The participation of children and young people in public decision-making has been increasingly centred in both practice and research. Across youth studies, childhood studies, and social policy literature, participation is commonly framed as both a democratic right and an instrumental mechanism for improving the quality, legitimacy, and responsiveness of decisions affecting young people’s lives (see Farthing, 2012; McNeish & Newman, 2002; Shukra et al., 2012; Tisdall et al., 2008). These ideas are rooted most visibly in Article 12 of the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), which affirms children’s right to express views in matters affecting them and to have those views given due weight.

In the UK, this rights-based commitment has been reflected in successive waves of policy rhetoric and statutory guidance, particularly within education, social care, and youth policy. Local authorities have been encouraged, and in some cases required, to create opportunities for young people to participate in decision-making processes. Yet despite this apparent institutionalisation of participation, concerns persist regarding its substantive impact. Participation is frequently evaluated according to its form or quality rather than its influence on decisions, policies, or organisational practices (see Adu-Gyamfi, 2013; Crowley, 2015; Kirby, 2002; Tisdall & Davis, 2004).

This article – based on my recent PhD (Harsant, 2025) – examines how young people’s participation operates within local government decision-making and under what conditions it results in forms of impact. It responds to calls within youth and childhood studies to move beyond descriptive participation frameworks and to interrogate participation as a relational and institutional practice shaped by power, governance, and organisational culture. At the same time, it contributes to local government research and practice by examining youth participation not as a peripheral engagement activity, but as a governance practice embedded within constrained decision-making environments.

Drawing on empirical research with four London borough councils, this article asks: how does young people’s participation have an impact on local government decision-making? In answering this question, it advances a process-oriented understanding of impact and proposes a framework to inform both research and practice. To start, it is first necessary to clarify what is meant by participation and how existing scholarship has conceptualised its purpose and limitations

Children and young people’s participation has been variously defined across disciplines, but is commonly understood as processes through which children and young people express views and influence decisions affecting their lives, either individually or collectively. Early ideas position participation as a cornerstone of democratic citizenship, as can be seen in Hart’s (1992) seminal Ladder of Participation. Subsequent works have expanded this framing to include a wide range of participatory practices across institutional and everyday contexts.

Over time, however, participation discourse has increasingly foregrounded the notion of ‘voice’. Encouraging children’s voices has been central to challenging paternalistic models of childhood and asserting children’s status as social actors. Yet the metaphor of voice has been subject to sustained critique (see Percy-Smith, 2018; Tisdall, 2017; Walther et al., 2020). Scholars have argued that voice-centred approaches risk prioritising expression over influence, obscuring the responsibilities of adults and institutions to listen, respond, and act. Moreover, privileging verbal expression can marginalise children who communicate differently, while collective notions of ‘voice’ risk flattening diverse experiences and interests (see James, 2007; Jones & Welch, 2018; Lundy, 2007; 2018).

This critique is central to the study because it highlights a persistent gap in participation research: while much attention has been given to enabling expression, far less has been paid to whether and how such expression translates into influence within institutional decision-making processes. Indeed, some scholars have advocated shifting analytical attention towards influence and, indeed, impact. Despite its intuitive appeal, impact remains under-theorised and under-examined empirically, particularly within local government contexts. Where impact is discussed, it is often conflated with individual developmental outcomes for participating young people rather than changes to decision-making processes or outcomes (see Chawla, 2001; Kirby, 2002; Sinclair, 2004).

This study conceptualises impact as the ways in which young people’s participation shapes actions, priorities, behaviours, or decisions within local government. This includes both direct and indirect impact, immediate and cumulative outcomes, and formal and informal changes. Understanding participation as relational and context-dependent raises important questions about the institutional settings in which it occurs. Local government provides a particularly revealing case, given its complex governance structures and statutory responsibilities.

