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

Context,international cooperation

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, 2005.© Annexes authors 2005.

Design & images: Frivista - visuele communicatie, Amersfoort.

All rights reserved.

ISBN: 90-77526-02-1

Copies may be ordered at: info@developmenttraining.org

Amersfoortsestraat 18 • 3769 AR Soesterberg • The Netherlands • phone: + 31 (0) 346-355890 • fax: + 31 (0) 346-355899 • e-mail: info@developmenttraining.org • internet: www.developmenttraining.org

Child-Centred Community Development‘Participation of children in crisis’

Report of a participatory workshop • held from June 20-24, 2005Cenakel, Soesterberg • The Netherlands

IREWOC, AmsterdamPlan Netherlands, AmsterdamSave the Children Netherlands, Den HaagContext, international cooperation, Soesterberg

List of abbreviations

CCCD - Child-Centred Community Development IAC - International Agricultural CentreIREWOC - International Research on Working Children M&E - Monitoring and EvaluationMIS - Management Information System NGO - Non-Governmental OrganisationPLA - 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 20-24 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

page 05

Table of contents

List of abbreviations 04User’s guide 04Foreword 07Summary 09

I. Introduction 131. Rationale for the workshop 132. Objective of the workshop 133. Organisers 14

II. Workshop process 151. Introduction 152. Preparations for the workshop 153. Workshop methodology 154. Workshop participants 165. Stages during the workshop 166. Public meeting 177. Participants’ evaluation of the workshop 17

III. Participation of children in crisis 191. Introduction 192. Definitions 193. Children in crisis 21 4. Conceptual issues 215. Operational issues 226. Crisis assessment tools 247. Good practices 258. Challenges for the future 269. Major lessons learnt 26

IV. Monitoring and evaluation of child participation 291. Introduction 292. Definition of monitoring and evaluation 293. Purposes of monitoring and evaluation 294. Guiding principles for monitoring and evaluation of child participation 305. Designing and monitoring and evaluation system 306. Issues at the implementation level 327. Measuring child participation 338. Major lessons learnt 33

V. The way forward 351. Introduction 352. Conceptual issues 353. Major issues regarding participation of children in crisis 354. Major issues regarding monitoring and evaluation of child participation 365. Issues for further discussion and research 366. The workshop process 36

Annexes 37I. List of participants 39II. Workshop programme 41III. References and further reading 45IV. Participation: the case of children, Kristoffel Lieten 49V. Balancing participation and protection: making it work, Pauline McKeown 55VI. Causes or markers of poor quality of a life applied to groups of ‘vulnerable children’ including ‘the poorest’, Pauline McKeown 61VII. Child participation: a rights-based perspective, Peter Dixon 63VIII. Child-centred community development – participation of children in crisis, 67 Cecile KustersIX. Participatory monitoring & evaluation with children in crisis, Pauline McKeown 87

Page

Foreword

From 20-24 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 cooperationSoesterberg, November 2005

page 07

Summary

1. Introduction

The overall aim of the workshop was to contribute to enhanced understanding of child-centred 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

In crisis situations child participation could diminish feelings of powerlessness and helpless-ness, 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 protec-tion, 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

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 story-telling 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

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.

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

page 11

I. Introduction

1. Rationale for the workshop

a) Follow-up Child-Centred Community Development Workshop June 2004In 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 crisisAs 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 evaluationFor 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

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) IREWOCThe 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 socio-cultural and economic environment. For more information on IREWOC see also website www.childlabour.net.

b) Plan NetherlandsPlan 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 www.plannederland.nl 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 www.savethechildren.nl more information is provided.

d) Context, international cooperationContext, international cooperation was set up in 1996. 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 www.developmenttraining.org.

page 14

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 Cycle1

page 15

new actions

reflection andanalysis

experiment

refelection anddecisionto experiment

activity/event/experience

RevansLearningCycle

1 Adapted from Weinstein, K. 1999, p. 40 (combination of Kolb and Revans’ learning cycles).

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) IntroductionThe 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.

Box I: Main categories of learning questions as defined by the participants

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

• 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?

page 17

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 non-prescriptive 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

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 2015.

2. 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

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

b) Participation of childrenThe initial definition of child participation was: ‘A process of active, meaningful and all-inclusive 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

• 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

page 20 3 Lieten, G. K. 2005, p. 13.

