5. Evidence-based approaches to policymaking and service delivery for children and young people in Ireland
This chapter discusses current practice and opportunities to strengthen evidence-based approaches to policymaking and service delivery for children and young people in Ireland. It analyses capacity among government departments and agencies to collect, utilise and share evidence that is disaggregated by age and other identity factors and coordinate research within the framework of the Children and Young People (CYP) Indicator Set, with a focus on mapping the needs of vulnerable groups of children and young people. It also discusses the collection of evidence through involving children, young people, and civil society in policymaking, as well as the development of regulatory impact assessments to anticipate child and youth outcomes ex ante.
There is a broad consensus that understanding the needs, issues and challenges to which policymakers must respond, identifying appropriate responses, and measuring their effectiveness requires robust and up to date data and evidence. The benefits of using evidence to inform policy and service provision have been outlined in various publications over the last decades. These include benefits in relation to effectiveness, efficiency, and accountability (Nutley, S. M., Walter, I., & Davies, H. T., 2007[1]).
The limitations of evidence, whether from research or other sources are also acknowledged. One cautionary observation is that evidence is always contextually contingent. There is no guarantee that results from an intervention will necessarily be replicated elsewhere in the future (Cartwright and Hardie, J., 2012[2]). A related concern is that tentative or highly specific findings are seized upon too readily or applied too widely although the bigger concern is the limited use of even high-quality robust evidence to inform decision-making (OECD, 2020[3]).
The implications are that policymakers, service-providers, funders, and practitioners require the skills to engage critically with evidence in order to use it effectively. This entails recognising the limitations of even the most robust research and evaluations and appreciating the importance of engaging with a variety of different - and sometimes conflicting - sources of evidence. This is reflected in the OECD definition of evidence-informed policymaking as “a process whereby multiple sources of information, including statistics, data and the best available research evidence and evaluations, are consulted before making a decision to plan, implement, and (where relevant) alter public policies and programmes” (OECD, 2020[3]). This definition includes evidence drawn from original research but also points to the use of administrative data and statistics. It is also important that the evidence utilised captures the views and experiences of those directly affected by policy, including children and young people.
The OECD recognises that an evidence-informed approach to policymaking depends upon effective leadership, infrastructure, culture, capacity, and skills. Putting in place robust and sustainable structures and processes necessitates identification of “existing barriers and facilitators of evidence use within the system” (OECD, 2020[3]). This includes factors related to the “local political and institutional context of research use” in addition to organisational factors and individual skills needs. The significance of administrative data as a useful and accessible source of information about needs and outcomes of service users and on the performance of services means that government departments and statutory and non-statutory agencies and bodies have an important role as producers as well as consumers of evidence (OECD, 2020[3]).
The issues that this Chapter will discuss are pertinent to Ireland but, in many cases, mirror common trends across OECD countries. These include challenges to measuring the needs of children from precarious backgrounds and with complex needs, as well as to better connect data on the varied aspects of children’s economic and material well-being to identify drivers of child poverty. Barriers to improve data collection and sharing include narrow scope of datasets, irregular timing in the collection of data, lack of consistency of questionnaires, and low coverage of (and ability to identify) issues relevant to those most vulnerable (OECD, 2021[4]). Box 5.1 outlines the legal and institutional initiatives and guidance material developed by Finland, New Zealand, and Spain to address such challenges.
Finland: The Act on the Secondary Use of Health and Social Data
The Act on the Secondary Use of Health and Social Data, passed in 2019, seeks to support policymakers in processing sensitive data in the health and social sector in an effective and safe manner.
The Act enables policymakers to utilize data previously restricted to research and statistical purposes, specifically in health and social policy formulation. It establishes a data permit authority to grant permits to both governmental and non-governmental entities for accessing sensitive data. As reported by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, this system has reduced data access waiting times, enabled decision-makers to access and utilise more data, enhanced their confidence in data collection and sharing, all while adhering to individuals' privacy rights and General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) requirements.
New Zealand: Guidance material to share information on children’s needs in a safe way
In New Zealand, Oranga Tamariki (Ministry of Children) has created guidance material for policymakers and practitioners to be aware of legislation in relation to sharing and requesting data (including personal data, case management data and aggregated anonymised data) among child welfare and protection agencies.
In 2022, Oranga Tamariki published “Frequently Asked Questions” on their website, factsheets on consultation and consent and the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, as well as infographics, reference cards, and hypothetical scenarios for policymakers, practitioners and children and young people to raise awareness about relevant legislation pertaining to sharing data on children and young people across departments.
Spain: The Childhood Observatory
The Childhood Observatory in Spain, headed by the Head of State Secretariat of the Ministry of Social Rights and Agenda 2030, is composed of working group of high-level civil servants from the central administration (Ministry of Social Rights and Agenda 2030), autonomous communities (General Directors from Autonomous Communities), as well as civil society organisations and youth councils It was established in 1999 and works based on a centralised shared information system.
The Observatory's main purpose is to protect and promote the rights of children and adolescents by publishing data in the Ministry’s website, issuing press releases on the challenges facing children in Spain and government action to address them, and corresponding with working group members and between agencies with a stake in addressing child poverty. An online ‘data hub’ compiles and presents academic research and data from government agencies working on child wellbeing.
The Childhood Observatory is complemented by the Childhood in Data initiative, which measures child wellbeing indicators more broadly. Childhood in Data is a dashboard of up-to-date information from a database managed by the Ministry of Social Rights and Agenda 2030 to inform public policy, covering indicators in the field of education, health and safety, material well-being, family and social environment, leisure and free time, and subjective well-being, as well as data on vulnerable children.
Sources: (Spain, 2023[5]); (Spain, 2020[6]); (New Zealand Oranga Tamariki, 2022[7]); (Finland’s Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, 2022[8]).
The data and evidence base on children and young people in Ireland has grown significantly in the last two decades but there remain evidence gaps which inhibit knowledge and understanding of how policy and service provision can most effectively address disparities in outcomes.
The discussion below draws on findings from OECD interviews and existing reports on stakeholders’ views on the most significant data and evidence gaps and weaknesses and the barriers identified as inhibiting effective collection, analysis, use and sharing of data by state and non-state agencies and organisations. The main focus of discussion is the Children and Young People Indicator Set, first developed as part of Better Outcomes, Brighter Futures: The National Policy Framework for Children and Young People, 2014-2020 (BOBF 2014-20) given its importance for informing and monitoring implementation of policy frameworks led by the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth (DCEDIY).
Since the adoption of the first national children’s strategy Our Children, Their Lives in 2000, there have been systematic efforts to better map the needs of children in Ireland. Important measures were adopted under Goal 2 (children’s lives will be better understood) of Our Children, Their Lives, which have been built on by subsequent policies including BOBF 2014-20 and its constituent strategies. Actions adopted have included initiatives and programmes aimed at supporting new research, measures in relation to collection and use of data and statistics, and enhancing capacity and building infrastructure for research, evaluation and data collection and analysis (Department of Children and Youth Affairs, 2011[9]) Increased government investment into research related to children and young people must be viewed in the context of a more generalised turn to research at the national and international levels (ibid.). Expenditure on research and development in Ireland increased three-fold between 2000-2010 and several strategic initiatives were adopted to enhance the enabling environment, build capacity, identify priorities, and strengthen the evidence and knowledge base (ibid.).
The National Children’s Research Programme implemented on foot of Goal 2 of Our Children, Their Lives involved four strands (Department of Children and Youth Affairs, 2011[9]):
Strand 1 “commissioned research studies”: included the establishment of the first national longitudinal study on children’s lives (see below) as well as a variety of smaller-scale studies on policy issues related to children and young people;
Strand 2 “capacity building”: included funding postgraduate research fellowships and work placements;
Strand 3 “infrastructural developments”: included the development of a set of child well-being indicators, which formed the basis of the information presented in the State of the Nation’s Children reports produced on a biennial basis by DCYA/DCEDIY;
Strand 4 “transfer of knowledge on data and research on children’s lives”: included the development of a database for research and data relevant to children’s lives.
Another important development in this period was the Early Intervention Programme, developed through a partnership between DCYA and Atlantic Philanthropies and centred on evidence-based approaches to identifying and responding to need at the level of children, families, and communities - predicated on “robust” monitoring and evaluation practices to capture learning from interventions (ibid).
In the past decade, the National Strategy for Research and Data on Children’s Lives 2011-2016 was initially planned to be narrowly focused on data and statistics, as part of a wider initiative across government departments, but during the development process the scope of the strategy broadened to include research (Department of Children and Youth Affairs, 2011[9]). The approach to developing the strategy drew on the outcomes-based approach which had been set out in the Agenda for Children’s Services (2007), narrowing the number of outcomes from seven to five, which would subsequently underpin BOBF 2014-20 and Young Ireland (Department of Children and Youth Affairs, 2011[9]). A key aspect of the development process for the strategy was the identification of data and research gaps as well as sources of data and evidence in respect of each of these five outcomes. Four cross-cutting issues were identified as requiring attention: “the need to develop a national strategic approach to information around children’s lives; to improve administrative data systems; to build capacity across all areas of research and data development, particularly analytic capability; and to actively support evidence-informed policy and practice”. This informed the selection of the five overarching objectives of the strategy:
To generate a comprehensive and coherent understanding of children’s development, needs and appropriate supports and services.
To develop research capacity in the area of children’s research and data.
To develop, support and promote good infrastructure on children’s research and data.
To improve monitoring and evaluation of children’s services in Ireland at local and national level.
To support a continuum of research and data use within policy and practice settings.
There have been important recent developments led by DCEDIY in respect of data and research, particularly in the context of developing Young Ireland. These include various programmes of commissioned research, of which the child-specific poverty programme (see below) is of particular relevance to this Chapter. There have also been initiatives in relation to dissemination and transfer of knowledge to support evidence-informed planning/policy and intervention.
