On 16 September, the online ParticipationTalk focused on “The Lundy Model and the implementation of Article 12 UNCRC”, with Professor Laura Lundy as our guest speaker.
Laura Lundy is Professor of Law in the School of Law at University College Cork, Honorary Professor of Education Law and Children’s Rights at Queen’s University, Belfast, where she founded the Centre for Children’s Rights, and a barrister at law. Her model of children’s participation, widely known as the Lundy Model, is used extensively in international scholarship and global practice. The Lundy Model has been adopted by numerous national governments, including Ireland it its national strategy and framework on child and youth participation, as well as international organisations including the European Commission, the Council of Europe, and UNICEF.
Bianka Pergande, spokesperson for the National Coalition, opened the event by welcoming Laura Lundy and highlighting the importance of Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The right of children to be heard is one of the four general principles of the Convention, yet its implementation continues to fall short in many contexts. In Germany, participation opportunities for children and young people are often isolated or voluntary, with limited consequences and insufficient follow up. But meaningful participation requires more. Adults and institutions need to understand that participation is not an optional extra. It is a legal right.
From having a voice to having influence
Article 12 of the UNCRC states that: “States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.” Laura Lundy emphasised the breadth of the phrase “all matters affecting the child”. If this right is to be meaningful in practice, it needs to implement all four aspects of the Lundy Model.
The origins of the Lundy Model go back more than 20 years. During research in Ireland, Lundy encountered a striking disconnect. Adults often believed that they were enabling children to participate, while children themselves did not feel that they were being taken seriously or given genuine opportunities to influence decisions.
Her subsequent work led to what is now known as the Lundy Model. It describes four interconnected elements of meaningful participation:
- SPACE: Children must be given the opportunity to express a view.
- VOICE: Children must be facilitated to express their views.
- AUDIENCE: The view must be listened to.
- INFLUENCE: The view must be acted upon, as appropriate.
Together, these four elements help move participation beyond consultation towards the meaningful implementation of Article 12.
Space: creating the conditions to participate
The first question is whether children have a genuine opportunity to express their views. Creating space means asking whether children and young people feel safe enough to express their views, whether enough time has been provided to hear them, and how to ensure that all children and young people are heard.
Lundy stressed that space must be created actively. When creating the space, there should not be an arbitrary age threshold below which children are assumed to be incapable of expressing a view and consequently excluded. Every child can communicate a perspective when appropriate conditions are provided.
The space also needs to be inclusive. Hence, children should be able to communicate in the medium that suits them best. This becomes particularly important when considering children who communicate non-verbally, children with disabilities, or children who do not speak the national language.
Formal participation structures often struggle to achieve diversity. Participants may disproportionately be older children or those who are already politically engaged and confident in expressing themselves. Ireland has experimented with lottery systems for some children’s forums, although Lundy noted that a lottery cannot create diversity if the group entering the selection process is not diverse in the first place. Attaining diversity remains a concern in many countries, and no perfect solution has yet been found.
There is therefore no single method that guarantees inclusive and diverse participation. Institutions need to continually ask who is present, who is missing and what barriers might be preventing some children from taking part. In this way, they can move closer to creating an inclusive space for all children.
Voice: expression can take many forms
Voice focuses on how children are supported to express their views. Importantly, participation needs to be voluntary. Children should never be forced to share and express their views. Supporting them in forming and expressing their opinion requires providing them with information. Children need enough time and appropriate information to understand an issue before being asked to express their views on it.
Children need to be able to choose their preferred more of expression. This also means recognising that expression is not limited to spoken language. Silence, withdrawing from a situation or choosing not to participate can also communicate something. Lundy referred to the work of researcher Amy Hanna on silence as a way of expression. When working with non-verbal children, Lundy argued that adults should try to understand the situation from the child’s perspective rather than simply interpreting behaviour through their own assumptions.
