Running head: LADDER OF PARTICIPATION

Assignment: Ladder of Participation

Name: Kate Morden
Instructor: Aurrora De Monte
Course: Admin & Advocacy in CYW COUN 75
Date: Sunday, October 4th, 2015

LADDER OF PARTICIPATION

Introduction
This paper will provide a summary of the Ladder of Participation, including its
strengths and weaknesses, and a critical reflection on the effectiveness of the Ladder of
Participation as an assessment tool for agencies. It will also include a critical analysis of
my second placement agency and my view of where this agency sits on the Ladder, as
well as changes in which the placement agency could implement to move up the Ladder.
Summary
The Ladder of Participation includes eight levels of child/youth participation;
level one being the least level of child/youth participation and level eight being
child/youth-initiated, shared decision-making with adults (A. De Monte, September,
2014; Hart, 1992). The levels from one to eight are as follows: manipulation; decoration;
tokenism; assigned, but informed; consulted and informed; adult-initiated, shared
decisions with children/youth; child/youth-initiated and directed; and child/youthinitiated, shared decisions with adults (A. De Monte, September, 2014; Hart, 1992).
Levels one to three manipulation, decoration, and tokenism are forms of
ineffective participation (A. De Monte, September, 2014; Hart, 1992). Manipulation,
level one, which is placed at the bottom of the Ladder, is a form of ineffective
participation as adults use children to promote a cause and pretend that the cause is
inspired or supported by children, when in reality children do not understand what the
cause is or how their actions are contributing to the cause (A. De Monte, September,
2014; Hart, 1992). One example of manipulation, as Hart (1992) explained, is when
children/youth produce a drawing, such as their ideal playground, and then adults use
these drawings to come up with the childrens design for a play ground without the

LADDER OF PARTICIPATION

children/youth being aware of such actions. Decoration, level two, is another form of
ineffective participation (A. De Monte, September, 2014; Hart, 1992). Decoration occurs
when adults use children to promote a cause, but children have little, if any,
understanding about what that cause is and why they are promoting it (A. De Monte,
September, 2014; Hart, 1992). Here, children have no contribution to the organization of
the event (A. De Monte, September, 2014; Hart, 1992). Instead, children are used to
elicit an emotional response from their audiences (Hart, 1992). Some examples of
decoration are when children wear t-shirts, sing or dance to help promote a cause (A. De
Monte, September, 2014; Hart, 1992). A specific example could be when children/youth
wear t-shirts that say, Fund our Playground, to promote fundraising for the playground.
Tokenism, level three, is also a form of ineffective participation (A. De Monte,
September, 2014; Hart, 1992). It is when young people participate and/or speak in adultrun projects, but they have limited choices for how to participate; for instance, rather
than having a voice, they are instructed on what to say and/or do (A. De Monte,
September, 2014; Hart, 1992). One example of tokenism is when children/youth are
instructed to read a small, scripted speech about the playground in an assembly.
Levels four through eight have varying degrees of effective participation (A. De
Monte, September, 2014; Hart, 1992). As you move up the Ladder, the levels of
child/youth participation become increasingly meaningful and genuine (A. De Monte,
September, 2014; Hart, 1992). At level four, assigned, but informed, children are able to
understand the purpose of the project and the reason for their involvement in the specific
project, have volunteered to be a part of it and are aware of who assigned their given role
(A. De Monte, September, 2014; Hart, 1992). Level five, consulted and informed, young

LADDER OF PARTICIPATION

peoples opinions are valued and integrated into the projects and decision-making of the
adults (A. De Monte, September, 2014; Hart, 1992). Level six, adult-initiated, shared
decisions with children/youth, occurs when children/youth and adults share decisionmaking powers; although the projects are initiated by adults, the emphasis is on
including young people in the decision-making process so that they can contribute to the
planning, design and implementation of a project and thus, are given a voice (A. De
Monte, September, 2014; Hart, 1992). Level seven, child/youth-initiated and directed, is
when adults take part in a supportive role rather than a leading role (A. De Monte,
September, 2014; Hart, 1992). Adults do so by providing the necessary resources to help
children/youth bring the views and ideas into fruition, while allowing the young people
to initiate and direct the project themselves (A. De Monte, September, 2014; Hart,
1992). Lastly, level eight, called child/youth-initiated, shared decision with adults, occurs
when children/youth decide to begin a project based on their own thoughts, feelings and
ideas (A. De Monte, September, 2014; Hart, 1992). The difference here is that adults do
not impose their views on young people; rather, adults simply listen and observe (A. De
Monte, September, 2014; Hart, 1992).
Strengths and Weaknesses
Some strengths of the Ladder of Participation are that it improves relevance and
effectiveness of programs, gives clients a better sense of ownership in programs,
increases clients leadership skills, and helps adults and young people bring new ideas
and energy in developing programs (A. De Monte, September, 2014; Hart, 1992). It also
maintains the integrity of children/youths ideas and self-directed implementation, and
helps adults and young people value each others perspectives and contributions,

