Participation and coproduction report

The Lundy model of child participation is a framework for involving children and young people in participation. It is actively employed by the Anna Freud, several local authorities[1], some schools and other organisations. The model is grounded in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, specifically Article 12, and champions a rights-based to participation. It emphasizes that all children, including those with SEN, possess the same rights. These rights encompass:

1. The right of the child to express themselves freely.
2. The right to have their perspectives and opinions being given due consideration and weight.

These rights are not mere privileges granted to children; they are obligations for professionals working with children. The rights are universal principles that apply to all children, transcending other rights. They pertain not only to individual children but also to groups, such as in the context of policy development.

The model’s purpose is to guide decision-makers by emphasising the separate yet interconnected components of the provision. The Lundy model consists of four elements —Space, Voice, Audience and Influence — and follows a logical and chronological sequence. In the webinar Participation and coproduction in family hubs using the Lundy model (also called the Lundy model) , Prof. Laura Lundy emphasized that having a voice is essential for participation and influence, but insufficient on its own. Space is needed to provide the context for expressing that Voice, and Audience shapes the Influence Voice can have.

[1] eg. Leicester, TUSLA (Ireland)

To help implement and follow the Lundy model consistently, Laura Lundy and TUSLA (The Child and Family Agency, Ireland) have developed checklists for professionals . These lists pose reflective questions to consider before, throughout and after the participation process in relation to the model’s four domains. Some of the checklists are aimed at professionals, some at the children involved in participation. The lists can be used for children from the age of about 9 and needs to be supported by a practitioner. The forms are designed to be flexible and adaptable to various contexts, serve as a starting point and might need to be adapted.

The Lundy model and the TUSLA resources can be used without a need for a licence; however, acknowledgement is required.

The Lundy model is used in schools in Ireland and Scotland; its use is still less prevalent in England and Wales. The Thrive Trust is a best practice example for the application of the Lundy model in schools in England.

The realisation of children’s and parents’ rights is dependent on their active involvement. Professionals need to collaborate with parents, providing them with support, to enable the child’s right to be heard. Parents have the right to guide and support their children and to receive state support when needed. While their rights are not absolute and child safety may take precedence, parents do not forfeit all their rights, even in challenging situations.

Article 5 of the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) emphasises the importance of respecting the roles of parents, legal guardians, and other responsible individuals in providing guidance and direction to children as they exercise their rights under the Convention. Its relationship to corporate parents relates to the provision of advice, guidance and the freedom of expression, as children have the right to seek and receive information and be heard. It involves creating child-friendly information about family hubs while also ensuring that the information is accessible and understandable to everyone. Therefore, it is best to create these resources with children and young people themselves. Laura Lundy emphasised the shared challenge regarding language – we aim to simplify the information for children and young people, but we may not always understand the language they use. However, the right to information is an important aspect of effective participation.

According to Laura Lundy, participation is always imperfect, but ceases to be tokenistic when intentions are genuine and right. To make participation meaningful, feedback should be prompt, comprehensive, appropriate and accessible. Equally crucial is the commitment to follow up on promises – doing what we say we’ll do is key to authentic participation. LAs also pointed out the importance of clear goals for participation.

To make participation engaging and meaningful there needs to be flexibility in approach. Examples of what local authorities have done are:

1. practitioners have parachuted into community groups to gain insights from parents and carers which inform the development of services
2. ran a parent/carer voice week or summit, rather than a regular parent/carer voice group, to get more engagement
3. engaged families with events, eg. an elf on a shelf activity
4. focused on investment in communication to broaden their reach
5. created a central participation platform to upload all their participation activities, so that information is accessible, to avoid duplication and to increase consistency in approach
6. involve families in the creation of a new logo, app or website.

