John Humphrey Centre for Peace and Human Rights

www.jhcentre.org

YOUTH VOICES
CHILDRENS RIGHTS ASSESSMENT
REPORT

Childrens 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 Albertas Childrens 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.

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

Executive Summary
To support the inclusion of youth voices in the Alberta Children First Act1 and to assess the
state of Childrens 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 childrens 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 Queens Printer

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
Childrens participation in decisions that affect them is a critical need in our province.
This research is a direct effort to bring youths perspective forward into the state of
childrens 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 childrens 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 childrens 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 Albertas Childrens First Act and assess its alignment
with the perspective of children and youth in the province.

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 baseline 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 OCYAs 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 childrens 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

organizations deemed the conversation about childrens 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 childrens 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
Total First
Nations Youth
4%

Research participants

Youth in
Poverty
41%

Total Young
offenders
27%
Immigrant
Youth
23%

Youth living
with disability
1%
Total Youth in
Care
4%

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

Even though the difference in participant numbers per group represented some challenges
for the statistical comparative work; the selective sample that guided the surveys 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

Age groups
null
7%

15+
42%

9 to 11
33%

12 to 14
18%

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.

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. Youths 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

Average Level of protection

of rights

Youth in Care
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Rights
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 Childrens 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

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 youths 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

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 Nations 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

Average Level of
Protection of Rights

Youth in Poverty
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Right

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 Childrens Rights
Survey, and the error bars represent the standard deviation of each perceived protection of rights.

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 JHCs 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

Average Level of
Protection of Rights

Immigrant Youth
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Rights
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 Childrens 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

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

Average Level of Protection

of rights

Figure #6

6
5

Young Offenders

4
3
2
1
0

Rights
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 Childrens 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

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

Average Level of Protection

of rights

Figure#7

First Nation Youth

5
4
3
2
1
0

Rights
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 Childrens Rights Survey,
and the error bars represent the standard deviation of each perceived protection of rights.

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 Childrens 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 Childrens 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.

Age

Drug Free average

12 to 19

2.9

9 to 11

3.6

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.

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 Childrens
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