YOUTH VOICES

CHILDREN’S RIGHTS ASSESSMENT REPORT

John Humphrey Centre for Peace and Human Rights www.jhcentre.org

2

Children’s Rights Assessment Report

Youth Voices

This research is part of a partnership agreement between the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate Alberta (OCYA) and the John Humphrey Centre (JHC) to gain attention and momentum on the Government of Alberta’s Children’s First Act and assess its alignment with the perspective of children and youth in the province.

Prepared by:

Maria Angelica Quesada

For the John Humphrey Centre for Peace and Human Rights &

The Offices of the Child and Youth Advocate Alberta

October 2015

Special thank you to Leonardo Galindo Gonzales

for his support with statistical analysis.

3

Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 4

Objectives ............................................................................................................................................ 5

Population and Methods ....................................................................................................................... 6

Figure#1 ........................................................................................................................................ 7

Figure# 2 ....................................................................................................................................... 8

Vulnerable groups ................................................................................................................................. 9

Youth in Care .................................................................................................................................... 9

Figure#3 ...................................................................................................................................... 10

Youth in Poverty ............................................................................................................................. 10

Figure#4 ...................................................................................................................................... 12

Immigrant Youth ............................................................................................................................. 13

Figure #5 ..................................................................................................................................... 14

Young Offenders ............................................................................................................................. 14

Figure #6 ..................................................................................................................................... 15

First Nation Youth ........................................................................................................................... 16

Figure#7 ...................................................................................................................................... 17

Youth living with disability .............................................................................................................. 18

Comparing Non-Discriminatory Rights ............................................................................................... 19

Figure #8 ..................................................................................................................................... 19

Basic Needs .................................................................................................................................... 20

Figure#9 ...................................................................................................................................... 20

Inclusion and Participation .............................................................................................................. 21

Figure#10 .................................................................................................................................... 21

Grouping ............................................................................................................................................ 22

Concluding Points: .............................................................................................................................. 23

4

Executive Summary To support the inclusion of youth voices in the Alberta Children First Act1 and to assess the state of Children’s rights in the province the John Humphrey Centre for Peace and Human Rights partnered with the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate to pilot a provincial child rights assessment process with vulnerable populations of youth and children in Edmonton, AB. Children and youth responded to surveys and participated in focus groups that addressed the state of children’s rights in Alberta. A total of 127 surveys were collected and 10 focus groups were conducted with vulnerable children and young populations: children in care, First Nations youth, young offenders, youth living with disabilities, immigrant children and youth, and children and youth living in poverty.

The research findings indicate that there is a lot of room for the provincial government and society to further protect children and youth rights. Primarily, the study unveils that First Nations youth and young offenders are the two groups whose fundamental rights are less protected. They are vulnerable and discriminated against. Also, it is important to point that the main common concern among all consulted youth is the lack of spaces free from drugs. Even though participants in this study did not pointed at spaces where they could access drugs, every focus group brought up the fact that young vulnerable edmontonians are frequently offered and can get drugs easily.

More specifically, different groups pointed at issues like the lack of safe, clean, and youth shelters, and the inaccessibility of social services in certain areas of the city. Access to social services is easier for children in the system (youth in care and young offenders) than for the ones at risk that have not been detained or in care. Participants identified the need for more information about social services in schools and other places they frequent. Youth in poverty do not know what services exist nor how to access them. The concentration of social services in few places of the city restricts accessibility. One of the official institutions/organizations by which youth are more unequally treated is the justice system and the police. Race, gender, appearance, and access to economic resources are identified as the elements by which they are discriminated. Participants argued that the justice system does not accept that people can change. After a young person has a record it is impossible not to be labelled guilty or an “offender” forever.

This research clearly demonstrates that in spite of common concerns, not all vulnerable youth have the same perceptions of their rights. For example, while social services are easy to access by youth in the system, recreational activities are much more difficult to access by these young people. Youth in poverty and immigrant youth experience some restrictions to access recreational services as well, but it does not seem as difficult as for youth in care or young offenders. There are barriers to access space and support for cultural practices of immigrants and First Nation youth. However, focus groups participants were happy to voice their opinions and points of view, and “contribute to

1 Alberta Children First Act, Statutes of Alberta (2013, c. C-12.5). Retrieved from the Queen’s Printer

5

change”. The JHC learned that it is important to facilitate safe spaces for youth to talk about matters of power and discrimination. Yet, the construction of these safe spaces is, at times, quite challenging.

