Child-Centred Community Development Participation of children in crisis

Transcription

1 Child-Centred Community Development Participation of children in crisis Report of a participatory workshop held from June 20-24, 2005 Cenakel, Soesterberg The Netherlands

2 Colophon This report has been formulated by staff members of Context, international cooperation in close collaboration with IREWOC, Plan Netherlands, Save the Children Netherlands and is a joint publication of these organisations, Annexes authors Design & images: Frivista - visuele communicatie, Amersfoort. All rights reserved. ISBN: Copies may be ordered at: info@developmenttraining.org Amersfoortsestraat AR Soesterberg The Netherlands phone: + 31 (0) fax: + 31 (0) info@developmenttraining.org internet: Context, international cooperation

3 Child-Centred Community Development Participation of children in crisis Report of a participatory workshop held from June 20-24, 2005 Cenakel, Soesterberg The Netherlands IREWOC, Amsterdam Plan Netherlands, Amsterdam Save the Children Netherlands, Den Haag Context, international cooperation, Soesterberg

4 List of abbreviations CCCD - Child-Centred Community Development IAC - International Agricultural Centre IREWOC - International Research on Working Children M&E - Monitoring and Evaluation MIS - Management Information System NGO - Non-Governmental Organisation PLA - Participatory Learning and Action User s guide This is the report of the Workshop Child-Centred Community Development: Participation of Children in Crisis, held from June 2005 in Soesterberg, The Netherlands. Chapter I describes the rationale for and objective of the workshop and introduces the organising organisations. Chapter II deals with the workshop process and methodology. It also presents the participants evaluation of the workshop. The main themes of the workshop are discussed in Chapter III and IV. Chapter III focuses on conceptual and operational issues and good practices concerning participation of children in crisis. Chapter IV goes into aspects of monitoring and evaluation of special relevance to child participation. Finally, Chapter V summarises the results of the workshop and points at topics that need attention at policy level and/or further research. Those who wish to have an immediate overview of the workshop are suggested to start with Chapter V. page 04

5 Table of contents List of abbreviations Page 04 User s guide 04 Foreword 07 Summary 09 I. Introduction Rationale for the workshop Objective of the workshop Organisers 14 II. Workshop process Introduction Preparations for the workshop Workshop methodology Workshop participants Stages during the workshop Public meeting Participants evaluation of the workshop 17 III. Participation of children in crisis Introduction Definitions Children in crisis Conceptual issues Operational issues Crisis assessment tools Good practices Challenges for the future Major lessons learnt 26 IV. Monitoring and evaluation of child participation Introduction Definition of monitoring and evaluation Purposes of monitoring and evaluation Guiding principles for monitoring and evaluation of child participation Designing and monitoring and evaluation system Issues at the implementation level Measuring child participation Major lessons learnt 33 V. The way forward Introduction Conceptual issues Major issues regarding participation of children in crisis Major issues regarding monitoring and evaluation of child participation Issues for further discussion and research The workshop process 36 Annexes 37 I. List of participants 39 II. Workshop programme 41 III. References and further reading 45 IV. Participation: the case of children, Kristoffel Lieten 49 V. Balancing participation and protection: making it work, Pauline McKeown 55 VI. Causes or markers of poor quality of a life applied to groups of vulnerable children including the poorest, Pauline McKeown 61 VII. Child participation: a rights-based perspective, Peter Dixon 63 VIII. Child-centred community development participation of children in crisis, 67 Cecile Kusters IX. Participatory monitoring & evaluation with children in crisis, Pauline McKeown 87 page 05

6

7 Foreword From June 2005, IREWOC, Plan Netherlands, Save the Children Netherlands and Context, international cooperation, organised a workshop on Participation of Children in Crisis. The workshop was attended by 23 staff members from various international organisations, all active in the field of child participation and childcentred development. (For a list of participants see Annex I). The workshop was facilitated by Mr Fons van der Velden and Ms Ingrid Pallast of Context. The facilitator of the closing public meeting on Friday June 24th was Mr Kristoffel Lieten, director of IREWOC. The idea for this workshop emerged during the Workshop on Child-Centred Community Development organised in June 2004 by the same organisations. They acknowledged the increased importance of participation of children in crisis as a major topic in relation to child-centred community development. Another important motivation for organising the workshop was to provide a forum for sharing experience and knowledge in order to learn from each other. The aim of this report is to present the main findings of the workshop to a broader audience. It describes the workshop process and methodology. Subsequent chapters deal with the main themes of the workshop, i.e. participation of children in crisis and monitoring and evaluation of child participation. The report ends with a chapter on the way forward. The report is a collective effort of the Context team. The reporting was done by Ms M. Beunder and Mr E. Tinga. Final editing and layout was done by Ms M. Wijermars and Ms R. Wilhelm respectively. We are grateful that the resource persons, Mr K. Lieten, Ms P. McKeown, Mr P. Dixon and Ms C. Kusters allowed us to include their presentations as annexes to this report. On behalf of the entire Context team, I would like to thank all the participants and resource persons for their active participation in the workshop. The issue of participation of children in crisis is a complex one: feedback to this report is therefore highly welcome at info@developmenttraining.org. Fons van der Velden Context, international cooperation Soesterberg, November 2005 page 07