Local government represents a particularly complex and under-examined site for youth participation. English local authorities operate within tightly regulated decision-making frameworks shaped by statutory duties, political accountability, and financial constraints. While councils are expected to consult residents and demonstrate public engagement, opportunities for shared decision-making are limited by formal governance structures (see Burall & Carr-West, 2009; Lowndes et al., 2001).

Youth participation within local government has most commonly taken the form of representative mechanisms such as youth councils, forums, parliaments, and young mayor schemes (Atkin & Peck, 2010; BYC, 2017). These initiatives often mirror adult democratic institutions, reflecting assumptions that participation should socialise young people into existing systems for political and democratic engagement. Such models can offer access to decision-makers and symbolic recognition, but have been criticised for reproducing power hierarchies, privileging already-engaged young people, and limiting opportunities for substantive influence

Despite the widespread adoption of these mechanisms, empirical research examining their impact on local government decision-making remains sparse. Evaluations have tended to focus on participation quality, representation, or individual outcomes (see Burke, 2010; Cutler, 2003; Day et al., 2015; Kirby, 2002; Lansdown, 2011) rather than examining whether and how young people’s contributions shape decisions, policies, or organisational practices. To explore these dynamics empirically, the study adopted a qualitative multiple case study design, enabling a detailed examination of participation practices across different local authority contexts

The study employed a qualitative multiple case study design to explore how youth participation operates across different local government contexts. Four participatory mechanisms were selected across London borough councils: an elected youth council, a non-elected youth council, a young mayor and (volunteer) young advisors programme, and a (remunerated) young advisors project. Participants included young people, as well as adults – both participation workers and decision-makers at officer (employee) and member (politician) level.

Data collection involved three methods. First, semi-structured workshops were conducted with young people participating in each mechanism. These workshops provided collective spaces for reflection on experiences of participation, understandings of impact, and perceptions of influence and impact. Second, semi-structured interviews were conducted with participation workers and local authority decision-makers to explore organisational perspectives on participation and its role within decision-making processes. Third, a small number of relevant documents were examined to contextualise participation practices.

The data was then analysed inductively using a thematic approach informed by grounded theory principles. Analysis focused on identifying patterns in understandings of impact, conditions shaping participation’s effectiveness, and cross-cutting challenges and opportunities. Ethical considerations through the methodology included informed consent, safeguarding, confidentiality, and reflexivity regarding adult–child power dynamics.

Participants articulated impact in primarily three overlapping ways.

The first understanding of impact centred on influencing individual behaviour or action, particularly among councillors and senior officers. Young people described impact occurring when decision-makers reconsidered assumptions, altered priorities, or took action in response to young people’s input. For adults, such impact was often understood as incremental shifts in thinking rather than immediate policy change.

A second understanding of impact related to embedding young people’s participation within routine decision-making processes. From this perspective, impact was associated with the normalisation of young people’s input through regular engagement, ongoing roles, and institutionalised feedback mechanisms. Rather than discrete outcomes, impact was seen as cumulative and relational, developing over time through sustained engagement.

Third, impact was understood as raising awareness of issues affecting young people within the local authority and wider community. Activities such as campaigns, presentations, and public events were valued for amplifying young people’s perspectives, even when direct decision-making influence was limited. While awareness-raising was sometimes viewed as a precursor to change, young people also expressed frustration when increased visibility did not translate into action.

These understandings reveal a broad conception of impact that extends beyond formal decision-making outcomes. At the same time, they expose tensions between symbolic recognition and substantive influence, highlighting the importance of examining how impact is enacted and experienced in practice. This prompts a further question: under what conditions does participation translate into the forms of impact identified by participants?

The study revealed six interrelated conditions that shape whether participation resulted in the impact as identified.

The first was buy-in and commitment from decision-makers, participation workers, and young people themselves. Where decision-makers visibly supported youth participation, young people’s contributions were more likely to be taken seriously. Conversely, limited buy-in often resulted in participation being marginalised or treated as optional. The second condition concerned the negotiation of agendas. Impact was enhanced when young people had opportunities to shape priorities and define issues of concern. However, agenda-setting was frequently constrained by organisational priorities, political considerations, and adult assumptions about what was appropriate or feasible.