Objectives Children’s participation in decisions that affect them is a critical need in our province. This research is a direct effort to bring youth’s perspective forward into the state of children’s rights in Alberta. Drawing from children and youth responses to a survey and in depth conversations with children and youth in 10 focus groups this study aims to explore what children’s rights are most challenged in Alberta at the present time. To understand these challenges, it is important to investigate what situations youth and children are most vulnerable and in which they are supported and protected by their government and community. Identifying the successes and struggles of government and community in supporting children and youth, as expressed by children themselves, is key to ensure that children and youth participation affects policy.

Using a right based approach the John Humphrey Centre strived to ensure the study covered all the conditions that, according to international children’s rights standards, a child needs to live a life of well-being. The research divided children rights in three main groups explored. The first group focuses on non-discrimination rights (to be treated equally); the second group emphasizes basic rights (right to life, survival and development); and the third group gathers the rights of inclusion and participation (right to have your voice heard). Thus, this report address the way in which vulnerable youth in Edmonton, Alberta, understand what rights are guaranteed by society and which are not ensured yet. Our hope is that into the future, we can extend the scope of this research to work with young people across the province.

This research is part of a partnership agreement between the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate Alberta (OCYA) and the John Humphrey Centre (JHC) to gain attention and momentum on the Government of Alberta’s Children’s First Act and assess its alignment with the perspective of children and youth in the province.

6

Population and Methods Youth and children are frequently categorized as a vulnerable population whose minds and bodies are under developmental challenges and who depend on adults to fulfill their needs to live a life of well-being. However, among these vulnerable population there are those in greater need. Abby Hardgrove argues in the 2014 Human Development Report that

While bodies and minds may undergo similar developments that induce a “base-line” vulnerability for nearly all-young people, there are a number of interconnected contextual influences that affect youth vulnerabilities. Among the most important are poverty, inequality, and social exclusion. Around the world young people are seeing their choices limited by things like economic insecurity, technological change, political uprisings, conflict and climate change.

The OCYA advocates for children and youth in Alberta that are most affected by poverty, inequality and social exclusion (marginalized youth) - those in provincial care and those in the justice system. In that regard exploring the lived experiences of marginalized youth should help orient the OCYA’s future work. Furthermore, understanding the experiences and opinions of the most vulnerable children and youth in Alberta would allow the research to understand and locate the situations and gaps that need urgent attention regarding limitations in the protection of children’s rights. Taking care of the most vulnerable population helps strengthen society as a whole.

Thus, with the objective of exploring the experience and perspective of the most marginalized children and youth in Alberta, the JHC hosted 10 focus groups and 1 interview with 6 groups defined as vulnerable youth: youth in care, youth living with disability, First Nations youth, young offenders, immigrant youth, and youth in poverty. The original research plan was to have 12 focus groups in total –two per vulnerable group- however, it proved very difficult to host focus groups with youth living with disability due to the limitations in adapting to an array of individual needs at the same time. Therefore, instead of groups we decided to have individual interviews and caregivers were fundamental in attaining good communication with the children. However, at the end of the time allotted to gather the information the JHC finished with only one interview with a youth living with disability. It was extremely difficult to arrange these interviews due to time, space accommodation, and the complexity of the questions. In spite of our limited capacity to reach our goal with the group of youth living with disability, we found this one interview extremely useful because it pointed to the barriers imposed by the lack of inclusion. We are looking into the possibility of completing at least 5 interviews within the next few months and have a better picture of the rights of youth living with disability.