‘What Works’ Ireland Evidence Hub
The What Works Ireland Evidence Hub is a repository of evidence on Prevention and Early Intervention Initiatives (PEI).1. The Outcomes for Children National Data & Information Hub provides access to the most up-to-date data across a range of indicators of relevance to children and young people.2 The Hub, which was developed by DCEDIY includes an interactive area-based geo-mapping system to inform policymakers’ decisions regarding service planning and delivery. Data and research have been identified as important in supporting the realisation of government commitments under Young Ireland. As discussed further in Chapter 8, the strategy identifies seven actions to strengthen data and research development, including to carry out a research exercise to map gaps in children and young people’s services and outcomes to inform the development of a “Cross Government Children and Young People’s Research Programme” (DCEDIY, 2023[10]).
Research and Innovation Strategy Impact 2030 and National Equality Data Strategy
Relevant developments at the wider government level include the Research and Innovation Strategy Impact 2030, a strategy adopted in 2022 to progress objectives across the Irish research and innovation system to maximise impact on policymaking. Among the commitments in the Action Plan for Impact 2030 is one related to fore-sighting/horizon scanning, which may be useful in identifying future ‘Spotlights’ or areas of cross-sectoral focus and action under Young Ireland. Finally, in 2022, the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth announced the development of a National Equality Data Strategy, led by the Central Statistics Office in conjunction with DCEDIY. The Strategy will take effect from 2023 to guide the identification of gaps in equality data and provide guidance on how to fill those gaps and develop standard practices in classification.
Among the most significant developments to date in respect of enhancing the research evidence base has been the establishment of the national longitudinal study, Growing Up in Ireland (GUI), which commenced in 2006.
The study is funded and overseen by DCEDIY, which is responsible for high-level planning and performing needs analysis, including carrying out consultations with stakeholders. It is also responsible for conducting analysis and compiling reports based on the study’s findings. The Central Statistics Office (CSO) has recently taken over operational responsibility for data collection for the study, which previously was administered by the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI). In terms of governance of GUI, there is a DCEDIY-CSO Bilateral Steering Group in place as well as two advisory groups. These include a GUI Policy Advisory Group comprising representatives from across government departments and agencies and a GUI Research and Practice Expert Advisory group comprising representatives from research/academia and CSOs.
The study recruited cohorts born in 1998 (at 9 years old) and 2008 (at 9 months old). Several waves of data collection have been conducted for each cohort including a special wave conducted in December 2020, focusing on the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2023, the study launched a new third cohort of babies who will be 9 months old in 2024.
The study involves collection of quantitative and qualitative data involving multiple instruments and covering the range of domains of children’s lives. Data is archived for use by external researchers. Beyond the official publications presenting the findings from each wave of the study, GUI data has been utilised in hundreds of reports and papers produced by external researchers. As of July 2023, 246 outputs by external researchers are hosted on the GUI website.
Source: (GUI, 2023[11]).
The Children and Young People’s Indicator Set
The Children and Young People’s (CYP) Indicator Set was developed as part of BOBF 2014-20 to inform and support its implementation. Formerly known as the BOBF Indicator Set, it has since been expanded to support implementation of constituent strategies, including the early years strategy First 5, in addition to the national action plan adopted under the EU Child Guarantee (Government of Ireland, 2022[12])). Young Ireland builds on this indicator set and uses it to set the direction of priorities for the duration of the Strategy.
Initially developed in 2017, the CYP indicator set was updated in 2021 (DCECIY, 2022[13]) and 2023.The development of the indicator set involved a multi-stage process, involving seven phases. These included the initial preparatory phase which comprised “a review of literature and other indicator sets; the compilation of an indicator inventory; the identification of potential measures and data sources; and the grouping of indicators into indicator areas” (ibid.). This was followed by the convening of an expert panel whose advice informed the subsequent phases of development. Criteria were then developed - “policy relevance” and “technical merit” - and used to identify the indicator areas presented as part of a Delphi process undertaken with stakeholders to select “priority indicator areas” (ibid.). While children and young people were not directly consulted as part of the process, findings from previous consultations informed the selection of indicator areas. There was also a further process of consultation with government stakeholders and experts prior to the preparation of a draft set of indicators (ibid).
The datasets used to compile the indicator set include Irish and international surveys (such as the Health Behaviour in School Children Survey and the Survey on Income and Living Conditions) and administrative/performance data from government departments and agencies including Tusla, the HSE and the Department of Education. The data sets used vary considerably in terms of frequency of data collection/reporting and in the scope for disaggregation (DCECIY, 2022[13]).This creates difficulties in identifying needs and measuring progress in that up-to-date data on certain issues may not be available at key points in the policy cycle. Further, lack of disaggregated data means that there are significant gaps in relation to the needs and outcomes of particular sub-groups of children and young people. This includes age-groupings, which are an important consideration given that the indicator set is intended to support implementation of the early years’ strategy First 5. There are also significant gaps in relation to children from marginalised groups. This includes six sub-groups prioritised under the EU Guarantee for Children. The stated purpose of the indicator set was initially “to track progress for children and young people aged 0–24 across the five national outcomes outlined in BOBF 2014-20”, and continues to serve this purpose under Young Ireland (DCECIY, 2022[13]).The indicator set is intended to support policymaking and implementation by identifying trends and emerging issues and to facilitate international comparison “where possible” (ibid). As acknowledged in the report, indicators “can measure inputs, process, outputs, and outcomes” but, as they provide limited insight into cause and effect, these are best regarded as a starting point for further investigation into the efficacy of policy interventions in improving outcomes (ibid.). Further details on the main strengths and potential weaknesses in the Irish policy landscape in regard to the monitoring and evaluation of the national outcomes can be found in Chapters 6 and 8, as well as the OECD's Analysis of the Monitoring System for Child Policies and Outcomes (OECD, 2024[14]).
The Indicator Set presents more than 100 indicators organised under 70 indicator areas grouped under each of the five national outcomes of Young Ireland. In addition, the Set includes 14 demographic indicators sourced, among others, from the CSO Census of Population 2022 (DCEDIY, 2023[10]). Where relevant or regularly updated data is not available for a particular indicator, “placeholders” are used. The explanation provided in the indicator set report refers to three types of placeholders. Type 1 placeholders are those for which there is no available data. Type 2 placeholders are those for which “useful regular data” is available but “more appropriate or relevant data may be in development”. Finally, Type 3 placeholders are those for which regular data is not available but there exists “useful data from once-off, infrequent or longitudinal surveys” (ibid). Use of the placeholders is important in that particular data gaps are clearly identified. In addition, to support more effective monitoring of national policy frameworks there may be a need to address additional data gaps beyond those for which placeholders have been utilised.
A large proportion of the indicator areas in the CYP indicator set are well-being measures, focused on experiences, behaviours, beliefs or attainments of children and young people. These include, for example, health behaviours, self-esteem measures, and perceptions of interpersonal relationships. There are some significant gaps in data on outcomes of particular relevance to children in the most vulnerable circumstances. For example, the indicator ”number of children who receive direct support and/or accommodation from a domestic violence service each year” is a placeholder for “Households where domestic violence occurs” although evidence suggests that significantly higher numbers of children are exposed to domestic violence than access domestic violence services (Dodaj, 2020[15]); (H.L., Feder, G., & Shaw, A., 2019[16]).
Although not represented as a placeholder, the indicator for “abuse”, which is “the total number of children at the end of the reporting period currently listed as ACTIVE (i.e. at ongoing risk of significant harm) on the Child Protection Notification System (CPNS)” is unlikely to provide an accurate representation of the scale of the issue or the extent of support needs (O’Leary, D. and Lyons, O., 2022[17]) Included in the concluding observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child following Ireland’s combined fifth and sixth periodic reports is a recommendation to “ensure the systematic collection and analysis of data on violence against children, including gender-based violence and sexual exploitation, and on cases that have been reported, investigated and prosecuted, to inform the implementation of the national strategy on violence” (Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2023[18]).
By design, relatively few (15/70) of the indicator areas are focused on access to, take-up, or quality of services. This means that there is limited insight provided into whether progress is being made in addressing support needs across the five outcome domains and thus on whether government commitments are being realised. For example, under Outcome 1 (Active and Healthy) Aim 1.3 “Positive and respectful approach to relationships and sexual health” has three indicator areas. None of the three - early sexual activity; teenage pregnancy; and knowledge about sexual health - are concerned with whether children and young people have access to relevant/appropriate services such as sex and relationship education or reproductive health services, although provision of these services was referenced in commitment (1.11) under BOBF and has been taken up again in Young Ireland.
There are just two examples of a service-level indicator related to Outcome 1 included in the data set, immunisation uptake and access to mental health services. The indicator used for the latter is “percentage waiting less than three months to be seen by Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS)”. There are no indicators in relation to general health services such as access to a General Practitioner (GP) or waiting lists for in-patient and out-patient consultations or procedures, although these are recognised policy challenges in the Irish context.
Both the BOBF 2014-20 framework and its successor, Young Ireland, are a key plank in Ireland’s efforts to fulfil its obligations under the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child (DCEDIY, 2022[19]) “Children’s rights” are one of the guiding principles of both national policy frameworks, and the various articles of the UNCRC have been mapped on to the five national outcomes (Department of Children and Youth Affairs, 2014[20]); (DCECIY, 2022[13])While it is acknowledged that “the CYP indicator set is not a children’s rights indicator set per se”, there is an emphasis in the indicator set report document on “the important relationship between the indicators and the Convention”; (DCECIY, 2022[13])). However, in its current formation the indicator set provides relatively little information relevant to how effectively the state is meeting its responsibilities to children under international human rights law. Young Ireland underlines the importance of data collection and analysis as an essential component to realising the rights of the child but does not revise the indicator set. Instead, measures to collect data on the individual dimensions of equality is cited in alignment with the country’s National Equality Data Strategy due to be published in 2024. This strategy was developed to advance the collection, standardisation, use and monitoring of equality data to highlight inequalities that may otherwise be hidden and to address these. The Cross-Government Children and Young People’s Research Programme will serve to map gaps on equality indicators for children and young people, and to set research priorities for 2024-28 (see Chapter 7).
