In 2026, more than 1,400 young people in Long Beach, California, voted on how to allocate $500,000 in public funding among 10 projects. Rather than treating youth engagement as a symbolic exercise, this initiative gave young residents a direct role in how public funds are used. The reality across the country for many youth is that, while they are invited to provide feedback, the decision has already been made and participation is symbolic. But Youth Power PB Long Beach offers a different model that places meaningful responsibility into the hands of young residents with a structured public process.
Long Beach is part of a much larger movement. These initiatives have popped up across the country, like Boston’s Youth Lead the Change and Newark’s Gen Green.
Initiatives like these offer policymakers, educators, nonprofit leaders and youth advocates lessons on rethinking how and how far to trust youth in public decision-making.
Lesson One: Influence — give young people authority over something real
What made initiatives like Long Beach’s so successful was not that money was allocated, but that engagement became meaningful and had tangible consequences. The program was funded with real dollars, and young people between the ages of 12 and 26 who lived, worked or played in Long Beach were encouraged to share their voice and vote. The ballot featured 15 youth-created projects and a total of 1,422 votes were validated. Based on the results of the vote, 10 of the 15 projects received $50,000 grants each. The projects were focused on community care, housing, health and wellness, and future planning. All things that directly impact the lives of young people in the community.
“This program reflects our commitment to ensuring young people have a meaningful role in shaping Long Beach’s future,” said Mayor Rex Richardson. “Youth Power Participatory Budgeting creates opportunities for our young residents to share their voices, connect with their communities and make decisions that have a lasting impact.”
[Related: Why are we so afraid to let young people lead?]
This is the difference between things like youth advisories that can only recommend, surveys that can inform or listening sessions to gather opinions. Long Beach takes it one step further by giving youth decision-making power. Boston’s Youth Lead the Change is also an example of this trend. Every year, Boston youth between the ages of 14 and 25 have the power to spend $1 million through a participatory budgeting program.
Lesson Two: Implement — youth power still needs structure
Courtesy of Jason Collins
Jason Collins
The key to the success of these participatory budget programs is to combine youth authority with adult infrastructure. For example, Long Beach’s process starts with the submission of ideas from the youth and youth-serving organizations. A Youth Steering Committee reviews the ideas and chooses which ones to advance. Then the Youth Budget Delegate team collaborates with youth-serving organizations to turn ideas into budget proposals. Once these have been completed, youth are invited to vote on the budget proposals.
The process ensures that the youth retain influence over the decisions while the city handles the funding and implementation. For example, in Boston’s program, the youth collaborate with city officials and community experts during the process.
Lesson Three: Invite — participation must be designed for access
The process of participatory youth budgeting is only successful if even the hardest-to-reach youth participate. Long Beach’s program understands this and made a point of broadening participation. They invited young people from as young as 12 years old up to 26 years to participate. Voting was made available at multiple locations like schools, libraries, teen centers, youth workforce centers and other community organizations.
[Related: Youth homelessness prevention starts long before a young person loses their home]
The challenges that programs like this could potentially encounter are time and transportation. How do children and youth who cannot drive get to the places where votes or discussion sessions are held? Long Beach addresses these challenges by choosing places where young people already spend their time rather than expecting them to navigate government systems on their own. Newark’s Gen Green brought the decision-making process directly to the youth by visiting schools and youth programs across the city.
Lesson Four: Inspire — the vote is not the whole point
The program has been achieving its goal of getting young people involved in local government: Last year’s program saw 1,976 voters. But at the end of the day, success is not purely defined by the final vote, and Long Beach’s program emphasizes that. The program involves young people long before voting. In the program, it’s the young people who bring forward the ideas and create the proposals. The whole process of the youth fund is driven by the young people, and the benefits of this extend far beyond the final vote.
Research on youth engagement in community decision-making finds they continue their active participation into adulthood.
Final thoughts
Long Beach and the other programs across the country show that meaningful youth engagement requires giving youth real responsibility, removing the barriers to participation and developing a structured process for these programs. Preceding all of these steps is a basic assumption of trust.
According to a 2017 study on youth-led participatory budgeting, the largest barriers to meaningful youth civic engagement are adult structures. Adult perceptions of youth and an unwillingness to share power in community decision-making can pose challenges.
Long Beach’s program is not a blueprint to follow if cities cannot afford to commit $500,000 or build similar infrastructure. But it offers a broader lesson.
Adults have a responsibility to empower youth and recognize when to share power.
***
Jason Collins is a writer, journalist and researcher with more than 10 years of experience examining the systems and processes where social need and infrastructural failure intersect.
