Partnering with Systems as Adult Partners

Lessons from a Decade of Youth–Adult Partnership

Lesson 9:

Leadership Requires Building Trust on Every Side

One of the most important lessons we learned over ten years of partnering with youth is that our role was never simply to partner with young people. We were also called to partner with the systems responsible for serving them.   

That balance was not always easy.   

Youth often came to us with stories of pain, frustration, disappointment, and injustice. Those experiences deserved to be heard with empathy and respect. At the same time, our responsibility as adult partners was not to assume every account was complete simply because it was passionately expressed. Our responsibility was to listen carefully, investigate thoughtfully, and determine what had actually happened, what could be improved, and what strategy was most likely to create meaningful change.  

That was not about doubting young people.  

It was about modeling ethical leadership.  

One of the greatest gifts adults can offer youth leaders is demonstrating that compassion and discernment are not opposites. Both are essential to effective advocacy.  

Supervising Staff to Be Partners, Not Opponents

Two of the people who most reinforced this lesson for our team were Chevelle Bailey, then Deputy Director of the Office of Education and Transition Services where our contract was housed and our program monitor, Kevin Walsh.    

I always understood the Department to be our partner. We were funded by DCFS, operated as an extension of its work, and shared the same ultimate goal: improving outcomes for children, youth, and families.  

Our staff, however, spent far more time with youth than they did with Department leadership. They built close, trusting relationships with young people, and naturally identified with them. That empathy was one of their greatest strengths. It also meant they sometimes assumed the youth’s understanding of a situation was the complete story.   

As supervisors, we had to reinforce a different perspective.   

We were not there to take sides. 

We were there to help solve problems.  

One example came during a routine staff preparation call before one of the quarterly meetings with the DCFS Director. A young person shared that they were going to be homeless over the holidays. Staff were devastated. They were angry with the Department. Some even talked about bringing the youth home themselves. The conversation quickly became, “How could DCFS let this happen?”  

Rather than reacting defensively, Department leadership promised to look into the situation.   

Kevin immediately contacted the youth’s caseworker, spoke with the residential placement, gathered information from those involved, and reported back.  

The situation was not what staff had understood from the youth’s account.  

That became an important supervisory conversation.   

We talked about the difference between believing a young person’s feelings and assuming we already knew the facts. We discussed why effective advocates investigate before escalating concerns and why preserving trusting relationships with system partners ultimately allows us to solve more problems for young people.   

Chevelle modeled that repeatedly as we navigated systemic policy issue discussions. She taught us that responding with curiosity before conclusions was not a way of protecting the system. It was a way of protecting the integrity of the partnership.  

Partnership Is Different Than Agreement

Viewing the Department as our partner never meant agreeing with every decision.  

Nor did it mean minimizing youth concerns.  

It meant communicating directly, respectfully, and promptly with the people responsible for addressing those concerns. It meant raising difficult issues honestly while assuming positive intent until we knew otherwise. It meant giving our partners the opportunity to understand concerns, investigate them, and respond.  

That was the kind of partnership we hoped youth would eventually build with employers, legislators, agency leaders, community organizations, and one another.  

Young people learn as much by watching adults navigate disagreement as they do from any formal leadership curriculum.  

If we became adversarial every time a concern arose, we were teaching that conflict is solved by choosing sides.   

If we approached challenges with openness, curiosity, and respect, we were teaching collaborative leadership.  

Partnership Creates Better Solutions

One statewide Youth Advisory Board meeting illustrates what authentic partnership can accomplish. 

Representatives from the DCFS Advocacy Office regularly attended our statewide meetings because they wanted to hear directly from young people.  

During one meeting, a young mother described being locked out of her residential placement with her child during a snowstorm. She called the DCFS Advocacy Hotline seeking help.  

What stayed with her was not simply the crisis itself.   

It was how the conversation began.   

Before anything else, she was asked to verify that she was a youth in care. Standing outside in the snow with her baby, frightened and needing immediate assistance, those questions felt bureaucratic and uncaring.   

The initial response from the Advocacy Office representative was understandable.   

“That’s our protocol.”  

I suggested that perhaps what the young woman was really asking for was not the elimination of the protocol but a review of how it was implemented.   

What if every call began by asking, “Are you and your child safe?”  

What if the caller first heard, “I’m glad you called. We’re going to do everything we can to help.” 

Once immediate safety had been established, staff could explain why they needed identifying information in order to assist.  

Nothing about that suggestion prevented the office from following required procedures.  

It simply placed human connection before administrative procedure.   

The entire conversation shifted from defending an existing practice to exploring how that practice might better serve young people. 

Small Changes Can Have Big Impact

That conversation has stayed with me because it reflects what I continue to see today. 

Under the leadership of Rod Remolina, the Advocacy Office consistently approaches youth concerns with openness and creativity. Rather than simply explaining why a procedure exists, the office looks for opportunities to improve the experience of the young people it serves.  

Many meaningful improvements do not require legislation. 

They do not require sweeping policy changes.  

They do not require additional funding. 

Sometimes they simply require asking a better question.  

Could we say this differently?  

Could we change the order?   

Could we communicate more compassionately while accomplishing the very same purpose?  

Those kinds of improvements matter. 

Young people notice them.  

Leadership Builds Bridges

There are certainly times when systems need to be challenged. Advocacy sometimes requires persistence, public pressure, litigation, or legislative change.   

But beginning every interaction from the assumption that people within the system do not care rarely produces lasting progress. 

Most professionals who work in child welfare chose this work because they wanted children and families to be safer. Like every large organization, the system has constraints, competing priorities, legal requirements, staffing shortages, and imperfect processes. Understanding those realities does not excuse poor experiences. It helps identify where change is actually possible.  

One of the greatest responsibilities of adult partners is teaching youth how to build bridges without sacrificing integrity.  

Listen deeply.  

Verify the facts. 

Communicate respectfully.  

Raise concerns directly.  

Work collaboratively whenever possible.   

Challenge systems when necessary.   

And remember that lasting change is usually created not by people shouting across a divide, but by partners willing to sit on the same side of the table and solve problems together.   

That is not being a toady.   

That is leadership.