The meaningful involvement of young people in decision-making has become an established principle of UK policy and practice over the past three decades, particularly following the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, 1989). Article 12 of the UNCRC emphasises the right of children and young people to express their views on matters affecting them, and subsequent frameworks such as Hart’s (1992) Ladder of Participation, Shier’s (2001) Pathways to Participation, and Lundy’s (2007) Model of Participation have provided conceptual tools for assessing the depth and quality of such engagement.

Within the local government and organisational context, youth participation has typically been operationalised through mechanisms such as youth councils, scrutiny panels, and forums. Yet these structures only fulfil their democratic potential when young people are appropriately supported to develop the skills, confidence, and capacities required for active citizenship.

The role of the youth participation worker is central to this process. While grounded in the broader traditions of youth work – long acknowledged as playing a critical role in supporting young people’s social learning and empowerment (e.g. see Jeffs & Smith, 2005; Percy-Smith, 2006; Nolas, 2014) – participation workers face distinctive challenges within statutory settings. They must simultaneously facilitate opportunities for youth voice, mediate institutional cultures that may be resistant to change, and advocate, and make space, for young people within bureaucratic decision-making structures (Cockburn, 2013; Tisdall, 2017). This dual positioning requires not only technical skills of facilitation and advocacy, but also a professional orientation that treats young people as rights-bearing citizens rather than ‘service users’ or policy ‘instruments’.

This article therefore explores the professional role of the youth participation worker in the local government and organisational context. It examines how these practitioners navigate their roles within organisational expectations and young people’s needs and lived experiences, and makes a case for a professional practice that both safeguards young people’s rights and strengthens their capacities to participate meaningfully in decision-making and democratic life.

Youth-led or adult-led: an unrealistic binary

A central debate in youth participation concerns the perceived binary between ‘adult-led’ and ‘youth-led’ activity, often framed in terms of the degree of ‘power’ or ‘youth-adult partnership’ (Larson et al., 2005; Ramey et al., 2017). This framing is arguably influenced by misinterpretations of Hart’s (1992) Ladder, where youth-led participation is sometimes treated as the most desirable outcome, despite few models explicitly positioning it as such (e.g., Shier, 2001; Treseder, 1997; Wong et al., 2010). Indeed, participation understood in terms of ‘doing with’, not for, implies collaboration between adults and young people.

Ideas of ‘youth-led participation’ have evolved. Lansdown (2001) described self-advocacy as empowering young people to take independent action on issues important to them. Later, this has developed into connections with activism, characterised as ‘more energetic, passionate, innovative and committed’ action (Martin, 2007, p.20), such as protests, marches, and grassroots organising. And more recently, scholars argue for viewing young people as activists who ‘start conversations rather than relying upon adults to invite them into existing ones’ (McMellon & Tisdall, 2020, p.174), expanding their rights beyond the consultative framing of Article 12 (Tisdall & Cuevas-Parra, 2021).

Though the notion of child- or youth-led participation as the dominant ‘mantra’ has rarely been problematised, particularly regarding adults’ involvement and its impact, Wyness (2012) highlights how adults’ roles are often ‘marginalised’ to prioritise autonomous child leadership, overlooking the potential of collaborative, intergenerational approaches. Others similarly argue for participation as an intergenerational process, stressing meaningful adult–child relations (see Horgan et al., 2016; Mannion, 2007; Moxon, 2014; Richards-Schuster & Timmermans, 2017; Shaw-Raudoy & Mcgregor, 2013).

This trajectory demonstrates a shift from adult-centred paradigms toward recognition of young people as active, relational, and transformative agents of change. But this nevertheless does not completely negate or eliminate the role of adults in facilitating young people’s participation – particularly given that participation is and should be fundamentally a collaborative, relational activity.

The ‘hands on’ role/s of adults in youth participation

Much of the youth participation literature frames adults primarily as “decision-makers” or holders of power whom young people seek to influence. But this view is too limited. As Wyness (2012) reminds us, the broader role of adults needs to be brought back into the discussion – and rethought. Adults matter not only when they are leading but also, crucially, when they enable meaningful participation, whether youth-led or otherwise. This is especially true when participation is conceived as a joint endeavour built on genuine collaboration between young people and adults. In such spaces, power is not a given but something negotiated, and the conventional figure of the professional-as-expert must be reimagined if young people are to take up their place as equal partners.