Third, knowledge and skills were central. Young people required support to understand local government processes and decision-making cycles, while decision-makers needed skills to engage meaningfully with young people’s perspectives. Where mutual learning occurred, participation was more impactful. Fourth, adults’ roles played a critical mediating function. Participation workers acted as brokers, translators, and advocates (see also Harsant, 2025b), while decision-makers’ openness to challenge influenced outcomes. Adult gatekeeping was found to both enable and constrain impact.

Fifth, the availability of meaningful opportunities shaped participation’s effectiveness. Sustained engagement embedded within decision-making cycles was more impactful than one-off consultations. Finally, recognition and remuneration influenced young people’s sense of value and legitimacy, signalling that their contributions were taken seriously – although, this was not necessarily considered to be a ‘deal-breaker’.

The study also surfaced several cross-cutting challenges and opportunities for strengthening the impact of youth participation on local government decision-making. ‘Routes to impact’ varied between peer-to-peer influence and direct engagement with decision-makers, each offering distinct possibilities. Peer-to-peer approaches were particularly striking in the study, wherein young people take on leadership roles focussed on spreading learning, building capacity and inspiring action among other young people (see Percy-Smith & Burns, 2013). The scope, scale, and depth of impact were often shaped by institutional context, with deeper impact often requiring long-term engagement and a more defined scope and more limited scale.

Feedback emerged as a persistent challenge, but nevertheless an imperative. Where young people received clear feedback on how their input was used, trust and motivation were strengthened. The absence of feedback undermined perceptions of impact and credibility. Participants also reflected critically on participation terminology. Concepts such as co-production and youth-led participation were valued for emphasising collaboration and agency, but risked obscuring power imbalances if adopted uncritically and illegitimately.

The findings challenge participation frameworks that prioritise form over function, and indeed impact, by demonstrating how the effects of participation are shaped by the ways it is enacted within specific institutional contexts. Rather than asking whether participation meets predefined criteria, this study shows that impact emerges through relational processes, the negotiation of power, and organisational cultures that enable or constrain young people’s influence.

These empirical insights directly informed the development of a framework for impactful youth participation (Figure 1). The framework synthesises seven interrelated components (summarised in Table 1), each grounded in the study’s findings, and offers a conceptual contribution to participation literature by shifting attention from normative models of ‘good participation’ towards a context-sensitive understanding of how participation produces impact in practice.

This article has examined how young people’s participation influences local government decision-making, drawing on qualitative case studies across London boroughs. It set out to answer the question: how does young people’s participation have an impact on local government decision-making? The findings indicate that impact is understood in three main ways: influencing individual behaviour and action, embedding participation within routine decision-making processes, and raising awareness of issues affecting young people. These forms of impact are contingent on six interrelated conditions, including buy-in from decision-makers, agenda negotiation, mutual learning, adult roles, meaningful opportunities, and recognition.

Taken together, these conditions constitute a process-oriented framework for understanding and assessing the impact of youth participation. Rather than locating impact in particular participatory structures or models, the framework highlights how impact is produced through relationships, institutional practices, and ongoing negotiation between young people and adults. This shifts analytical attention from whether participation takes place to how it is embedded, supported, and acted upon within local government contexts.

The article contributes to youth and childhood studies by complicating narratives of voice and agency, demonstrating that young people’s influence is mediated through adult responsiveness and institutional arrangements. For local government research, it advances understanding of citizen engagement by specifying the mechanisms through which participation shapes decision-making.

For policy-makers and practitioners, the findings provide practical guidance for designing and sustaining participatory initiatives. They underline the importance of investing in relational work, creating clear feedback loops, clarifying adult roles, and securing organisational commitment if participation is to result in meaningful influence rather than symbolic inclusion. In doing so, the article offers a grounded framework that can inform both future research and evaluation, as well as practice, in youth participation initiatives.