Confidential Working draft: 29 September 2011

Report Name: Establishing a local and regional youth participation and development programme
File No.: <<leave blank Infocouncil will insert this when the report is saved in Trim>> Executive Summary
When elected, Mayor Len Brown announced the establishment of an interim regional youth body as one of his 100 days projects. A Foundation Youth Advisory Panel (FYAP) was established in February 2011 to develop a permanent youth participation model, and in particular, recommend a local 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, and invites 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. 2. 3. 4. Ward-affiliated youth board Local Board-affiliated youth board Local Board-affiliated youth caucus Pan-local youth body

After providing general background, the report is broken into two parts. Part A reflects the views and 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, reflecting feedback 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 model for local youth participation, provides indicative costings for all models and proposes an implementation plan. The reports attachments provide more detailed information about the four models, consultation feedback, youth engagement principles, the status of the legacy youth councils and forums, and proposed selection and recruitment processes for the local and regional youth participation bodies. Following the formal consultation period undertaken by the FYAP with youth and stakeholders across 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, informal feedback 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 and resource. Further, in some cases, local boards might already be working together as a cluster, and may prefer to work collaboratively with a single pan-local youth body. Accordingly, officers have drawn up Option 4 to address this possibility. Regardless of which model/s are adopted by individual local boards, each local board area will send one representative to sit on a regional Youth Advisory Panel.

Macintosh HD:Users:macbookpro:Downloads:lenbrownsagendatorailroadyoungpeoplerevealed:Confidential Working draftFYAPreporttoMayor.doc

Recommendations
1) That the report be received. 2) That local boards consider the models for structuring youth participation presented in this report 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 youth boards established with scope to run additional forums, events and activities for young people in 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 resource commitment from Council. 5) That local boards note that they are encouraged to work with their local youth board/caucus in alignment with established principles for youth development. 6) That local boards note that a regional youth advisory panel structure is being proposed to the Governing Body in December. 7) That local boards note that their resolutions relating to (b) above will be reported to the Governing Body for their information.

Background
We can contribute to the positive development of young people by creating opportunities for them to influence, 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 changes in society. Providing opportunities for young people to be involved in real issues in partnership with adults shows 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 taken into 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 First as a key approach to building strong communities. Working directly with youth also helps to ensure that Council will offer youth 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. Providing opportunities for young people to problem-solve real issues in partnership with adults shows young people that their contributions are valued, and plays a key part in developing citizenship and engagement 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 level to be incorporated into the new Auckland Council. After making written and verbal submissions to the Auckland Governance Reorganisation Bill, the combined representatives held discussions with the Auckland Transition Agency and submitted a proposal for establishing an interim youth council tasked 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
Macintosh HD:Users:macbookpro:Downloads:lenbrownsagendatorailroadyoungpeoplerevealed:Confidential Working draftFYAPreporttoMayor.doc

Page 2

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 regional youth participation model, and in particular, a local infrastructure to replace the legacy arrangements 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 to engage with Auckland youth and to develop a long-term model for youth engagement at both the governing 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 of their 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 the youth participation models and youth engagement strategies August to September - refining recommendations for the principles and the local and regional 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 and recommendations 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 young people ownership and choice over their participation, connect them to decision-makers and provide a big picture of what is happening in Auckland. Young people want to have a strong relationship with Council, and, as a minimum, be consulted and informed about decision-making. They want to be more visible, to be given opportunities to engage 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 decisionmaking 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 approved Terms of Reference and Delegations of the Governing Body, committees, sub-committees, forums and 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, especially the 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 Council processes and mechanisms for engagement with the youth in Auckland, and Consider any regional issues raised by the local youth bodies.
Page 3

Macintosh HD:Users:macbookpro:Downloads:lenbrownsagendatorailroadyoungpeoplerevealed:Confidential Working draftFYAPreporttoMayor.doc