There are important differences between rights-based monitoring and well-being monitoring in that the former “places the measurement of outcomes within the context of moral authority to entitlement and policies put into operation to ensure this entitlement” (Bray and Dawes, 2007[21]) (Kennan, D., & Keenaghan, C., 2011[22]). This means that indicators are not confined to those concerning the quality of life of children and young people but need to capture whether duty-bearers are effectively upholding rights (ibid.). A rights-based approach to monitoring is informed by the principles of accountability, participation, and non-discrimination (Kennan, D., & Keenaghan, C., 2011[22])), which necessitates attentiveness to inequalities in relation to access to or quality of resources, supports and services. This can help to guard against tendency to view variation in outcomes in terms of “deficits” within sub-groups of the child population experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage rather than due to gaps and weaknesses in policy and provision.
Source: Author’s own elaboration.
Well-designed evidenced-informed interventions and services for children, young people and parents are necessary and can promote better outcomes for those in adverse socioeconomic circumstances. There must however be at least equal attention paid to identifying, understanding, and addressing the systemic (political, economic, cultural, and social/affective) and policy factors which lead to differential access to rights and resources and ultimately to unequal outcomes (Baker, Lynch and Cantillon, 2009[23]). Indicators capturing disparities between social groups in access to or engagement with services or differential access to resources can provide a useful starting point for investigation of the structural inequalities which shape differential outcomes. This depends on availability of the requisite equality data for children and young people, which as discussed further below, is an issue to be addressed in the Irish context. In addition, appropriately disaggregated data is required to capture the extent of geographical disparities and whether and to what extent these intersect with social inequalities. That many of the indicators used in the CYP indicator set are available only at national level was identified as a challenge by DCEDIY, and is also a driver to developing the Outcomes for Children Data Hub.
Strengthening the evidence-base by addressing data and evidence gaps and inconsistencies
Strengthening the evidence base necessitates efforts to identify data gaps and weaknesses with reference to the needs of stakeholders. Interviews conducted by the OECD and consultations carried out by the Children’s Rights Alliance to inform Young Ireland provide useful insights on the most significant gaps and challenges to be addressed. The discussion below also draws on the audit of equality data carried out by the Central Statistics Office (CSO) in 2020. The audit of equality data involved 107 datasets (based on either survey or administrative data) and provides useful information on gaps and weaknesses to be addressed.
Identifying and addressing gaps in disaggregated data
Age
Gaps in respect of age-disaggregated data was identified as an issue in interviews conducted by the OECD. The CSO audit of equality data found that of the 107 datasets, 65 had data on age. Information on how data on age had been collected was provided for just 26 of the datasets - 21 of the 26 allowed for disaggregation of any age in that either date of birth or age in years had been requested. That data was collected on the basis of age grouping in the remaining five datasets, for which this information was provided, was identified as a barrier to “meaningful analysis” (Central Statistics Office Ireland, 2020[24]).
Equality grounds other than age
The need to address gaps in equality data in respect of children and young people in Ireland has been identified as an issue by various human rights bodies including the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission and the Committee on the Rights of the Child. In its concluding observations following Ireland’s combined fifth and sixth report under the Convention on the Rights of the Child the Committee made several recommendations in respect of data collection (Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2023[25]). This included a recommendation that the national equality strategy “includes the comprehensive and systematic collection and analysis of both qualitative and quantitative indicators encompassing all areas of the children’s rights under the Convention, disaggregated by age, sex, disability, geographical location, ethnic origin, nationality and socioeconomic background” (ibid.). The Committee further recommended that “the strategy is applied to all government entities with adequate human, financial and technical resources to implement it, as well as to non-State actors in the context of public procurement” and that data be made available in “accessible and age-appropriate formats” (ibid.). There was also a recommendation that the Irish state take action in relation to enhancing data collection and analysis in respect of specified disadvantaged sub-groups of children including “children with disabilities, children in alternative care, children experiencing homelessness, children without a regular residence status, migrant children and Roma children” (ibid.). While the Committee did not specify which government departments/agencies should have oversight of measures in this regard, DCEDIY would appear to be best placed to lead and oversee action on this recommendation.
The limited data available in relation to children and young people on the ground of race/ethnicity, including Traveller children and young people, is also regarded as one of the most important gaps to be addressed as highlighted in the Children’s Rights Alliance consultation to support Young Ireland, in OECD interviews, and the Roundtable on Data for Children and Young People Report 2022 (DCEDIY, 2022[26]). The equality data audit carried out by the CSO found that two datasets contained data on race, while 24 contained data on either nationality or ethnicity and 12 contained data specifically on Traveller ethnicity. Nationality/country of birth is recognised as a limited indicator of migrant or minority status as it does not allow for tracking outcomes for second-generation migrants or (in the case of nationality) for first-generation migrants who have acquired citizenship.
Whether an ethnic identifier should be used in data collection was referred to in OECD interviews as a “conversation [which] is not finished yet”. This was due to perceived concerns on the part of minority communities in respect of how data collected would be used. In the consultations carried out by the CRA (Children’s Right Alliance, 2022[27]) stakeholders noted that members of marginalised minority groups may not always wish to self-identify as such, a point echoed in interviews conducted by the OECD. Research commissioned by Tusla on the matter points to challenges to defining ethnic data identifiers and raises questions over the sensitivity of collecting ethnic data. Barriers to ethnic data collection are cited, including fear or suspicion from participants and the capacity of practitioners to collect data (Rooney and Canavan, 2019[28]).
Children in vulnerable or disadvantaged circumstances
In the CRA consultation, a need was identified for data in relation to children affected by adverse childhood experiences (ACEs). Issues categorised as ACEs include violence, neglect, parental abandonment, and parental imprisonment while child poverty is increasingly viewed not only as an underlying and exacerbating factor but as an ACE in its own right, given the impact of child poverty on outcomes in the short and longer-term (Hughes, M., & Tucker, W, 2018[29])Data gaps in respect of children affected by parental imprisonment was raised as a particular concern in the CRA consultations impacting an effective response to support needs. It was reported that while the Irish Prison Service has been collecting data on children of prisoners since 2018, the data is based on self-reports and limited in scope (Children’s Right Alliance, 2022[27]). Gaps were also identified in relation to “how many children are living in homes with a parent with a severe mental health condition, children living in homes with sexual/domestic abuse and violence” (ibid.).
Other gaps identified in the CRA consultation related to children in the care system, including children in informal/kinship care arrangements. A number of gaps were raised in relation to data collection by Tusla in respect of children in care and/or in receipt of other services. These included gaps in relation to ethnic minority status, children in care with a disability, Traveller children in the care system, and educational status of children in the care system. Participants in these consultations emphasised that efforts to strengthen data and research on children in the care system and other vulnerable sub-groups should be informed by the findings and recommendations of the Data Care Project undertaken by Eurochild3 and the “Guidance on statistics on children: spotlight on children exposed to violence, in alternative care, and with a disability” produced under the auspices of the Conference of European Statisticians (Conference of European Statisticians, 2022[30]). Gaps in the knowledge base in relation to children in direct provision were also identified as an issue in the Data Roundtable discussion hosted by DCEDIY in 2022 (DCEDIY, 2022[26]).
Data disaggregated to local level
As noted above, there is an identified need for data disaggregated to local level to facilitate planning and delivery of services. In interviews conducted by the OECD, the dearth of micro-data was referred to as a barrier to understanding and addressing problems. As noted above, the Outcomes for Children National Data & Information Hub established by DCEDIY and Tusla aims to address this challenge. The Hub, which has been in development since 2016, is now live and provides data disaggregated to the local level where available.4 The level can vary depending on the data set (e.g., county-level or Tusla area) and there is also significant variation in how recently data on particular indicators has been collected.
Promoting consistency in data collected
Lack of consistency across datasets (“different datasets that do not speak to each other”) was identified in OECD interviews as a challenge to cross-reference related data sets and enable cross-sectoral coordination. Among the key issues raised in the consultations carried out by the CRA was the wide variation in terminology and definitions of variables such as “homelessness” or “disability”, as well as challenges related to measuring challenges and impacts in a coordinated manner across departments and agencies. This concern was reflected in OECD interviews, for instance stakeholders referred to different definitions of “poverty” being used across CYPSC. Datasets can also vary significantly in the range of sociodemographic and other variables recorded, an issue raised by the CSO in the context of the audit of equality data in which efforts to promote “standard classifications at both the collection and dissemination phase of statistical production” was recommended (Central Statistics Office Ireland, 2020[24]).
Diverging data collection cycles were also identified in OECD interviews as a challenge which created difficulties in tracking trends across the five outcome areas. Timeliness and consistency of reporting across government departments was another important issue which was raised in the CRA consultation, creating challenges for effective planning and timely responses to identified need.
Data sets are also often based on different geographical units, which creates challenges in connecting data sets or in applying information to a particular location. That Tusla data is based on administrative areas, which do not coincide with the catchment areas of local authorities, was referred to in OECD interviews as creating problems for CYPSC in developing and monitoring Children and Young People’s Plans (CYPPs).
Overcoming barriers to effective collection, use and sharing of data
Resource and capacity issues
Lack of capacity (at the local level) is considered a significant barrier to the systematic collection, use and sharing of data in the child and youth sector. OECD interviewees noted that community service organisations collect large quantities of potentially useful data but did not necessarily have the financial or human resources or “access to expertise” to carry out analysis or to make data accessible. Similarly, improving capacity in local authorities in relation to working with data and evidence was seen as critical to ensure that preparation of CYPPs is “evidence - based”.