To reach participants the JHC contacted several non-for-profit organizations that work and provide services to marginalized children and youth in Alberta. Most of these sister

7

organizations deemed the conversation about children’s rights as important and helped invite children and youth to participate while also facilitated spaces for us to approach the children. These organizations helped the JHC organize the time and space to have these conversations and we are deeply grateful to them. A total of 127 surveys were collected, and 10 focus groups were hosted

Each focus group had two components: first, JHC staff distributed a Children Rights Survey and gave participants the necessary time to answer the questionnaire. Second, the youth were invited to talk about each question and to share their thoughts and ideas that motivated their answers. In this way, the JHC gathered quantitative data to attain a measure of the ways vulnerable children and youth perceive and live their rights. At the same time, the workshop allowed JHC to capture qualitative data about what elements enable or limit the realization of children’s rights according the workshops participants.

The number of children each sister organization had access to and the individual desire of each participant defined the number of participants per vulnerable group. For example, the Catholic Social Services invited us to host a focus group as part of their immigrant youth summer camps. Every summer camp had more than 30 registered children. However, Turning Point, the agency that allowed us to work with youth in care did not have more than 3 children in care per group. Consequently, the size of the sample per vulnerable group was limited by the agency that helped us.

Figure#1

Figure#1 shows the distribution of total surveyed population among identified vulnerable groups. Total sample= 127 participants

Total  First  Nations  Youth  

4%  

Total  Young  offenders  27%  

Youth  living  with  disability  

1%  Total  Youth  in  

Care  4%  

Immigrant  Youth  23%  

Youth  in  Poverty  41%  

Research  participants  

8

Even though the difference in participant numbers per group represented some challenges for the statistical comparative work; the selective sample that guided the survey’s planning allowed the JHC to be prepared for this scenario. The survey fulfilled its purpose by allowing the voice of all identified vulnerable population groups in Edmonton to be heard through the surveys and focus groups. The data analysis portrays low standard deviation and clear tendencies in each group.

Figure# 2

Figure# 2 shows the percentage of participants in each school age group. Elementary age children (9 - 11 years old); Junior High age children (12 – 14 years old); and High School age children (15+ years old). The null percentage represents the participants who did not declare age

It is important to highlight that the survey and focus groups included children between 9 and 19 years of age. There were only a small number of children, 7% who did not declare their age. 33% were 9 to 11; 18% were 12 to 14; and 42% were 15+. Regardless of their age, children participated actively in focus groups; especially immigrant youth were excited to express their opinions.

Concerning the survey, elementary age children experienced some difficulties in answering the non-discriminatory rights section. It appears that their limited experience with certain structures of society (i.e social services/police/justice system) might explain their limitations with this section of the survey. At the time children and youth were answering the survey the JHC staff were close to answer their questions.

The results of the study will be presented in three sections. The first one addresses the conclusions for each one of the vulnerable groups. For each group the report describes how and where the JHC contacted the children and youth, what were the main topics of discussion and concerns in the focus groups, and the results of the survey. The second part compares the quantitative results among groups, and the third presents the conclusions of the study.

9  to  11    33%  

12  to  14  18%  

15+  42%  

null  7%  

Age  groups  

9

Vulnerable groups Youth in Care

The JHC hosted a couple of session at “Turning Points”, an organization run by the Catholic Social Services. The children had some challenges understanding the survey questions but were happy to have the chance to talk about it. They expressed their points of view about topics they deem fundamental in their lives.

• Non-discriminatory rights: Children and youth in care found difficulty accessing anti-bullying, anti-abuse, and mental health services. The children identified their parents and social workers as gatekeepers of these services. Thus, parents or workers can either facilitate or deny access to services.

Financial support was an interesting topic of discussion. Youth in care argued that economic support is easier to access for youth that are in the system, but there are many children at risk they know and relate with, who are not in the system and do not get the help they need. The lack of financial support, youth at Turning Points argue, make their friends more vulnerable.

Regarding the justice system, children and youth at Turning Points agreed that the justice system does not treat them all as equal. Youth’s race, gender, appearance, and economic resources are the sources of discrimination. First Nations and black children have a harder time and receive longer sentences. Males are treated rougher than females by the Justice System, and the lack of resources to pay a good lawyer could result in a longer sentence. Legal Services are good, but not all their lawyers are as qualified.

• Basic Rights: Shelters are the number one concern of youth at Turning Points. There are, according to them, not enough accessible, clean, and safe shelters for youth.