8

9 Summary 1. Introduction The overall aim of the workshop was to contribute to enhanced understanding of childcentred community development (CCCD) and child participation in relation to child-centred programmes for children in crisis. The formulation of guiding principles and measuring and learning tools for programmes focused on children in crisis was the second intended outcome. The workshop was organised according to the principles of Participatory Learning and Action. These principles include the sharing of experience and knowledge (from the inside out), the acquisition of external information (from the outside in) and finally the application of existing and newly acquired knowledge into the practice of the participants (reconnecting to the development practice). 2. Conceptual issues The concept of child participation in development interventions is part of the current agency paradigm stressing that people are actors or agents constructing their own world. In this sense children have become partners in their own development. Within this agency paradigm, it is argued that children s needs should be voiced as justifiable rights in order to get the entitled help from the obligated, or duty bearers. However, the current paradigm at policy level is not always applicable at community level, where needs in stead of rights are often put at the centre of concern and action. The workshop has shown that child participation is not an unambiguous concept. What is meaningful participation and how and to what extent can children be involved in development, especially in situations of crisis? At which level and from what perspective? Children s participation is a centrepiece of many campaigns for children s rights. However, the Convention on Rights of the Child does not provide a legal basis to advocate absolute self control as the eventual outcome of processes of child participation. Children s rights and participation is about children and adults coming together, adults as guiders and protectors in the process of empowerment, and not about leadership of children. 3. Major issues regarding participation of children in crisis Child participation can range from adults seeking children s information to having them analyse their own situation and leave decision making to them. Nearly all levels and forms of participation can be valuable and meaningful. Child participation in a simple form can be realised at any level of development. Even in situations of crisis children can be asked what their needs are and how they would prioritise these needs. Child participation starts with real attentive listening. The preferred form of child participation of children in crisis or the level of childcenteredness in CCCD depends on the nature of the crisis, the political and cultural circumstances of the crisis, the cognitive and emotional maturity/ability of the children and the contextual and individual coping resources and protection mechanisms available. In many non-western cultures the collective identity is more important than the identity of an individual person. Therefore, the self-defined coping abilities of a community will to a great extent define the child s trust to be able to cope. page 09

10 In crisis situations child participation could diminish feelings of powerlessness and helplessness, making them co-agents in coping with the situation. Participating children may become more confident and self-aware. Participation of children in crisis does however require adequate conditions to ensure protection, especially of children s emotional needs. Promoting children s emergency preparedness will reinforce their coping abilities, strengthening their sense of control. At any time (crisis or not) one should be aware that child participation exposes children to other (older) children and adults, hence increasing exposure to situations of possible abuse. Child participation should preferably be included in any stage of the project cycle if; - adequate protection mechanisms are ensured as much as possible, especially in situations of increased vulnerability such as crisis; - child participation is not forced top-down by donor agencies and/or used manipulatively by recipients, i.e. to streamline a programme and increase its legitimacy, benefiting the project holder rather than the children; - the organisation can live up to the expectations created by involving children (consulting children creates a moral obligation not only to listen, but also to act). 4. Monitoring and evaluation of child participation It is crucial to clarify the purpose of an M&E system for a child participation programme prior to its design, since different purposes require different kinds of information and different stakeholders to be involved in the M&E process. Such purposes of an M&E system include operational management ( are we doing things right? ), accountability (upward, horizontal and downward), organisational learning ( are we doing the right things? ) and empowerment. The quality of performance indicators counts, not their number. Defining a limited number of performance questions is a crucial first step to determine what information is needed and subsequently to formulate indicators. These performance questions could be linked to guiding principles of child participation, such as inclusiveness, safety and transparency. Furthermore the level of measurement (i.e. input, output, outcomes and/or impact) should be decided upon. M&E activities of child participation programmes can benefit from looking at both the expected and positive changes as well as unexpected and negative changes. This can contribute to further improving such programmes. While setting up an M&E system for child participation programmes, children could be consulted on their information needs and possible ways of involvement in the M&E process. Involving children in M&E activities such as information gathering and reflection events can work very well but requires additional efforts and creativity. To prevent children from becoming overburdened, specific M&E activities could be combined with the implementation of regular activities as much as possible. In crisis situations where children s lifes are under threat, involving them in M&E activities could be an extra burden on children, whereas priority should be given to dealing with their direct needs first. It is a huge challenge to set up a flexible M&E system for learning in combination with external demands, for example by donors on reporting and expenditures. Involving children in M&E activities could lead to changes in the course of project implementation, which requires flexibility on the part of the implementing organisation as well as funding agencies. page 10