Capacity issues were also identified in OECD interviews as a factor impacting the work of CYPSC in relation to collecting, analysing, using, reporting, and sharing data. CYPSC have an important role in compiling data for the assessments of needs which inform Children and Young People’s Plans (CYPPs). In some CYPSC, the preparation of CYPPs is outsourced to external consultants/organisations, pointing to possible gaps in capacities to develop these plans in-house. OECD findings also show that further resources may be needed to support CYPSC to effectively compile data from published sources to accurately report on the implementation CYPPs. Of note, CYPSC are important generators of administrative data (produced through annual reporting and work programmes) and qualitative data (produced through local consultations), an instrumental aspect to informing policymaking. The Reform of the Child Care Act 1991 has potential implications for CYPSC regarding reporting and data-sharing, which arguably strengthens the case for enhancing capacity and aligning with standards regarding evidence collection and sharing.
Standardising the collection and reporting of administrative data
Improving and standardising processes for the collection of administrative data across state agencies and various organisations serving children, young people and families was raised in the consultation carried out by the Children’s Rights Alliance and OECD interviews as an area requiring further efforts. It was recommended that “all organisations for children and family should have one set of data to report on” and should have an obligation to collect this data. While buy-in across government departments was considered crucial in this regard, OECD interviewees also underlined the importance of effective leadership from DCEDIY to streamline reporting requirements.
Although the process to develop Children and Young People’s Plans (CYPPs) includes a standardised process to compile data to inform planning and publish administrative information, OECD interviews point to the need to strengthen data compilation and sharing among CYPSC. Further, there was also an identified need to strengthen human and financial capacities to report between CYPSC and LCDC.
Data protection considerations
Another barrier identified relates to the legal framework and in particular the impact of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which was adopted by the European Union in 2016 and came into force in 2018 (GDPR.EU, 2023[31]). Concerns around GDPR compliance and lack of understanding of the law in relation to data protection among public service employees has been identified as an issue in respect of collection of equality data (Central Statistics Office Ireland, 2020[24]). In the consultations carried out by the Children’s Rights Alliance, stakeholders called for striking the appropriate balance in recording and sharing data to ensure that the rights of service-users were protected (Children’s Rights Alliance, 2022[32]). While the reforms set out in the Child Care (Amendment) Bill 2023 are expected to bring greater clarity in relation to information-sharing, OECD interviews confirmed a demand and need for trainings in both the statutory and non-statutory sectors around the legal and ethical framework for sharing data within and across organisations.
ICT
Multiple ICT systems across government departments and agencies were identified as a practical barrier to efficient data reporting and to sharing of data. There was a recommendation for a centralised system, which would allow for user-friendly “reporting and retrieval of data” by practitioners and facilitate sharing of data across government. It was recognised that such a system would require “a cross-government approach” so that the various ICT systems at department/agency level could feed into a central system. This would entail the development of a framework enabling the production and coordination of relevant child and youth data across government, fostering a safe and efficient data flow between different government bodies (e.g., departments, agencies, local government) to achieve coherent and evidence-informed decision-making. This approach puts children and young people at the centre by promoting the use and reuse of data by different government bodies, all the while ensuring safeguards against misuse. A plan to publish guidance for Departments and agencies on developing cross-government data linking projects with the CSO is included as Action 4 of the Data and Research Development component of Young Ireland.
Accessibility of data
The need for accessible platforms and tools to obtain up-to-date information was emphasised in the CRA consultation (Children’s Rights Alliance, 2022[32]). This could take the form of an “accessible and standardised dashboard” through which data could be obtained from government departments and agencies (the Outcomes for Children Data Hub is of relevance here).
This section provides an overview of standards and mechanisms adopted by DCEDIY to strengthen public consultation practices across the Department to generate robust evidence and inform the planning and implementation of child and youth policy. The first part of this section benchmarks relevant indicators in Ireland against OECD countries, including young people’s political literacy, perceptions of political efficacy, and interest in politics. The second part discusses the legislative basis, strategies, structures, and practices in place to enable children, young people, and civil society to shape relevant policies.
Child and youth participation in Ireland in comparison to EU and OECD countries
Political literacy
Young people are more likely to engage with local and national decision-making bodies when they have a good understanding of the political system and government processes (OECD, 2020[33]). Across the 22 OECD countries for which data is available5 Ireland fares above average, with data showing that 64% of young people (ages 16 to 30) consider they know “a fair amount” to “a great deal” about the Irish government compared to the OECD-22 average of 58%. This places Ireland in the top six OECD countries in the EU where young people feel most knowledgeable of how their government operates, only behind Portugal (77%), Poland (67%), Finland (67%), Italy (66%), and Luxembourg (66%) (Eurobarometer, 2021[34]).
Perceptions of political efficacy and political apathy
In 2021, young people, aged 16 to 30, in Ireland gave an average ranking of 6.3 out of 106 in terms of how important they believe it is to be able to express their opinion on political issues, against the OECD-22 average of 6.5 (Eurobarometer, 2021[34]). At the same time, more than 1 in 2 respondents (52%) reported feeling that they had “little” to “no influence” over national-level government decisions and policies, compared to 60% across OECD countries in the EU. In turn, 45% of 16–30-year-olds in Ireland reported feeling they have “some” to “a great deal” of influence compared to 38% of their peers across OECD countries in the EU (Eurobarometer, 2021[34])7 suggesting that, despite higher than OECD average outcomes, significant efforts remain to engage children and young people who feel disempowered or disenchanted from the political process in Ireland.
Young people’s perceptions of political efficacy at a subnational level follow similar trends, with 48% of youth in Ireland reporting they felt they had “some” to a “great deal” of influence over government decision-making (OECD countries in the EU: 44%), and 51% reporting having “little” to “no influence” (OED countries in the EU: 54%) (Eurobarometer, 2021[34]).
Data from 2018 shows that perceptions of having an influence in politics differ significantly among young people from different socioeconomic backgrounds in Ireland (European Social Survey, 2018[35]). 57% of young people in Ireland reporting living 'comfortably' on their current household income reported feeling they had “some” to “a great deal” of influence over politics. On the contrary, only 15% of respondents stating that it was 'very difficult' to live on their current household income reported having “some” to “a great deal” of influence. These results point to a clear need for action to create a more enabling environment for children and young people in economically disadvantaged circumstances to get involved in decision-making.
The Government of Ireland has made significant efforts to strengthen public consultation and engagement practices, which are further discussed in the next section. Despite these efforts, evidence shows that – in line with many OECD countries – young people in the country may not see government government-led consultations as the most effective way to have their voices heard, raising questions about the quality of public consultation practices and the extent to which constituents are able to see their inputs inform policymaking. In 2021, voting and taking part in public demonstrations were seen as the most effective ways to influence decision-makers (by 36% of respondents respectively), followed by contacting a politician about an issue (28%). Using hashtags or changing profile pictures on social media to support a political or social issue (18%) taking part in a public consultation (17%) and joining a youth organisation (10%) were considered less effective (Eurobarometer, 2021[34]).
Perhaps paradoxically when discussed in relation to the evidence above, in 2018, Irish young people (16-29) tended to be more interested in politics than those aged 50 and over. On a scale from 0 to 3, (0= very interested and 3= not at all interested), young people in Ireland averaged a score of 1.14 and those aged 50 and above scored 1.63. This is aligned with the OECD-24 averages of 1.19 for young people and 1.51 for people aged 50 and above (European Social Survey, 2018[35]).
Measures to engage children and young people in policymaking
The OECD Recommendation on Open Government calls on governments to “grant all stakeholders equal and fair opportunities to be informed and consulted and actively engage them in all phases of the policy-cycle and service design and delivery”, underlining that stakeholder participation increases government inclusiveness and accountability (OECD, 2017[36]). Similarly, the OECD Recommendation on Creating Better Opportunities for Young People calls on governments to deliver targeted communication, explore innovative methods and create or strengthen institutions such as youth advisory bodies and opportunities for consultation with youth councils at national and subnational level, as ways to involve young people in policymaking and strengthen the evidence base (OECD, 2022[37]). In Ireland, important initiatives and child and youth-specific engagement structures were developed under the National Children’s Strategy, the National Childcare Scheme, and as part of the transversal goal of BOBF 2014-20 ‘Listening to and involving children and young people’ as outlined below.
Legal frameworks and strategies to consult and engage children and young people
Ireland adopted several laws that require government stakeholders and agencies to consider the views of children and young people in the development of policies that are relevant to them. Of most note, the Child and Family Agency Act 2013 provides a legal requirement for Tusla to consider the views of children when planning and reviewing the provision of services in connection with the performance of relevant functions (Government of Ireland, 2013[38]). Provisions for children to be consulted in decisions that affect their lives are further included in the Education Act 1998, the Children Act 2001, the Ombudsman for Children Act 2002, the Human Rights and Equality Commission Act 2014, the Children and Family Relationships Act 2015, and the Thirty-first Amendment of the Constitution (Children) Act 2015. Recent developments also include the Government’s launch of a review of the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs (EPSEN) Act 2004 to ensure that children and young people have a legal entitlement to participate in decisions that affect them (Department of Education, 2021[39]). The Heads of Bill and General Scheme of the Child Care (Amendment) Bill 2023, published in April 2023, also introduces proposed guiding principles underlining the need to engage children in decisions made in relation to the Child Care Act 1991.
Regarding public engagement strategies at national level, the National Participation Strategy on Children and Young People’s Participation in Decision-Making 2015-2020 was adopted by the Irish Government with the goal to ensure that children and young people have a voice on policies and service delivery across the five national outcome areas (Government of Ireland, 2015[40]). While primarily aimed at children and young people under the age of 18, it also set out provisions for young people up to the age of 24 to be better engaged in policymaking. The strategy drew from the principles established in the Council of Europe’s 2012 Recommendation on participation in decision-making of children and young people under the age of 18, and Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) (Government of Ireland, 2015[40]). The strategy was also underpinned by Lundy’s Model of Participation8, and has been instrumental to strengthen public consultation practices across departments and agencies, as evidenced by its final DCEDIY-led review which suggests that concerted efforts led to 93% of the actions to be completed or in progress (Government of Ireland, 2023[41]).