Hart (2008) argues for a ‘scaffolding’ role for adults in supporting meaningful youth participation. Similarly, Bovaird (2007, p.858) has argued that for co-production to be successful, a professional role should be focussed on helping overcome reluctance among professionals to share power with service users and communities, as well as broker new roles and opportunities for co-production to shape the wider system.

There is limited empirical research on the role of a ‘youth participation worker’ – at least as we would conceive of it in the context of the UK local authority or charity context. This is perhaps attributable to how youth participation itself has been developed, challenged and contested within the context of youth work (Corney et al., 2021). To distinguish between a ‘participation worker’ and a ‘youth worker’, Kilgour (2002) has offered a broad definition of a participation worker:

‘A Participation Worker is a paid employee responsible for ensuring young people are involved in public decision-making. They may do this through a range of…strategies, including, but not limited to, group work, forums, youth councils, consultation groups, committees, advocacy, media, and arts.’

In one of few published works on the specific role of these workers in the UK, Tisdall (2009) identifies two main responsibilities: first, that the role promotes young people’s participation in decision-making, and second, that it pivots between supporting young people directly and liaising with decision-makers.

Tisdall (2009, p.78) further argues that the participation worker ‘has to balance relationships with different constituencies [the organisation and the young people], who have different demands and expectations and who require the worker to interact with them in different ways to be effective.’

Four functions of the youth participation worker role

My own empirical, doctoral research has revealed four functions of the local authority youth participation worker, which are critical for delivering impactful youth participation work – each which I will now briefly discuss:

1.   Supporting and enabling individual young people to express their views

This is about both how participation workers support young people as ‘self-forming’ individuals and how they help young people shape and express their own views. Young people in the study spoke passionately about the pastoral, nurturing role of participation workers, emphasising how they help build confidence, self-esteem, and a sense of being cared for.

This support, they explained, enables them to engage more effectively in decision-making and change-making. Many drew parallels between their participation workers and close family or peer relationships, describing them as going ‘above and beyond’ or acting ‘a bit like a mother owl’ or ‘older brother’ – highlighting the significance of this relational, pastoral function.

Young people also emphasised the role of participation workers in equipping them with skills, knowledge, and attributes needed to be confident advocates. This occurs through both formal training and learning-by-doing opportunities, as well as through keeping young people motivated and engaged.

2.   Coordinating and facilitating activities and opportunities for young people to collectively communicate their views to decision-makers.

Participation workers in the study had significant responsibility for designing, coordinating and facilitating engagement with young people and decision-makers. They had considerable autonomy over how their groups operated, the types of activities offered, and the level of direct contact young people had with decision-makers. For example, participation workers described making aspects of youth elections mandatory for candidates, weighting attendance at training or meetings in application processes, introducing structures to mirror adult structures, and defining the scope of projects for engagement with elected members.

Participation workers were also crucial in navigating organisational structures and processes to secure direct engagement opportunities. This involved promoting and championing youth participation, leveraging contractual ties with the local authority, and utilising internal networks to open doors for young people.

Equally important was the role of participation workers in following up after engagement, ensuring actions were taken and young people were informed. This involved producing formal outputs, such as reports, while also sustaining positive relationships with both decision-makers and young people. In doing so, participation workers acted as intermediaries who facilitated not only access but also meaningful, accountable participation.

3.   Acting as a gatekeeper and ‘door-opener’ for young people.

Participation workers in the study were widely acknowledged as crucial in ensuring young people’s participation was meaningful, challenging tokenistic approaches, and acting as the ‘official’ channel through which decision-makers could access young people. This role directly influenced whether participation could have tangible impact.

Decision-makers in the study consistently linked their access to young people with the participation worker, recognising them as the ‘lynch pin’ in facilitating engagement and setting the direction of young people’s participation. While this aligns with professional norms – where direct access is managed through an appropriate hierarchy – it also highlights the gatekeeping function of participation workers.

Though, this also creates tension; raising questions about who determines young people’s capacity, involvement, and scope of engagement. As Lundy (2007, pp. 937–938) notes, adult perceptions often shape these decisions: ‘there is…a danger that the adults who act as gatekeepers to Article 12 rights may decide that children are not sufficiently mature to express a view’. This underlines the need to reframe participation workers’ roles from gatekeepers to enablers, helping shift perceptions and power in favour of young people so that they can set the scope of their own participation.