Membership of the Youth Advisory Panel It is proposed that membership of the regional body will be made up of young people aged 12-24 years 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 term will 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 their nominated representative resigns from the Panel. Where a member of the Panel is unable to attend 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, with recruitment 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 and the 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 covered too great an area to be manageable, young people were unlikely to identify with an entire subregion 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, the subcommittee proposed three models of local youth engagement, which the Foundation Youth Advisory 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 and risks. Detailed descriptions and a full list of the strengths and risks of each option are provided as Attachment 4. Local youth participation models quick reference table
Model No. of bodies Local board clusters Key benefits More cost effective - fewer youth bodies to support (1) Wardaffiliated youth body 13 Based on Auckland Councils 13 wards Provides adequate coverage of the region Local boards could work together on youth-related issues and opportunities Structure aligns with existing boundaries More manageable territory to cover means more realistic workload, fewer stakeholders 21 Voluntary and informal Works well new council cogovernance structure Youth board structure provides focus and drive - can still run youth forums as well Key risks Young people may not identify with larger areas Very local-specific issues may not get discussion time Harder for members to get together Youth bodies could be overtaxed during major work periods Current budgets and staff resources are insufficient to support 21 youth boards could spread the pool of young people too thin

(2) LB-affiliated youth board

Macintosh HD:Users:macbookpro:Downloads:lenbrownsagendatorailroadyoungpeoplerevealed:Confidential Working draftFYAPreporttoMayor.doc

Page 4

Relaxed and youth-friendly wider appeal (3) LB-affiliated youth caucus 21 Voluntary and informal Facilitates involvement of youth organisations Able to focus on a broad range of topics, not just Council-identified issues Manageable territory size, fewer stakeholders Works well with new cogovernance structure

More casual structure may be less sustainable Core members would still have to function much like a youth board to provide necessary focus and drive Some local boards want youth body to be act as a quick reference group if board 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 committed to working with the local board(s) and other local stakeholders in their ward. The youth board would have a 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, 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 more advantages than a caucus-led model (see Option 3). The ward affiliated-youth board is more costeffective than the other two models, as it requires less administration and support. However, it would 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. There are 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/priorities around 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 committed to working with their local board and other stakeholders in their area. The youth board would have a 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, 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 local board area through forums and one-off workshops, and events. !

Strengths and risks

A very clear consensus emerged that this is the preferred option for structuring youth participation at 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 the ward-based model), groups would have a more manageable territory to cover and only one local board 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 clear investment in the success of local projects and activities. This model also ties in effectively with Councils 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 subregional 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
Macintosh HD:Users:macbookpro:Downloads:lenbrownsagendatorailroadyoungpeoplerevealed:Confidential Working draftFYAPreporttoMayor.doc

Page 5

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-needed basis, and many participants supported this option with the caveat that youth forum events should still 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 youth forums 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 of local 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, community stakeholders 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 help plan and organise youth forums, work on local youth projects, gain valuable skills and learn about local government.

Strengths and risks

This option was the second most-preferred model. The main appeal of the youth caucus format is that it is more relaxed, youth-friendly, and likely to attract a wider variety of young people than the more 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 still elect 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, due to 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 to provide the necessary focus and drive to identify local issues and concerns, develop ideas and initiatives in response, help organise and lead the forums, and work in partnership with their local boards 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 the development 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 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 not usually 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. The FYAPs preferred system for local youth body selection is to follow a nomination/selfnomination and youth election process. For the recruitment to the Youth Advisory Panel representatives 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 does not have a youth board, the representative should be democratically elected by peers to sit on panel. FYAPs recommendations around selection of youth body members are appended as
Macintosh HD:Users:macbookpro:Downloads:lenbrownsagendatorailroadyoungpeoplerevealed:Confidential Working draftFYAPreporttoMayor.doc

Page 6

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 regional consistency and local flexibility with regard to youth participation. It is important for local young people 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, young people need confidence that they will be engaged meaningfully and constructively regardless of where in Auckland they live. This means that all local youth bodies should ideally be organised using 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 which of 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 the population 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 flexibility to 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 a toolkit 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

Macintosh HD:Users:macbookpro:Downloads:lenbrownsagendatorailroadyoungpeoplerevealed:Confidential Working draftFYAPreporttoMayor.doc

