Making Youth Participation Meaningful: An Interview with Cristina Bacalso

Cristina Bacalso has spent more than 20 years in the youth sector, from sitting on NGO boards as a student activist in Canada to advising organisations such as UNICEF, the Council of Europe, and the European Commission. Most recently, she contributed to the review of the Youth Participation Strategy (YPS) with SALTO Participation and Information (SALTO PI) and YPS Steering group.

We spoke with Cristina about the current state of youth participation in Europe, where progress has been made, and how National Agencies and other stakeholders can take practical steps toward genuine power-sharing with young people.

What is the current state of meaningful youth participation within European youth programmes today?

Cristina: Someone in a focus group recently said something that really stuck with me. They said that in Europe, we have a lot of know-how about youth participation, but not a lot of implementation. And I think that is quite true.

We have plenty of frameworks and strategies, but still lack a shared language for what ‘meaningful participation’ actually means. Especially when we talk to people outside the youth sector. If we struggle to explain what participation is and why it matters, then we also struggle to make a convincing case for implementing it well.

We already have strong structures. For Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps, for example, we have the priority focus on democratic participation, and the Youth Participation Strategy of course. We have many mechanisms in place. And yet there is still a sense that we are not quite hitting the mark when it comes to implementation. Do young people feel listened to? Are our efforts being effective? Are we even able to measure that currently?

From your perspective, what progress has been made in recent years?

Cristina: I do think we have seen progress. Youth participation now has political traction in a way it did not before. The idea that young people should have spaces to share their views with decision makers is much more embedded in the political agenda.

For example, the European Commission President’s Youth Advisory Group, the youth steering group at EU level, the ongoing development of the EU Youth Dialogue, and the realisation of the ‘youth check’. We are also seeing other EU departments, such as the Directorate-General for International Partnerships, integrating youth participation into their strategies. That shows the concept is being recognised more broadly across European governance.

Whether these efforts lead to real policy change is another question. Just because a mechanism exists does not mean it automatically has impact. But the political will, resources, and expertise now being invested are good indicators that we are moving in the right direction.

The term “rights-based approach” comes up often in participation work. What does that mean?

Cristina: A rights-based approach means participation is not simply another method to engage young people. It is a fundamental right.

It also recognises an important power imbalance. There is always someone whose right must be upheld, and someone else who holds the responsibility and obligation to respect and enable that right. That means participation should not be treated as optional or a bonus. A rights-based approach reframes it as a legal and moral obligation; a non-negotiable. The benefits that follow, such as skills, empowerment, and better policies, are all important too, but they come second.

How does that apply to European youth programmes such as Erasmus+ and the European Solidarity Corps?

Cristina: To be honest, while the Youth Participation Strategy does use a rights-based definition of participation, the EU youth field in general has not used that language yet.

Other rights-based organisations, such as UNICEF, talk very clearly about the right to participate and the right to be heard.

The first step is simply acknowledging participation as a right. And once that shift has taken place, it changes the way programmes are designed, funded, and evaluated.

What aspects of rights-based participation are still under-practised or misunderstood?

Cristina: That’s a difficult question when we’re still at the beginning of defining participation as a right. I think we need to start building that more widely, and go from there. That said, Laura Lundy’s ‘space, voice, audience, influence’ model from the child rights field offers a clear foundation for analysing where we are.

In the model, ‘space’ means safe, inclusive opportunities for young people to express their views. ‘Voice’ means supporting them to express those views in ways that work for them. ‘Audience’ means making sure the people with the power to act actually receive young people’s input. And ‘influence’ means feeding back, showing young people how their contribution was used or why it was not.

All four are necessary. If we don’t have all four, participation can feel tokenistic and lack impact. And even many well-intentioned processes fall short on these currently.

Many initiatives still stop at consultation. How can National Agencies and project organisers take the next step toward shared decision-making?

Cristina: This is one of the hardest transitions. I don’t think organisations hesitate because they don’t believe in participation; often they just don’t know how to do it. Which is understandable, as we have very little experience in our everyday lives of working democratically. Our schools and workplaces, for example, are usually hierarchical, so people have not had many opportunities to practise shared decision-making

For those who want to involve young people more meaningfully, what are manageable first steps?

Cristina: I do think consultations are a good starting point. Whether it’s focus groups, surveys, informal discussions, etc. But even before that, organisations should look closely at what decisions would actually benefit most from youth involvement.

Not everything needs participation, but certain decisions would be better if young people shaped them. A very practical example is Erasmus+ application forms. Young people often find them complicated or intimidating. Asking them directly how to simplify the process could immediately improve accessibility.

So I’d say rather than trying to involve young people everywhere, look for where their input adds the most value for both sides. On the whole, the most powerful phase for involvement would be in programme priority-setting. But since priorities are often pre-defined by higher frameworks, the most realistic space for involvement is often at the implementation level – getting input on the areas where young people directly interact with the programme.

In the Youth Participation Strategy, Aim 5 focuses on involving young people in decisions about management and implementation of programmes. What is your perspective on that?

Cristina: I know this one is hugely important to young people and youth organisations. National Agencies hold a lot of power in how Erasmus+ and the European Solidarity Corps are delivered. They decide who gets funded and how accessible programmes are.

And young people often tell us that experiences with National Agencies vary widely. Some are very supportive. Others feel more bureaucratic or opaque. What young people consistently ask for is not a completely different system. They want something more youth friendly. Clearer communication. More guidance and mentorship. Less intimidating bureaucracy.

Even small steps can make a real difference in whether young people feel considered.

Do you have examples of how National Agencies or others could better involve young people in decisions?

Cristina: The co-management model in the Council of Europe is often referenced because youth representatives and governments share equal decision-making power there. People admire that model even if it is not easily replicated everywhere.

But beyond formal structures, what matters most is the quality of engagement and the interpersonal connections. Are staff genuinely listening and committed to making changes? Are they honest about what can and cannot be done and why? Transparent communication and accountability build trust. And that is a crucial part of democratic practice.

Finally, could you suggest any useful resources to strengthen participation work?

Cristina: Yes, two come to mind. First, the previously mentioned Lundy model of child participation is essential reading for anyone designing participation processes. It is practical, adaptable, and already used by certain EU institutions in their child rights work.

Second, a paper by Rys Farthing called ‘Why Youth Participation?’. I come back to it often. It outlines four justifications for youth participation: that it is rights based, developmental, empowering, and it leads to more efficient and better designed policies.

I also hope the upcoming cross sectoral strategy will be a valuable resource to make a clear and convincing case for why participation actually matters. As mentioned, we have many tools and methods, but we have not always convinced people in power that participation is a right, and one that’s in everyone’s best interest too. That is what I hope we can achieve next, and help relieve some of the strain on our democracies through more meaningful participation.

Watch Cristina speak at the Participation Forum