Introduction:
All the other strata would have to be part of each community’s agenda. The least would, in the ideal, on emphasis on active citizenship in modern democratic set-up has dramatically receded in political involvement and interest alone, however. In everything else, municipalities that are closest to the people have recognized the necessity vis-à-vis the political process and have pursued the promotion of participation (Henstra, 2010, p. 242). This is reflected in how the City of Guelph defines it within the Community Engagement Framework. Where the framework encourages various community engagements, the developments in the assignment narrow down to make a conclusive effort specifically to come up with a comprehensive strategy for engaging the critical youth demographic aged 18-25 within the Guelph community (Meagher, 2011, p. 48).
Understanding Guelph’s Community Engagement Framework:
This was adopted by the City of Guelph in the year 2013, and it worked step after step to conform to the dynamism with which people of different diversities were on board. The framework, therefore, covers policies, charters, and honoraria provisions, all aimed at aiding meaningful contributions and representation of the diversities. Its foundation assured the creation of this framework based on the cultural shift toward civic engagement through inclusion, diversity, equity, and accessibility (Case, 2017, pg. 391).
The “Community Engagement Frameworks” guidelines in Guelph are characterized by transparent and open features based on the administration and residents of the City. With so much clarity within the policies and procedures that the administration has adopted, the community engagement framework inculcates a sense of responsibility among the citizens whereby they may be encouraged to engage in the development of policies and programs that concern them every day. The structured processes and feedback venues make the residents of Guelph become part of issues, express their stake, and contribute to decision-making (Jamal et al., 2022, p. 134).
The policy of Community Engagement affirms the high standard for all its constituent elements and individual standards in its functioning. It is a ratification of the commitment that the City will work at all costs to have a culture that will engender inclusion, where voice, mainly of groupings typically discounted or underrepresented, will be welcomed. In this context, then, it would be to surmise that meaningful and participating municipal governance will extract equity as a benchmark, with engagement efforts largely hinging on diversity and access (Jamal et al., 2022, p. 141).
The Community Engagement Charter, together with this policy, is the City’s down payment to its residents in explaining the process and principles that guide activities. As such, the charter clarifies mutual expectations in the two-way commitment and shared responsibility in the engagement process between the city administration and its stakeholders of the community. It even serves as a tool to help enrich the engagement processes transparently, inclusively, and respectably, carrying various points (Jamal et al., 2022, p. 147).
Moreover, the Community Engagement Honorarium Policy shows that the City is recognizing the value that lived experiences and diverse perspectives bring to the table in this decision-making space. Some honorariums will be provided as an incentive to remove the barrier equitably involved in being denied the opportunity to engage with people from the underrepresented community (Jamal et al., 2022, p. 148). Here, then, lies proactive engagement. Acknowledging the baseline value such diverse voices represent is reflective of an effort to mirror all of Guelph’s population.
The simple nature through which the Guelph Community Engagement Framework stands is very embracing and more than proactive. While developing the principles, the City is committed to establishing principles of inclusion, diversity, equity, and accessibility reflective of the spirit of extending meaningful community engagement beyond traditional boundaries to help residents make a difference that is positive and effective in the future. As Guelph continues to change and grow, so does the Community Engagement Framework that guides its work.
Significance of Engaging Youth in Municipal Decision-Making:
All students, therefore, form a very crucial and unique element of the vast array of people making up the manifold communities in Guelph. Many, drawn by the idea that they or their children will be able to receive the highest quality education, are temporary residents attracted by the excellent quality of life and the energetic cultural life in the City; others make the permanent move to the City in light of investment in the City’s educational infrastructure (Molina, 2017, pg 31). Decisions made at municipal council levels relate to varied categories of issues which impact young adults within the 18-25 age group in a number of ways daily, starting from matters related to transport and housing regulations down to the level of the kind of recreational amenities, cultural programs and activities offered. Today, the role of the youth in local governance does not represent a tokenistic inclusion. Youth should, by all means, be given an opportunity to help in the process of decision-making about issues affecting their lives and, in every manner, possess the right to have their views considered in the course of making decisions ((Molina, 2017, pg. 35).