11 5. Good practises of child participation (CP) at operational level as identified by the participants Some general principles supporting good practises of child participation emerged from storytelling exercises. In the box below good practises are summarized in two categories: those at community, regional and national level and those at the project level. Good practises of promotion of child participation (CP) at operational level as identified by the participants Community, regional, national level CP committees and platforms for facilitation Building on existing structures, building relations, networking, involving relevant stakeholders Resource sharing Human resource consolidation: providing information to adults, training on CP, confidence building between adults and youth Advocacy for CP with governmental institutions and other duty barriers Non discrimination of public services (education) Project level Taking children s ideas and activities seriously, attitude of attentive listening Building on children s initiatives Defining responsibilities (adults - children) clearly), clear vision of project goals Facilitation and up-scaling of successful initiatives Organizing children or organizing meeting places where they can organize themselves Use of media, peer educators Securing sustainability through monitoring and evaluation at all stages of the project cycle 6. Issues for further discussion and research - The concept of child participation in situations of crisis needs further elaboration. - Rights-based versus needs-based approaches need to be integrated. What are the pros and cons of both approaches in different situations of crisis and at different levels? - Crisis assessment tools which incorporate children s perspectives, coping resources and forms of vulnerability are not yet available. - The development of methodologies for child participation which are inclusive for the poorest, most vulnerable and difficult to reach groups need further attention. - Adequate monitoring and evaluation tools have to be developed for all stages of the project cycle, adjusted to the specific situations and information needs of children. page 11

12

13 I. Introduction 1. Rationale for the workshop a) Follow-up Child-Centred Community Development Workshop June 2004 In June 2004 the first Workshop on Child-Centred Community Development (CCCD) was held in The Netherlands. This participatory workshop was organised by Context, international cooperation in partnership with IREWOC, Plan Netherlands and Save the Children Netherlands. The workshop dealt with the conceptual understanding of child-centred community development (CCCD) and contributed to a further enhancement of policies, guiding principles and tools for CCCD within development organisations. It reflected the increased importance and recognition of child-centred community development and provided a forum for sharing experience and knowledge. The June 2005 workshop further explored a key component of CCCD: child participation. With this it built upon a major conclusion of the previous workshop, namely that child participation is essential for a successful community development process. b) Child participation and children in crisis As children in crisis are among the most vulnerable groups in society, the workshop mainly focused on child participation in situations of crisis. Children in crisis need protection. At the same time, however, their participation in development interventions is crucial for the improvement of their situation. There is a need of information on successful, and unsuccessful, experiences of children s social engagement, especially in situations of crisis. Where does and can participation start for children who e.g. are affected by HIV/AIDS, suffer from conflict, live in the streets or work under extremely dangerous conditions? c) Need for improved monitoring and evaluation For several reasons measuring the results of participation of children in crisis is difficult. Programmes are often implemented in rapidly changing unstable and volatile contexts, hampering the establishment of child participation activities in relation to changes in terms of improvement of their situation. Besides, due to political sensitivities it is often difficult to obtain reliable quantitative and qualitative data, e.g. on violations of children s rights. Efforts are made to improve the monitoring and evaluation of programmes focusing on child participation. However, the need for better methods and tools to assess the effects/ outcomes and impact of these programmes is widely felt among organisations active in this field. Therefore monitoring and evaluation of child participation was chosen as an additional central theme for the workshop. It is against this background that Context, international cooperation, IREWOC, Plan Netherlands and Save the Children Netherlands decided to organise and facilitate an action learning workshop on child participation of children in crisis. The focus was on knowledge sharing, knowledge acquisition and knowledge application by encouraging a community of practice in a workshop setting. In this manner staff members from organisations and institutions dealing with children in crisis and/or child participation were stimulated to share their experiences with each other. Furthermore an exchange between development practitioners and academics was facilitated. 2. Objective of the workshop The overall aim of the workshop was formulated as follows: To contribute to enhanced conceptual understanding of child-centred community development and child participation in relation to child-centred programmes for children in crisis, and to the formulation of guiding principles and measuring, monitoring and learning tools for child-centred development programmes for children in crisis. page 13

