First Nations Management & Leadership · Arcus research
Engaging Elders, Youth and Families Differently
Different participation routes are useful only when leadership can explain how they will influence the same decision.
A First Nation planning team may want Elders, youth and families to help shape a new service, community facility or strategic priority. Should they meet together, discuss questions separately, or take different roles over time? The consequential choice is how to preserve distinct knowledge and experience while creating an accountable route from contributions to action.
Arcus’s central proposition is to design three things separately: how people express their views, how the team interprets them, and who has authority to decide. A well-attended gathering can still leave one of these unresolved. Separate discussions can protect a perspective yet lose its influence when their findings are compressed into a single summary.
This is a management synthesis for Nation-led planning, not an empirical claim that separate groups perform better. Shared discussion may be the right starting point where members prefer it and the question benefits from intergenerational learning. The appropriate arrangement depends on the decision, local protocols, relationships and members’ own preferences.
What does the evidence support?
Three qualitative studies illuminate different parts of this design problem. They do not establish a universal participation formula or a causal ranking of methods.
A 2020 study of pain care involved 188 First Nations children, youth, parents and Elders, alongside 32 health professionals, across four First Nations communities. Its collaboratively developed FIRST approach emphasizes family, information, relationships, safe space and Two-Eyed treatment.[1] The bounded lesson for engagement planning is to examine relationships and the conditions for communication, rather than assume an invitation alone creates a useful encounter. This was health-care research, not an evaluation of community planning or a test showing that a family representative can substitute for each member’s perspective.
Research published in 2022 explored youth community engagement in Kasabonika Lake First Nation through qualitative case studies. The authors describe youth navigating social and structural conditions to contribute to their community.[2] This directs attention to the route through which young people can act, alongside their opportunity to speak. The evidence comes from one Nation and its circumstances; it does not establish how frequently the same barriers occur elsewhere.
A 2025 participatory evaluation at Sturgeon Lake First Nation used guided conversations with 14 youth in a program for young men and boys, supported by Elders and Traditional Knowledge Keepers. Participants described confidence, cultural identity and connection through land-based activities and mentorship.[3] This provides a counterpoint to automatic separation: youth leadership and intergenerational relationships can coexist. The small, specific program and self-reported experiences cannot predict results for all youth, families or governance processes.
These studies make a practical inquiry worthwhile: what relationships, supports and decision pathways do participants themselves say they need? They leave that question open for each Nation. Arcus’s recommendations below are analytical applications, not findings directly tested by those studies.
Define the role before choosing the format
Begin with a decision that participants can recognize. “Discuss youth needs” is too broad if leadership actually needs to choose the location, operating hours and affordable service level of a proposed facility. Explain what is open to influence, what constraints are confirmed and which uncertainties still need investigation.
Clarify the roles sought: sharing lived experience, interpreting cultural responsibilities, developing options, advising on trade-offs, making a delegated choice, or reviewing implementation. These roles require different preparation and authority. Do not describe an advisory session as shared decision-making unless the Nation has actually assigned that authority.
Elder is not simply an age category for an external project team to assign. Ask the Nation how Elders and Knowledge Keepers should be invited, supported and involved, including appropriate protocols and any limits on recording or circulating knowledge. Where a person holds a recognized role in a decision, describe that role accurately rather than treating every contribution as an interchangeable survey response.
Youth and family categories also overlap. A young parent may contribute both as a service user and a caregiver. An Elder may be raising children. Invite people through routes relevant to their circumstances without assuming that one family member speaks for everyone. If participation numbers are reported, distinguish people from appearances across sessions; do not turn overlapping groups into separate voting blocs.
Diagnose low participation before adding another meeting
A quiet room does not tell the team why people are quiet. Test plausible explanations with participants before choosing the remedy.
Access or timing
Ask whether transport, caregiving, school, employment, language, location or the format prevented participation. Compare a supported or differently timed route. A change in who can attend would support an access explanation; attendance alone would not show that people can influence the decision.
Limited room to contribute
Check who frames the questions, speaks first, controls materials and interprets the answers. Offer an optional smaller or private discussion and ask whether its summary captures something missing from the larger forum. Do not infer a power problem solely from age.
Weak connection to action
Ask what happened to earlier suggestions and whether anyone can identify the current decision owner. If participants are willing to develop a specific option but unwilling to repeat an open-ended discussion, the missing element may be credible influence rather than another communication channel.