Namely, involving young people in decision-making at the municipal level is in itself a process of instilling and breeding a sense of ownership and responsible stewardship amongst the young generation for community well-being and prosperity. Youth involvement within governance further empowers them toward intervention in policy and initiatives. In doing so, Guelph empowers them toward civic responsibility, which not only empowers youth but also enables nurturing a citizenship culture beyond individual narrow interests (Molina, 2017, p. 37). This recognition of the value of youth voices and perspectives exudes from one of the most pronounced Guelph commitments, democratic ideals and inclusive governance towards city administration more equitable and responsive than it has been.
The City also argues that engaging youth who make the youth’s important decisions which pertain to the workings of the city municipality will implicitly mean innumerable benefits for the general community. Using such high energy, creativity, and innovation offers new insight and a new horizon on the problem, what is or what is not the most severe problem the City faces (Molina, 2017, p. 1). New ideas on sustainable transportation initiatives, affordable housing programs, and new efforts to open recreational facilities are among the potential of this engagement with youth. Equally, this kind of participation gives rise to an enabling climate of intergenerational dialogues and the provision of space for collaborative relations, which creates an interactional dynamic in the shape of an imaginary bridge between adults and young people with a strong sense of collaboration and unity in the community.
The engagement of its youth in municipal decision-making will lay the ground for the next generation of civic leaders and advocates. From sensible engagement opportunities right through to the substantive development of leadership skills, Guelph continues to grow the core of young adults who chart in their passion toward community health and vitality and who are equipped with the skills and knowledge to effect change and move the community positively. Youth participation in local governance offers young people opportunities to practice agency in affecting social change and democratic champions through volunteer services in advisory boards or committees and in the leadership of grassroots initiatives and advocacy campaigns ((Molina, 2017, pg. 45).
Evidently agreed upon, involving young people in municipal decision-making is not only a moral but also a strategic investment in the future of Guelph. Therefore, these investments and the collective wisdom have to turn into a vibrant, resilient, and inclusive community reflective of the different needs and aspirations of its residents. Thus, the City of New York goes leading ahead as it had developed but yet remained the very backbone of this commitment to Democratic governance, social justice, and sustainable development.
Need for Updating Guelph’s Youth Engagement Strategy:
Although the City of Guelph recognizes the need for youth engagement, the City’s current youth strategy was reviewed last in 2013; it is a reasonably young plan and could be more effective at this point. Since the prime targets are residents in secondary school settings, those kids moving on to higher education or working life should be included in the issue. This may be more so the bringing in of the youth through the most traditional ways followed by redirection with the dynamics of society currently. Clearly, with these demographic changes, the landscape changes; hence, the City of Guelph will shift from the hitherto means of youth engagement to consist of and embody all the young adults within the community. We are seeking representation among those who are closer in age to the expected 18-25-year-old age group for the graduation pathway discussion, which includes equally diverse choices of immediate recruitment to work, either after high school or after graduating from post-secondary study, attending a junior college, university, or any form of vocational education, and personal growth even after attaining the age of 25. An updated Youth Engagement Strategy—literally trading on potential energy—to swap in the multi-faceted experiences and aspirations of young adults in return and to get them actively participating in local governance and community development.
Learning from Municipal Youth Engagement Resources:
Such resources are to guide development in Toronto and what has been done in other jurisdictions towards the engagement of youth. Provided with the resources are many strategies, tools, and best practices tailor-made to give answers to some of the common challenges when engaging young citizens in the decision-making process at the local government level (Mohamed, 2020, p. 23). This might involve a review of successful cases from right across the country of Canada and globally, leading to – but not only limited to – methods that could be useful successively in youth engagement strategies for outreach and meaningful participation mechanisms. For example, assessing the City of Toronto’s engagement strategy would lead to fruitful inclusive youth methodologies of reaching out to the youth populous to stimulate the City and youthful residents’ meaningful discourses.