14 In order to address these topics adequately, the workshop examined how the individual participants defined child participation and child-centred community development of children in crisis, and which forms these concepts take in their own organisations. 3. Organisers The workshop was prepared, organised and facilitated by Context in close collaboration with IREWOC, Plan Netherlands and Save the Children Netherlands. The responsibility concerning content, pedagogy and logistical issues had been entrusted to Context. External resource persons were invited from IREWOC (University of Amsterdam), Plan International (UK), the International Agricultural Centre (Wageningen University) and Save the Children. a) IREWOC The Amsterdam Foundation for International Research on Working Children (IREWOC), was founded in 1992 in order to generate more research on child labour and to raise awareness and stimulate action around this complex issue. It has developed into a professional organisation closely in touch with development practitioners that investigates child labour from the perspective of child rights with a focus on the sociocultural and economic environment. For more information on IREWOC see also website b) Plan Netherlands Plan is an international NGO working with children, their families and the wider community to help them to achieve positive changes in their own lives. Plan is working for the rights of children in order to enable them to contribute to their societies in a positive way. In 45 countries Plan supports children, their families and communities in five key areas, i.e. education, health, habitat, livelihood and building relationships around the world. See also website for more information. c) Save the Children Netherlands Save the Children Netherlands is part of a worldwide network of independent child rights organisations, with 29 member organisations working in over 100 countries. Its activities are directed towards a world where children are respected and participate in their own development. The organisation implements projects in developing countries with and for children in the areas of education, health and protection against abuse and exploitation. On website more information is provided. d) Context, international cooperation Context, international cooperation was set up in Core competencies of Context relate to research, facilitation and training. Its mission is to support organisations to solve self-identified problems by themselves. Thematic areas of specialisation include participatory organisational assessment and development, facilitation of policy preparation and formulation, NGDOs and civil society, the learning organisation and technical assistance. More information on Context can be found on website page 14

15 II. Workshop process 1. Introduction This chapter describes the preparations for the workshop as well as the methodology and separate stages of the workshop. Furthermore it presents the outcomes of the evaluation of the workshop by the participants. 2. Preparations for the workshop In the period January up to June 2005 preparations for the workshop were conducted by representatives from the collaborating organisations, i.e. Context, international cooperation, IREWOC, Plan Netherlands and Save the Children Netherlands. This group consisted of both development practitioners and researchers to ensure a link between theory and practice. After it was decided that the overall focus of the workshop would be on child participation of children in crisis within the broader field of child-centred community development, more specific themes were selected from interviews with potential participants. In this way the workshop programme could be tuned to the learning needs of the participants. The preparatory group also scanned relevant literature and selected material for an up to-date review that was sent to the participants as material for preparation. Besides, the preparatory group discussed and agreed upon resource persons and the workshop programme. (For the workshop programme see Annex II.) 3. Workshop methodology The workshop was organised according to the principles of Participatory Learning and Action (PLA), meaning that knowledge and experience of the participants were at the centre of the workshop. The basic assumption underpinning the workshop was that there can be no learning without action and no action without learning (Revans, see Figure 1). According to Revans, lasting behavioural change is more likely to follow from (re-)interpretation of past experience than from the acquisition of fresh knowledge. The basic aim of the workshop was to strengthen the learn and adapt capacity of the organisations involved. Theoretical insights were linked with practice and the other way around. The workshop combined individual exercises, working in small groups and plenary meetings. Working methods included brainstorm sessions, story-telling exercises and distilling good practices from those stories, and interactive presentations by the facilitators and resource persons. Figure 1: Revans Learning Cycle 1 activity/event/experience new actions Revans Learning Cycle refelection and decision to experiment reflection and analysis experiment 1 Adapted from Weinstein, K. 1999, p. 40 (combination of Kolb and Revans learning cycles). page 15