LADDER OF PARTICIPATION

acknowledge, respect and value each others capabilities and experiences, and
recognize each other as allies (A. De Monte, September, 2014; Hart, 1992).
Weaknesses of the Ladder of Participation include the following: high turnover
rates of children/youth; added costs, such as training, transportation, equipment, space,
materials, etc.; dissimilar styles and preferences in management, schedules and
communication; and an institutions failure to plan for organizational capacity to meet
the needs of both adults and young people (A. De Monte, September, 2014; Hart, 1992).
Critical Reflection of the Ladder of Participation
The effectiveness of the Ladder of Participation as an assessment tool for agencies
has both its strengths and challenges. In regards to its strengths, the Ladder acts as a
useful guideline for agencies to follow and to refer to, as it helps distinguish between
ineffective and effective forms of child/youth participation. This allows for agencies to
reflect on where they might sit on the Ladder, including where they would like to be, or
how they can increase child/youth participation depending on the agency, program,
development and culture of the young people, etc. Similarly, the Ladder of Participation
as an assessment tool can be used as a universal evaluation in which agencies can review
and assess their current level(s) of child/youth participation. By reviewing and assessing
such, agencies can then make changes accordingly to their program(s). Furthermore, the
Ladder of Participation as an assessment tool for agencies is beneficial as it ensures that
the children/youths right to participate is acknowledged and enforced.
Some challenges are that the Ladder of Participation does not take into
consideration aspects such as the development of the child/youth and cultural issues
(Hart, 1992). A child/youths chronological and developmental age may affect their

LADDER OF PARTICIPATION

ability to participate; for instance, a kindergarten would have limited capability and/or
choice to participate as opposed to someone of a higher age, such as an adolescent (Hart,
1992). An aspect of a child/youths social and emotional development, such as selfesteem, is also a critical variable that significantly affects ones participation, as those
with low self-esteem are not confident in their abilities to demonstrate competence by
engaging in meaningful participation in group settings (Hart, 1992). There is also the
development of perspective-taking ability that affects a child/youths ability to participate
(Hart, 1992). For example, young childs ability to fully comprehend the perspectives of
others is limited until they reach a later age/stage such as adolescence; this would affect
young peoples level of participation (Hart, 1992). It is important to take into
consideration of cultural issues as well (Hart, 1992). This includes the way a child/youth
is raised, child-rearing practices, social class, cultural norms and rules, etc. (Hart, 1992).
An example is that families with adequate economic resources tend to value
independence and autonomy while low-income families place higher value on obedience
from their children (Hart, 1992). In addition, gender roles may also impact a
child/youths ability to participate; for example, in some cultures or areas of the world,
boys are encouraged to (and in fact do) actively participate and contribute to society, but
the same does not apply or occur for girls (Hart, 1992). This goes to show that certain
families and cultures view the terms success and participation differently, and that it is
important to keep this in mind when encouraging child/youth participation.
Another challenge is the fact that each person and/or agency may have a different
view on what participation is. What is participation? Hart (1992) defines participation as
the process of sharing decisions which affect ones life and the life of the community in

LADDER OF PARTICIPATION

which one lives and the fundamental right of citizenship. Although this definition
helps us understand what participation is, people may have differing opinions about the
term, including the levels of participation on the Ladder; for example, what one
person/agency believes is a form of ineffective or effective participation may quite well
be the opposite for another person/agency.
Furthermore, children/youth may have varying degrees of participation based on
the adults they are with; for instance, a young person may effectively participate in the
presence of adult A, but their participation in the presence of adult B may be the opposite
ineffective or nonexistent due to the positive or negative relationship between the
young person and the adult.
Critical Analysis of Second Placement Agency
My second placement was at Ridpath Junior Public School in Lakefield, Ontario.
Here, I worked in a kindergarten classroom with children between the ages four and six.
This agency would be placed at level four on the Ladder of Participation, which is
assigned, but informed (A. De Monte, September, 2014; Hart, 1992). According to the
Ladder of Participation, assigned, but informed is when:
Children are assigned a specific role in a project by adults. Children understand the
intentions of the project and who made the decisions concerning their involvement and
why. Children are given a meaningful role, for which they volunteer only after they
have a clear understanding of the objectives. (Hart, 1992)
The evidence to support this is that the children here understand that school is
mandatory and as a result, they have to follow the rules and guidelines given to them by
adults such as their parents or caregivers, teachers, child and youth workers, early