It is easier to access food through various agencies but in many days no more than one serving a day. Also, many youth do not feel safe accessing shelters or agencies due to their downtown location. Fast food is cheaper and healthy food is hard to access for someone who does not have the economic means.

Downtown, River Valley, Callingwood, Millwoods, West End, 118 Av, and Northgate are identified as unsafe places.

Elementary children tend to be more sheltered from access to drugs, but as soon as youth get into Junior High it is easy to access drugs.

Recreational funding is not available for kids at risk that are not in care. This is a population at risk that must have access to diverse recreation activities.

10

• Inclusion: Not all case workers ask children about their opinion, but calling the youth advocate you can get the worker changed. There are no places where the cultural identity of foster children is supported and taught.

There is a lot of bullying and racism at schools and other public places such as transit.

SURVEY RESULTS

Figure#3

Figure#3 is a comparison of the average level of the perceived protection of each right for youth in care in Edmonton. The columns represent the average number derived from the “Children’s Rights Survey”, and the error bars represent the standard deviation of each perceived protection of rights.

According to the survey none of the rights of the Youth in Care in Edmonton are fully supported by government and/or their community. In both the focus group discussion and the survey youth in care expressed that their basic needs (shelter/food) and the right to a drug free environment are the rights that need more attention. However, the survey also demonstrates that youth in care do not think they are heard by decision makers or free from bullying and harassment.

Youth in Poverty

The JHC hosted one focus group in a sixth grade class at Evansdale School and one more at the Youth Empowerment Support Services (YESS). According to the City of Edmonton

0  1  2  3  4  5  6  

Average  Level  of  protection    

of  rights  

Rights  

Youth  in  Care  

11

2014 Census2, Evansdale, the community that houses Evansdale School, has a higher than normal rate of low-income households. Evansdale houses double the average of city neighbourhoods of children on welfare 21/10.62; and triple the city average neighbourhood of low-income houses 370/103.50. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that the school of this community houses the children coming from these households.

YESS, on the other hand offers primarily shelter to teenagers in crisis who have no safe place to go. The two locations of the focus groups offered to the JHC an interesting view of the perceptions of children and youth in poverty.

• Non-discriminatory Rights: Children in grade 6 felt treated as equals and did not identify discrimination as a big problem in their lives. However, older children talked about lack of knowledge of agencies and services offered. Also, they argued that access to social services is limited by the type and amount of agencies located in their community.

In the justice system, according to high school age youth, racial stereotyping is common. First Nations are the most racialized group but there is a lot of predisposition against other cultures. After a person (youth) is accused of a crime it is hard to be heard in court. Besides, they pointed that most of the time the conflict that generated the accusation is not resolved (conflict between youth or between youth and police/neighbours).

Lawyers, workers, and judges make decisions based on what they think is good for youth, but they do not respect youth’s opinions, youth in poverty added.

OCYA is seen by this youth as good advocates, but only with children in care. Youth are concerned about advocacy services for children who are not in care. Thus, once more, children identified a big gap in service to that group that is not in the system, but that are at high risk.

• Basic Rights: children identified Barriers to accessing healthy food since grade 6. Lack of resources and consequences of unhealthy food are related to poverty.

The lack of safe, clean spaces for homeless children to spend the night was mentioned. Homeless youth do not get enough sleep because they do not feel safe at shelters or on street. Whyte Avenue, 107 Ave and 114 Street, and West End were identified as unsafe places avoided by youth. Terwillegar, on the other hand, seem to offer a safer environment for street children. Currently, some youth argue that the city has pushed people out of the downtown core to improve the image of the city. With the arena construction the city is pushing poor people out of

2 Edmonton Census, 2014. Retrieved from http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/facts_figures/municipal-census-results.aspx

12

downtown. Instead of offering services, children at YESS think that the City is hiding poverty as part of its gentrification.

Younger children do not feel safe in their communities. Their schools and houses have been broken into.

Youth at YESS identified that enriching sport and out of school activities are inaccessible. These activities are too expensive. Children have to work to put some money in recreation activities, which is often a lower priority than food or shelter.

• Inclusion: Grade 6 children feel heard at school. They consider that they have to learn more about their rights to teach other children and talk about their rights to adults.

