INSIGHT-TO-INFLUENCE / FOR PROFESSIONALS
Good participation needs more than a good session.
Practical guidance for professionals creating, facilitating, receiving and responding to young people's insight.
Youth participation doesn't begin when the meeting starts or end when young people leave. Whether you're designing a youth advisory group, facilitating a consultation, commissioning engagement or receiving recommendations, explore what meaningful influence requires throughout the process.
These tools support professional reflection and planning. They do not certify compliance, replace organisational safeguarding or data protection processes, or provide an organisational rating.
01 / START WHERE YOU ARE
What are you trying to strengthen?
Explore the areas of professional practice you want to develop. Each route points to a practical tool further down this page.
Plan an opportunity
A meaningful participation process needs a clear purpose and route to influence before young people are asked to give their time.
What to strengthen
Organisations should be able to explain why young people are being invited, what they are being asked to contribute and which decisions remain open to influence.
Planning should also establish decision authority, accessibility, safeguarding, consent, resources and arrangements for responding afterwards.
Questions to take into practice
- Why are we involving young people?
- What can they genuinely influence?
- Which decisions have already been made?
- Who holds authority to respond?
- Have we agreed what happens after the activity?
Use the participation readiness check to identify arrangements that are clear, incomplete or not yet in place.
Support contribution
Providing an opportunity to speak is not enough if young people cannot understand, access or meaningfully contribute to the discussion.
What to strengthen
Participation should recognise differences in confidence, communication preferences, experience, access needs and familiarity with professional or organisational language.
Facilitators should create appropriate ways to contribute, respect boundaries, make time for clarification and avoid treating difficult personal experiences as a requirement for meaningful insight.
Questions to take into practice
- Can young people contribute in different ways?
- Have we explained unfamiliar language?
- Are quieter or less confident contributors supported?
- Can someone decline a personal question?
- How do we respond to disagreement?
Explore practical facilitation situations and compare approaches that protect expression, accessibility and choice.
Check tokenism risks
An opportunity can be welcoming, well-attended and positively received while still lacking a meaningful route to decision-making.
What to strengthen
Examine the difference between participation activity and actual influence. Look at what young people were told, which choices they could shape and whether their contributions reached relevant decision-makers.
Tokenism can arise deliberately, unintentionally or at the point where another organisation receives young people's insight. Reflection should therefore extend beyond the quality of facilitation.
Questions to take into practice
- Can we demonstrate a clear route to influence?
- Is our use of "youth-led" or "co-produced" accurate?
- What happens to challenging contributions?
- Can decision-makers explain what they considered?
- Do we know how young people experience the process?
Use the professional reflection tool to identify where participation practice and organisational influence may be disconnected.
Handle insight responsibly
Young people's contributions need to be understood, protected and carried into appropriate decisions without losing their original meaning.
What to strengthen
Good facilitation does not guarantee that insight will be interpreted accurately or considered by the right people.
Professionals need arrangements for recording contributions, respecting consent and confidentiality, translating findings into recommendations, transferring them and securing a responsible response.
Questions to take into practice
- How are contributions recorded and interpreted?
- How is disagreement preserved?
- What protection applies to personal experiences?
- Who receives the final insight?
- Who follows up after transfer?
Follow the twelve-stage Insight-to-Influence Journey to understand responsibilities before, during and after expression.
Explain difficult decisions
Meaningful youth influence does not mean automatically adopting every proposal. It means providing honest consideration and accountable responses.
What to strengthen
Funding, safeguarding, legal duties, governance and organisational priorities can all affect whether a recommendation can be implemented.
Professionals should explain the relevant constraints, who decided, what alternatives were considered and whether any further action or learning is possible.
Questions to take into practice
- Have we genuinely considered the proposal?
- Can we explain our reasoning accessibly?
- Are we distinguishing delay from rejection?
- Could an alternative achieve a similar purpose?
- Can we describe any influence that did occur?
Explore difficult decision-making scenarios and find example responses that can be adapted for young people.
Close the feedback loop
Young people should be able to understand what happened to their contributions, not simply receive a thank-you after taking part.
What to strengthen
Feedback should explain what was heard, how insight was considered, which decisions followed, what changed and what could not be taken forward.
It should also identify any outstanding actions, responsible people and expected next updates. Organisations shouldn't expect young people to repeatedly chase for basic accountability.