Equal access remains one of the most difficult questions in participation. Article 7 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities reinforces that children with disabilities should be able to enjoy their rights, including their right to be heard, on an equal basis with other children. Meaningful participation therefore requires adaptation and support rather than expecting every child to participate in the same way.
Audience: who is actually listening?
Participation does not become meaningful simply because children have expressed their views. Someone with the ability or responsibility to respond must also be listening. Audience therefore asks who needs to hear children’s views, whether decision makers are ready to listen and how they show this, and whether children understand what those decision makers can realistically do with their input.
This requires active listening by all relevant decision makers and both formal as well as informal channels of communication. In the past, Laura Lundy has mostly worked with governments and policy makers. She highlighted Malta as a particularly good example: all laws and regulations are translated into child-friendly versions.
The same principle applies when governments debate issues directly affecting children. Lundy referred to debates around social media bans as an example of an area in which children are often discussed without being meaningfully involved in the discussion itself, making these bans non-workable and non-imposable in Lundy’s opinion.
An important development in Lundy’s own thinking is that Audience may need to come first. Before creating a participation process, organisations may need to ask which people need to be involved from the beginning so that children’s views can reach those able to respond. Space, Voice, Audience and Influence should not be understood as four rigid, consecutive steps. They overlap and depend on each other.
Influence: what happens with a child’s opinion?
Influence is often the most difficult step of the model. Many organisations are good at creating opportunities for children to speak. The process then ends, however, without children knowing what happened with their views. But meaningful participation requires organisations to be realistic and transparent from the beginning. Children should understand how much influence they can have, what is possible, what may not be possible and why. Most importantly, they need feedback.
Lundy introduced the Four F Framework for feedback. Feedback should be:
Fast: Children should know when they can expect a response, even when a final decision cannot be made immediately.
Full: The response should explain what was heard and what happened as a result.
Child friendly: Information should be presented in language and formats that children can understand.
Followed up: Participation should not end when feedback is provided. Children should also know what will happen next.
Useful feedback can address questions such as: What did you agree with? What, if anything, surprised you and why? Did you disagree with anything? If so, what and why? Has it influenced your views in any way? If so, how? What have you decided? What is happening next and when will it happen? Organisations should also ask children whether they felt able to speak freely and whether they felt that they had actually been heard.
Complaints as an important aspect of Article 12
The discussion also touched on complaints and access to redress. Complaints mechanisms are a manifestation of Article 12. If children have a right to express their views about matters affecting them, they also need meaningful ways to raise concerns when something goes wrong.
In many legal systems, complaint mechanisms have traditionally been designed primarily around adults or parents rather than children themselves. Lundy noted, however, that there have been positive developments in a number of countries. She referred to Scotland, where the incorporation of the UNCRC into domestic law has contributed to renewed attention to complaint mechanisms in different areas. The Children and Young People’s Commissioner of Scotland has also worked on approaches to making complaints processes more accessible to children.
Participation therefore also means creating ways through which children can challenge decisions and seek a response, rather than relying solely on adults to speak on their behalf or determine when it is appropriate for them to express their views.
Participation at different ages
As part of the September focus of our #NichtOhneUns participation campaign on children aged six to twelve, the discussion also considered how participation varies across different age groups. Lundy has worked with children from the ages of three to seventeen and highlights the importance of adapting participatory approaches to younger children. Activities should be fun, sessions should be kept relatively short, opportunities for physical movement should be included and children need to trust the adults working with them.
Language is equally important. Terminology needs to be adapted to the children involved and to the sensitivity of the topic. Lundy recalled work connected to the Council of Europe on child sexual exploitation in which children were involved. During the process, it became clear that language is especially important in that context. The childrens’ contribution helped identify words and formulations that might cause embarrassment or fear. The final material reflected their input. For Lundy, experiences such as this demonstrate that there are very few subjects that cannot be discussed with children of any age. The key question is how the conversation is approached.
Why participation can decrease when children enter school
Research in Germany suggests that children may experience fewer opportunities for participation when they move from early childhood education into primary school. According to Lundy, Germany is not alone in this.