Youth at YESS think that their opinion is not heard because they are considered immature or not qualified to have a valid opinion.

In group homes youth cultural roots are not taken into account and they are treated as white children. Not all of them are “white”. First Nation’s children are the most confused and face more difficulties because when they grow up in care they do not feel like they belong to the reserve, though people and other youth treat them as Aboriginals. They feel as if they do not fit in anywhere.

SURVEY RESULTS

Figure#4

Figure#4 is a comparison of the average level of the perceived protection of each right for youth in poverty in Edmonton. The columns represent the average number derived from the “Children’s Rights Survey”, and the error bars represent the standard deviation of each perceived protection of rights.

0  1  2  3  4  5  6  

Average  Level  of    

Protection  of  Rights  

Right  

Youth  in  Poverty  

13

Even though the average level of perceived protection of rights is above 3 there is room for improvement. These children and youth saw the right to a drug free environment and the right to be heard by decision makers as the most difficult to realize. Younger children who attend school have a higher perception of the protection of their rights even though they pointed at limitations to access healthy food, lack of knowledge of the social services they can access, and unsafe neighbourhoods and schools. Contrary, older (high school age) children perceived limitations to accessing shelter, organized sport, and to be heard by the Justice System and decision makers.

It is important to point that when the focus groups included children younger than 12 and children older than 12 the standard deviation in most questions increased substantially. An important example is the perception of the right to a drug free environment that among youth in poverty reached 1.54 the second highest in all the research results. The variability of the data on this right caught the JHC’s attention, and it is addressed later in this document.

Immigrant Youth The JHC visited two summer camps directed to immigrant youth and held the two focus groups there. One of the summer camps was directed to younger children between 11 and 14, and the other was directed to youth 14 to 18. In general, the two groups were excited to have the opportunity to learn about their rights and be heard. Both groups told the JHC that they have never had anyone ask their opinion.

• Non-discriminatory rights: Younger children strongly agree that everyone is equal and they all are treated equally. Older youth were more concerned with the bullying that happens at school than younger children. Much of this bullying is inspired by socio-economic differences of immigrant youth. Youth feel pressured to wear certain kind of brand-name clothing, and buy a special brand of school supplies to be accepted. Both groups felt that bullying and discrimination is an issue at school, but only younger immigrants tend to look for support from teachers/adults. Older youth have experienced support from teachers on a specific day or time, but there are no strategies to deal with everyday bullying.

• Basic Rights: Access to healthy food is a concern among older immigrant youth. “Unhealthy” food is easier to access and more convenient. They consider that healthy food should be free and easily accessible, especially for homeless people.

In their communities, both younger and older youth feel welcome and fairly safe. Yet, they do not feel safe in communities like Abbotsfield, Belvedere, and Londonderry.

Finally, immigrant youth would like to take a more active role in enriching activities outside school, but their families do not have enough economic resources to do so. Events organized by community leagues are usually free and welcoming, so here should be more recreational and sport activities organized by

14

them. Also, some parents do not have the time to accompany or get their sons and daughters to the places where organized sports or out of school activities take place.

SURVEY RESULTS

Figure #5

Figure#5 is a comparison of the average level of the perceived protection of each right for Immigrant youth in Edmonton. The columns represent the average number derived from the “Children’s Rights Survey”, and the error bars represent the standard deviation of each perceived protection of rights.

Immigrant youth has the highest average level of protection of their rights. Still, the right to a drug free environment has the lowest average rate. Their concern with bullying at school is an obvious problem. They feel well supported to express their cultural identity. The average level of protection of rights is not only high with 4.1/5, but the distribution of the standard deviation shows a low distribution of data.

However, similar to “youth in poverty”, the standard deviation of the perception of the right to have a drug free environment for immigrant youth was high. In this case the standard deviation was the highest in all the study with 1.57. Both youth in poverty and immigrant group had a high number of children between 9 and 12 years of age. Thus, we explored this relation between younger children and a higher distribution of data further in the document.