Page 7

Establishing a local and regional youth participation and development programme

Attachment 1: Terms of Reference for the Foundation Youth Advisory Panel

Mayors Vision This project supports the Mayors vision of making Auckland the most liveable city with the focus on creating cohesive resilient communities with strong local identity, engaging diverse communities in Aucklands future, and ensuring that all our people feel they belong. This vision 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 Council is serious about Auckland being a great place for young people to live, learn, work and thrive. Youth representatives of the seven legacy youth councils and forums made submissions recommending a regional youth voice and vehicle for engagement with the Auckland Council. The establishment of a Youth Advisory Panel was highlighted early on as one of the Mayors priorities 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 the Mayors 100 projects. This demonstrates Auckland Councils commitment to youth and the extent 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 Auckland Council 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 term during 2011 from March November. The Foundation Panel will act as an interim panel until the form, function and selection processes for the ongoing Youth Advisory Panel and local youth forums are established. The Foundation Panel will have representatives from youth councils and youth forums of the previous seven territorial local authorities in the Auckland region. In addition, it is proposed that these existing forums remain in place as transitional arrangements until future local and regional structures are agreed. Funding for legacy youth councils and forums is included within 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 hui orientation.

2 - Purpose During 2011, the Foundation Panel will provide input to the development of an ongoing Auckland Council Youth Advisory Panel and any supporting local structures, with final recommendations submitted to Council by November 2011. The Foundation Panel will also advise the Auckland Council on the best approach to engage with Auckland youth and develop a long-term model for youth engagement at both the governing body and local board levels The existing youth councils and forums will continue to provide input on key topics and strategiessuch as the Auckland Plan, Local Board Plans and the Long Term Plan. 2.1 - Guiding principles The United Nations Conventions on the Rights of the Child, declares that young people have the right to participate in decision making that affects them; Equity and inclusion; engaging the diversity of youth in Auckland in local government decision-making in Auckland; Ensure that young people have the capacity to have an impact on issues that concern them and their communities, and are involved in making positive contributions to the communities in which they live and help shape the future of their city; The Foundation Panel will adopt a strengths-based approach to young people; The Foundation Panel will seek advice and relevant information to make informed decisions; and A commitment to ensure that the meetings and structure of the foundation advisory panel work for young people.

3 - Membership The maximum membership of the youth advisory panel will be 21 young people aged between 12 and 24 years of age. The term of office for the Foundation Panel will be nine months from March 2011 November 2011. The seven existing youth councils and forums will select three members each to serve on the panel. The nominated representatives will: reflect the regional diversity of young people in Auckland commit to monthly meetings (a total of 9 over the year) commit to the full 2011 term commit to attending the orientation hui (induction) remain committed to attending their local youth council/forum participate in projects, events and tasks as mutually agreed. 4 - Scope The work programme of the Foundation Panel will evolve, but it is important that the initial Panel meeting focus on, a) developing an agenda schedule for the year; b) defining Foundational Panel aspirations for the year; and c) identifying priority actions, in order to develop and deliver a recommended model for the ongoing Youth Advisory Panel. The Primary role of the Foundation Panel will be to develop the final model for the Youth Advisory Panel and the best approach to engage with Auckland youth and to develop a long-

term model for youth engagement at both the governing body and local board levels (by November 2011). There will also be opportunities for the Foundation Panel to provide input into other council business as outlined below. 4.1 4.2 Key strategies and plans, for example: Auckland Plan Auckland Council Strategy and Policy Local Board plans 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 meetings The chairperson and deputy chairperson for the Foundation Youth Advisory Panel will be elected 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 the Auckland 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 making processes (points A-D, or C-D may be repeated, in refining and checking the YAP model): 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

Members agree that all business shall be confidential and shall not be discussed outside the membership 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 and democracy services The Foundation Panel will be appropriately resourced to support their engagement and communication 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