Many LAs engage with parents via Facebook and other social media. This approach means that parents can participate at a time and place convenient for them and might be helpful in rural areas. However, LAs reported it to be difficult to engage new parents via this approach and mentioned the limitations with regards to inclusivity, because social media engagement can be difficult for those whose first language is not English, those who have low literacy levels and other groups. LAs also do not tend to use platforms like TikTok that young people access and this could be a barrier to their engagement. Concerns about risk of misinformation were also raised. However, spreading information via social media puts low demands on the LAs and was the preferred method of many families.

The creation of realistic expectations about the ability to influence services was thought to be an important aspect of preventing disappointment. Often the problem was not an unwillingness of services to change, but being unable to change due to rules around service provision. LAs felt this could be resolved by giving a clear rationale to service users why change was not possible.

Some LAs also voiced concern about participation and consultation fatigue. Addressing this issue is critical, particularly among disillusioned parents who have had negative past experiences, such as not receiving feedback from professionals and lacking positive relationship, and those who perceive the process as a mere checkbox exercise. Also children can experience participation fatigue. These issues can also become evident when they do not actively participate in their care reviews for instance.

To tackle this challenge, practitioners emphasised the need for a focus on improved communication, acknowledging the vital role of feedback. Participants should always be informed about the next steps in the process. Practitioners thought it was essential to lead by example, demonstrating active and meaningful engagement. Furthermore, when something cannot be implemented, providing clear and transparent reasons was seen as crucial to maintain trust and credibility.

Securing commitment from decision-makers for participation is a vital requirement for its success, yet commitment is still frequently lacking or limited. Questions were raised regarding how the case for funding could be strengthened and a dedicated approach to participation be achieved. Several LAs believed that practitioners who are involved in participation were actively building this case through practical demonstrations. Recognising the existing pressures, it is important to highlight that sharing successful practices can be a powerful strategy. Importantly, some effective methods can be implemented without requiring a significant time investment when executed correctly.

Engaging parents and carers who do not participate in co-produced activities was seen as particularly challenging but important. The strategies mentioned were to engage via a person who already has the trust of the community and to build on any existing links. Informal chats, open-ended questions and active listening were seen as positive strategies to understand the perspective of the family or community. Experienced practitioners emphasised that it was important to show consistent presence even if only a few participants are present at meetings. Demonstrating commitment was seen as a way of encouraging others to join. During meetings, families should be encouraged to voice their needs, preferences and concerns. Practitioners should try to find out and understand reasons for lack of engagement to understand obstacles to engagement and tailor solutions. Again, it was seen as critical to always act upon feedback, follow through on promises and commitments to build trust and show that involvement is valued. The time and effort needed to build these relationships should not be underestimated.

While a flexible approach is often needed, this is particularly important when engaging with seldom heard groups. LAs agreed that comprehensive strategies in the planning process were needed for promoting equality and diversity. The implementation of these strategies will help to create a more inclusive and welcoming environment, making it easier for parents and carers to engage in participation activities.

Alongside the Lundy model, the National Youth Agency has a curriculum framework for youth work including participation. The challenge of getting children and young people to participate in engagement groups has been highlighted by several LAs. Meeting times often need to be adjusted and teams might need to be visited to encourage their involvement. Many LAs also find it challenging to create family hub spaces that effectively cater to the needs to both children and teenagers. Wolverhampton has created a coproduction hub where practitioners collaborate with young people across various aspects of city council work, including family hubs.

Challenges frequently stem from resource limitations, such as small teams operating with limited capacity and a reliance on relationship-based outreach. It is crucial to prioritise clarity regarding timelines and maintain transparent communication. Resource limitations can, to an extent, be mitigated by maintaining a well-defined budget and closely monitoring expenditures. Hiring qualified staff can sometimes be another mitigating factor, but the long-term sustainability of these roles needs to be kept in mind. The service manager should be actively involved and regular progress reports should be implemented to proactively identify and manage risks. Frequent strategy meetings can ensure alignment with project goals and objectives. All documentation should be closely linked to the participation model being used, fostering coherence and consistency.