Questions to take into practice
- Can we identify what young people contributed?
- Who considered the insight?
- What decisions, actions or learning followed?
- What could not be taken forward, and why?
- How and when will we communicate the response?
Use the feedback builder to prepare an accessible, specific response that explains what happened and what comes next.
Meaningful youth participation is not only about the quality of engagement. It also depends on organisational readiness, decision-making authority, responsible handling of insight and accountable feedback.
These tools support reflection and stronger practice. They do not replace your organisation's safeguarding, governance or legal responsibilities.
Before you invite young people
Participation Readiness Check.
Meaningful participation begins long before young people enter the room.
Inviting young people to contribute is an important step, but organisations also need to be ready to support, understand and respond to what they share. Before launching a youth panel, consultation, engagement activity or co-production process, it's worth examining the arrangements already in place. Are the opportunities for influence clear? Do young people understand the decisions they're informing? Are safeguarding, accessibility and feedback responsibilities established? Work through ten questions to identify areas that are ready and arrangements that may need further attention before inviting young people to participate.
Consider the arrangements currently in place. Select Partly or Not yet whenever something needs further attention. This is a planning reflection, not an audit.
What needs attention before you invite?
Review the questions above to build a list of arrangements needing further attention.
These points reflect what you've marked Partly or Not yet. They can be adapted into a planning discussion or action list.
All questions you've reviewed are marked Yes. This is a useful prompt to check whether the arrangements are genuinely in place, documented and understood by those involved. It is not confirmation that the opportunity has passed a formal assessment.
Participation should not rely on young people discovering unclear expectations, hidden decision-making boundaries or missing feedback arrangements after they join. Organisations should establish these responsibilities before inviting contributions.
This reflection supports planning and improvement. It does not replace safeguarding assessments, governance approvals, legal duties or organisation-specific risk management.
Facilitating meaningful participation
Creating Conditions for Meaningful Contribution.
Meaningful contribution isn't simply about inviting young people to speak. It's about creating the conditions for them to be heard, understood and respected.
Even well-intentioned participation activities can become difficult when professional language creates confusion, some voices dominate the conversation, personal boundaries are overlooked or young people challenge existing practice. The responsibility for responding to these situations should not rest on young people alone. Explore six common facilitation scenarios to consider what can go wrong, how professionals might respond in the moment and what organisations should establish to support meaningful contribution before, during and after participation.
Young people don't understand the discussion.
A professional is explaining a proposed service change using technical language. Young people are listening politely, but several appear unsure what is actually being decided.
What's the risk?
Young people may be asked to give views on decisions they have not been helped to understand. Some may stay quiet rather than reveal their confusion.
A technically accurate presentation isn't necessarily an accessible explanation of a system.
A stronger response in the moment
Pause the discussion. Explain unfamiliar terms, describe who makes the relevant decisions and make clear which parts young people can influence.
Invite questions without making individuals feel responsible for admitting that something was unclear.
“We sent the information beforehand, so let's keep moving.”
“We've used quite a few terms here that we haven't properly explained. I'll clarify how this works and what decisions we're discussing before we carry on.”
What the organisation should put in place
- Accessible preparation materials.
- Clear system orientation before asking for recommendations.
- Time for clarification and questions.
- Checks that explanations were understood, without testing or embarrassing contributors.
Some voices dominate the room.
A handful of confident contributors answer most questions. Other young people are participating very little and have had limited space to share their perspectives.
What's the risk?
The group's findings may reflect those most comfortable speaking rather than the full range of views available.
Silence should not automatically be interpreted as agreement or lack of interest.
A stronger response in the moment
Change the format rather than placing quieter contributors under pressure. Introduce individual reflection, paired discussion or written responses.
Thank confident contributors while deliberately creating space for different perspectives.
“We've heard from everyone who wanted to contribute.”
“We've heard some useful points. Before we move on, let's give everyone a little time to think individually, then you can share in whichever way works best for you.”
What the organisation should put in place
- Multiple contribution methods.
- Facilitation plans that account for group dynamics.
- Space for anonymous or private contributions where appropriate.
- Careful interpretation of who contributed and whose perspectives may be missing.
A young person feels pressured to disclose.
During a discussion about a sensitive issue, a young person is repeatedly encouraged to share their own personal experience.
What's the risk?