In 2023, the DCEDIY published a National Framework for Children and Young People’s Participation in Decision-making to support government departments and agencies to enhance child and youth participation in decision-making, following learnings from the aforementioned Strategy. This Framework is designed to work in tandem with the Strategy and was launched by the DCEDIY’s national centre of excellence on child and youth participation, Hub na nÓg (see below), as a response to calls from government departments, agencies, and non-government organisations for accessible training and guidance on a rights-based approach to child and youth consultation. The Framework outlines the following overarching objectives (Hub na nÓg, 2021[42]):
Improving and establishing mechanisms to ensure that seldom heard and vulnerable children and young people are listened to and involved in decision-making; and
mainstreaming the participation of children and young people in the development of policy, legislation, services, and research.
The Framework follows the Lundy model of participation, guiding practitioners on engaging children and young people’s voices in early learning, schools, youth service delivery, sports, creative and artistic programmes, and government departments/agencies and other organisations’ development and delivery of services for CYP. It provides guidance for the development of advisory groups, refers to existing sources to involve seldom-heard children in decision-making, and discusses the importance of closing the loop and setting realistic expectations on impact. The Framework further outlines principles to guide child and youth consultation processes, provides practical advice to capture their views without undue adult influence, outlines levels of participation, and includes three checklists to guide decision-makers in planning, conducting, and evaluating child and youth participation processes. The checklists serve to 1) guide government bodies to engage children and youth in government decisions, 2) evaluate government and non-government consultations to children and youth and 3) guide teachers, practitioners, social workers, and other adults in similar roles to support children and youth to have a voice in their “everyday spaces”. Finally, the Framework includes a feedback form for children and young people to evaluate the engagement process they were part of.
While the Framework represents an important step towards strengthening public consultation and participation for children and young people in Ireland, opportunities remain for it to better address challenges raised by government and non-government parties. For instance, civil society organisations in the OECD interviews suggested that more could be done to raise awareness of upcoming consultation opportunities, pointing to a need to clarify in the Framework existing government resources and channels that children and young people can expect to use to have their say. Further, while the Framework cites the 2015 Practical Guide to Including Seldom-Heard Children and Young People in Decision-Making (DCYA, 2015[43]), further could be done to integrate a consideration for the multidimensional needs of these target groups across the planning and delivery of mainstream consultation activities (e.g., identifying and addressing economic and cultural barriers). In addition, further guidance could be provided for practitioners on the wide array of existing participation methods, as well as the appropriateness to each depending on consultation needs.
Regarding the Framework’s checklists, further dimensions could be included to ensure that practitioners have considered all necessary aspects of public consultations. In line with OECD guidelines, the checklists could include additional questions for practitioners to: clearly identify the problem to solve and the stage at which children and youth should be included, define expected results, identify relevant target groups (including vulnerable children and young people), choose adequate participation methods and tools, raise awareness of consultation opportunities, plan resources and alignment with the project to be informed, and fostering a culture of participation in the long-term (OECD, 2022[44]).
Child and youth participation structures
The National Participation Office (NPO) is a permanent office established in 2021 whose officers are contracted by the DCEDIY to manage and co-ordinate some of the main youth participation structures in Ireland – Comhairle na nÓg (Children and youth councils), Dáil na nÓg (National Youth Parliament), the Comhairle na nÓg National Executive, and the National Youth Assembly. Further, the Hub na nÓg is a complimentary structure, which acts as a centre for excellence for child and youth participation.
Membership of youth councils in local authorities
Local youth councils can empower young people by allowing them to participate in local decision-making, as well as by promoting a sense of belonging and ownership in their community. They can also mobilise facts, opinions and perceptions of children and young people in terms of their access to services and perception of quality, which provide a valuable source of information for local and national policymakers. Children and youth councils (Comhairle na nÓg) exist in each of the 31 local authorities in Ireland (Comhairle na nÓg, 2021[45]). Funded by the DCEDIY, Comhairle na nÓg Development Fund and local authorities, these councils provide opportunities for children and young people under 18 to be involved in the development of local services and programmes.
Findings from 2022 show that 29 out of 31 Comhairlí reported being involved with Local Authorities through varied activities such as presentations to County Councils, including Council representation in the Comhairle na nÓg steering committee, and consultation of Comhairle in sectoral strategies (e.g., Play and Recreation Policy) (Comhairle na nÓg and Pobal, 2022[46]). Further, 14 Comhairlí also stated they engaged with Local Community Development Committees (LCDCs) in 2022, either at the initiative of the Comhairlí or through consultation on sectoral plans (Comhairle na nÓg and Pobal, 2022[46]). These findings suggest that while punctual engagements have been numerous and reportedly impactful, local authorities could embed consultations to Comhairle na nÓg more systematically and proactively. This could be done, for instance by ensuring that strategic directions and frameworks guiding local engagement and consultation activities prepared by Local Authorities routinely consider the foreseen impact of proposed policies on young people and develop proactive consultation plans that engage Comhairle na nÓg accordingly. The 2022 Comhairle na nÓg Annual Report shows that the total national membership of Comhairle na nÓg was 853, compared to 951 in 2021, with an average of 28 members per Comhairle (Comhairle na nÓg, 2021[45]). More than half (58%) of members were aged between 16 to 18 years and 42% were 12 to 15 years old. (Comhairle na nÓg and Pobal, 2022[46]). The total number of young people who regularly attended meetings during 2022 nationally was 578, with wide variances on meeting attendance rates across local authority areas.
One representative of each council is elected to the Comhairle na nÓg National Executive, which takes the recommendations from the Dáil na nÓg (National Youth Parliament) forward. The latter meets every two years and gathers representatives from each Comhairle na nÓg to identify key areas of concern to children and youth (Comhairlí Na NÓg, n.d.[47]). A national event showcasing the work of Comhairle na nÓg and engaging directly with local and national decision-makers to inform them about the topics and issues that are important to them is also held every two years, alternating with Dáil na nÓg. Serving a two-year term, the National Executive meets monthly to progress the topic selected at Dáil ná nÓg, consult on key policies at national level and reports back to local child and youth councils on progress and outcomes. The National Executive is supported by the National Participation Office and DCEDIY to engage with ministers, policymakers, representatives from relevant Oireachtas Committees and other decision-makers. In 2021, the National Executive has been engaged in consultation with the Department of the Taoiseach for the implementation of the Climate Action Plan, among others (Comhairlí Na NÓg, 2021[48]).
To increase the impact of the work of Comhairli, OECD interviews point to the need to better institutionalise child and youth consultation processes so that these occur as an integral part of local decision-making processes rather than ad-hoc. For instance, further work is needed to ensure consistency of how local authorities report on having considered the voices of children and young people. Establishing clear policy leadership at a local government level on child and youth policymaking and developing performance indicators to measure the extent to which local authorities engage with children and young people were identified as key priorities in OECD interviews. Raising further awareness of Comhairli at local government level, and the importance of engaging them early and meaningfully in local decision-making, was also seen as needed. Regarding strengthening capacities within Comhairlí, OECD interviews pointed to the need to further support the role of Coordinators that report to local authorities.
Youth councils at subnational level exist in 88% of OECD countries. In some countries, local youth participation is further institutionalised through provisions in law. For instance, in Finland and Norway, establishing local youth councils at a municipal level is mandated by law. Similarly, in the Flemish Community of Belgium, public institutions are compelled by decree to consult young people in policymaking both at the city and national level (OECD, 2020[33]).
Membership of the National Youth Assembly
The National Youth Assembly of Ireland was established by DCEDIY in response to a commitment in the Programme of Government 2020 (DCEDIY, 2022[49]). It functions as a consultative forum for children and young people between the ages of 12 and 24 to have a say on issues that are important to them and inform government policies. The Assembly meets up to four times a year, including annual meetings as the Youth Assembly on Climate and the Rural Youth Assembly. Its membership is composed of 50 delegates, 20 of whom are nominated by Comhairle na nÓg and the remainder nominated from Irish youth organisations, and sits for a term of 18 months. Sitting delegates are joined at each Assembly by up to 10 guest delegates who have a special interest in specific topics. The delegates come from all of Ireland.
Similar mechanisms, usually affiliated to specific ministries, exist across 53% of OECD countries (OECD, 2020[33]). For instance, in Denmark, the Ministry of Environment and Food has established a Youth Climate Council. OECD research shows that these bodies widely differ across member countries in terms of functions, composition, terms of appointment, financial and human resources, and involvement in the policy cycle (OECD, 2020[33]).
Hub na nÓg
Hub na nÓg is a national centre of excellence and coordination on giving children and young people a voice in decision-making. The Hub supports government departments, agencies, and non-government organisations to conduct public consultation practices with children and young people, particularly those that are seldom-heard. It was established by the DCEDIY to support the implementation of the National Strategy on Children and Young People’s Participation in Decision-Making (2015-2020), and is seen by many as the ‘go to’ mechanism to conduct public consultations in the field of youth and child policy (Government of Ireland, 2015[40]). For instance, Hub na nÓg was engaged to conduct consultations with vulnerable children and young people, including those from Traveller communities and those having experienced homelessness for the planning of Young Ireland.
The Hub provides training, coaching, development, advice and support to government and non-government organisations to engage children and young people in decision-making. Trainings are usually tailored to the particular needs of organisations, identified through a training-needs analysis. Most trainings have a two-day duration, and include components on theory, legal frameworks, policy context, and how to leverage advisory groups. All trainings include an evaluation and target setting. Despite this service being on offer, OECD interviews point to gaps to engaging Hub na nÓg consistently across departments and agencies, with the potential to further raise awareness of this structure to policymakers.
