|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
We thought we were doing refugee youth partnership right. We were using the best available trauma-informed frameworks, strength-based approaches and co-design principles. But when our pilot ended, our young partners told us the truth: they felt confused, rushed and used. One participant said they had “almost zero trust” in the process.
Our Youth in Design pilot began with good intentions: to tackle the barriers driving unemployment rates as high as 21% among refugee youth and create more equitable pathways into the labour force.
World Education Services brought together eight young refugees (ages 19 to 30) alongside five service provider organizations (SPOs) in Toronto to co-design solutions to facilitate the entry of refugee youth into the labour market.
We used an equitable partnership framework and guidelines designed for this kind of work. But when our evaluator secured feedback, the results were sobering. We had failed to fully put these principles into practice. If we wanted to engage in true co-design, we faced a choice. We could defend the frameworks we’d used or do something harder: stop and truly listen.
We chose to listen. We asked participants if we could suspend the pilot so we could fix our process. We brought in a pedagogical strategist and spent months redesigning our approach. Then we brought the participants back to review and validate the changes.
These practices aren’t complicated, but they require giving our participants real authority.
When we tested the redesigned program, the same participants who’d previously described confusion, frustration and lack of trust now wanted to drive this program forward.
Here’s what changed.
Rebuilding from the ground up
Our young partners told us what needed to change. Sometimes it wasn’t clear what we were asking them to do or why. They also felt power imbalances between themselves and SPOs, as well as among themselves. For young refugees who may have experienced trauma, those imbalances weren’t just disappointing – they posed an actual threat and risked harming the participants. The problem wasn’t our principles – it was that we hadn’t established enough operational practices to make the partnerships real.
Our redesign started with a fundamental question: What does trust that drives meaningful involvement actually require?
The answer wasn’t complicated. Trust requires youth to see their input shape real decisions. It requires clarity about what they are being asked to do and why. It requires organizations to step back from their standard approaches to authority. It requires feedback mechanisms that feel safe, not performative.
Our revised approach focused on four practices:
1. We separated feedback from power relationships
We designed the pilot as a learning exercise from the start. We brought in external evaluators before we began our pilot whom the participants had never met and would never see again. Evaluators spent time getting to know the participants and told them that they (the evaluators) were there to evaluate the program itself, not the participating youth. The goal was to learn for future sessions, not assess the pilot’s success. This clarity created space for our young partners to speak more freely.
For young refugees who might have experienced authority as threatening, the stakes were high. Some may have believed that speaking honestly could damage relationships or affect their standing. According to trauma research, their nervous systems could interpret these pressures as threats, triggering a stress response and shutting down the cognitive processes needed for genuine participation, creative thinking, emotional regulation and thoughtful decision-making.
Engaging an evaluator with no ongoing connection to the program removed this trigger. This resulted in better feedback and fostered neurological safety needed for authentic participation.
2. After redesigning our approach based on the evaluation, we held a validation session where participants reviewed every change we’d made
We didn’t just show them the new design; we documented specific feedback from the evaluation and pointed to the specific changes it led to. We treated feedback as essential, not optional. Research shows that when people help build something, they value it more – a bit like how we tend to appreciate furniture we assemble ourselves, often called the “IKEA effect.”
This session changed the power dynamic. Youth weren’t just contributing to our program. We were building something that met their standards.
As one participant put it, “Even though the feedback was harsh, they listened.”
3. At the start of the second cycle, we added an “Orienting Together” session that addressed both relational needs and structural clarity
We used narrative therapy methods to build trust among participants and with facilitators, helping our young partners separate themselves from problems and recognize their own expertise. We also used a visual roadmap and explained every role, session and expectation, making the trauma-informed approach both concrete and actionable.
Finally, we explained why we asked them to participate, focusing on specific outcomes rather than vague benefits. They could then make informed decisions about their participation rather than abruptly learning about expectations mid-stream.
4. We transferred leadership based on what participants told us had worked
When the group reflected on the first round, they pointed to specific moments when the program felt right, such as when they had led activities on the Seven Grandfather Teachings, an Indigenous framework for living well together. They told us that they needed to lead the work, not just come along for the ride.
We redesigned the pilot around youth leadership. The Seven Grandfather Teachings served as the foundation for how the group would operate. To support this, we redefined adult roles: “Facilitators” became “Hosts,” and “Experts” became “Topic Specialists.” The shift, which centered on a more strength-based approach, wasn’t just semantic. It was structural: program organizers were there to support youth-led work, not direct it.
What this means for the field
These practices aren’t complicated, but they require giving our participants real authority. To create effective programming, career development organizations must value youth truth-telling above organizational comfort.
The turnaround we saw went beyond better intentions. It was about specific practices that made partnership tangible.
As one young partner commented, “I feel like I can actually get stuff done here… I feel like we are actually doing something.”
Good principles require concrete practices. We learned this the hard way. Others don’t have to. Young people will tell you what they need. Are you ready to listen and follow their lead?
Kris Gowen received her PhD in Child & Adolescent Development from Stanford University. She has expertise in participatory and community-based research and evaluation and currently works on the Strategy Team at World Education Services.
Ousama Alkhatib is Manager of Youth Initiatives at World Education Services, where he specializes in program and portfolio management for equity-deserving communities. He has a strong track record of transforming consultation into meaningful collaboration through co-design, facilitation and community engagement.
Kris Gowen received her PhD in Child & Adolescent Development from Stanford University. She has expertise in participatory and community-based research and evaluation and currently works on the Strategy Team at World Education Services.
Ousama Alkhatib is Manager of Youth Initiatives at World Education Services, where he specializes in program and portfolio management for equity-deserving communities. He has a strong track record of transforming consultation into meaningful collaboration through co-design, facilitation and community engagement.
