Tips for Safe, Relevant, and Inclusive Nonformal Civic Education

The data gathered from the survey and FGDs were the basis for the development of the actionable tips discussed on the following pages. These tips reflect the words and experiences of young people and provide guidance to implementers on how best to honor those experiences. Before diving into the tips, however, it is important to emphasize that practitioners should safeguard young people’s participation. Young people who took the survey and participated in the FGDs stressed this point.

When working with children and young people, it is integral to ensure that they feel secure physically, mentally, and emotionally when either delivering and participating in activities. At a minimum, practitioners should seek minor assent when engaging children and young people under age 18 in activities, as well as the permission of parents or caregivers. Minor assent—the agreement of those under age 18 to participate—provides an opportunity for children to express their agency by confirming that they understand and want to take part in an activity.

Localizing civic education and making it more relevant to young people and the environments in which they live may help to identify mechanisms and opportunities to better ensure their safety. Many respondents explained that learning occurs more organically and resonates more with them when activities are linked with their culture. Some respondents suggested art, theatre, and music as tools to educate young people about their political rights; others suggested that inter-cultural activities infused into civic education could build friendships that connect diverse populations. While culturally responsive activities make civic education more relevant, it is important to be mindful that some cultural norms create barriers to the participation of young women and youth with disabilities.

Remember, not all methods of engagement are accessible to and inclusive of everyone. Being aware of this, and anchoring activities with young leaders, CSO partners, and community and elected leaders can help ensure that engagement is equitable and inclusive. Indeed, rooting civic education efforts in community organizations and structures—such as youth clubs, cultural centers, and community places where young people gather and feel most safe and free to express themselves—is key to tailoring and implementing effective and sustainable programming.

Young people leverage social media in multiple ways. These include organizing virtual town halls, conducting digital advocacy campaigns to raise awareness of issues they care about, and mobilizing election participation through voter education. Survey respondents confirmed that social media is the number one way that young people lead nonformal civic education in their communities. Interestingly, this was also true for 96 percent of young people who identified as living in rural areas. Social media was also the method that survey respondents recommended most often for engagement (see Figure 12).

Young people’s increased engagement in social media reflects their use of this platform as a valuable source of information. When asked to select the most effective method for conveying information, 45 percent of respondents across regions and age brackets, including women and urban and rural youth, selected social media. One focus group participant explained that this is because young people think social media is “the fastest and easiest way of disseminating information.”

While young people use social media, the data show that other methods might be equally important. When asked the most effective method for conveying information, survey respondents chose social media and in-person interactive engagement as their top choices. The first choice among respondents who completed school up to eighth grade was in-person engagement rather than social media, which was the first choice for all other demographics. FGD participants preferred face-to-face engagement and interactive media because they allow for more human connections. Engaging young people through a mixed media approach—one that combines digital and social media with traditional media—could best engage young people across all demographics (see Figure 13).

The qualitative data further support the case for using a mixed media approach to nonformal civic education. Survey respondents explained that the most effective way to increase young people’s engagement in democratic processes is through social media, either in tandem with or followed by in-person approaches. Notably, through this nuance, young people are identifying ways to overcome the digital divide and challenges related to internet access and accessibility. Ensuring civic education efforts leverage multiple media approaches may more effectively engage diverse youth populations as they acknowledge that the digital divide is both a challenge and an opportunity.

In addition to mainstreaming the intersectional identities of young people into programming approaches and honoring this diversity in democratic processes, practitioners should also make civic education available to and accessible for all learners. Accessibility goes beyond navigating physical barriers in institutional settings, such as schools and polling stations. Respondents cited economic conditions, a lack of education, and poor infrastructure, such as internet access, as challenges to engaging young people in rural areas. They also noted that the interests and engagement of young people will vary across geographical areas.

Focus group discussants noted that making the structure and format of civic education programming accessible is important to address the barriers that young people with diverse identities face as they enter public life. For in-person programming, accessibility measures can include holding activities on the ground floor of a building, inviting assistants of people with disabilities, offering transportation services, and providing child care. For online civic education efforts, this can include providing funds to top up phone credit and data, providing sign language interpretation or closed captions, and recording sessions. Whenever possible, invite program participants to inform the formats of initiatives based on their preferences.

Engaging people under the age of enfranchisement19, often 18, in civic education is critical to instill democratic norms, attitudes, and behaviors that will ensure lifelong civic and political participation.20 Survey respondents and FGD participants repeatedly made this point, stressing the importance of engaging children to create more sustained patterns of engagement in adult life. One focus group discussant noted how school government or youth parliament programs can build political behaviors. Respondents also mentioned secondary impacts—the spillover effect.21 For example, civic education for children can benefit others because children often talk about what they have learned with their families and friends; this secondary knowledge exchange has the potential to influence the behavior of those who have not participated directly in programming.

Survey respondents identified a need to move away from traditional learning structures such as formal school curricula and explore more interactive modalities, especially for younger learners. Using hand puppets, card games, trivia contests, or board games that merge entertainment with civic education is a fun way to bring friends and family into the learning process. Materials should be adapted to learning styles and age groups; they should use varied communication styles and age-appropriate text and images and should support cognitive development.

Survey respondents identified engaging peer advocates through peer-to-peer learning as an effective and inclusive approach to civic education. They cited youth-led and -designed activities that invest in young people as advocates and educators as a sustainable approach to sharing information among communities (see box at left).22 Partnering with young people as trusted colleagues can help ensure that programming is relevant and can reach diverse groups of young people. For example, consider reaching out to youth clubs, associations, or networks. Establishing feedback loops for young people to share ideas for programming were mentioned as opportunities to engage more youth voices; these could look like focus group discussions, youth councils, or working groups.

Intergenerational learning opportunities are also important—not just to provide young people with mentors and insights from the lived experiences of adult peers, but also to dispel the stereotypes that adults may have of young people and to share important civic education information with them. Young people’s exposure to democratic concepts through youth-focused civic education programs can be shared with adults; young people’s leadership and expertise can support their families, friends, and community members in navigating civic and political spaces, such as new social media platforms or polling stations.

While respondents overwhelmingly expressed more interest in nonformal activities, they also noted the importance of youth participation in elections and the electoral cycle. Respondents identified the top three ways young people were observed participating in the electoral process—as voters, voter educators, and temporary poll workers (see Figure 16). Although observation of all behaviors varied by region, respondents in all regions observed young people voting the most. In Africa and the Asia-Pacific and Europe and Eurasia regions, an average of 54 percent of respondents observed young people acting as voter educators or community mobilizers. In the Americas region, 52 percent of respondents observed young people serving as poll workers.

Survey and FGD respondents identified activities that young people can lead and participate in throughout the electoral cycle. These include conducting voter registration drives and party registration during the pre-electoral phase; mobilizing first-time voters and observing elections during the electoral phase; and advocating for electoral reform efforts that reduce barriers for young voters in the post-electoral phase. They also observed that building relations with EMBs and electoral authorities can foster more opportunities for youth engagement across the electoral cycle.