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 developmentChild-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

page 21 4 Grotberg 1999, p. 2, quoted in: Lieten G.K. 2005, p 18. 5 Lieten, G. K. 2005, p. 18. 6 Lieten, G. K. 2005.

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 approachAs 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 self-

page 22

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

because rights-based organisations tell them they are entitled to e.g. basis services? Some argued that ratifications of rights such as the CRC can only have impact on duty bearers when there are mechanisms in place to obligate them. For the beholders of the rights, the distinction between rights or needs is rather irrelevant.

Mr Lieten stated that the rights-based approach is based on such abstract principles as right beholders and duty bearers. Therefore at the community level it should not replace a very concrete approach that puts needs at the centre of concern and action. He argued that we should be aware that a shift in thinking has taken place (at least at policy level) from needs to rights as part of the paradigm shift (see paragraph 4). Within the current ‘agency paradigm’ there is more emphasis on right beholders who can fight for their rights as agents able to influence their own circumstances, and less on needs to be provided for from outside.

Participants came up with some interesting ways of integrating needs- and rightsbased approaches. One of them drew the Maslov’s pyramid of hierarchy of needs, placing needs at the bottom and rights at the top, thus implying that basic needs should be met before rights can be actualised. This model of integration still leaves to further debate whether or not a rights-based approach is to be preferred above a needs-based approach, especially with reference to realising child rights and needs in a crisis situation.Others concluded that a rights-based approach is useful at the macro level of the international community and national governments whereas the needs approach is more helpful at the community level, not just to provide for needs, but as a way to mobilise the people concerned to be participatory in identifying their needs and all subsequent phases of the project cycle.

6. Crisis assessment tool

Crisis is a variable state on a vulnerability continuum. In assessing the level of vulnerability of children or the acuteness of the crisis, it is important to take into account the nature of the threat, the risk of dispersion as well as the coping strategies and resources yet available. Children in crisis, living in situations beyond their control and coping mechanisms, still might have coping abilities available although they do not suffice. Box III presents dimensions of crisis and crisis management as identified by the participants.

Box III: Dimensions of crisis and crisis management as identified by the participants

Emergency preparedness was mentioned as a state of mental preparedness (rather than a programme) and an important human survival strategy contributing to children’s coping efforts in crisis. Paradoxically, children living under conditions of chronic vulnerability or repeating crisis might develop inner coping strategies such as mental preparedness in the mere absence of outside coping resources (services, warning systems, protection from adults etc). Other dimensions that can be included to assess quality of life of vulnerable children are: likelihood of material deprivation, risk and uncertainty, likelihood of exclusion, risk of violence, abuse, neglect or exploitation and individual childhood vulnerability and resilience. (See also the presentation by Ms McKeown added as Annex VI to this report.)

Content dimensions of crisis• risks of spreading• existing communal resources (family structures, public services)• individual, community, national emergency preparedness• mental preparedness• acute/perennial

Process dimension of crisis management• quick/fast versus all inclusive• scenario planning• link to child rights• building on existing structures and empowerment versus dependency

page 24

7. Good practises

a) Operational issuesSome general principles supporting good practises of child participation emerged from story-telling exercises. In Box IV good practises are presented in two categories: those at community, regional and national level and those at the project level.

Box IV: Good practises of promotion of child participation (CP) at different levels as identified by the participants

b) Conceptual issuesSome basic conceptual eye-openers behind ‘the good practises’ were filtered from the story- telling exercises.

Child participation as an ongoing process: Do not wait for perfection, but start somewhere. Child participation does not need to be meaningful from the start, it needs a gradual process to get children prepared. What is needed to start off is a common vision or understanding of the ultimate goal as a point of reference to direct the process.

Sustainability of the process rather than an activity or project: Once child participation has started, it should be able ‘to sell itself’. Specific activities should not be pushed to have a multiplying effect. But the sustainability of the process of child participation can be promoted through transparent, participative monitoring and evaluation at all stages of the project cycle.

Sustainability of the concept of childhood: participation is reaching its limits when children start carrying adult responsibilities and cease to be children.

c) Ethical dilemmas Child participation involves mayor ethical dilemmas such as ‘protection versus responsibility’ and ‘the independence of children’s action’ which should be taken into account to ensure good practises.