Personal disclosure may begin to feel like the price of participation. Young people might share information they hadn't intended to make public or feel unable to decline.
The organisation may also be overlooking the difference between creating space for lived experience and requiring someone to disclose it.
A stronger response in the moment
Remove the pressure and make clear that contributors can decline personal questions.
Offer other ways to explore the issue. Where a safeguarding concern emerges, follow the relevant safeguarding procedures rather than attempting to manage it solely within the discussion.
“It would really help everyone understand if you could tell us your story.”
“You don't need to share anything personal to make a valuable contribution. We can approach the question in another way, or you can choose not to answer.”
What the organisation should put in place
- Clear participation boundaries and consent arrangements.
- Facilitator preparation for sensitive discussions.
- Appropriate safeguarding and support routes.
- Alternative ways to contribute without personal disclosure.
Young people disagree with each other.
Two groups of young people offer different recommendations about the same issue. The discussion becomes difficult because the group isn't reaching a consensus.
What's the risk?
Facilitators may prioritise a neat, unified recommendation and unintentionally remove important differences in experience, need or perspective.
Disagreement doesn't necessarily indicate an unsuccessful session. It may reveal something important about the issue under discussion.
A stronger response in the moment
Help contributors explore why their experiences or priorities differ. Record areas of agreement and disagreement without forcing consensus.
Explain how differing recommendations will be represented to decision-makers.
“We need one answer from the group, so let's vote and move forward.”
“It sounds as though there's a real difference in experience here. Let's understand both perspectives and make sure they're represented accurately in what we share afterwards.”
What the organisation should put in place
- Methods for documenting differing perspectives.
- Facilitation approaches that support respectful disagreement.
- Reporting that distinguishes consensus from diversity of opinion.
- Decision-making processes that can consider more than one youth perspective.
Someone isn't comfortable speaking.
A young person has ideas to contribute but finds speaking in a large group difficult. The session has mainly been designed around verbal discussion.
What's the risk?
The organisation may unintentionally privilege one style of communication and treat confidence in group discussion as evidence of engagement.
Valuable contributions might never be heard because the participation method does not suit the contributor.
A stronger response in the moment
Offer alternatives such as writing, individual reflection, visual methods, smaller groups or contributing after the session.
Ask privately where appropriate what would support the person's participation, without singling them out publicly.
“Everyone needs to speak at least once so we know they've participated.”
“There are different ways to contribute. You can speak, write something down, discuss it in a smaller group or share your thoughts afterwards.”
What the organisation should put in place
- Accessible, varied participation methods.
- Appropriate adjustments identified ahead of time.
- Clear information about different ways to contribute.
- Equal consideration of verbal and non-verbal contributions.
A young person challenges the organisation.
A contributor questions whether the organisation genuinely listens to young people and argues that its current approach isn't working.
What's the risk?
Professionals may become defensive, try to correct the young person's account or steer the discussion back to more comfortable subjects.
When difficult contributions are minimised, young people can learn that participation is welcome only when it supports the organisation's existing position.
A stronger response in the moment
Acknowledge the concern without immediately agreeing or disagreeing. Explore the experience behind it and clarify how it will be considered.
Be honest about what can be addressed in the session and what needs a different organisational process.
“I think that's a little unfair. We've worked very hard to make this opportunity happen.”
“Thank you for raising that. It's important that we can talk about where our approach isn't working. Can you tell us more about the issue, and let's be clear about how we'll take it forward?”
What the organisation should put in place
- Facilitator confidence in receiving challenge.
- Clear routes for criticism, complaints and concerns.
- Honest records of challenging contributions.
- Accountable responses from people able to address the issues raised.
Meaningful contribution depends on more than inviting young people to speak. It requires adequate preparation, accessible communication, genuine choice, respectful facilitation and appropriate protection.
It also depends on what happens afterwards. Even a well-facilitated discussion can fall short if young people's insight is not understood, protected, transferred and considered responsibly.
Reflecting on your participation practice
Are We Enabling Influence or Just Gathering Views?
A meaningful participation process should be judged by what happens to young people's insight, not simply by whether they had an opportunity to speak.
Youth participation can appear successful on the surface: a well-attended session, an engaged discussion, positive feedback or a polished report. But those measures alone cannot tell us whether young people's contributions were understood, protected, transferred, considered and meaningfully responded to. This professional reflection tool encourages you to look across 12 areas of participation practice, from the original purpose through to organisational learning. Rate each area against the evidence available, identify where practice needs strengthening and generate a prioritised list of actions for your team.
