Conceptualization of Children and Youth Participation In Decision-Making Among U.S. Child Welfare Workers: Do We Perceive Young Clients As Future Actors In Democracy?

Background and Purpose:

Children and youth participation in decision-making is a key tool for creating spaces where they learn democratic skills, internalize democratic values, and find pathways for lifelong civic engagement. Young clients in the child welfare system are more marginalized and particularly vulnerable to the lack of participatory opportunities as they have to navigate power differences with adult child welfare workers. Child welfare workers often determine whose voices are presented and how they are interpreted. Therefore, the ways in which child welfare workers conceptualize children's and youth's participation in decision-making determine how they use their power and how effective their actions are. Existing research on the implementation of children’s and youth’s participation in decision-making (CYPDM), especially in child protection, remains scarce. At the same time, often, children and youth in child welfare systems reported not being asked, listened to, or heard regarding their ideas on their cases. This gap limits progress toward meaningful youth participation in child welfare. Currently, child welfare workers develop their own understanding of participatory rights and the ways it applies to the practice. This study, therefore, asks: How do U.S. child welfare workers conceptualize CYPDM, and in what types of child welfare decisions do youth participate?

Method: Using inductive content analysis, we explored how 23 U.S.-based child welfare workers conceptualize CYPDM. Participants had at least one year of experience and were recruited via purposive sampling through Title IV-E partnerships, child welfare field instructors, placement sites, and professional networks in Michigan, Texas, and Kansas. Online semi-structured interviews included five open-ended prompts about participants’ understanding of CYPDM and the manifestation of CYPDM they observed in practice. Analysis involved reading for comprehension, manual thematization, developing a codebook, achieving inter-coder consistency (84%), independent coding in NVivo 14, and discussion of emergent themes.

Results: Child welfare workers collectively described CYPDM as giving young clients a voice through inclusion, engagement, and active listening, ensuring their input informs case decisions. This understanding is misaligned with international empirical and theoretical literature in the scope of the concept (authenticity and equalizing power dynamics) and its purpose (active citizenship). Participants defined CYPDM in terms of decision types and stages of the child welfare process, including legal proceedings, placements, service selection, needs assessments, and family visitation. The participants’ conceptualizations focused mainly on ways to engage children and youth to help them understand their options in their own cases and to inform them of their perspectives. None of the participants recognized their young clients as rights holders, and only a few see their participation in decision-making as an empowerment tool that would translate beyond their time in state care.

Implications: These findings lay the groundwork for developing a child welfare workforce capable of effectively communicating and advocating for CYPDM as a learning tool about democracy. Establishing a shared understanding among professionals could support standardization and consistent implementation across child welfare settings. Institutionalizing CYPDM may involve integrating participatory principles into education and training, revising policy, developing area-specific checklists, and incorporating case-level reporting to the extent of youth participation.