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 general feedback and guidance on shaping youth engagement in Auckland, and many helpful points were made 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 was received, by who, how their ideas will be turned into actions, and how long it could take to see change Recognition of Maori, Te Tiriti O Waitangi and tikanga Maori must be built into the structure and processes of the chosen model, with appropriate training provided for participants to ensure understanding Representation of Aucklands diverse cultural, ethnic and religious communities and young people with disabilities is critically important Council needs to be clear about how participating will benefit youth The Youth Development Strategy Aotearoa (YDSA), and best practice around effective youth participation should be used as a philosophical underpinning for the chosen model. Following best practice ensures that Council is developing effective programmes that enhance our reputation and follow a philosophy that youth services and youth are committed to. The term youth councils carries connotations from past structures and may discourage some young people from becoming involved. Could consider youth boards youth thinktanks or youth panels as alternatives

Other points:

Structural issues Key messages and conclusions: Even if the caucus model were adopted, focused working groups with committed members would still be required to organise and lead forums, see resulting work through and to provide 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 youth councils and local boards to regularly involve larger numbers of young people in a more informal way It is preferable for local boards to work in clusters as they wish/need, rather than being compelled to do so There may be a need for some youth councils/forums to organise another layer of subcommittees, 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 Great Barrier and Waiheke Islands will need to find a solution that works for their special circumstances

Other points:

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

Resourcing Key messages and conclusions: Adequate resourcing will be critical to the success of any of the models. Council has demonstrated willingness to invest in supporting local board community engagement this should include facilitating the youth voice Young people will want to see positive evidence that their priorities are being reflected in local and regional planning processes and accompanying budgets In the absence of cost analysis it is difficult to assess which model is most viable, and resourcing 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 local board level for the first six months of 2012 i.e. prior to negotiation of local board agreements for the 2012/13 financial year

Other points:

Relationship with local boards Key messages and conclusions: Aucklands young people represent 20% of the population so local boards have both a moral and practical responsibility to help resource meaningful engagement with them, and to 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 clearly defined for young people serving on local youth bodies. For example: o o What can they expect on a week-to-week, month-to-month basis? Who will hold the relationship on Councils side? Is there one board member specifically delegated to work with them? Who should they contact with questions? What will the role of Council officers be? How often will they meet with the board/board members or be asked to contribute to the boards work? 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? Will they be advised of/involved in meetings between the local board and other youth sector stakeholders from the local area? What will happen to any contributions they make/feedback they give? Will they be publicly acknowledged if so how? How is the local board going to be supporting their work (e.g. contributing resources, paying their expenses, public acknowledgement)?

o o o o o o

Some local boards want their youth council to be willing to act as a standing reference group 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 structure

Other points:

Some decision-making and/or expenditure could be formally delegated by local boards to their youth councils e.g. spending funds for youth events and activities Has the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board set a precedent by granting formal youth representation 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 just youth issues Training for local boards would create opportunities to upskill adults in engaging with young people 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 Key messages and conclusions: The new local youth bodies should establish close links with existing youth crews/groups/networks in their areas, and ensure clarity for all parties in terms of the nature, 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 youth crews/groups/networks need to be clear that the new structure wont replace or supersede what is already there

Membership of youth boards Key messages and conclusions: There is a need to ensure local youth bodies represent young people who are: o o o o o o o o o o from a wide range of ethnic and cultural groups, reflecting local communities disabled of intermediate school age in alternative education, special education units or distance education in tertiary education not in formal education in apprenticeships or vocational training in work young parents international students

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

It will be important to ensure high school students dont make up a disproportionate number of youth council members, as historically many youth councils have been run as a schooloriented 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 for appointment (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 guidelines around the various options and their risks and benefits Numbers and make-up of youth councils should be left completely open, at least for the first year, so individual groups can do their best to reflect their circumstances There are several options for how members could be appointed by nomination, selfnomination, 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 of their 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 on who could marshal the most supporters in a short time Existing youth crews/groups/networks/student bodies etc. could be asked to send delegates to sit on new local youth councils/working groups Should eligibility for youth council membership be based on area of origin, term-time residence or school/work locations? Numbers could reflect the number of members of the local board as a starting point, though others argue that these numbers are too small and experience shows that larger groups function better given the many demands on young peoples time Working out numbers based on local youth populations would be another option

Other points:

Forums Key messages and conclusions: 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 regular commitment, 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 to support them Forums should be informal, comfortable environments and have several incentives to get young people along, not just food, but another reason to come e.g.: o o o o sports (touch, volleyball, tag) or other fun activities kapa haka music and entertainment screening major sports events or movie nights

o o o o o Other points:

prizes visiting speakers (celebrities?) finding out about local education, training and employment opportunities creative workshops CV-writing clinics

Timing of events should work for young people, not just fit in with Councils schedule Forums are fantastic provided that they are youth-centred and not convened by government as a bureaucratically-driven consultative exercise Running similar events at the same time every year helps to build a fan-base and ensure people 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 focusing too narrowly could help get a wider group along. Young people should take the lead on identifying the issues most important to them

The YAP Key messages and conclusions: It is important that the right connections get made at the right level, and intelligence is shared between the different layers of the structure i.e. setting clear systems in place to ensure the YAP is kept abreast of important local issues, and regional issues flow back down 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 of communication etc. YAP representatives could be chosen by officers and youth representatives through a nomination and selection process to ensure diversityasking the question who is best to represent regional issues? How will youth councils/forums select their representative to the YAP? As with membership of 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 and regional level, and make the case for having some sort of interim layer. An example could be regional issue/theme-based forums or working groups reporting to the YAP, involving any members of local youth councils/forums who want to volunteer

Other points:

Communicating with young people Key messages and conclusions: 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 language issues, 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)

The local and regional youth bodies and events should be widely publicised on the internet, through schools, community and youth centres, parenting services, via existing groups 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 to joining a working group or speaking in public. Plus information can spread to a wide audience very quickly Local boards need to provide a consultation calendar so young people can fully participate in 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 young people and what the timeframe will be for hearing back Young people want to get to know their councillors and local board members its important to put a face to the name and establish a two-way relationship Many young people arent aware of what has existed in terms of supporting the youth voice 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 +. Discussion groups/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 convey greater 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 to them, 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 to help them understand the role (and clout!) of local boards, and ensure all language used aligns with this

Other points:

Practical aspects Key messages and conclusions: Important to hold meetings as locally as possible and resource young people to attend and participate 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 ongoing training to develop relevant skills and knowledge. Members should be mentored and supported by adults who utilise an Adults as Allies approach Holding meetings in formal spaces and settings, with formal rules for speaking and working through business, can hinder free and frank discussion and make young people feel uncomfortable or intimidated. Sometimes the most useful conversations happen around the

Other points:

edges of formal spaces and business. Small group situations tend to work better, though most 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, rather than a set of rules imposed from the centre Young people think it is very important to have food available at meetings, forums and events 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 is presented to speak to it, to assist them to make the best decision for their area with full knowledge of the implications Some local board members acknowledged their lack of expertise in working with young people, and suggested boards receive initial support from experienced officers to provide guidance 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 youth development and have evaluation measures to assess efficacy and safety and include these aspects into the proposal to ensure the connection between best practice and operations

Groups would have a more manageable territory to cover than with the ward affiliated model, and getting to meetings and events should be easier for members Smaller territory should mean a more realistic workload which means more time to spend getting to know and represent their local youth community rather than having to juggle many diverse groups and stakeholders Local and grass-rooted each group should have a good understanding of local issues and opportunities and a clear investment in the success of local initiatives, projects, facilities and activities. More local = more accountable More accessible than the ward-based model for young people living in the Gulf Islands Works in well with the local board structures meaning clear lines of communication and more obvious tie-ins with the new council co-governance structure Greater sense of ownership of the youth board by local community and local board, creating pride and encouraging involvement and commitment Unlike the more casually structured forum model, a dedicated youth board serving an annual term can provide the necessary focus and drive to identify local issues and concerns, develop ideas and initiatives in response, and follow up with their local boards and other stakeholders Some local boards want their youth body to be willing and able to act as a short-notice reference group i.e. if the board needs some fast feedback on something between scheduled meetings and forum events. Youth boards have committed members available on a year-round basis (during term-time) to provide this The exact structure and focus of the youth board could vary on a case by case basis, across local board areas Youth forums already exist in many local board areas, so a stock-take would be needed to see whether any of these could legitimately form the basis of a local youth board Local board-affiliated youth boards could join together informally to work as a cluster if needed, rather than being forced to do so