16 4. Workshop participants The participants came from a wide range of organisations, including staff members from the collaborating organisations and colleagues from their country offices in the South. Staff members from other funding as well as implementing organisations in both the North and South were also represented. (For a list of participants see Annex I). National and international organisations dealing with child participation programmes had been informed about the planning and purpose of the workshop. By discussing with them their preferences and the dilemmas/problems they came across in their organisations, and by creating a so-called community of practice during and after the workshop, professionals working in the field of child participation programmes were enabled to share their knowledge with both colleagues from other organisations and external professionals. 5. Stages during the workshop a) Introduction The workshop started with welcoming remarks by Mr Fons van der Velden and Ms Ingrid Pallast, the workshop facilitators, and a presentation of the participants. Subsequently Mr van der Velden introduced the workshop process, aims and methodology. He also presented the following statement of Peter Senge as a motto for the workshop: The irony is that to do things faster you often have to go slower. You have to be more reflective. You have to develop real trust. You have to develop the abilities of people to truly think together. 2 In this stage the participants also agreed upon the process of managing the interactions during the workshop. This entailed: 1. Establishment of a steering committee responsible for the review of workshop proceedings, daily collection and evaluation of comments of the participants and for feedback to the facilitators to ensure effective workshop management. The steering committee consisted of four participants and both facilitators. 2. Selection of pairs of participants to present a recap on the previous day s proceedings in a creative manner to the participants. Thus, the successive days of the workshop were connected. 3. Agreement upon the so-called rules of engagement during the workshop. These rules were proposed by the participants and included an open attitude for inspiration and learning, flexibility by the facilitators and participants and trying to avoid jargon. b) Sharing of experiences ( from the inside out ) The experiences and knowledge of the participants form the main basis for the course and contents of the workshop. Therefore the workshop participants were asked to explore their current experiences and knowledge. This stage of the learning process can be characterised as from the inside out. Subsequently, the participants defined main problematic areas and their learning questions. Box I shows the main categories of learning questions of the participants. page 16 2 Senge, P. 1998, p. 139.

17 Box I: Main categories of learning questions as defined by the participants What is the purpose of child participation, why and in which areas is it important? In what way is child participation related to the wider agenda of promoting citizen participation in development? Under which conditions can child participation be successful? How to deal with child participation in specific situations, for example where there is no culture of listening to children or in (post-) conflict situations? How can child participation be promoted among donors, NGOs and communities? What good practices are there in monitoring and evaluating child participation? c) Knowledge acquisition ( from the outside in ) The next stage in this learning process is external input of information: from the outside in. This was generated through contributions of resource persons and literature on child participation and monitoring and evaluation of child-centred programmes. On the second day the focus was on child participation of children in crisis, with interactive contributions from Mr Kristoffel Lieten (IREWOC, University of Amsterdam), Mr Peter Dixon (independent consultant) and Ms Pauline McKeown (Plan International). On the third day the interactive presentations by Ms Cecile Kusters (International Agricultural Centre, Wageningen University) and Ms Pauline McKeown dealt with monitoring and evaluation of child participation. d) Application ( reconnecting to the development practice ) Finally, the workshop shifted its focus to bringing existing and newly acquired knowledge into practice in the participants own organisations by discussing and developing principles and tools for measurement and learning. To meet the challenges faced by the different organisations, each participant individually was requested to design a concrete plan of action. This part of the process mainly took place during the fourth and fifth day of the workshop. 6. Public meeting On the last day, a public meeting was organised to share the main outcomes of the workshop with a wider audience of professionals involved in supporting, implementing and research of child participation programmes. The meeting was chaired by Mr Kristoffel Lieten, director of IREWOC. The meeting started with opening remarks by Ms Marleen Hasselerharm on behalf of Plan International, followed by a presentation on the workshop process by Mr Fons van der Velden, commented upon by several participants. In interviews by Mr Lieten participants elaborated on the workshop themes and shared their lessons learnt and personal experiences working for and with children in often very difficult circumstances. Participants also presented the major recommendations resulting from the workshop. Mr Holke Wieringa, director of Save the Children Netherlands, closed the meeting. 7. Participants evaluation of the workshop Also on the last day an interactive evaluation of the workshop took place. Feedback was collected from the participants on what went well and what could have been done differently. In general the participants were positive on most aspects of the workshop. They appreciated the methodology of Participatory Learning and Action as a useful tool for sharing experiences and integrating such experiences into their own work. In addition, the general feeling was page 17