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

page 25

Box V: Ways of approaching some ethical dilemmas as raised by the participants

8. Challenges for the future

The participants mentioned a number of challenges for the future, including:1. The rights perspective is useful to identify duty bearers with reference to specific child rights at various levels. For child organisations promoting awareness of accountability for child rights among duty bearers will remain quite a challenge.2. The development of methodologies for child participation which are inclusive for the poorest and most vulnerable.3. Resisting the tempation to formulate ‘participative’ projects for the mere sake of satisfying donor criteria.4. Securing protection of children’s (emotional) needs in participative projects (especially of children in crisis situations).5. Development of crisis assessment tools which incorporate children’s perspectives, types of vulnerability and coping resources available.6. Promotion of children’s emergency preparedness: their mental preparedness as a way of self-protection. 9. Major lessons learnt

1. Rights-based and needs-based approaches can be considered complementary. Putting child needs central to CCCD means that children’s needs become central to resource allocation a community level. Emphasising child rights as motivating force or legitimacy of CCCD provides means (legislation) to call duty bearers to their responsibility to contribute to CCCD.2. Involving children in community development raises ethical dilemmas which must be taken into account to ensure good practices of child participation. The balancing of protection concerns with responsibilities and rights is essential.3. Continuous critical reflection on participatory methods and processes is needed to check if these are genuinely participative, serving goals, needs, agency and the empowerment of children.4. Good practises of child participation start off with real attentive listening to children, rather than from applying specific ‘blue print’ participatory techniques.5. Participants also mentioned some individual lessons learnt. They are listed in Box VI.

• Don’t raise false expectations (towards children)• Participation by choice not by force• Follow up and/or feedback after child participation• Awareness of manipulation by adults and children• Awareness of children’s cognitive and emotional ability

page 26

• Do not ‘overdo’ child participation, balance it with child protection • Ownership of participatory projects has to remain with the community, the adults have to decide whether or not to involve children and how to involve them• It takes years to nurture true partnerships with children, but it is possible and worthwhile• Individual and organisational facilitation skills are essential capacities to realise child participation• Child participation does not have to be perfect (from the start). Try at least to realise participative assessment before writing a project proposal• One of the ethical dilemmas is how to deal with (unconsciously) created expectations towards children when they are consulted or participate in other ways. In order to be legitimate, participation must be acted upon, even though it might be in small ways.• The involvement of children in project implementation is much more a common practise than in-depth listening to children as an input for project design. However, the latter is really needed to overcome ‘professional biases’ in project designs• Child participation is a cross cutting process, keep it simple and straight forward • Monitoring and evaluation is a continuous process and can easily be participatory, because children know well what they do or do not need and do or do not want • Show donor organisations that children can participate. Collect and use concrete examples (success stories)• High level commitment to child participation is needed to push it up on the agenda (international donors might have good child participation policies on paper, implementation is another issue, however.)

Box VI: Individual lessons learnt as expressed by some participants

page 27

IV. Monitoring and evaluation of child participation

1. Introduction

In the last two decades measurement of development practice has become an important issue. Many development practitioners, organisations and institutions struggle with the question how to measure the results of development programmes and projects. This fits in with the overall tendency in the development community to adopt results-based management. Efforts have been made to improve the monitoring and evaluation of programmes focusing on child participation. This chapter reflects on the presentations and discussions on this issue during the workshop.

2. Definition of monitoring and evaluation

The workshop participants first explored possible definitions of monitoring and evaluation (M&E). From the discussions a shared understanding emerged of M&E in relation to child participation:

‘Participants in M&E of development interventions can decide themselves how they understand participation, how they will know during implementation what is happening (i.e. monitoring) and how they want to have the results measured (i.e. evaluation).’

Furthermore participants argued that monitoring is an ongoing process during implementation and that evaluation refers to the measurement of results in terms of change. In her presentation on measuring child participation Ms C. Kusters also commented on the differences between monitoring and evaluation. She contented that monitoring especially concerns effectiveness and efficiency at the activity level while evaluation mainly refers to ‘bigger issues’ such as impact, relevance and sustainability. Therefore monitoring should focus on questions such as ‘are we doing things right?’ whereas evaluation should also assess the question ‘are we doing the right things?’. (Ms Kusters’ presentation has been added as Annex VIII to this report.)