Young Offenders

The JHC visited the Edmonton Young Offenders Centre (EYOC) on two different occasions and the Youth Restorative Action Project once. These focus groups took place with groups of male and female offenders under different levels of security. However, out of the 26

0  1  2  3  4  5  6  

Average  Level  of  

 Protection  of  Rights  

Rights  

Immigrant  Youth  

15

youth that participated in the focus groups, only 5 were women. The difference of gender participants mainly speaks to the overrepresentation of males in the justice system.

• Non-discriminatory rights: Youth at the EYOC agree that they are able to access social services without much trouble except for financial support. It is really hard for them to qualify for financial assistance. There are many aspects of their personal lives that do not allow them to qualify for financial assistance. For example, some of them mentioned, they cannot go to school full time because they have children and not much support with childcare. Some others have to pay child support and they do not have enough money even with whatever financial support they could obtain.

They described mental health supports as good quality service but they require long wait times that range from 6 months to 1 year. Though youth do not think that mental health symptoms are taken into account when prioritizing and assigning appointments.

The youth do not think the justice system treats them equally. First Nations youth are put in the system quicker. Males receive harsher sentences than females. Judges do not understand their diverse cultural backgrounds. It is a system that does not accept that people can change. Thus, if one has a record, even from a long time ago, one is considered guilty. A “white” male brought up the fact that he has 31 charges against and he is getting out quicker than racialized counterparts who have many less charges.

Youth in the EYOC feel supported by legal aid and OCYA.

• Basic Rights: Youth who are getting out of the EYOC and who have nowhere to go are worried about access to safe and secure shelters and food. Only few shelters are “alright”, but most of them are not safe. Also, there is never enough space for the demand and it is easy to end up spending the night on the streets because there is not enough space.

118 Avenue and Abbostfield were identified as unsafe communities. Drugs are easy to access. They can easily get their hands on “dangerous things” quickly. Having healthy food is a personal choice. However, recreational and sport activities are too expensive and they cannot afford them.

• Inclusion: These groups of youth do not feel particularly listened to. Usually workers are the ones who make decisions for them, but the youth acknowledge that in most cases what the workers decide is the right thing to do.

16

SURVEY RESULTS

Figure #6

Figure#6 is a comparison of the average level of the perceived protection of each right for young offenders in Edmonton. The columns represent the average number derived from the “Children’s Rights Survey”, and the errors bars represent the standard deviation of each perceived protection of rights.

Young offenders’ average levels of protection of rights were significantly lower than youth in poverty and immigrant youth. The right to be treated equally by the justice system and police are frequently perceived as not protected rights with averages of only 2.5 and 2.1 respectively. In the focus groups young offenders identified race and gender as the main variables that trigger discrimination faced by the police and justice system.

Having a drug free environment was, once more, the right that received the low average score with a 2.1. Young offenders are concerned with getting out of detention and not being able to cover their basic needs (food and shelter) or qualifying for social assistance.

First Nation Youth A small workshop with First Nation Youth who live in Edmonton took place at iHuman Youth Society at the end of the summer. First Nation youth highlighted the difference between living in reserve and living in the city. Living in the city limits their possibilities to practice their culture and feel part of a community. Unfortunately, it was not possible to host a workshop in a reserve but that is a path that should be explored.

• Non-discriminatory rights: First Nation youth have, in general, good access to social services. There is always a lawyer, food, and shelter. They think there is

0  

1  

2  

3  

4  

5  

6  

Average  Level  of  Protection    

of  rights  

Rights  

Young  Offenders    

17

equal access to services to all youth. However, they speak insistently about discrimination in the justice system and in their relation with police. They think the police target them because they frequent the inner-city, and because they are First Nation.

• Basic Rights: These rights are easier to access for youth in some areas of the city. For example children who spend more time in poor areas or the inner-city do not feel as safe in their communities or in their schools. Schools and neighbourhoods are not drug-free spaces.

These youth see a lot of barriers to participating in sports and afterschool activities. iHuman is identified as an organization that help them with recreational and safe spaces to practice after school activities.

• Inclusion: First Nation youth identify this group of rights as the most difficult to practice. They do not feel heard as individuals or supported to express their cultural identity. Living in reserve provides feelings of belonging while there is a lot of loneliness and uncertainty in cities. There are little to no resources in the cities to access cultural supports.