18 that there was sufficient flexibility in the workshop programme as a result of the ongoing reviews. Other comments referred to the good atmosphere in the group, the active role of the participants and the international composition of the group. Furthermore participants appreciated the open and constructive attitude of the facilitators, as well as the nonprescriptive character of the workshop. At the same time participants indicated that they would have liked more time for work on conceptual as well as operational issues, e.g. the concept of children in crisis. Some participants also would have liked to have more time allocated to discussions with the resource persons as well as to individual presentations by the participants. Also, some did not appreciate the non-prescriptive character of the workshop and would have preferred more clarity on key concepts earlier in the process. page 18

19 III. Participation of children in crisis 1. Introduction The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) which was adopted in 1989 has put the issue of child participation on the international agenda. Children s participation as outlined in Article 12 of the Convention states that children have the right to be heard and considered in decisions affecting them. This Article, in addition to Articles 13, 14 and 15, establishes the child s right to access to information, freedom of belief, and freedom of association. The CRC supports child participation as a basic right. Moreover, responsibilities, rights and duties of parents and other adults do not go unmentioned. Child rights have to be handled by adults, depending on the age of the child in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child (Article 5) and in the spirit of the ideals proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations and in particular in the spirit of peace, dignity, tolerance, freedom, equality and solidarity. This implies that children should be guided and protected in exercising their rights to guarantee the child s best interest, as mentioned in Article 3. The Millennium Declaration also refers directly to the rights of children to health, education and equality. Child participation will be one of the key components for a successful fulfilment of the Millennium Development Goals by the year Definitions Discussions on definitions and concepts central to child-centred community development (CCCD) and child participation were based on literature, the professional experience of the participants and the input of resource persons Mr K. Lieten, Mr P. Dixon and Ms P. McKeown. a) Child-centred community development During the workshop Child Centred Community Developemnt held in 2004, the concepts childhood, centred, community and development were defined as follows: - Childhood is seen as a stage in human development, where the child gradually maturates into adulthood. Childhood is about evolving capacities, nevertheless, during childhood, it must be acknowledged that, in many ways, children are less skilled than adults. Another characteristic of children is their vulnerability, and their need for protection. - The focus of child centred development is on the specific developmental needs of children, and if this results in community development in a broader sense, it is to be seen as a favourable side-effect. Children should be in the centre of the attention of all the stakeholders. The needs and rights of the children must be in the heart of every action (best interest of the child: CRC, article 3). Children should not just be listened to, but should be involved in decision-making as well, because they have the possibility to advocate their own rights and interests. - Community can have many different dimensions: culturally, politically, economically etc. The major characteristics of a community in a specific situation in terms of development are therefore usually very context and situation specific. The binding factor of a community is not necessarily geographical proximity, but more what people share. What is needed, is a process to define community locally. Individual people can be members of different communities at the same time. - Development is about recognising and changing the balance between winners & losers, but also about recognising each other s human-ess. We must not forget that rights have costs: somewhere, some people have to pay. Changing the balance between winners and losers is not a win-win situation. The acknowledgement that everybody has the same rights, does not help every rights-holder to the same extent. page 19

20 The discussions in this workshop on the concept of CCCD resulted in five defining elements. These are shown in Box II. Box II: Defining elements of child-centred community development as raised by the participants Developing the community focusing on the child Programme inputs go directly to the child (e.g. vocational skills/ training to improve child income) Developing interventions or initiatives of the community focusing on the rights of the child and/or conscious efforts to ensure children s access and use of projects Consulting children on the best options for their services Working with adults to make decisions on child services b) Participation of children The initial definition of child participation was: A process of active, meaningful and allinclusive involvement of children in influencing decisions/issues affecting their lives. Some participants added children s possibility to express their opinions without fear and their empowerment to influence decisions as important outcomes of child participation. As children grow and develop, their opportunities for participation expand from the private to public spaces, from local to global influence. Participation was recognised as a process rather than an activity or a technique within a project, possibly resulting in structural changes (in power relations) and proactive citizenship in the future. The following questions emerged: - What do we need to have in place to enable and elicit the participation of girls and boys in decision making? - What is active participation? - How active should active participation be? - What is meaningful participation? In his lecture Mr Kristoffel Lieten outlined three ways of thinking about participation: as a process by the people to whom development programmes are aimed, for the people (with the development agency taking the initiative and often limiting participation to consultation) or with the people. Hart s Typologies of Child Participation, a model that distinguishes various degrees to which children can be involved was presented. 3 (See Annex IV for Mr Lieten s presentation.) Child participation can range from adults seeking children s information or consulting them to having them analyse their own situations and leave decision making to them. This latter (highest and most complex) form of participation is often not feasible in crisis situations and even difficult to achieve among children of high socio-economic status under ideal circumstances. In order to realize all-inclusiveness of child participation in the sense of involving as many children as possible, nearly all levels and forms of participation could be valuable and meaningful. Advanced or high level forms of child participation are not necessarily the ideal way to realise child-centred community development. The preferred form of child participation of children in crisis or the level of childcentredness in CCCD depends on the nature of the crisis, the cognitive and emotional maturity/ability of the children and the contextual and individual coping resources available. The question What is meaningful participation? can not be answered in general terms. However, it is somehow obvious which forms of participation are not meaningful in the sense of not serving the interests of children. Tokenism, decoration or manipulation are often page 20 3 Lieten, G. K. 2005, p. 13.