What does your review reveal?
Select a response for each area to build your organisational reflection.
These follow-up points correspond to areas marked 0, 1 or 2. A lower response does not automatically mean tokenism has occurred; it identifies where evidence, arrangements or practice require attention.
For each priority, identify a responsible lead, evidence needed, an action and a date to review progress.
You have marked all 12 areas as strongly in place. The next step is to test this assessment against actual evidence, young people's experiences and the decisions or changes that followed.
A participation process can collect thoughtful views, receive positive feedback and produce a polished report while still struggling to establish meaningful influence.
The aim of reflection is not to label staff or organisations as successful or unsuccessful. It is to understand where insight travelled, where responsibilities became unclear, what young people experienced and what must improve.
Following insight through the system
Where Does the Insight Go Next?
Listening is only the beginning. Meaningful influence depends on what happens to young people's contributions afterwards.
Youth participation is not a single meeting, conversation or consultation. It is a connected journey, beginning with an honest invitation and continuing through preparation, expression, understanding, protection, translation, transfer and organisational response. Explore the 12 stages below to see what professionals and organisations are responsible for at each point, what evidence to look for and where youth insight can lose its meaning or influence. The journey also helps reveal why responsibilities continue after an activity ends, including for the people and institutions receiving young people's contributions.
Invitation
Professional responsibility
Evidence to look for
The session is not the whole process.
Each stage depends on the responsibilities surrounding it. A good invitation cannot compensate for weak protection. A well-run workshop cannot compensate for insight that never reaches decision-makers. A completed report cannot substitute for an accountable response.
Organisations should be able to trace how young people's contributions moved through the journey, identify where the process weakened and explain what happened next.
Responding to difficult decisions
How Do You Respond When an Idea Cannot Happen?
Not every recommendation can be adopted. But every recommendation deserves an honest, accountable response.
Young people's ideas can challenge existing plans, reveal unmet needs and offer different ways of approaching a problem. Sometimes, though, a recommendation cannot be taken forward in its original form. Funding, formal approval, safeguarding, legal requirements or responsibilities shared with another organisation may all affect what's possible. A decision not to proceed doesn't automatically mean participation has failed, but how that decision is explained matters. Explore six common situations, the questions professionals should answer and editable examples of how to communicate decisions clearly without making promises that cannot be kept.
We don't have the funding.
Young people propose a change that could improve a service, but the organisation doesn't currently have enough money or capacity to implement it.
What needs explaining?
A funding constraint can be genuine, but saying only that something is “too expensive” may leave young people unclear about whether their proposal was properly considered.
Explain what has been assessed, what resources would be needed, whether alternatives are possible and if the idea can be reconsidered.
Questions to answer before responding
- What are the actual costs or capacity requirements?
- Has anyone with budget authority considered it?
- Could a smaller version be delivered?
- Are future funding opportunities realistic?
- What, if anything, will happen next?
“That's a great idea, but we don't have the money. Maybe another time.”
Edit the wording to reflect the actual decision and what your organisation can genuinely commit to.
Replace every bracketed prompt. Don't promise a future funding review unless one is actually planned.
It needs formal approval.
A recommendation is supported by the participation team, but it must be considered by senior leaders, a governing body or another authorised decision-maker.
What needs explaining?
Professionals should distinguish support for a recommendation from authority to approve it.
Where possible, identify the decision-maker, explain the approval process and give an update timetable without prejudging the outcome.
Questions to answer before responding
- Who has authority to make the decision?
- Has the recommendation been submitted?
- When is it expected to be considered?
- Who will communicate the outcome?
- What happens if approval is refused?
“Everyone likes the idea, so we should be able to make it happen.”
Be clear about the difference between consideration and approval.
Check that the named approval route exists and that somebody is responsible for bringing the decision back to young people.
There are safety concerns.
Young people propose an activity or change that the organisation believes may create a safeguarding, safety or wellbeing risk.
What needs explaining?
Safety responsibilities are not optional, but safeguarding should not be used as a vague explanation to close down challenging ideas.
Explain the relevant concern at an appropriate level, distinguish what has actually been assessed from assumptions and consider whether a safer approach can meet the original purpose.