Different priorities or preferences
People may disagree with the proposed question, prefer an existing forum, or choose not to participate. Test this possibility without treating non-participation as consent or demanding personal explanations. Some uncertainty must remain visible in the decision record.
Use the least intrusive inquiry that can distinguish these explanations. Avoid collecting personal histories merely to explain a participation pattern. The purpose is to improve the process, not profile members.
When should discussions be separate or shared?
One shared process with practical supports
This option fits a bounded question where participants want to learn together and can contribute without being crowded out. Prepare clear options, offer different ways to respond and provide the supports members identify. Its advantage is direct comparison of consequences across generations. Its risk is mistaking agreement among frequent speakers for agreement among everyone present.
Separate discussions followed by a shared comparison
Use this when people request their own space, when the questions differ materially, or when an initial conversation suggests important perspectives are not emerging. Agree in advance how each group will review its summary and what can be brought into a joint discussion. Separate work should produce comparable decision material: needs, options, consequences, unresolved differences and conditions for support. A forced consensus meeting can undo the benefit if the least powerful participants must publicly defend private disclosures.
Continuing advisory roles linked to an operating decision
An ongoing service may justify a youth advisory group, an Elders’ role or a family forum, subject to the Nation’s choices. Specify mandate, selection, resources, term, response obligations and the decisions the group can influence. This requires recurring coordination and continuity. It is difficult to justify a standing body for a one-time question if nobody can sustain its work or respond to its recommendations.
An individual route alongside collective discussion
Offer a proportionate confidential route where circumstances make group discussion unsuitable. Explain who will see information, what confidentiality can and cannot be promised, and whether an identifiable concern requires a different service or complaints process. It should not become an unannounced investigation. For children and youth, confirm appropriate safeguarding, consent and participation arrangements with responsible local leadership before engagement begins.
An Arcus decision tool
The Participation Design Brief
Complete one brief for a specific decision before invitations go out. This is Arcus’s original analytical synthesis, not a validated scale. Its value is in exposing missing commitments that a meeting schedule cannot reveal.
- Decision and authority. State the choice, its boundaries, the responsible decision-maker and each participant role. Identify any protocol or authorization still required.
- Perspectives and preferences. Identify whose experience could change the choice. Ask how they wish to contribute, including whether separate and shared discussion are appropriate. Record remaining gaps without labelling a group as uniform.
- Conditions for expression. Specify preparation, language, facilitation, access, caregiving, cultural protocols and any private route. Name who arranges each support and how its cost will be covered.
- Interpretation and permission. Specify who prepares summaries, how contributors can correct meaning, what may be shared, and how differing accounts will remain visible. Recording a session is not automatic permission to circulate its contents.
- Comparison and response. Explain how options will be assessed across groups, which trade-offs need a decision, who will answer recommendations and when participants will hear the result.
- Resources and review. Allocate staff time, cash costs and follow-through capacity. Set a checkpoint to ask whether missing perspectives or unresolved permissions require a change in approach.
Release condition: do not launch a process promising influence if the decision owner, response route or essential supports remain unassigned. Resolve the gap or narrow the invitation to an honest preliminary discussion. The brief does not override the Nation’s own laws, protocols or decision procedures.
A worked example: different routes, one service decision
Consider a fictional Nation deciding how to use limited evening hours in a community facility. Leadership has authorized a planning exercise, not a final allocation. Youth want an accessible place to meet; caregivers need schedules they can use; Elders may advise on cultural activities and protocols. These are possible perspectives to investigate, not assumed preferences.
The team first asks whether participants prefer a shared discussion or separate preparation. Suppose separate preparation is chosen. Each session examines the same available hours and staffing constraints, while using questions participants help shape. Contributors check what the summary means and what can be shared. The team then prepares options that show who gains access, who faces a constraint, what staffing each requires and what remains unresolved.
If one option serves youth later in the evening but creates transport or staffing difficulties, the choice is not settled by counting which group mentioned it most often. Leadership can consider a limited trial, different days, transport support or a smaller service commitment. It should distinguish a feasible compromise from a promise that depends on unfunded staff. Participants receive the chosen option, reasons, unresolved trade-offs and a date for reviewing actual use.