21 sought to streamline a programme and to increase its legitimacy. In this way participation is mainly benefiting the project holder, rather than benefiting the target group; children are mainly involved to achieve adults goals and this can hardly be called child participation. Further discussions in later stages of the workshop about the relative quality and contextualization of participation showed that: - Simple, genuine and attentive listening to as much children as possible (especially the most vulnerable and difficult to reach) is a valuable and feasible form of participation; - Implementation of simple forms of child participation in crisis and emergency situations is possible (f.e. asking them what they need); - Preferably, participation involves all stages of the project cycle, but you have to start somewhere (operational requirements are specified in paragraph 3.5); - Consulting children creates expectations, in order to be legitimate, child participation has to be acted upon (other ethical dilemmass are discussed in paragraph 3.7 c); - Children s participation should always be balanced with their need/right to protection (see also paragraph 3.5 b). 3. Children in crisis The difference between children living under conditions of chronic vulnerability and children in crisis was clarified by means of the metaphor: A child being on the edge or over the edge. Chronic vulnerability and crisis can be considered as variables on the same continuum. The group defined children in crisis as being in situations beyond their coping abilities and resources, life-threatening, acute and/or out of control. A crisis can be individual or contextual (affecting a group due to lacking support mechanisms). In a crisis, the existing coping abilities and resources are far from sufficient, but still forms of resilience apply. Resilience can be defined as a universal capacity that allows a person, group or community to prevent, minimise or overcome the damaging effects of adversity. 4 According to Mr Lieten in fighting to overcome adversities, human capacities are strengthened or even transformed. To overcome adversities, children draw from three inner convictions, features which the International Resilience Project has labelled I have, I am and I can. 5 One of the participants mentioned the importance of a collective identity in many African cultures: I am, because I am a community member. Hence, the self-defined coping abilities of a community will to a great extent define the child s trust to be able to cope. Also mentioned was the importance of involving children in monitoring and evaluation in crisis situations as a way to diminish their feelings of powerlessness and their fear. In this way active coping and resilience is stimulated. It was concluded that risk factors as well as coping sources, level of resilience and emergency preparedness at different levels (family, community, state) should be taken into account in order to asses the nature of a situation at the continuum crisis vulnerability. 4. Conceptual issues a) The origins of the concept of child-centred community development Child-centred development can be considered a new pedagogical approach, based partially on anti-authoritarian education of the 1970s and partially on the general tendency to stress individual freedom and autonomy. Children are becoming young partners in their own development. Child-centred development departs from the assumption that children have an innate knowledge and an innate capacity to develop and the effort should be to allow it to blossom. 6 The concept is part of the current agency paradigm stressing that people are actors or agents constructing their own world instead of being restricted or directed 4 Grotberg 1999, p. 2, quoted in: Lieten G.K. 2005, p Lieten, G. K. 2005, p Lieten, G. K page 21