LAs are trying different methods to improve the participation workstream. Leicester for instance, updates a detailed participation work stream document daily, which is then presented at all relevant meetings across the council. This process ensures both Influence and Audience. In some LAs professionals regularly produce highlight reports, report on actions and delivery, ensuring there is a rationale for everything they do. In Stockport the Youth Participation Alliance coordinates and filters participation requests from different organisation to ensure meaningful engagement.

Some LAs are still unsure about who to involve in the creation of PCPs and who should be on the steering group. Others work closely with a range of services: public health services, statutory services, voluntary or commission services, perinatal services and peer support. They are trying to involve parents from the start and try to get parents to sit on transformation boards. Several LAs emphasised the importance of building rapport and meaningful conversations at the early stages of participation. 

Due to tight timeframes and lack of resources, some Local Authorities receive support from third-party organisations like the Charlie Waller Trust and Save the Children to establish their parent carer panels (PCPs). Alternatively, some LAs collaborate with parent-led programs. Many LAs emphasised the advantages of building upon existing participation structures rather than creating something new from scratch. The approach to establishing parent carer panels varies among LAs, with some opting for one panel per family hub while others created a parent carer panel per local area. The choice depends on factors such as size, locality, and local needs. 

Several local authorities mentioned challenges in securing commitment from parents for parent carer panels (PCPs) as well as in finding suitable chairs for the meetings. For many LAs it is very difficult to find suitable timings for engagement sessions that accommodate everyone’s schedules, especially for parent/ carers who have busy lives. Engagement is particularly difficult for parents of 0-2 year olds, which in practice means many parents of this are excluded from participation.

Requesting busy parents to assume the responsibility of chairing meetings places a significant demand on their time and availability. Parents frequently find themselves lacking the time, energy or headspace for such commitments. Childcare in situ or vouchers, transportation cost reimbursement and participatory payments were mentioned as a possible solution to this problem. Some LAs chose to offer participation reimbursement right from the start of their PCPs. An example of payment levels for attendance of meetings or any other kind of engagement was £25, which could be either money or vouchers. Training opportunities such as safeguarding or reducing parental conflict training could be offered as an alternative to payment to offer an opportunity to enrich parent and carer’s CVs.

Several LAs were thinking about how to organise inductions for parent carers and were unsure how to prepare participants. Inductions were considered challenging due to time constraints both of professionals and parent carers and to lack of experience in this area. LAs were interested in templates and best practice examples for inductions. It was considered particularly important to create realistic expectations around PCPs and to prepare parent carers for possible outcomes.

Some LAs have made the experience that the number of parent carers interested in joining the panel was higher, if there was a formal recruitment process. Panel membership was seen as more prestigious by parent carers and more people applied. Some LAs offered parents to become part of an e-network if they were not successful in their application and to reapply at another time. The e-network was used for wider voice of parent feedback. Some LAs were concerned how a formal application processes might impact vulnerable families, but those who used a formal process fed back that it was actually the more vulnerable families who engaged in participation, because these families had the most experience of services and the biggest need.

Many LAs recognise the importance of recruiting fathers. Some have been using their Becoming a Dad and antenatal workshops for fathers for feedback and recruitment. They are trying to use groups that are already in existence to recruit fathers for PCPs.

Not only the recruitment of parents and carers was seen as challenging, but the importance of the professional leading the group meetings was also pointed out. This needs to be someone who is outgoing, comfortable with public speaking, must have a passion for participation in a non-tokenistic way and needs to be able to challenge leaders.

To promote diverse parental involvement, some LAs rotate the locations of their panels, ensuring different parents have an opportunity to participate in person. In instances where parents are unable to attend a panel, LAs guide them to other panels or e-networks to enable their engagement. Additionally, some LAs offer regular brief meetings that bring together a mix of parents and professionals with a blend of in-person and virtual formats.