Weaknesses or risks With so many groups and the large numbers of young people involved, current budgets would be insufficient and staff over-stretched. Local boards will need to commit more funds at the local level to make the model work, and Council officers will have less time to spend supporting each youth board than would be ideal If there are inadequate resources the model is likely to fail to achieve its objectives this model is the most risky because it is the most resource-intensive Having so many youth boards could spread the pool of interested young people and available resources too thin This model could attract those young people who are more politically motivated, rather than getting a diverse representation of young people from the local community. However a robust selection process could mitigate this

Option 3: local board-affiliated youth council

A local board-affiliated youth forum would be comprised of regular or semi-regular events to give youth an opportunity to express their ideas, opinions, and needs to decision makers, community stakeholders or other youth. These could be convened around a particular issue, theme, opportunity or need for consultation, or on a calendar basis. This is a more informal model of youth engagement. A youth forum is essentially made up of informal, casual meetings and an unlimited member base, with a core working group to ensure its continuity. The Youth Forums may choose to link together in a cluster on an occasional or regular basis. They may also be linked to youth networks that already exist and currently support community youth engagement. Because the purpose of the Forum is to give youth a voice, the role of young people participating is to express their ideas creatively and thoughtfully on how to improve their communities so that they can be the best possible environments for adolescents to live in. The Youth Forum is designed to enable local boards and other stakeholders to listen carefully to what local youth say, consider how their ideas and opinions can be captured, articulated and incorporated into community planning, and decide how the local board and other stakeholders can best support youth action around these issues. Each youth forum would send one delegate to sit on a regional Youth Advisory Panel. Number of youth forums There are 21 youth forums under this model, one aligned to each of the following 21 local boards:

Rodney, Upper Harbour, Hibiscus and Bays, Kaipatiki, Devonport-Takapuna, Waitemata, Waiheke, Great Barrier, Albert-Eden, Waitakere Ranges, Henderson-Massey, Whau, Puketapapa, Orakei, Maungakiekie-Tamaki, Mangere-Otahuhu, Howick, Manukau, Otara-Papatoetoe, Manurewa, Papakura, Franklin Members Local young people would form a core group to organise and lead the forums, with Council officers and local youth workers working alongside to support them. A youth forum working group should have at least 10 members, but there may be hundreds of young people who would participate in forum events according to the characteristics of the area and the topics under discussion. Meetings The forum events and/or working group meetings happen as often as the young people decide, but should be no less than one per term, and up to 12 per year. Additional projects and events may also be run on top of forums to encourage engagement, participation and involve young people in action on issues that affect them. Strengths of this model This format should appeal to a wider variety of young people than the youth board format cooler, more relaxed and youth-friendly The structure recognises the contribution and leadership of young people in different community youth groups/networks This structure is able to cater to the needs and interest of young people, and the variety of issues they want to participate in/focus on in their local area, rather than looking only at Council issues Forums and their associated working groups would have a manageable territory to cover, and getting to meetings and events should be easier for members Smaller territory should mean more time to spend engaging their local youth community rather than having to juggle many diverse groups Local and grass-rooted young people coming to forums should have a good understanding of local issues and opportunities and a clear investment in the success of local initiatives, projects, facilities and activities. More local = more accountable More accessible than the ward model for young people living in the Gulf Islands Works in well with the local board structures meaning clear lines of communication and more obvious tie-ins with the new council co-governance structure Greater sense of ownership of the youth forums by local community and local board, creating pride and encouraging involvement and commitment The exact structure and focus of the youth forum and working group could vary on a case by case basis, across local board areas Youth forums already exist in many local board areas, so a stock-take would be needed to see whether any of these could legitimately form the basis of a Council-affiliated youth forum structure Local board-affiliated youth forums could join together informally to work as a cluster if needed, rather than being forced to do so Holding meetings in formal spaces and settings, with formal rules for speaking and working through business, can hinder free and frank discussion and make young people feel uncomfortable or intimidated. Sometimes the most useful conversations happen in informal settings

Weaknesses or risks A more casual and informal structure may be less sustainable, as it requires support to ensure momentum is sustained. Even with a core member group, organising events and meetings and following up on outcomes of forums could get quite messy Informality does not necessarily mean greater or higher quality participation young people feeling comfortable is the key, not a lack of structure Communication between local boards and the forum participants would inevitably be less structured as well and how will institutional knowledge be retained if members are free to drop 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 with their 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 boards will 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?