LADDER OF PARTICIPATION

childhood education workers, principals, etc. These children understand (to a degree) that
they are here to learn and grow to become successful and hopefully attain a job in the
future relating to their skills and interests. In the classroom setting, children are to follow
rules and guidelines such as schedules and tasks; for example, carpet time, play time,
work time, quiet time, gym period, reading period, recess, lunch and so on. Before they
are given instructions to do so, the adults in the classroom clearly explain the objectives
and/or expectations of the classroom by communicating with them as well as modeling an
example of what they are going to do, how they are going to do it, why they are going to
do it, etc. Once the children of the classroom understand this, these children choose to
participate. While they have the choice to participate, some may not, which can then lead
to consequences; therefore, these children do have a choice and/or voice, but at the same
time they do not. In regards to this specific agency and given my placement experience
here, I believe that the adults succeeded in initiating child participation. This is because
the adults did a great job in respecting and valuing childrens thoughts, feelings, opinions
and voices. When I compare this agency to other agencies I have worked with, the
child/youth participation was by far greater at Ridpath Junior Public School.
The placements use of Applied Human Developmental (AHD) theory both
strengthens and weakens the use of the Ladder of Participation. AHD theory strengthens
the Ladder of Participation in this scenario as the childrens age (four to six years) and
development are put into perspective. For example, children at this age are not fully
developed physically, mentally, socially and emotionally; this includes motor and
cognitive/intellectual development as well as social language. Therefore, it makes sense
that this agency is placed at level four on the Ladder of Participation, as adults need to

LADDER OF PARTICIPATION

advocate and be the voice for young children. In addition, the AHD theory strengthens
the Ladder of Participation as it allows the agency to assess the strengths and areas of
development for the children in the classroom, which helps to provide learning
opportunities for both children and adults. The AHD theory weakens the Ladder of
Participation because children are at different stages in life as they develop at different
rates; for example, if a child is behind and not meeting the expected milestones
developmentally, this child could be cast aside, thereby diminishing the childs voice.
While critically analyzing this placement agency, it is important to consider and
look at the Systems theory, such as where the placement site finds itself in the greater
system. The greater system of this agency includes family, peer and community systems.
The Ladder of Participation supports this position as one can apply these systems to
create a plan of action, thus advocating for change and applying new rules/guidelines.
This can help create a foundation where there is organization and structure within the
placement agency, thereby advocating for change that will meet the needs of children and
youth. As a result, this helps the overall system to improve and also gives voices to the
young people within the agency.
Having the placement agency at level four on the Ladder of Participation impacts
clients in regards to advocacy. Interventions such as life-space interventions, planned
intervention, group work, intervention plans and advocacy help create a plan of action,
similar to the Systems theory. Once a plan is put into practice, the plan and/or outcome
can be assessed to find out what is and isnt working, which enables the agency to learn
from and apply what theyve learned to practice in order to strive for better change. This
can impact clients as the agency is able to meet children and youths needs to the best of

LADDER OF PARTICIPATION

10

their abilities, give young people a voice, power and control, thereby improving
communication and relationships between adults and children/youth.
Personal Review of Improvement Plan
Four changes that this placement agency could employ to improve child/youth
participation are: involving childrens voices; involving childrens caregivers voices;
providing more choice, power and control to children; and implementing consistent
evaluations/assessments.
To further involve childrens voices, the adults in the classroom could do so by
having class discussions and check-ins with the children, and speaking to children in a
way that they would understand, catering to their age and developmental stage.
To involve childrens caregivers voices, the adults in the classroom could
communicate with them on a daily basis via an agenda. Other forms of communication
are letters, notes, parent and teacher interviews, meetings, phone calls, etc. This would
ensure that the childrens caregiver(s) would be included in their childs progress.
Providing more choice, power and control to the children would be beneficial as
well. The placement agency could do this by providing a more flexible schedule, while
making sure it is also balanced with structure. Adults could provide more choice, such as
what the child would like to do over something else, while still accomplishing the
necessities of the curriculum. Adults could also give power and control to the children by
giving them responsibility and leadership roles. In addition, adults could ask children for
feedback in a way that children would be able to respond to. More educational and
therapeutic play time for the children rather than work at a desk would also be beneficial
as children learn best through play.

LADDER OF PARTICIPATION

11

Lastly, consistent evaluations/assessments would help the placement agency to

assess their progress and then change accordingly. The agency could do this by
evaluating/assessing (on a regular basis) the classroom setting, students, school, agency,
system, etc. The placement agency could also gather feedback from other adults such as
caregivers, child and youth workers, early childhood education workers, teachers,
principals, board committees, other important adults, etc. Based on these evaluations
and/or feedback from these people, the agency could then advocate for change and strive
for progress to increase child/youth participation.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the proceeding summary of the Ladder of Participation allows one
to understand the criteria and purpose of the Ladder, including its strengths and
weaknesses, and the strengths and challenges of the Ladder of Participation as an
assessment tool for agencies. In addition, one can understand where and why, in my
opinion, Ridpath Junior Public School is stationed on the Ladder of Participation.

LADDER OF PARTICIPATION

12
References

DeMonte,A.(2014).Admin&AdvocacyinCYWCOUN75:Seminar2Ladderof
participation.LectureconductedfromFlemingCollege,Peterborough,ON.
Hart, R. (1992). Children's Participation: From Tokenism to Citizenship (p. 41). Florence,
Italy: UNICEF International Child Development Centre.
Hart,R.(1992).LevelsofChildParticipation.InChildren'sParticipation:From
TokenismtoCitizenship.UNICEF:Florence.