Some LAs are struggling with the challenge of striking the right balance between the requirement to have parents of 0-2 year old children on panels, while providing meaningful participation opportunities for all other age groups. While Start for Life (SfL) is seen as a priority, a diverse range of participation opportunities is seen as equally important. The presence of multiple babies and toddlers at meetings pose challenges for parents and professionals, sometimes making it difficult to hold panels. Some LAs have addressed this issue by either providing or funding childcare, but this is difficult for non-funded LAs.

If panels are split according to age groups, professionals have to organise and manage several panels, which would be difficult due to time constraints. LAs have expressed concern about the narrow time frame during which parents of children aged 0-2 can participate in panels. Once these parents are ready to engage, their children are often approaching the age of 2, leaving LAs uncertain about whether to continue with these parents as panel members or to end their participation. A frequent critique is that parents of children aged 0-2 have the least parenting and service-related experience. Therefore, several LAs advocated for parents of children of other age ranges to be included in panels.

1. Feedback on service provision and projects
2. Co-chairing panel meetings 
3. Attending strategic meetings and stakeholder workshops
4. Involvement in branding and logo creation 
5. Co-creating family hubs newsletter and creating displays in family hubs 

Several LAs still found it challenging to create terms of reference and were interested in templates and examples. 

Talking Mats Scotland specialises in the development and promotion of Talking Mats, a communication tool and framework designed to enhance communication for individuals with communication difficulties. Talking Mats as a communication tool can be used in a range of settings, including healthcare, social services, education and advocacy to ensure that people with communication difficulties have a voice in decision-making processes and can express their thoughts, feelings, and preferences effectively.

Talking Mats Scotland, “Rights of Babies to be Heard,” is a project that aims to ensure that the voices and perspectives of babies are taken into account in decision-making processes that affect their lives. The project recognizes that even very young children have their own thoughts, preferences, and needs, and that it is essential to consider these when making decisions that impact their well-being. This project is aligned with the principles of child rights, emphasizing the importance of listening to and respecting the voices of children from an early age. The project may involve the use of Talking Mats to help facilitate communication with babies and young children who may not yet have developed spoken language skills or the ability to express themselves fully. Talking Mats uses visual symbols and structured mats to help children indicate their preferences, feelings, and choices in a way that is accessible to them.

The “Rights of Babies to be Heard” project is part of a broader movement to promote child-centred decision-making and support the implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which emphasizes the rights of children to express their views in matters affecting them. It highlights the importance of respecting and valuing the voices of even the youngest children as active participants in their lives and decisions that impact them.

Alderson P, J. Hawthorne, M. Killen (2005) The participation rights of premature babies. International Journal of Children’s Rights, 13:31-50.

TUSLA, Ireland, TUSLA’s goal is to capture meaningful engagement, where participation goes beyond mere involvement. The website offers checklists and infographics to go along with the Lundy model.

TUSLA initiated a project to support the participation of parents of children in care to improve their experience with access and contact. The Lundy model was used to help engage parents. The objective were multifaceted: to promote parental participation, build trust, identify barriers and facilitators to engagement and address issues like unsuitable access and inadequate spaces. The overarching goal was to amplify the voices of parents, culminating in a comprehensive summary report designed as a resource for parents, staff and agencies involved.

Outcomes were the creation of an environment for contact that resembled a family home and an increased awareness among parents of their rights, which are integral to children’s rights. TUSLA emphasized the importance of partnership, clear communication regarding next steps and a thorough exploration of available resources. Throughout the process, it became evident that parents often grappled with feelings of guilt, inadequacy and discomfort during supervised visits, challenges that were successfully addressed through counselling. An emphasis on self-care and personal growth emerged as important strategies for nurturing better parenting. This approach aligned with all four quadrants of the Lundy model.

Key learnings from the project were that it is important to not expect Voice to easily emerge just because Space has been provided. Engagement takes time and requires creative strategies to encourage progress through to the next step within the model. TUSLA has used playful methods to engage parents such as a photo hunt and bingo cards to actively involve parents. Throughout, it was important for practitioners to keep in mind that rights are rights, not demands, emphasising the necessity of actively listening to parents and to incorporate their ideas into the process.