The Municipal Youth Engagement Toolkit illustrates, in elaborative terms, which models may apply to anything from youth advisory councils to participatory budgeting initiatives that work within the unique circumstances of a municipality. This way, relevant knowledge and experiences can be captured, and Guelph can already hold this journey through which it can align its youth engagement framework towards best international practices (Mohamed, 2020, p. 33).
Incorporating Scholarly Literature on Youth Civic Engagement:
Scholarly literature on youth civic participation forms the grounding of this proposed youth engagement framework. Know the barriers to youth political involvement and relevant studies to ensure this strategy effectively responds to the likely challenges, but most importantly, maximizes opportunities to enhance Guelph youth engagement (Morton et al., 2012, p. 15). Information pulled will be academically researched from a dig on the youth in Guelph. It is only appropriate to track and appreciate the contribution of socio-economic factors, level of education, and cultural background to such youth engagement so that proper and focused outreach and tailor-made programs are conceptualized and put in place.
Research on youth empowerment strategies, mentorship, and youth-led initiatives could provide some guiding principles for designing a most liked initiative for the youth of Guelph. Comparatively, such analysis across the global jurisdictions of case studies allows for the comparison of youth models of engagement and their associated outcomes with a view that permits the identification of best practices and innovative approaches applicable to Guelph. Through research, literature, and synthesized steps, Guelph allowed the synthesis towards its evidence-based and responding youth engagement framework to both the needs of the youth and international standards of democratic stewardship (Morton et al., 2012, p. 25).
Understanding Barriers to Youth Civic Engagement:
This encompasses some of the issues influencing proper youth civic engagements, such as lack of awareness, lack of access to Information about opportunities, and absence of platforms for decision-making besides disempowerment (McGee, 2009, p. 45). The strategies that need to be adapted in handling such barriers should be in such a way that it has the right promotion approach and sensitize on improved accessibility and inclusiveness so that all the voices may be heard within mechanisms of the local governance process. Accordingly, the key initiative that would help to prevent apathy and indifference among the youth is raising awareness about the right to civic participation among the youth. To spread awareness and tip the young group on active involvement in shaping their community, these social media campaigns, workshops, and community outreach events are some of the methods that are possible in bringing these two initiatives under consideration for funding (McGee, 2009, p. 55).
For instance, making decision-making platforms more accessible structurally addresses issues like the design of spaces that hinder participation. Still, it also extends opportunities for participation in terms of making participating easily accessed, from a space and technology perspective, to accommodate somewhat different scheduling needs and preferences. Training and coaching the youth in the bureaucratic ways and processes and pushing through the agenda, which is likely to be their business, will give them the grit to surmount the logistical possibilities (McGee, 2009, p. 47).
Lastly, sufficient measures should exist to promote inclusion in any decision-making process. This will be able to remove that particular feeling of disenfranchisement and alienation in most of the poor young people. The following avenues for this form of participation would be possible: inclusion of inclusive policies like anti-discrimination and language access, and attempts such as contacting the marginalized youth groups in order for their view to be heard if inclusive spaces were created in which they felt their ethnic backgrounds were valued and felt a sense of ownership. Through a focus on awareness, availability, and inclusivity of such services, Guelph becomes a city that breaks barriers to citizens’ engagement with youth and assists in the development of an ‘active citizen’ and ‘democratic participation’ culture (McGee, 2009, p. 63).
Leveraging Technology for Enhanced Engagement:
This would also include making sustainable, accessible avenues and initiatives that engage the youth in technology-driven solutions towards participating in online platforms, including social media campaigns. Digital tools, framing youth preferences and habits, open a way to allowances in value communication that would bring about fewer existing gaps between the youth and local government (Goodman et al., 2020, p. 416). Online fora meant to empower the youth, or even mobile applications designed for and by them, provide easy ways in which expressions, views, and ways of working together in community projects may be aided. Such can translate to any form of questionnaires, interactive forums, and virtual town hall meetings whereby the youth can deliberate at the same time with policymakers as well as contribute to policy discussions from the comfort of their devices.
