This page highlights our approach to analyzing the qualitative data collected through this project. Our goal was to learn about youth roles in policy efforts, the stages of the policy change process in which they were involved, the local factors that helped and hindered youth engagement in policy, how organizations supported youth engagement, and the outcomes that resulted from these efforts. To do this, we analyzed transcripts from interviews with young people, organizational staff, and external stakeholders involved in each of the five policy wins. We also analyzed relevant documents related to the policy wins. Insights from this analysis directly informed our understanding of authentic youth engagement in the policy process and led to updates to the framework.
Our approach to analysis
Child Trends staff analyzed qualitative data with codes informed by insights from the research group as well as existing literature. After we completed the initial analysis, research group members played a key role in making meaning of the data and reviewing our coding. Our analysis process consisted of four main components.
1. Cleaning the data: Child Trends staff reviewed each interview transcript to correct any gaps or errors from the automatic transcription. We also removed all names of people so that our data was de-identified. In addition, Child Trends staff reviewed all documents sent to us for document review. We allocated enough time to analyze 4 to 6 documents from each grantee organization and, in some cases where more were provided, we collaborated with research group members to determine which documents to prioritize. Finally, we uploaded the cleaned, de-identified data into Dedoose, our qualitative coding platform.
2. Coding the data: We created a codebook informed by the framework for authentic youth engagement in policy that had been updated based on feedback from and the experiences of our research group members. Once this codebook draft was developed, we used thematic analysis, particularly to identify subthemes within some of the broader themes covered in the framework. Our coding process was collaborative and iterative. Child Trends staff supporting data analysis met weekly to discuss our analysis, address questions about how codes should be applied, the create new codes, and refine existing codes by revising the names or definitions.
Downloadable Resource
- YEP Codebook Example - This document is the finalized codebook for our data analysis.
3. Ensuring rigor and grounding: We held regular team discussions to review findings, resolve questions about code application, and reflect on emerging interpretations. We were also mindful of our own positionality—recognizing that our personal, professional, and practice-based experiences around policy advocacy, youth engagement, and the systems youth interact with shaped how we understood the data. Most importantly, we kept our focus on centering youth voice. Our goal was to elevate the lived experiences of young people involved in policy efforts to help organizations do this work more effectively.
4. Interpreting meaning: We had four dedicated meetings with research group members to make meaning of the data. We shared the themes we identified along with selected data excerpts to check that our understanding aligned with what they knew and experienced. Based on the results of these meetings, we revisited and recoded some of the data. You can see the activities we did with research group members to make meaning of the data on the “Interpret the Findings” page.
Before engaging research group members in interpreting the date, we wanted to make sure they understood our analysis process and felt prepared for the meaning making meetings. So we had a meeting dedicated to learning about and practicing data analysis and data interpretation.
Downloadable Resources
- YEP Meeting 6 - Full Group Facilitation Guide - This facilitation guide provides details for the meeting where we explained and practiced the data analysis and data interpretation processes.
- YEP Meeting 6 - Full Group Slides - The accompanying slides for this analysis and interpretation meeting.
- YEP Transcript Example – This is the transcript example we utilized for the coding practice activity.
The Youth Engagement in Policy Research Group brought together young leaders and practitioners from across the country: Jamya Clark and Faith Robinson (New Orleans Youth Alliance); Teddy DeLeon-Alvarado, Blandina Flores, and Sam Joo (Para Los Niños); Iziko Calderon and Brisia Gutierrez (Los Angeles Opportunity Youth Collaborative); Nadirra Monrose and Tony Turner (Center for Fair Futures); and Deven Rudy-Johnson, MSW, and Kyra Stoute (Georgia EmpowerMEnt). Child Trends staff included principal investigators Amy McKlindon and Samantha Holquist; researchers Alyssa Scott, Ja’Chelle Ball, Jessica Conway, and Sage Caballero; and senior advisors Karin Malm and Elizabeth Jordan (Child Trends) and Julie Petrokubi (Education Northwest).
If you have questions about the Authentic Youth Engagement in Policy Project, please contact co-Principal Investigators Amy McKlindon at amcklindon@childtrends.org and Samantha E. Holquist at sholquist@childtrends.org.
This study is supported by the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation through its Foster Youth and Opportunity Youth Initiatives.