Questions to answer before responding
- What particular risk has been identified?
- Who is appropriately qualified to review it?
- Can risk be managed through adjustments?
- Does an alternative protect the proposal's purpose?
- What information can be safely shared?
“We can't allow that because of safeguarding. It's too risky.”
Use only after the appropriate safety or safeguarding review.
Do not use this template in place of safeguarding procedures. Immediate or serious concerns require the appropriate safeguarding response, not routine participation feedback.
There are rules we must follow.
A proposal challenges an existing process or requirement, but the organisation believes that legal, statutory or policy constraints limit the available options.
What needs explaining?
Organisations should be precise about whether a limitation comes from law, statutory guidance, organisational policy or simply current practice.
These are not interchangeable. Internal policies may sometimes be reviewed, while legal duties may place firmer limits on what the organisation can do.
Questions to answer before responding
- What exact requirement affects the proposal?
- Is it a legal duty or an internal policy?
- Who has verified the interpretation?
- Are there lawful or permitted alternatives?
- Could the proposal inform future policy review?
“That's against policy, so there's nothing we can do.”
Verify the rule or duty before describing it as a barrier.
Have the relevant professional or authorised decision-maker confirm the basis for the restriction. Never describe a preference or custom as a legal prohibition.
Another organisation needs to agree.
A recommendation concerns a system, service or process involving several organisations. The organisation that gathered the insight cannot implement the proposal alone.
What needs explaining?
The need for partnership agreement should not mean young people's contributions disappear into an unexplained external process.
Explain what authority the organisation has, who else must be involved, whether the recommendation has been transferred and how a response will be sought.
Questions to answer before responding
- Which organisation controls the relevant decision?
- Has the insight been shared appropriately?
- Who is responsible for the handover?
- Can the receiving organisation confirm consideration?
- Who will keep young people informed?
“That's really for another organisation to decide, so it's out of our hands.”
Distinguish transfer from confirmation that insight has been considered.
Only state that a recommendation was transferred when it was actually sent through an appropriate, authorised route. Protect confidential and personal information.
We decided not to adopt the idea.
A recommendation has reached the relevant decision-maker and been considered, but the organisation has decided not to proceed with the proposed change.
What needs explaining?
Not adopting a recommendation does not automatically mean participation was meaningless. However, a refusal needs to be explained honestly.
The organisation should identify who made the decision, what considerations informed it and whether the insight influenced any other part of the work.
Questions to answer before responding
- Was the recommendation genuinely considered?
- Who made the final decision?
- What were the principal reasons?
- Did the insight lead to any other learning or change?
- Is the decision final or subject to review?
“We've listened to your views, but unfortunately we won't be taking this forward.”
Avoid vague thanks as a substitute for a reasoned explanation.
Don't invent secondary benefits or organisational learning simply to soften a refusal. State only what actually happened.
A decision can disappoint without dismissing.
Organisations do not need to approve every recommendation to take young people's insight seriously. They do need to consider it responsibly, explain decisions honestly and identify what happens next.
Where proposals cannot proceed, young people should not be left to guess whether their contribution was heard, misunderstood, delayed or declined. Clear responses are part of the responsibility that comes with inviting participation.
Closing the feedback loop
Can You Explain What Happened to Young People's Insight?
Accountable feedback should explain more than what young people shared. It should explain what happened because they shared it.
When organisations invite young people to share their views, experiences and recommendations, they also take on responsibility for explaining what happened to those contributions. But meaningful feedback goes beyond thanking participants or publishing a summary of the discussion. It should make clear who received the insight, how it was considered, what decisions followed, what influence can be evidenced and what remains outstanding. Use this interactive builder to bring that information together into an accessible feedback message, identify anything your organisation still needs to confirm and distinguish genuine accountability from simply reporting that participation took place.
Work through the information your organisation can confirm. Once you've completed the relevant details, scroll down to review and adapt your feedback message. Leave anything uncertain blank rather than inventing an answer.
This tool works in your browser. It does not submit your answers or save a participation record. Avoid entering unnecessary personal or sensitive information.
What did young people contribute?
Identify the activity and the main themes, concerns or recommendations.
Focus on what young people actually contributed, rather than how many attended or how many responses were collected.
Who received and considered the insight?
Explain where the contributions went and who was responsible for reviewing them.