SURVEY RESULTS

Figure#7

Figure#7 is a comparison of the average level of the perceived protection of each right for First Nation in Edmonton. The columns represent the average number derived from the “Children’s Rights Survey”, and the error bars represent the standard deviation of each perceived protection of rights.

0  

1  

2  

3  

4  

5  

6  

Average  Level  of  Protection  

of  rights  

Rights  

First  Nation  Youth  

18

First Nation Youth group has the lowest average level of protection of rights. Also, note that the standard deviation in rights like basic needs and having a trusted adult to talk to is “0”, which happens when all the participants give the same answer. No deviation in the data makes us infer that the individual situation is very similar. The topic of the justice system and police discrimination against first nations that has appeared in previous groups becomes really evident here. First Nation youth do not perceive that the police or the justice system in Edmonton treat them equally and fairly. Once again the right to drug free environments received the lowest average, followed by the right to healthy food and being listened by decision makers.

Youth living with disability This was the hardest group to access. There are many physical and logistical barriers to host a group of youth living with disability. We decided to have individual sessions in which caregivers would be the contact point to communicate with children. However, our efforts do not match the results in terms of number of participants. JHC was only able to have one interview with a young person living with disability. It is indeed difficult to derive a lot of quantitative conclusions for this group, but there is a lot of important qualitative information identified by this young person. Here are the results of the conversation with him:

• Non-Discriminatory rights: Early childhood development was good and appropriate for his needs. However, accessing services like a lawyer or economic support is much more difficult if there is not a trusted adult that could help.

Healthy food is expensive, and it is hard to find a job when one is a youth living with disability. Some of the children, like the one interviewed, are in foster care and can have difficulty getting good shelter. He mentions his friends who are not in good situations but have the same disability as him.

• Basic Rights: This child does not feel safe if there is not an adult around him. He can get lost really easily. Also, there are a lot of drugs in the community. He has plenty of friends with what he called “negative experiences with drugs”.

• Inclusion: He sees work as his biggest barrier. He has been accepted to volunteer but has not been given the chance to work in the same positions that he volunteers for. He feels underestimated and discriminated against. He has gotten support from inclusion Alberta to get his first job. For this child and his family inclusion is the key.

19

Comparing Non-Discriminatory Rights Figure #8

Figure#8 is a comparison of the average level of the perceived protection of each non-discriminatory right for First Nation youth, young offenders, youth in care, immigrant youth, and youth in poverty in Edmonton. The columns represent the average number derived from the “Children’s Rights Survey”. Youth living with disability is not included because with one interview is impossible to derive the statistical average that is used in the other groups.

Figure#8 shows that from the group of non-discriminatory rights, children and youth perceived themselves as most vulnerable when dealing with the police and the justice system. Discrimination is primarily race and gender based. In dealing with social services the experiences of each group varies. Youth in poverty, and young offenders declared that they have a hard time accessing social assistance. For youth in poverty the location of the offices and the lack of information are barriers to access services. Advocacy services, however, are well regarded by young offenders and youth in care.

20

Basic Needs Figure#9

Figure #9 is a comparison of the average level of the perceived protection of each right to basic needs for First Nation youth, young offenders, youth in care, immigrant youth, and youth in poverty in Edmonton. The columns represent the average number derived from the “Children’s Rights Survey”. Youth living with disability is not included because with one interview it is impossible to derive the statistical average that is used in the other groups.

Figure #9 clearly portrays one of the most relevant conclusions of this study. Vulnerable children and youth in Edmonton do not feel that their right to live in a drug free environment is protected. Children seem to start their frequent contact with drugs after they start junior high, as suggested by the fact that the participant groups that have a stronger component of children younger than 12 had a high standard deviation. Therefore, we conglomerated all data and looked for the average of protection of “right to drug free environment” in children in elementary school age versus the average of the same right for children in Junior high and high school age to build table#1.

Table#1: Average of protection of right to drug free environment in children in elementary school age and junior high and high school age.

The difference between averages of children in elementary age and children in junior high and high school is .7 perceptual points. Children older than 12 feel much more unprotected in relation to a drug free environment than children younger than 12.