The European Structured Dialogue Process
The European Structured Dialogue Process is a participatory structure established by the Council of the European Union to foster debate between young people (15-30 years) and decision-makers and give children and young people the opportunity to influence youth policy development at national and European levels (European Commission, n.d.[50]). In Ireland, a National Working Group with stakeholders chaired by DCEDIY and supported by the National Youth Council of Ireland (NYCI) was responsible for the Structured Dialogue in which young people had a formal engagement with the Policy Consortium established under BOBF 2014-20 in the form of consultations, and to identify priority issues for young people.
Engaging with civil society on child and youth policies
Engaging civil society in the development of policies for children and young people has been primarily done under the structure of the Advisory Council, created under BOBF 2014-20, and reinvigorated with a new composition to support the implementation of Young Ireland. OECD interviews point out that this structure was instrumental to coordinating civil society views on children and young people voices, with some of its key members (including, for instance, Barnardos and the Children’s Rights Alliance) leading consultation activities across all five national outcome areas. OECD interviews with civil society suggest that there is a need to better resource civil society organisations to leverage their expertise and make the most of their outreach abilities. Further efforts are also required to strengthen coordination with existing outreach structures led by departments other than DCEDIY, such as the Public Participation Network (PPN), which allows local authorities to connect with community and voluntary groups around the country. Strengthening coordination with other outreach structures would address challenges noted in OECD interviews, including a perceived proliferation of consultative bodies engaging with civil society organisations, unclear functions and remits across participation structures, and resource strain for civil society organisations engaging in several consultative bodies.
Streamlining public participation practices
As demonstrated above, Ireland has set up a solid institutional framework to foster child and youth participation in policymaking and is among the leading countries across the OECD on child and youth consultation and engagement. To further strengthen participatory practice, the assessment points to a number of more general conclusions, notably the need to strengthen public awareness on opportunities to engage and have a say in government processes, as well as to clearly communicate on how children and young people’s voices and the evidence generated through these activities have impacted policy planning and delivery. Further, the final review report of the National Strategy on Children and Young People’s Participation in Decision-Making 2015-2020 found that policymakers had a limited understanding of how to involve children and young people in decision-making in practice (Government of Ireland, 2023[41]) and that concerns over the resource- and time-consuming nature of organising consultations prevailed.
Further, there is scope to strengthen coordination on consultative requirements, processes and skills across departments by ensuring that public officials have the right tools to guide decisions over, for instance, at which point children and young people should be engaged in the policymaking cycle, which stakeholders should be engaged, what level of policy impact triggers a public consultation, and what requirements exist to engage with hard-to-reach children and young people, among others.
Moreover, OECD interviews suggest that engagement with children and young people from vulnerable backgrounds is likely to continue being a challenge to government officials. Engagement and consultation with these demographic groups (e.g., including Traveller young people, young people experiencing homelessness) is usually delegated to Hub na nÓg, which is configured and supported by the government to specialise in consultation with seldom-heard young people, as well as civil society groups who have direct contact with these groups as was done for the consultation on Young Ireland. Despite the aim of NPO and the Hub to embed consultation practices across government, the expertise that is generated by them is not necessarily being transferred to policymakers, limiting their capacity to engage children and young people in a meaningful and impactful way in decision-making.
The DCEDIY’s Equality Youth and Participation Division is currently developing a Participation Action Plan, to succeed the National Strategy on Children and Young People’s Participation in Decision-Making 2015-2020. Eight objectives with actions and lead stakeholders are outlined in the plan, some of which seek to address the aforementioned challenges. These include better embedding the voices of children and young people in decision-making, policy, service development, legislation, and research (e.g., through convening a Rural Youth Assembly and a National Youth Assembly on Climate yearly) and building capacities across government sectors on the importance of child and youth consultations (e.g., through capacity-building trainings for public officials). The Plan also includes objectives on giving a voice to children and youth in their homes and local environment (e.g., working with local authorities to better consult children and young people), in the education system (e.g., establishing a Participation Unit in the Department of Education), in health and social services (e.g., train healthcare staff on child and youth participation in healthcare decisions), and in the court system (e.g., increase child and youth participation in court processes).). Finally, the Plan outlines actions to support children and young people to participate safely in decision-making online (e.g., expand public consultations into digital platforms), and to ensure participation structures are more inclusive and accessible (e.g., identifying systemic barriers for seldom-heard groups). The Plan aligns with Young Ireland’s priorities, governance structures and periodic review processes.
The challenges discussed in this section are commonly shared across OECD countries. Child and youth organisations are leveraged by many OECD countries to communicate with and outreach to seldom heard groups in policymaking. However, when consulted by the OECD in 2020, youth organisations in OECD countries raised important challenges to meaningful participation, most notably that government bodies lack awareness of the added value of involving them and that opportunities to participate in consultations are not always well communicated. They also pointed to the lack of financial and human capacities among government bodies as a barrier (OECD, 2020[51]). These challenges were also commonly reported by government entities in charge of youth affairs across OECD countries. Moreover, youth policymakers referred to the absence of manuals to provide guidance on meaningful engagement practices, which exists in only 9% of the surveyed government entities (OECD, 2020[51]). Box 5.3 outlines the mechanisms and tools put in place by Finland and New Zealand to engage children and young people in policymaking in a meaningful way.
New Zealand: Age-appropriate and culturally respectful guidelines
Since the establishment of the Children’s Amendment Act 2018, any adoption or amendment of a strategy to foster child wellbeing, obliges the responsible Minister to conduct a consultation with children and young people, the Children’s Commissioner, the Minister of the Crown responsible for Māori Development, and representatives of Māori.
The Child Wellbeing and Poverty Reduction Group (CWPRG) under the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) developed a series of guidelines to support policymakers consult with and engage children and young people across government bodies. These guidelines were developed in consultation with other departments, children and young people and the Office of the Children’s Commissioner. They include a series of steps to follow, as well as links to resources for policymakers. The steps include:
1. Planning the engagement: Mapping previous engagements and consultations, establishing purpose and scope of the engagement, choosing a consultation method, recruiting participants, and taking informed consent and ethical considerations into account. It also includes understanding what is needed for the targeted group of children and young people to take part in the consultation in a meaningful way, choosing a venue, time, and consultation facilitator, helping children and young people prepare, and devising whether a recompense or incentive is needed.
2. During the engagement: Steps in the process include creating a comfortable and welcoming space, establishing culturally appropriate relationships, adapting to the needs of children and young people in the moment, ensuring the engagement is active and age-appropriate, employing creative methods to record participations, and showing respect and listening. This is also a key opportunity for policymakers to build civic skills among children and young people through learning opportunities.
3. After the engagement: Guidance is provided on analysing the insights gathered throughout the engagement process, as well as closing the loop and demonstrating the impact of participation.
In the 2022 review of the Child and Youth Well-being Strategy, the DPMC analysed which engagement methods had been used to consult government departments, civil society organisations, children and young people including those from minority backgrounds in the consolidation of the original Strategy. Further, a targeted consultation process was performed with the above groups as part of the 2022 review. Findings and feedback from these targeted engagements were summarised to inform the review recommendations.
Finland: Building capacities in public administration to consult children and young people
As part of the implementation of the Child Strategy, a training module was prepared in co-operation with subject-matter experts in the field in Finland. The purpose of the module is to strengthen policymaker capacities and competences in relation to the Rights of the Child and, in particular, on children’s participation and consultation in Finland. The 10-module online training programme on the Rights of the Child was finalised and made available in February 2023. This initiative serves to fulfil obligations outlined in Article 42 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which informs Finland’s implementation of the Rights of the Child. The measure is also based on recommendations to Finland issued by the Committee on the Rights of the Child on building awareness and training among policymakers and service providers working with children on the Rights of Children. The parliamentary committee and the working group monitoring the Child Strategy considered this training programme to be a key measure for policymakers to effectively implement the Child Strategy.
Ensuring that all adults working with children have sufficient understanding and competence for supporting children's inclusion and participation is among the key priorities of Finland’s Child Strategy. The training was offered as a response to demand raised by government officials across fields working with children and by children themselves. It is envisaged this training will be updated and supplemented as a part of tasks of the Child Strategy Unit during subsequent government terms.
Source : (DPMC, 2022[52]); (eOppiva, 2023[53]).
Public budgets, regulations and procurement are critical instruments government can leverage to generate more child and youth responsive policy outcomes. For instance, the OECD Recommendation on Regulatory Policy and Governance recognises regulatory impact assessments (RIAs) as an important tool for an evidence-based policymaking. In the context of youth policy, RIAs can help identify potential differentiated impacts of policy and rulemaking on children and young people (OECD, 2012[54]).
Over the past decade, various countries have been experimenting with innovative governance tools to ensure their policies and services are more closely aligned with the needs of children and young people. At least 15 countries (including Finland and New Zealand) and two regions use child rights impact assessment (CRIA) tools to anticipate whether policy proposals improve the well-being of children (Dirwan and Thévenon, 2023[55]). While one in three OECD countries use general regulatory impact assessments and provide specific information on the expected impact on young people, only three countries (Austria, France, Germany) and one region (Flanders in Belgium) apply ex ante “youth checks” to assess and anticipate the possible impact of new legislation on young people more systematically There is also wide variation across countries with existing child and youth RIAs in relation to legal underpinnings and methodology (OECD, 2020[51]). Box 5.4 outlines selected child and youth impact assessments in OECD countries and their respective characteristics.
Austria: Child and Youth Impact Assessment
Austria’s Child and Youth Impact Assessment (“Youth Check”) is a national-level tool, which exists since 2013 to enable policymakers to take the needs of children and young people (ages 0 to 30) into account when drafting new legislation. The tool assesses three dimensions including 1) the protection and development of children and young adults; 2) care for and maintaining children and young adults, including the costs of raising children; and 3) safeguarding the future of children and young people.