3. Purposes of monitoring and evaluation

Ms Kusters also stressed the necessity of clarifying the purpose of an M&E system prior to its design. Different purposes require different kinds of information and different stakeholders to be involved in the M&E process. This will affect the design of the M&E system.According to Ms Kusters the following purposes of M&E can be distinguished:1. Accountability, referring to either upward accountability (e.g. towards donor orga- nisations), horizontal accountability (e.g. towards colleagues in the same sector) or downward accountability (e.g. towards beneficiaries);2. Operational management, mainly relating to such questions as ‘is implementation of activities going according to the planned schedule?’ and ‘are we doing things right?’3. Strategic directions, relating to collecting information for organisational learning and thereby improving organisational performances.4. Generating new knowledge, focusing on the learning aspect of M&E.5. Empowerment, relating to the contribution of the M&E system to the empowerment of stakeholders to manage and monitor their own development process. For this purpose stakeholders should be allowed to participate in the design of the M&E system as well as in the M&E activities.

page 29

4. Guiding principles for monitoring and evaluation of child participation

The development community increasingly acknowledges the importance of monitoring and evaluation. Nevertheless Ms Kusters has observed that adequate attention for defining the purposes and designing of an M&E system is still relatively limited. Even less attention is paid to the participation of stakeholders in M&E, let alone to child participation in M&E. She outlined three sets of guiding principles for measuring child participation:

1. Broad principles of participatory monitoring and evaluationThese broad principles include:

- participation, through opening up the design of the process to include those most directly affected, and agreeing to analyse data together;- negotiation with stakeholders, which is required to decide what to monitor or evaluate, how and when to collect and analyse data, etc;- learning, which should follow from participation and negotiation, and which forms the basis for subsequent improvements and actions;- flexibility, which is essential since the number, role and skills of stakeholders, the external environment and other factors change over time.

2. Principles of child participationThe following principles of child participation can be distinguished:

- non-discrimination and inclusiveness;- democracy and equality of opportunity;- safety (physical, emotional and psychological) of participants;- adult responsibility;- voluntarism, informed consent and transparency;- participation should be an enjoyable and stimulating experience.

3. Principles of Participatory Learning and Action (PLA)The methodology of PLA, also used in this workshop, includes the following principles:

- a defined methodology and systematic learning process, focusing on behaviour and attitudes, sharing and methods;- the application of multiple perspectives;- a learning process in which the group plays a crucial role;- context specific, no blueprints;- facilitating experts and stakeholders;- leading to change.

5. Designing an monitoring and evaluation system

The development of an M&E system can be useful for every type of development intervention. The design for such a system can be laid down in a M&E plan. Depending on the size of the development intervention the plan should be in more or lesser detail. At least it should deal with the issues presented in Box VII.

page 30

Box VII: Outline of a monitoring and evaluation plan

1. Purposes and scope of the M&E systemPurposes of an M&E system are described in paragraph 3 of this chapter. The scope of an M&E system refers to the comprehensiveness of M&E systems, levels of detail, participation and funding of that system.

2. Performance questions, indicators and information needs The objectives of a development intervention can not be simply converted into a general list of indicators. Performance questions should be drafted first: what do you want to know? Key performance questions are related to the relevance, impact, sustainability, effectiveness and efficiency of the development intervention.Examples of performance questions in the field of child participation are:

- What is the effect of children’s participation in programme development and implementation of children’s lives?- To what extent is the level of participation of children sustainable?- Children’s perspective: how can girls be involved?

At this stage child participation is possible, e.g. by asking children when they consider the intervention to be successful. Once it is clear what information is needed, the performance indicators can be defined.

3. Information gathering and organisingThis part of the M&E plan should describe the different methods used for data collection, synthesis, analysis and recording. Such methods can be qualitative as well as quantitative, individual (e.g. dietary records), as well as group based (e.g. focus group discussions) or participatory (e.g. participatory rapid appraisal) as well as conventional (e.g. questionnaires). A matrix can be used to manage this process (an example is included in her presentation, Annex VIII.)

4. Key reflection events and processesKey reflection events, formal or informal, should be included in the M&E process in order to make sense of the information collected. As to child participation, examples of such events are children’s review and planning workshops (e.g. with children’s videos/theatre performances/series of photos or drawings on progress and problems), interviews with children by children and advisory boards with children. It should be realised that involving children in information gathering and reflection events requires additional effort and creativity of those designing and conducting such activities.

5. Communication and reportingThe findings from information collection and analysis and reflection events must be communicated to the stakeholders involved. Different stakeholders, e.g. donors and children, have different information needs. Furthermore, it should be decided what information will be reported to whom and how. Ways to communicate findings include written reporting, oral reporting and visual displays.