Option 4: Pan-local youth body

In some cases notably in the West area local boards might already be working together as a cluster, and may prefer to work collaboratively with a single youth body. In light of these discussions, 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 and resource their work with local young people, and/or sufficient resources are not forthcoming via the LTP and local boards are unable to meet the costs 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 the formal consultation process, but aligns very strongly to Option 1 in principle and so is set out here for 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 that boards would cover areas adjacent to one another, or have some other clear logic to underpin their working 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 out above, 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 youth bodies 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 of Auckland, with separate bodies for Waiheke and Great Barrier Islands (it is unlikely that these boards could feasibly cluster with any other boards given transport costs). Larger clusters than this are unlikely to be workable, and could also begin to duplicate the work of the regional Youth Advisory 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 together on 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

Recognises the budgetary constraints that local boards are operating within, and provides an acceptable compromise if finances are the main driver for model selection. If it became apparent 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 communities perspectives 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 youth body, 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 less likely to feel a sense of community than groups representing smaller areas, and it will be harder 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 being developed For some boards, the primary motivation for selecting this model may be resource efficiency, rather than any inherent logic around quality engagement with young people In some places, pan-local bodies may bring together very different locations/communities under 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 young people 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 events or activities should be held, facilities located, etc. Collaborating boards would need to agree clear ways of working together to ensure participating young people are adequately resourced for their overall workload, are supported to navigate any political aspects of working 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 stronger representation 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 could skew the focus of the youth boards work, especially if that board was willing to provide additional 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

Establishing a local and regional youth participation and development programme

Attachment 5: Proposed model for a regional youth advisory panel

Terms of Reference The Terms of Reference should be signed by Panel members at the start of their term and be 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 its relationships 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 Youth Development, 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 Panels appointee 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 its constituency. As such, the Panels advice to Council needs to be independent and autonomous 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 work programme. Recommendations from the Panel need to be visible to councillors to ensure youth voices can 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 budget and expenditure is made visible to the Panel. Support Members of the panel should be provided with training and induction in Council processes and decision-making, governance, handling media interest, making submissions, meeting facilitation, consultation principles and methods and youth development and leadership. Members should also receive mentoring by officers and the liaison Councillor to enable them to fulfil their role.

Establishing a local and regional youth participation and development programme

Attachment 6: Effective youth engagement

Principles Council 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 and developing strategies to build relationship, loyalty and momentum with young people. This requires consistent, regular, visible, accessible and approachable communication. Information provided by Council needs to be of high quality, yet simple and accessible 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 the big 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, visible and personal ways. They want Council to make more use of interactive online communication opportunities, using social media and other channels. Considering SiSoMo (Sight, Sound, Motion) techniques in information delivery is also important to ensuring communications are engaging. Key messages, events, and information need to clarify for young people what is in it for them how is this relevant to them and what benefits are there in participating? Young people need to be given enough time to be able to participate. Often timeframes for consultation are too short for young people to gain a good understanding on an issue, consider their opinions and navigate Council processes to be able to make a considered submission. When young people do give their feedback 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 their feedback.

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

More interactive but serious enough websites low-down styled guide (helps you navigate 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 youth caucus

Establishing a local and regional youth participation and development programme

Attachment 7: Selection processes for local and regional bodies

Principles Selection and recruitment processes have been a critical debate for the FYAP in considering the development 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 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 not usually 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 processes enable youth to select their own representatives. This ensures accountability and visibility of youth 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 than adults, 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/selfnomination and youth election process. There are different models that cater to different levels 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 who represents 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 nominated to 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, the representative should be democratically elected by peers to sit on panel. Panel representatives are expected to attend meetings of the caucus, or youth board to retain connection to the local context and local youth voices.