The Youth Check is performed through a survey filled by the Ministry in charge of drafting new legislation. It is triggered if the new legislation is expected to have an effect on more than 1,000 children and youth (for the first two aforementioned dimensions), or if the legislation is expected to have significant financial, fiscal, or environmental implications (e.g., spending over 1 billion over 10 years).
Flemish Child and Youth Report in Belgium
The Flemish Child and Youth Report (JoKER) is a tool employed by policymakers since 1997 (as a Child Report) and updated in 2008 (to include young people). Assessing the impact of draft legislation on the population aged 0 to 25, the JoKER is an obligatory procedure for all legislative proposals introduced by the Flemish government that may impact the lives of children and young people. The Report must include a summary, description of issue, policy objective, options and alternatives to draft legislation, impact analysis, and information about the execution, administrative costs, enforcement, evaluation, and consultation efforts. The JoKER is drafted by the respective ministry in charge of developing new legislation.
France: Youth Impact Clause
The Youth Impact Clause in France (Clause d’impact jeunesse) is used by policymakers since 2009 to perform a preliminary assessment to consider the impact of government drafts on bills or regulations on young people, aged 15 to 25.
A youth impact statement produced through this assessment is required by law for any draft regulatory text that includes new measures applicable to local authorities, civil society, and State services. Ministries in charge of drafting a new bill are responsible for preparing the statement, which is then sent to the Secretary General of Government. The tool serves to map the state of proposed legislation, its objectives, alternative options to legislating, and its anticipated impact on the target population. As part of the assessment, consultations are carried out with the French Economic and Social Council, a constitutional consultative assembly representing key economic, social, and environmental stakeholders.
Germany: Youth Check
Germany’s Youth Check is an instrument of regulatory impact assessment established in 2017 to analyse the impact of federal legislation on young people (aged 12 to 27). There is no legal requirement to carry out a youth check in Germany yet. The Youth Check is conducted by the Competence Centre Youth-Check, which is located within the German Research Institute for Public Administration and receives funding from the Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth (BMFSFJ). It receives legislative proposals from all federal ministries to determine whether a youth check is required.
If legislative proposals are identified as relevant, the Competence Centre triggers a two-stage assessment process, which analyses impacts across six areas of young people’s lives (family, leisure, education and work, environment and health, politics and society, and the digital world). The assessment also expands across 11 impact dimensions.9 The Youth Check is applied during the draft bill stages of legislation. In addition, the Competence Centre examines bills again once they have been approved by Cabinet and adopted by the Federal Government. In case changes occurred between the draft and approved legislation, a new youth check is performed.
New Zealand: Child Impact Assessment Tool (CIAT)
The New Zealand Child Impact Assessment Tool (CIAT) was established in 2018 as a non-mandatory tool to support policymakers to systematically take into consideration the wellbeing of people aged 0-18 in the law- and policymaking process.
The CIAT comprises a screening sheet, a three-step impact assessment and a guidance document. The screening sheet serves to help determine which proposals should be assessed more fully or if the anticipated impacts on children and young people merit further analytical steps. If the impacts of children and young people are assessed as distinct and significant, the Screening sheet material recommends that the analysis be transferred into a Child Impact Assessment. The three-step process (preparation of a proposal, data collection and stakeholder consultation, and preparation of summary of impacts) enables policymakers to unpack the broader context of a legislative proposal, including how it may impact different dimensions of children and young people’s lives as well as the effects across different groups (e.g., depending on disability, class, cultural background).
Whilst the CIAT is not mandatory, Ministerial Cabinet papers in New Zealand have a population impact section, which requires policymakers to assess the impact of policy on particular cohorts, including children. In addition, when a policy requires regulatory/legislative change, a Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) must be completed with information about the expected distributional impacts – information sourced from a CIAT can thus be used to deliver on these requirements.
Sources: (Ministry of Social Development, 2023[56]) (Legifrance, 2016[57]); (Schneider, 2022[58]); (Belgian Presidency to the EU, 2023[59]).
Several impact assessment tools are used in Ireland to anticipate the impact of planned and evaluate existing laws, policies, and programmes in the field of child well-being. Notably, the development of a RIA is obligatory for major primary laws and subordinate regulations, and should be conducted at early stages of legislative consultation processes to explore through a structured approach regulatory and non-regulatory alternatives to address a policy challenge (Department of the Taoiseach, 2018[60]).. Although no specific RIAs exist in relation to child and youth policies, BOBF 2014-20 established a commitment to regularly analyse and update relevant legislation, including the Child Care Act 1991 (see Box 5.1). As part of a RIA in Ireland, poverty impact assessments (PIA) are a statutory tool to shed light on the situation of vulnerable groups, including children.
Child Rights Impact Assessments (CRIA) have been employed by the Ombudsman for Children’s Office on an ad-hoc basis to assess the impact of policies and laws and foster compliance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child (OCO, 2022[61]). The introduction of child and youth impact assessments are also part of the commitments outlined in Young Ireland to embed systematically the perspectives and concerns of children and young people in government decision-making. A project led by the Children’s Rights Alliance in partnership with DCEDIY, the EU, and other actors, was launched in 2023 to document the work of child participation structures during the pandemic. This will inform the development of a prototype Child and youth RIA (see Box 5.5) (DCEDIY, 2023[62]).
Child Rights Impact Assessment
Child Rights Impact Assessments (CRIA) are a tool supporting policymakers and lawmakers to comply with the Convention on the Rights of the Child through assessing and reviewing potential impacts of proposed or existing legislation and policies on children and their rights.
A first pilot study focusing CRIA on the impact of school closures on children's rights in Ireland was published in 2022 by the Ombudsman for Children's Office (OCO). The study’s methodology included desk research on key indicators, as well as interviews with stakeholders, including state agencies and non-governmental organisations. Beyond assessing the impact of school closures on children’s rights, this pilot disseminated learnings among relevant State agencies and OCO staff to strengthen skills and capacity to implement CRIA the future. To date, however, CRIAs are not yet systematically applied across relevant agencies.
Regulatory Impact Analysis conducted by DCEDIY on the Child Care (Amendment) Bill 2019
As part of the review of the Child Care Act 1991, and in response to a commitment included in BOBF 2014-20, DCEDIY conducted a RIA to assess the Guardian ad litem (GAL) arrangements under the Act 1991, which regulate service provision to children and young people who are the subject of childcare proceedings. As part of the process, the DCEDIY led consultations with government departments and agencies, and Hub na nOg. The results obtained from conducting the RIA informed legal reforms in the GAL system, as embedded in the Child Care (Amendment) Act 2022.
Poverty Impact Assessment
Introduced in 1998, Poverty Impact Assessments (PIA) are part of RIA processes in Ireland. The objective of PIA is to indicate the impact of the proposal on groups in poverty or at risk of falling into poverty. These include lone parent families and families with a large number of children. “Childhood” is further identified as one critical lifecycle stage in the process of poverty alleviation.
Sources: : (OCO, 2022[61]) ; (Department of the Taoiseach, 2018[60]); (DCEDIY, 2019[63]); (Office of Social Inclusion, 2008[64]).
To use RIA more systematically and successfully implement the prototype Child and youth RIA currently in preparation, OECD interviews point to the need to strengthen capacity for data analysis and training on impact assessment methodologies within DCEDIY and across relevant departments to harness their full potential to inform evidence-based policymaking. Further work is also needed to raise awareness among policymakers of the benefits and utility of utilising youth checks or child and youth RIA in their work, as well as ensuring that these are utilised meaningfully rather than as a ‘tick-box’ exercise.
References
[23] Baker, J., K. Lynch and S. Cantillon (2009), Equality: From Theory to Action, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
[59] Belgian Presidency to the EU (2023), EU Youth Test/Check, https://flandersineu.be/sites/default/files/2023-05/Background%20nota%20EU%20Youth%20Test-Check.pdf.
[21] Bray, R. and A. Dawes (2007), A rights-based approach to monitoring the well-being of children in South Africa. In: Dawes, A., Bray, R. & Van der Merwe, A. (eds). Monitoring child well-being: a South African rights-based approach., Cape Town: HSRC Press., http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11910/5984.
[2] Cartwright, N. and Hardie, J. (2012), Evidence-based policy: A practical guide to doing it better., Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[24] Central Statistics Office Ireland (2020), Social Housing in Ireland 2019 - Analysis of Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) Scheme, Central Statistics Office Ireland, https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-hhwl/socialhousinginireland2019-analysisofhousingassistancepaymenthapscheme/ (accessed on 2 May 2023).
[27] Children’s Right Alliance (2022), Report Card 2022 - Is Government keeping its promises to Children?, https://childrensrights.ie/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Report-Card-2022.pdf.
[32] Children’s Rights Alliance (2022), Consultation Documents, Unpublished.
[45] Comhairle na nÓg (2021), Development Fund Annual Report 2020, https://www.comhairlenanog.ie/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Comhairle-na-nOg-Annual-Report-2020-FINAL.pdf.
[46] Comhairle na nÓg and Pobal (2022), Comhairle na nÓg Development Fund Annual Report 2020, https://www.pobal.ie/programmes/comhairle-na-nog-development-fund/.
[48] Comhairlí Na NÓg (2021), Development Fund Annual Report 2020, https://www.comhairlenanog.ie/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Comhairle-na-nOg-Annual-Report-2020-FINAL.pdf.
[47] Comhairlí Na NÓg (n.d.), National Executive, https://www.comhairlenanog.ie/national-executive/.
[18] Committee on the Rights of the Child (2023), . Concluding observations on the combined fifth and sixth periodic reports of Ireland., https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CRC%2FC%2FIRL%2FCO%2F5-6&Lang=en.
[25] Committee on the Rights of the Child (2023), Concluding observations on the combined fifth and sixth periodic reports of Ireland., https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CRC%2FC%2FIRL%2FCO%2F5-6&Lang=en.
[30] Conference of European Statisticians (2022), Statistics on Children: Spotlight on children exposed to violence, in alternative care, and with disabilities.