Sending insight to decision-makers is not the same as knowing they considered it. Be precise about what has been confirmed.
What is the current position?
Select the description that most accurately reflects the recommendations' current status.
Don't describe an agreed action as a completed change. An approval, implementation and demonstrated influence may be different things.
What was decided or done?
Describe the actual decision, action, development or ongoing consideration.
Separate completed actions, agreed future actions and proposals still awaiting a decision.
What couldn't change, and why?
Explain constraints, decisions not to proceed or unresolved parts of a proposal.
This may not apply to every activity. However, where recommendations are declined or only partly adopted, the reasons should be explained.
What influence can you evidence?
Explain what difference youth insight made without overstating its impact.
If influence cannot yet be established, leave this blank. Don't invent learning or imply that young people endorsed something they only commented on.
What happens next?
Explain any further action, when young people will hear more and how they can ask questions. If the process has concluded, make that clear.
Only promise an update when a responsible person and realistic process are in place. An honest explanation that a matter has concluded is better than an open-ended promise.
Bring the explanation together.
Your answers have been used to prepare the draft below. Review the wording carefully, make it accessible to the young people involved and check that every claim reflects what actually happened.
Your feedback message
The message is built from your answers and remains editable. Once you begin editing the message directly, those changes will be preserved. Select Rebuild from answers if you want to regenerate it using your latest input.
The message is a draft, not a verified organisational response. Check the evidence, decisions, safeguarding, privacy and consent arrangements before sending. Do not include identifiable information unless its disclosure is appropriate and authorised.
What still needs confirming?
This review highlights unanswered questions or information your organisation may still need to confirm. It does not determine whether the participation process was effective, compliant or tokenistic.
- Complete the builder to identify any outstanding information.
Receiving insight
Confirms that young people's contributions reached an appropriate person or decision-making body.
Considering insight
Explains how contributions were examined and what questions, decisions or deliberations followed.
Evidencing influence
Identifies a defensible connection between youth insight and decisions, actions, practice or learning.
Providing feedback
Communicates what happened, including limitations, outstanding actions and ways to seek clarification.
Young people shouldn't have to chase the whole journey.
If an organisation invites young people to share their experiences, perspectives and recommendations, it takes on responsibility for appropriately considering those contributions and explaining what happened afterwards.
Meaningful feedback isn't defined by how positively a message is written. It depends on whether young people can understand what was heard, who considered it, what followed, what could not change and why.
PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE LIBRARY
Take the guidance into your practice.
↗ PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE RESOURCE 01
Designing Meaningful Youth Voice Opportunities
Plan clear purpose, influence boundaries, support and accountability.
ⓘ We’re adding the finishing touches. They will be available soon!
↗ PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE RESOURCE 03
Avoiding Tokenism in Panels, Councils, Consultations and Advisory Groups
Recognise and respond to risks within youth participation structures.
ⓘ We’re adding the finishing touches. They will be available soon!
↗ PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE RESOURCE 05
Embedding Youth Insight into Decisions, Practice and Policy
Connect carefully interpreted insight to real organisational decisions.
ⓘ We’re adding the finishing touches. They will be available soon!
Download the detailed Professional Practice resources, use them with colleagues and bring the ideas into your existing participation arrangements.
↗ PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE RESOURCE 02
Resource title to confirm
Verify the approved title and published PDF before enabling this resource card.
ⓘ We’re adding the finishing touches. They will be available soon!
↗ PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE RESOURCE 04
Professional Reflection Tool: Are We Enabling Influence or Just Gathering Views?
Examine participation beyond attendance, consultation and positive feedback.
ⓘ We’re adding the finishing touches. They will be available soon!
↗ PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE RESOURCE 06
Receiving Youth Insight Responsibly: A Guide for Insight Partners
Clarify the duty of those receiving insight from another team or organisation.
ⓘ We’re adding the finishing touches. They will be available soon!
↗ PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE RESOURCE 08
Creating Feedback Loops After Youth Voice Activity
Plan accountable, accessible feedback after participation.
ⓘ We’re adding the finishing touches. They will be available soon!
↗ PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE RESOURCE 07
Responding to Unachievable Ideas Without Dismissing Young People
Explain constraints and decisions without dismissing valuable contributions.
ⓘ We’re adding the finishing touches. They will be available soon!