Age   Drug  Free  average  

12  to  19   2.9  

9  to  11   3.6  

21

The right to enjoy out of school activities is perceived differently among vulnerable youth. First Nations youth, young offenders and youth in care often face more barriers than immigrant youth or youth in poverty. Nonetheless all of them identified the need for government and society to further protect this right.

Inclusion and Participation Figure#10

Figure #10 is a comparison of the average level of the perceived protection of inclusion and participation rights for First Nation youth, young offenders, youth in care, immigrant youth, and youth in poverty in Edmonton. The columns represent the average number derived from the “Children’s Rights Survey”. Youth living with disability is not included because with one interview is impossible to derive the statistical average that is used in the other groups.

Figure #10 shows two main important tendencies: first, youth in poverty and immigrant youth feel more included and welcome than youth in care, young offenders, and First Nations youth. Second, the right to be listened to by decision makers and freedom from bullying is what youth struggle with most.

22

Grouping

Figure #11

Heat map

This heat map helps us understand the tendencies and relations among all groups. Red represents the rights that children and youth feel are most protected. Green, on the other hand represents the rights that children and youth feel are not protected.

This heat map demonstrates that the answers of First Nation youth and young offenders have similar patterns. The average given to most rights are similar and their answers go up and down in similar proportions. Conversely, immigrant youth and youth in poverty have similar, higher averages in their responses. We can infer from this graphic that the experiences of first nations and young offenders regarding the protection of the rights are similar, while the experiences of immigrant youth and youth in poverty are alike.

It is important to notice that the right to a drug free environment emerges, in this heat map, as a concern of all groups and scored the lowest among all groups. Likewise, the right to be heard by decision makers have low scores throughout all groups.

When analysed by groups, the rights to basic needs are the ones with which children and youth are struggling the most. The green patch between basic needs and healthy food extends downwards. This green patch talks about the difficulties that all groups have in order to access these group of rights.

23

Concluding Points:

First Nation youth and young offenders are, without a doubt, experiencing the hardest time accessing their rights. The experiences of these two groups speak about discrimination in the justice system, by police, at schools, and in communities. They have a hard time expressing their culture and being heard by decision makers.

However, all vulnerable youth agreed that there is a lot of room for government and society to put in place measures that guarantee children and youth rights. The most unprotected right is the right to a drug free environment. Children and youth can easily access drugs at any age, but the risk sparks at age 12.

Also, this study has shown how children and youth have the capacity to understand their rights, talk about them, and the limitations to realize each one of them. The study shows that they want decision makers to listen to them when making decision that affect their lives.

Other conclusions that apply to specific vulnerable groups:

• Access to services seems to be easier for children in the system (youth in care and young offenders) than for the ones at risk that have not been detained or in care.

• There is more information needed about social services in schools and other places frequented by youth. Youth in poverty do not know what services exist nor how to access them.

• The concentration of social services in few places of the city restricts accessibility.

• One of the official apparatuses by which youth feel more unequally treated is the justice system and the police. Race, gender, appearance, and access to economic resources are identified as the elements by which they are discriminated.

• The justice system does not accept that people can change. After a young person has a record it is impossible not to be labelled guilty or a “young offender” forever.

• The absence of enough, accessible, clean, safe, and diverse shelters is a major concern for youth. Young offenders and youth in poverty are quite concerned about his issues.

• While social services are easy to access by youth in the system, recreational activities are much more difficult to access by these young people. Youth in poverty and immigrant youth experience some restrictions to access recreational services as well, but it does not seem as difficult as for youth in care or young offenders.

• There are barriers to access space and support for cultural practices of immigrants and First Nation youth.

24

• The areas of the city in which youth do not feel safe are clearly portrayed in the document. (See annex)

• Immigrant children feel treated equally.

• Most youth are really happy to voice their opinions and points of view, but it is really important to facilitate safe spaces for them to talk. It was, at points, difficult to create these safe spaces for the vulnerable youth the JHC worked with.

• Advocacy and support appears as a service that youth are able to access through OCYA and iHuman.

25

Annex #1 Areas of the city of Edmonton where vulnerable youth do not feel safe