One explanation is the transition from settings that often focus strongly on play and the individual child to schools where academic achievement and classroom structures become more dominant. Participation will naturally look different in primary and secondary education, but it must exist at every age.
School councils, for example, are sometimes only introduced in secondary schools because formal democratic structures are considered too complex for younger children. Lundy challenged that assumption. A school council for younger children does not need to replicate an adult political institution. Its format can be adapted to the age, needs and preferences of the children involved. Children can also be shown several possible ways of organising participation and asked which approach they prefer.
Formal structures are only one part of participation. Informal participation matters just as much. In a classroom, something as simple as allowing children to help choose a topic or activity can communicate that their views matter.
Participation in group decisions
The discussion also highlighted the distinction between participation in group decisions and individual self-determination. We can often see that children are being heard more when it is about their personal decisions.
A child may, for example, say that they do not want to sleep during a set nap time while most of the group does. Taking the child seriously does not necessarily mean changing the entire group routine. It might instead mean finding a solution, such as creating a quiet reading or play area, that acknowledges the individual child’s preference while respecting the needs of others.
Lundy described this as learning to deal with “democratic disappointment”. Being listened to does not mean that a child will always get the outcome they prefer. Meaningful participation means that their view was genuinely considered, that the reasons for the decision are explained and that the child is treated with dignity and respect throughout the process.
From projects to lasting structures
Another recurring question from the participants was how participation can become truly embedded rather than remaining dependent on individual projects. Many organisations carry out excellent participation initiatives. The problem is that participation can disappear when a particular project ends. It can also be among the first areas to be cut when budgets are under pressure.
Lundy highlighted Ireland as an example of sustained investment in participation. Over many years, participation has increasingly been embedded in national policy and government structures. Ireland adopted a national participation framework in 2021, building on earlier national strategies and institutional work. This long-term approach matters because meaningful participation cannot depend solely on enthusiastic individuals who implement projects. It needs structures, resources, institutional responsibilities and mechanisms for accountability.
Lundy also mentioned practical examples such as the EMPOWERING Children’s Participation initiative in Malta, which enables children to provide their views in different ways, including in writing or through voice recordings. Another useful resource is the European Commission’s guide “Creating child friendly versions of written documents”, developed by Laura Lundy and with the involvement of children.
Participation does not have to be perfect to begin
One of the clearest messages from the event was that fear of getting participation wrong should not prevent organisations from starting. Adults sometimes hesitate because they are unsure sure what and how they can do it. Lundy repeatedly stressed that participation will never be perfect. But it can be improved over time.
The fact that a human right cannot be implemented perfectly does not mean that it should not be implemented at all. Organisations should start with the resources they have, learn from children and improve their approach. Adults need to understand that participation needs to happen. They need to fully have the sense that it is a legal obligation and a Human Right. This also means recognising participation as a matter of dignity, equality and respect. It should not have to justify its existence by demonstrating measurable outcomes. Children have a right to be heard because they are rights holders, not because their participation needs to fulfil adult’s expectations.
At the same time, research remains important. Researchers can document good practice, examine where participation succeeds or fails and identify areas that receive too little attention. The continued development of the Lundy Model itself illustrates the value of this shared learning. Its influence has grown because researchers and practitioners have taken the framework, applied it, tested it and developed it further.
What, then, should an organisation do if it wants to strengthen children’s participation?
Participation is not a luxury, a favour or a gift from adults to children. It is a human right. The Lundy Model gives organisations a practical way to ask whether that right is being realised in practice: Is there a meaningful space? Are children supported to express their views? Is somebody listening? And does what children say have influence?
Lundy’s final advice was strikingly simple: bring together a group of children and ask them what they want and what they need. Trying something with children and getting better is an incremental element: do it and get better, but do not stop! Organisations need to try things, ask children how the process worked for them, learn from what happened and make it better the next time. The essential point is to just begin and do the best you can with what you have got.
