caucus model or where local board does not have a youth board, therepresentative should be democratically elected by peers to sit on panel.

Panel representatives are expected to attend meetings of the caucus, or youth board toretain connection to the local context and local youth voices.

confidential working draft fyap report to mayor

Documents