[13] DCECIY (2022), Better Outcomes Brighter Future Indicator Set Report 2022, Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, Government of Ireland, https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/c9ad0-better-outcomes-brighter-future-indicator-set-report-2022/ (accessed on 6 April 2023).
[10] DCEDIY (2023), An Indicator Set for Better Outcomes Brighter Futures, The national policy framework for children and young people 2014-2020, Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/03f4b-children-and-young-peoples-indicator-set/.
[62] DCEDIY (2023), Young Ireland: the National Policy Framework for Children and Young People (0-24) 2023-2028, https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/80ac4-young-ireland-the-national-policy-framework-for-children-and-young-people-0-24-2023-2028/.
[19] DCEDIY (2022), Blueprint of the Policy Framework for Children and Young People, https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/b24bf-policy-framework-for-children-and-young-people-2023-2028/.
[49] DCEDIY (2022), National Youth Assembly of Ireland convenes for the first time as the Youth Assembly on Climate, https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/4f46a-national-youth-assembly-of-ireland-convenes-for-the-first-time-as-the-youth-assembly-on-climate/ (accessed on January 2023).
[26] DCEDIY (2022), Roundtable on Data for Children and Young People Report 2022.
[63] DCEDIY (2019), Reform of guardian ad litem arrangements in child care proceedings, https://www.gov.ie/en/policy-information/04fc0e-reform-of-guardian-ad-litem-arrangements-in-child-care-proceedings/.
[43] DCYA (2015), Practical Guide to Including Seldom Heard Children and Young People in Decision-making, https://www.cmetb.ie/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Seldom-heard-a_practical_guide.pdf.
[20] Department of Children and Youth Affairs (2014), Better Outcomes Brighter Futures: the national policy framework for children., Department of Children and Youth Affairs.
[9] Department of Children and Youth Affairs (2011), National Strategy for Research and Data on Children’s Lives 2011-2016, https://www.cypsc.ie/_fileupload/Documents/Resources/National%20Strategy%20for%20Research%20and%20Data%20on%20Childrens%20Lives%202011%20-%202016.pdf.
[39] Department of Education (2021), Minister Josepha Madigan launches review of the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs (EPSEN) Act 2004, https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/69020-minister-josepha-madigan-launches-review-of-the-education-for-persons-with-special-educational-needs-epsen-act-2004/.
[60] Department of the Taoiseach (2018), Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) and Related Legislation, https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/2855d9-regulatory-impact-analysis-ria-and-related-legislation/.
[55] Dirwan, G. and O. Thévenon (2023), “Integrated policy making for child well-being: Common approaches and challenges ahead”, OECD Papers on Well-being and Inequalities, No. 16, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1a5202af-en.
[15] Dodaj (2020), Children witnessing domestic violence., https://doi.org/10.1108/JCS-04-2019-0023.
[52] DPMC (2022), Engagement with children and young people: Best practice guidelines, https://www.childyouthwellbeing.govt.nz/resources/engagement-children-and-young-people-best-practice-guidelines (accessed on November 2023).
[53] eOppiva (2023), Participation and consultation of children and young people in legislative drafting, https://www.eoppiva.fi/koulutukset/lasten-ja-nuorten-osallistuminen-ja-kuuleminen-saadosvalmistelussa/ (accessed on October 2023).
[34] Eurobarometer (2021), Youth Survey 2021, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/at-your-service/fr/be-heard/eurobarometer/youth-survey-2021.
[50] European Commission (n.d.), Structured Dialogue, https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/structured-dialogue.
[35] European Social Survey (2018), ESS round 9 - 2018. Timing of life, Justice and fairness, https://ess-search.nsd.no/CDW/RoundCountry.
[8] Finland’s Ministry of Social Affairs and Health (2022), Secondary use of health and social data, https://stm.fi/en/secondary-use-of-health-and-social-data (accessed on September 2023).
[31] GDPR.EU (2023), What is GDPR, the EU’s new data protection law?, https://gdpr.eu/what-is-gdpr/ (accessed on Accessed May 26 2023).
[41] Government of Ireland (2023), Final Review of the National Strategy on Children and Young People’s Participation in Decision-making 2015 – 2020, https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/80796-final-review-of-the-national-strategy-on-children-and-young-peoples-participation-in-decision-making-2015-2020/.
[12] Government of Ireland (2022), EU Child Guarantee Ireland’s National Action Plan, https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/227064/4f56a03b-c6a2-45ca-ae6e-6ec99bebb8ec.pdf#page=null.
[40] Government of Ireland (2015), National Strategy on Children and Young People’s Participation in Decision-Making 2015-2020, https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/9128db-national-strategy-on-children-and-young-peoples-participation-in-dec/.
[38] Government of Ireland (2013), Child and Family Agency Act 2013, https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2013/act/40/enacted/en/html.
[11] GUI (2023), Growing Up In Ireland, https://www.growingup.gov.ie/.
[16] H.L., Feder, G., & Shaw, A. (2019), “Towards an ecological understanding of readiness to engage with interventions for children exposed to domestic violence and abuse”, pp. 271-292, https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12587.
[42] Hub na nÓg (2021), National Framework for Children and Young People’s Participation in Decision-making, https://hubnanog.ie/participation-framework/.
[29] Hughes, M., & Tucker, W (2018), “Poverty as an adverse childhood experience.”, North Carolina medical journal, 79(2), 124-126..
[22] Kennan, D., & Keenaghan, C. (2011), “A rights-based approach to monitoring children and young people’s well-being.”, Report 1 Child and Youth Programme Galway: NUIG and University of Ulster.
[57] Legifrance (2016), LOI organique n° 2009-403 du 15 avril 2009 relative à l’application des articles 34-1, 39 et 44 de la Constitution (1), https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/id/JORFTEXT000020521873.
[56] Ministry of Social Development (2023), Child Impact Assessment Tool, https://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/resources/child-impact-assessment.html.
[7] New Zealand Oranga Tamariki (2022), Information sharing resources, https://www.orangatamariki.govt.nz/working-with-children/information-sharing/information-sharing-resources/ (accessed on September 2023).
[1] Nutley, S. M., Walter, I., & Davies, H. T. (2007), “Using evidence. How research can inform public services.”, Bristol: Policy Press.
[17] O’Leary, D. and Lyons, O. (2022), Examining the Prospects for Developing a National Child Maltreatment Surveillance System in Ireland., https://doi.org/10.1007/s42448-021-00097-3.
[61] OCO (2022), A Pilot Child Rights Impact Assessment (CRIA), https://enoc.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/CRIA-FullReport-Ireland.pdf.
[14] OECD (2024), Analysis of the Monitoring System for Child Policies and Outcomes, fortcoming, OECD Publishing.
[44] OECD (2022), OECD Guidelines for Citizen Participation Processes, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/f765caf6-en.
[37] OECD (2022), Recommendation of the Council on Creating Better Opportunities for Young People, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0474.
[4] OECD (2021), Measuring What Matters for Child Well-being and Policies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e82fded1-en.
[3] OECD (2020), Building Capacity for Evidence-Informed Policy-Making: Lessons from Country Experiences, OECD Public Governance Reviews,, https://doi.org/10.1787/86331250-en.
[33] OECD (2020), Governance for Youth, Trust and Intergenerational Justice: Fit for All Generations?, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/c3e5cb8a-en.
[51] OECD (2020), Governance for Youth, Trust and Intergenerational Justice: Fit for All Generations?, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c3e5cb8a-en.
[36] OECD (2017), Recommendation of the Council on Open Government, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0438.
[54] OECD (2012), Recommendation of the Council on Regulatory Policy and Governance, https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/49990817.pdf.
[64] Office of Social Inclusion (2008), Guidelines for Poverty Impact Assessment, https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/31337/4ce56549a5084944ba2fcce0abcec49f.pdf#page=null.
[28] Rooney, C. and J. Canavan (2019), Exploring Ethnic Data Collection for the Child and Family Agency, https://www.tusla.ie/uploads/content/Ethic-Data-Final-Report-2_230819.pdf.
[58] Schneider, A. (2022), Impact Assessment for the Young Generation in Austria, https://www.eesc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/files/2022-06-08_soc728_andreas_schneider.pdf.
[5] Spain (2023), Infancia en Datos, https://www.mdsocialesa2030.gob.es/infancia-en-datos/datos-indicadores.htm (accessed on September 2023).
[6] Spain (2020), Observatorio de la Infancia, https://observatoriodelainfancia.mdsocialesa2030.gob.es/ (accessed on September 2023).
Notes
← 1. See: https://whatworks.gov.ie/.
← 2. See: https://outcomes4children.tusla.ie/.
← 3. See: https://www.eurochild.org/initiative/datacare/.
← 4. See: https://outcomes4children.tusla.ie/.
← 5. Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden.
← 6. On the question “To be a good citizen, how important do you think it is for a person to express their opinion on political or social issues?” featured on the 2021 Eurobarometer Youth Survey, ranking options included: 0=extremely unimportant and 10=extremely important.
← 7. Data reflects findings from the question ‘How much of a say do you feel you can have over important decisions, laws and policies affecting your country as a whole?’ on the 2021 Eurobarometer Youth Survey. Responses in Ireland showed 11% of respondents indicated ‘A great deal’, 34% of respondents indicated ‘Some’, 33% of respondents indicated ‘Not very much’, and 19% of respondents indicated ‘None at all’. 3% of respondents indicated ‘Don’t know’.
← 8. The Lundy Model provides a way of conceptualising Article 12 of the UNCRC which is intended to focus educational decision-makers on the distinct elements of the provision (space, voice, audience, influence).
← 9. The 11 Impact Dimensions of Germany’s Youth Check include: participation opportunities, educational conditions and opportunities, health effects, individual rights, financial effects, media access and use, mobility, protection against discrimination, protection against violence, self-determination, and social relationships.