4.   Championing and advocating for young people’s views and wishes.

Young people highlighted the importance of their participation worker promoting their priorities in spaces they cannot access. Adults can sometimes more effectively advance young people’s interests, especially in political contexts where young people have limited access (Wyness, 2012) – as one young person described how their youth participation worker could advocate for them ‘because even just being adults makes them have power that we don’t…people are much more willing to talk to [them] on issues of policy than they would be if it was a [young person] who emailed them.’

Decision-makers reinforced the youth participation worker role in promoting both young people’s interests and the broader importance of youth participation. But this ‘dual role’ can create tension. Participation workers need to balance this advocacy role with responsibilities as employees, risking perceptions of bias or conflicts of interest (Ashcroft, 2008). One decision-maker explained, trust between young people and the worker can make full independence difficult, highlighting the ongoing dilemma of advocating for young people while navigating organisational expectations.

Together, these findings highlight the multi-layered role of participation workers: nurturing young people’s confidence and skills, facilitating collective engagement, and advocating within adult-dominated structures. At the same time, their position as both gatekeepers and enablers underscores the power they hold in shaping when, how, and to what extent young people’s voices are heard. This duality points to the need for reframing their role to prioritise supporting more collaborative, relational and meaningful engagement between young people and decision-makers.

Connecting research with practice: critical reflections

The role of the youth participation worker is often highly visible to young people and decision-makers, yet organisations rarely realise its full potential. My doctoral research has corroborated what I had experienced as a youth participation worker; that we play a far more expansive role within organisations than the (often quite junior) job title and salary would suggest. Indeed, that we:

• Are often required to forever change hats – jumping between ‘hands-on’ operational and direct work with young people, and building and sustaining relationships with the most senior stakeholders in an organisation.
• Unavoidably and explicitly have to understand where power and decision-making is held, often working alongside other functions and professionalisms to navigate and carve out space for young people to be meaningfully involved.
• Often act, even implicitly, as catalysts for change in structures, process, structures and ways of working, to embed, facilitate and better support the involvement of young people.
• Are often singular in number – particularly in a local authority context – who are charged with ‘delivering’ participation, usually just within Children’s Services.
• Rarely get the ‘right’ all-round professional learning and development opportunities – for example, project, stakeholder and/or change management, or governance and systems thinking – rather than a learning and development offer more akin to a teacher, youth or social worker’s.

Recommendations for practice

These recommendations, although drawn from research and practice in the context of local authorities, are arguably similarly applicable to any organisation:

1. Review the job title, job description and person specification for youth participation worker roles, and consider whether it is a truly accurate representation of the role – and, of course, involve young people in this review!
2. Consider the ‘functional family’ of the youth participation worker role – defaulting to ‘youth worker’ or ‘health and social care worker’ may be erroneous and unfair when considering the true requirements and expectations of the role.
3. Make wider learning and development available for youth participation workers, to enable them to fully realise the potential of their role and capabilities – e.g., project and stakeholder management, governance and accountability, systems thinking, etc.
4. Enable youth participation workers to get professional development support from those in other disciplines but who could add a huge amount of value to the youth participation worker role – perhaps through a reciprocal mentoring format.
5. Develop a set of professional standards for youth participation workers – like there are for youth workers, but which recognise the distinct skillset – and, of course, involve young people in producing them.

Concluding reflections

The findings from my doctoral research and my experience of practice point to a need to understand the role of the youth participation worker within a wider set of ideas about developing an authentic, participatory culture within local authorities and organisations – as Kirby, et at (2003), Sinclair (2004), Nolas (2014) and others, have also argued. This means going beyond those recommendations in the previous section, like revisiting job descriptions and professional development pathways, to embedding youth participation into the fabric of organisations – like the Hear By Right standards (NYA, 2018) lay out. This includes reframing the youth participation worker role as a lever and catalyst for improving practice and eliciting culture change and transformation, rather than exclusively as an access point for decision-makers to reach young people.

Fostering a participatory culture requires creating spaces for dialogue, mutual learning, and joint working, where young people are respected as active citizens and agents of change. The findings and associated recommendations laid out in this article advocate for a shift from tokenistic engagement to a culture where youth participation is a shared responsibility and a catalyst for change and innovation. By better understanding and more fully realising the critical role of the youth participation worker, local authorities and organisations can move towards a model of practice that is inclusive, reflexive, and genuinely transformative.