Youth Panels and Co-Design: Moving Beyond Symbolic Inclusion in Public Consultation

The challenge

The challenge of engaging younger people in public decision-making has become sufficiently well-rehearsed that it no longer warrants extended description. Consultation exercises continue to attract responses that skew older and more institutionally confident. What has shifted, albeit slowly, is the recognition that this is not simply a problem of reach. It is a problem of design.

Youth panels and co-design methodologies are now routinely proposed as correctives. They offer the promise of earlier involvement, sustained dialogue, and a degree of shared ownership that conventional consultation cannot match. Yet their effectiveness remains uneven. In some instances, they generate genuine insight and improve the quality of decisions. In others, they function as little more than decorative additions to processes already shaped elsewhere. The distinction is not academic. Where decisions are contested, resource-constrained, or subject to formal scrutiny, the credibility of youth engagement becomes part of the evidential base on which legitimacy must rest.

The Wrong Measure

The instinct of many organisations, when confronted with low youth participation rates, is to seek alternative mechanisms. Youth panels appear attractive because they offer a visible group, a manageable structure, and the possibility of ongoing dialogue. But turnout is the wrong measure. The central question is not how many young people are involved, but what role their involvement plays in the formation of decisions.

A youth panel convened to comment on near-final proposals may generate discussion, but it rarely alters outcomes. In such cases, the panel functions less as a deliberative body and more as a reassurance mechanism for the organisation itself. This is where many youth panels falter. They are framed as advisory, but operate downstream of the key choices. Young participants are invited to react, not to shape. The result is often mutual frustration: officers feel they have engaged, whilst young people feel unheard.

This dynamic is not unique to youth engagement, but it is particularly damaging in that context. Younger citizens are often more attuned to questions of authenticity than older participants accustomed to institutional ritual. When participation is perceived as symbolic, it does not simply fail to deliver value. It actively reinforces disengagement and damages trust in future processes.

Co-design as Decision Discipline

Co-design, when taken seriously rather than adopted as terminology, challenges this dynamic. It requires organisations to involve participants earlier, before options harden and constraints multiply. This is uncomfortable, particularly in politically sensitive environments, because it exposes uncertainty and forces trade-offs into the open. Yet it is precisely at this stage that youth input is most valuable.

Younger participants frequently question assumptions that go unexamined within institutions. They highlight practical barriers, unintended consequences, and long-term implications that are absent from standard impact assessments. This is not because they possess inherent insight, but because they approach problems from different lived realities. The value of co-design lies not in consensus building, but in option testing. It strengthens the evidential base of decisions by exposing weaknesses early, when they can still be addressed.

The difficulty is that genuine co-design demands a level of organisational confidence that is rarely present. It requires decision-makers to acknowledge what remains uncertain, to reveal constraints that are negotiable rather than presenting all constraints as fixed, and to accept that the process may generate outcomes they did not anticipate. For organisations operating under political pressure or resource constraints, this can feel like an unacceptable risk. Yet the alternative is to conduct engagement exercises that are structurally incapable of influencing decisions, which poses its own risks.

When Panels Matter

There are examples where this logic has been applied with some success. Transport for London’s Youth Panel often cited, not because it is novel, but because of how it is positioned. The panel is standing rather than ad hoc. Transport for London works with the Youth Panel at the earliest stages of scheme, policy and programme development. This creates a clearer route for youth perspectives to shape early framing rather than simply commenting on near-final proposals.

In local government, Camden Council‘s use of a youth panel to help shape the Youth Fund and participate in reviewing applications, assessing eligibility and recommending which businesses should receive investment, with final approval retained by the council.

West Berkshire’s youth work has included a gently introduced youth council model and participatory budgeting pilots, with learning reportedly carried into broader work such as reviewing the council’s inclusion and diversity strategy, and with proposals for a Youth Council linked to scrutiny involvement.

What these examples share is clarity of purpose. Youth panels are not asked to validate decisions. They are used to inform them. This distinction appears subtle, but it determines whether participation functions as a governance mechanism or a communications exercise.

Design Choices That Determine Credibility

The effectiveness of youth panels is rarely accidental. It depends on a series of design choices that are often overlooked. Purpose is the first. If an organisation cannot state clearly what influence a youth panel will have, participants will infer the answer quickly. Timing is equally critical. Panels convened after options are fixed can offer insight, but not direction. This limits their value and undermines trust.

Power is the most sensitive issue. Few organisations are willing to cede formal decision-making authority, and this is not always necessary. But there must be a clear pathway from youth input to decision rationale. Without it, co-design becomes consultation by another name. Support also matters. Young participants cannot be expected to engage meaningfully with complex policy questions without context. Panels that invest in briefing, learning and facilitation tend to produce more grounded contributions.

Finally, representation remains a persistent challenge. Youth panels often attract articulate, motivated individuals. Without deliberate outreach and support, they risk replicating existing inequalities rather than addressing them. These are not engagement tactics. They are governance considerations.

The Risk of Default Responses

There is a growing risk that youth panels become a default response to criticism about engagement gaps. Established quickly, referenced prominently, but weakly integrated into decision-making, they can create the appearance of inclusion without its substance. This is not simply ineffective. It is counterproductive. For organisations operating in environments of scrutiny, this poses a risk. Claims of engagement that are not borne out in decision records or rationales are vulnerable to challenge.

Youth panels force organisations to confront questions they might otherwise avoid. Which aspects of this decision are genuinely open to influence? Which constraints are fixed, and which are negotiable? How will competing forms of evidence be weighed? How will dissenting views be recorded and addressed? These questions are uncomfortable because they expose the limits of participation. But avoiding them does not make those limits disappear. It simply shifts the problem downstream.

From Engagement to Legitimacy

At their best, youth panels and co-design approaches do more than improve engagement. They strengthen the legitimacy of decisions by improving their quality. They do this not by amplifying voices indiscriminately, but by broadening the evidential base on which choices are made. They help decision-makers understand impacts that would otherwise be missed. They test assumptions before they become liabilities.

This requires a shift in mindset. Youth participation should not be treated as a communications exercise or a reputational safeguard. It is part of decision design. The question, then, is not whether an organisation has a youth panel. It is whether that panel is positioned to matter.

---

---

---

How tCI Can Help

Quality Assurance
Independent review at critical stages, from evidence protocol design through to final reporting. Our seven stage QA process ensures your approach to qualitative data meets legal and good practice standards, assessing analysis methods, interpretation fairness, and compliance with Gunning principles, PSED and ICO requirements. Gives you confidence your evidence will stand up to scrutiny.

Early Assurance
Snapshot review during planning to sense check your evidence framework, codebook design and proportionality rationale before fieldwork begins. Helps you avoid costly missteps and strengthens your approach from the start.

Charter Workshops
Practical, interactive half day session introducing teams to good consultation principles. Grounded in the Consultation Charter and Gunning Principles, participants learn through expert input, case studies and group discussion. Build consistent approaches to engagement that are fair, transparent and defensible. Delivered online or in person, tailored to your sector.

Whether you’re preparing for a high stakes service change or building defensible evidence for complex decisions, we can help.

Contact tCI: hello@consultationinstitute.org