The voice of youth, therefore, has been empowered under the shadows of many social media campaigns by their ability also to increase and even ground grassroots movements. Guelph is to be sensitive in so doing and sensitize their concerns in relation to young people by the roots of advancing Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, and other major social media platforms through which several young adults are able to be covered. It is through engaging visual content, hacking into viral challenges, and real-time relevant targeting messages that drive youth participation in events and awareness programs and consequently advocating to contribute to changing the narrative at a local level (Goodman et al.,2020, p. 422).
On another front, technology can enable ongoing dialogues and collaborations between the youth and local government even after the youths have passed the formal engagement processes. It will be very relevant to establish digital, interactive feedback mechanisms that can be in the form of online suggestion boxes to ensure the youth generation in Guelph is heard at any selective stage regarding different policy issues and community initiatives, promoting the culture of openness and team building (Goodman et al., 2020, p. 427). Youth engagement, used as a tool for youth engagement, integrated with technology, may, in general, permit Guelph to tap into the power that comes with digital connectivities in making inclusive, participatory democracy, in every substantive sense of the term, empowering and actually enabling young people to help in shaping the future of their communities (Goodman et al., 2020, p. 430).
Building Capacity for Civic Leadership:
The development of skills for youth to grow up as solid civic leaders through meaningfully involved mentorship in the process of leading. Such nurturing would develop a sense of leadership and activism among youth from Guelph who are committed to the care and betterment of those making up their community (Chuong, 2015, p. 147). However, training on leadership, internships, and mentoring opportunities work in helping the youth beat the odds since these are attached to some of the brilliant and wise community leaders who have vast experiences and knowledge in championing the interests of the youths. This equally applies to the youth advisory boards, task forces, and decision-making bodies to ensure that the youth are highlighted at any level of governance. This, therefore, means that Guelph is equipping its youth to take on leadership, especially by giving them platforms actually to participate and, in so doing, strengthening democratic institutions, hounding the idealism, creativity, and energies of its young populace to see change and innovate, borne in its community (Chuong, 2015, p. 152).
Conclusion:
In conclusion, Enlarge the role of young engagement: Youth engagement will be at the heart of this and is captured at the City of Guelph in the Youth Engagement Framework, building on the past to provide depth and expansion in engaging in youth. From existing youth engagement frameworks, the academic literature, and examples across the City, the guideline has promised an enhanced and more representative form of local governance that will actively tap into the talents and energies of their young people towards a sustainable and vibrant future.
References
Case, R. A. (2017). Eco-social work and community resilience: Insights from water activism in Canada. Journal of Social Work, 17(4), 391-412.
Chuong, K. (2015). Report for the City of Guelph: Engaging post-secondary students in municipal government.
Goodman, N., Zwick, A., Spicer, Z., & Carlsen, N. (2020). Public engagement in innovative city development: Lessons from communities in Canada’s Smart City Challenge. The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe canadien, 64(3), 416-432.
Henstra, D. (2010). Explaining local policy choices: A multiple streams analysis of municipal emergency management. Canadian Public Administration, 53(2), 241–258.
Jamal, S., Warren, R., Razzaque, P., & MacBeath, V. (2022). Review and scan of core municipal public engagement principles.
McGee, S. (2009). Understanding best practices for community engagement in municipal contexts.
Meagher, S., Boston, T., Fussell, H., & Goss, A. (2010). Sustainable Neighbourhood Engagement Framework.
Mohamed, L. (2020). Youth participation in transportation planning: The City of Toronto’s youth engagement strategy.
Molina, A. (2017). Enhancing municipal support for child care: Policy options for the City of Surrey.
Morton, M., Dolgon, C., Maher, T., & Pennell, J. (2012). Civic engagement and public sociology: Two “movements” in search of a mission. Journal of Applied Social Science, 6(1), 5-30.
write