22 by structures. This paradigm has replaced earlier paradigms such as structural reforms and poverty alleviation, which led to topdown interventions aimed at beneficiaries or target groups. b) Participation of children as a mean to development and/or development as a requisite for participation The question whether or not a certain degree of development is required for child participation has been subject of discussion at various stages of the workshop. Is participation a means to the end of development and/or structural change or can it be an end in itself. It was argued that a certain degree of development, in terms of personal or human development of adults, is desirable to have children participate in a meaningful way, rather than a desired stage of social-economic development. Even in highly modernised countries as the Netherlands academic training often does not lead to participation in society according to Hart s most advanced category of independent analysis and decision making. At the other end of the scale of participation there are passive forms of participation that some participants assumed to be present in normal family interaction, no matter the degree of community development. However, further discussion showed that less complex forms of child participation such as assigned but informed participation or consulted but informed participation are not obvious characteristics of social interaction within the context of the family. A participant illustrated the point of absence of these assumed obvious forms of child participation by presenting the case of children of parents with AIDS in Uganda: they are often not informed about the disease their parents suffer from or about the cause of death. Child - parent interaction or socialisation can be the first area to gain for child participation. According to Ms P. McKeown, the less complex forms of child participation can be realised at any level of development (human and social). Even in situations of crisis children can be involved by asking them what their immediate needs are and by consulting them in decision making by for example letting them prioritise their needs. 5. Operational issues a) Rights-based approach As Mr P. Dixon explained, the rights-based approach entails describing situations not just in terms of human needs, or areas of development, but in terms which bring out the obligation to respond to the human rights of individuals that have been established by the creation of human rights treaties. The advantage of this perspective compared to an approach based solely on an articulation of needs is that one can identify duty bearers: people or institutions with a responsibility towards the right holders established through the creation and ratification of the right. Initiatives to improve the situation of children then can focus on improving the realisation of responsibilities by those identified as duty bearers, or by assisting children in the articulation of their claims on their rights. Contrasting with the situation of adults, children s right to be heard in decision making that affects them is subject to their maturity and needs to accommodate their emerging capabilities. Claims on their substantive rights are ideally envisaged as a joint venture between children and their parents of caregivers. However where children do not have the access to responsible adults the participation rights established in the UNCRC provide in some measure for other means, for example the right to associate. Children s participation rights are thus articulated in the UNCRC in a nuanced way through bringing in principles concerning their emerging capabilities, the roles and responsibilities of the family and parents/caregivers, and complementary rights that assist children to realise their right to be heard in decision making which affect them. Articles 3 and 5 of the CRC clarify that the convention does not provide for absolute selfpage 22

23 control as an ideal or highest form of child participation. They stress responsibilities to be born by adults in the appropriate guidance of children and in seeking decision making processes that place children s best interests as a primary consideration. Mr Dixon said it was conceptually useful to think of the challenge in relation to children s participation rights being that of creating a meaningful relationship between children and adults concerning decisions affecting them. This will manifest in many different ways depending on the circumstances of the child and the relationships they have with responsible adults, be they parents, caregivers, teachers, community members and so on. (See also Mr Dixon s presentation added as Annex VII to this report.) b) Balancing participation and protection concerns In her presentation Ms Pauline McKeown first identified the (positive) impact of child participation at both the community and institutional level. At the community level child participation could change the communities perception of children, in the sense of causing increased respect for children s knowledge and abilities. It could challenge and change the power relations and mobilise community resources. Moreover, children have abilities that can contribute in another way than adults would do. For example, children often say what adults are not able to say. The possible impact of child participation at the institutional level is in the promotion of a responsive, transparent and accountable organisational/societal culture. (For Ms McKeown s presentation see Annex V.) Protection issues due to the involvement of children in community development were raised. Child participation exposes children to other (older) children and adults, hence increasing exposure to situations of possible abuse. On the other hand, it can be assumed that participating children have become more self-confident and self-aware. In the long run they will have developed skills and coping mechanisms that decrease their vulnerability to the risks they might be increasingly exposed to (as a result of being more involved in human interaction). For example: girls become more visible as marriageable women, because of their participation in community development. This increased exposure to the possible risk of abuse adds to their vulnerability. But simultaneously, their increased skills and life experience as participating girls does enhance their capabilities to protect themselves in risky situations. Other ways in which child participation increases protection concerns are by: access to information and new information beyond their level of maturity; the risk of being overburdened; and the challenging of traditional roles that occurs (changing power relations). c) How do needs fit into the rights-based approach? The rights-based approach and the protection concerns were subject to an intense debate. The central questions that emerged during the discussions were: - How do rights-based organisations take into account (immediate) needs? - How can individual and collective responsibility be balanced? - How can duty bearers be held accountable? According to Mr Dixon, the rights approach offers ways to voice needs as justifiable rights: Rights provide means to obtain needs, provided that a need is codified as a right. Hence, in times of crisis victims asking for help to have their needs met, become agents entitled to help from the obligated. In this sense rights-based organisations are also addressing needs, using a framework that keeps pointing to governments as duty bearers, not taking We can t do anything more than the little we are doing for an answer. In a needs-based approach governments are likely to be taken of their duties to meet needs. Some participants brought forward their doubts about the application of a rights-based approach at the community level. How can rights be translated in access to services to have needs met? What is the mobilising value of this approach, will people become active agents page 23