The principal failure condition is an unresourced hand-off: good discussions produce an option, but no manager owns its implementation. Another is selective synthesis, where the final report removes conditions or disagreement to make the preferred option look unanimous. The brief assigns responsibility for both interpretation and follow-through.
Budget the whole participation cycle
Compare options using staff hours as well as cash. Include preparation, member coordination, facilitation, local protocols, accessible materials, transport, caregiving supports, interpretation, summary review and the response after the decision. A volunteer contribution is not unlimited capacity. Agree appropriate arrangements rather than assume people can absorb repeated requests.
For a transparent illustration, assume one shared session requires two staff for three hours, four staff-hours of preparation and four of analysis and reporting: 14 staff-hours. Assume three separate two-hour sessions each require two staff, plus six hours of preparation, six of synthesis and four of joint review: 28 staff-hours. These fictional inputs are not Arcus rates or a benchmark. They exclude travel, participant supports, specialist assistance and decision implementation.
The extra 14 hours must be justified by the decision need, not by a claim that more sessions necessarily produce better evidence. If the planning team has only 20 hours available, it must reallocate work, resource the difference or simplify the design. Removing summary review to fit the calendar would undermine the reason for using separate routes. A continuing advisory arrangement also needs a recurring budget and an accountable response process after the initial project funding ends.
Implement, test and report what changed
The accountable executive should confirm the decision mandate and resource envelope. A designated engagement lead should develop the brief with relevant members and local protocol holders. The service or project manager should supply feasible options and cost implications. Leadership should identify who can authorize the resulting commitment before asking participants to invest time.
Start with a limited design check: are the question, proposed role and participation arrangements understandable and acceptable to the people being invited? Revise before scaling. During delivery, track gaps and corrections rather than simply attendance. Afterward, let contributors check the interpretation through the agreed route, then present options and differences to the decision-maker.
Useful indicators include whether the intended perspectives were reached, whether participants corrected misleading summaries, whether an option changed because of a contribution, whether recommendations received a reasoned response and whether the chosen service commitment was implemented. Use only information that is appropriate to collect and protect. These indicators diagnose the process; they are not a scientific score for community trust or legitimacy.
If the decision remains unchanged, explain why. Influence can include exposing a dependency or rejecting an unaffordable option. It should never be advertised as a guaranteed outcome that leadership has not authorized.
Arcus Advisory
Turn participation into a decision leadership can act on.
An Arcus engagement can be scoped to diagnose participation barriers, compare engagement options, develop a Participation Design Brief, prepare service alternatives and costs, and establish a decision-response and implementation record. The work should be governed by the Nation’s priorities, protocols and authority, with deliverables agreed at the outset.
Useful starting materials are the decision to be made, earlier engagement findings, available capacity and the constraints leadership needs to resolve. Arcus can help define what further inquiry would improve the decision and how the organization will act on it.
Related research and consulting
How Much Consultation Is Enough?
Community Engagement research collection · First Nations Knowledge Centre · Indigenous consulting services
Sources and limitations
- Latimer and colleagues. Co-creating better healthcare experiences for First Nations children and youth: The FIRST approach emerges from Two-Eyed Seeing. Paediatric and Neonatal Pain, 2020;2:104–112. Qualitative, community-specific health-care research; the planning implications above are Arcus’s interpretation.
- Shepherd and Orchard. “We Cause a Ruckus”: Exploring How Indigenous Youth Navigate the Challenges of Community Engagement and Leadership, 2022. Author-institution summary and abstract of the qualitative Kasabonika Lake First Nation study; no claim of causal or national representativeness.
- Rabbitskin and colleagues. Grounded in culture: a participatory empowerment evaluation of the oskâyak (youth) power program for oskinîkiwak (young men) and napêsisak (boys) at pakitahaw sākahikan iýiniwak (sturgeon lake first nation). International Journal of Circumpolar Health, 2025;84:2576944. Published November 6, 2025. Fourteen youth in a locally designed program for young men and boys; the abstract and reported evaluation scope were reviewed.
Evidence reviewed October 2026. The studies have different contexts and do not directly compare the engagement options proposed here. The brief and worked examples are original Arcus management synthesis, not original empirical research, a validated assessment or evidence of Arcus client results. Local protocols, permissions and professional advice must be considered for the specific decision.