6. Capacities and conditionsSeveral capacities and conditions need to be in place to make the M&E system work, including: - human capacities - incentives for M&E - structures and processes - management information system (MIS) - financial capacities

page 31

6. Issues at the implementation level

During her interactive presentation on participatory M&E with children in crisis, Ms Pauline McKeown and the participants discussed a variety of issues relating to the implementation of a monitoring and evaluation system. (For her presentation see Annex IX.)

a) Level of measurementBefore implementing M&E activities, the level of measurement should be clear. Different levels of measurement include input, output, outcomes and impact. In general it is relatively simple to measure the input and output of a development intervention. To assess the outcomes and impact more qualitative information is needed, however. In situations of crisis, such as refugee situations, circumstances are often changing fast. As a consequence measurement usually focuses on input and output. M&E activities can benefit not only from looking at the expected and positive changes, but from unexpected and negative changes as well. Such information can contribute to the further improvement of projects and programmes in the area of child participation.

b) Involvement of stakeholders in monitoring and evaluationAn important question to be answered before implementing M&E activities concerns the involvement of different stakeholders: who should be involved, in what way and when? And who should decide on this? Participants suggested to deal with these issues in a participatory way, by letting communities, including children, come up with criteria. Besides, a proper stakeholder analysis paying attention to existing power relations can be helpful. It was also suggested not to try to be perfect from the start, but just to begin after some reflections and then regularly reflect on the level of representation of different groups as part of the M&E process. An important point of attention with regard to stakeholder involvement in M&E is that efforts should be made to involve difficult groups as well.

c) Incentives for participating in monitoring and evaluationInvolving children in M&E activities brings up the question if and how they should be compen-sated for their participation. When children are considered to be experts, should they be compensated for their expertise? Incentives are about what stimulates people and this is about more than just money. Children can also benefit from participating in M&E activities through a feeling of belonging to a group and a sense of recognition as well as respect by the community or through being trained as part of the M&E activities. At the same time it is important not to overburden children with such activities. This could be partly prevented by combining the implementation of regular activities with and for these children with specific M&E activities.

d) Participation of children in monitoring and evaluation of network organisationsNetwork organisations consisting of child-centred member NGOs in some cases mainly focus on capacity building of their member organisations. For such organisations it is difficult to measure the results of their capacity-building efforts on the lives of children or to involve children in M&E activities since they do not work with children directly. It was suggested that these network organisations focus on measuring the results of the capacity building of member organisations and at the same time encourage them to actively involve children in the M&E process of their activities.

e) Participatory monitoring and evaluation in emergency situationsIn emergency situations where children’s lives are threatened (e.g. during a war), their involvement in M&E activities will be difficult to realise. Such activities could be an extra burden on children, whereas priority should be given to dealing with their direct needs. Once the immediate crisis is over, participation of children in M&E activities is more feasible. However, also in emergency situations children as well as adults should be consulted to ensure that their actual needs are being met.

page 32

7. Measuring child participation

In her contribution Ms Kusters also dealt with the issue of measuring child participation. She provided some examples of levels at which the participation of children can be measured, including:

- Improved lives of children in crisis: e.g. to what extent has the quality of their lives improved as a result of increased participation? Why/not?- Increased involvement of children: e.g. to what extent are children now actively participating in problem identification and analysis, programme design, implementation of M&E? Why/not?- Child-centred approaches: e.g. to what extent have children’s rights been promoted? Or: To what extent has the participation of children been facilitated? Why/not?- Principles of child participation: e.g. to what extent have children been included and not been discriminated? Why/not?- Child rights: e.g. to what extent do children have equal rights to participate in society as a result of the programme? Why/not?

8. Major lessons learnt

In the course of the workshop, the participants formulated a variety of lessons learnt concer-ning monitoring and evaluation in relation to child participation of children in crisis:1. Attention for M&E issues should be integrated in all stages of the project cycle, including needs assessments, planning and implementation.2. It is not the number of performance indicators that counts, but their quality. Defining a limited number of performance questions is a crucial first step to determine what information is needed and subsequently to formulate performance indicators.3. While setting up an M&E system, children must be consulted on their information needs and possible ways of involvement in the M&E process. Adequate participation of children in M&E activities provides children with the opportunity not only to answer questions but also to ask their own questions.4. Involving children in M&E activities requires additional efforts and creativity in order to design appropriate tools for collecting information and reflection.5. 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. Participation of children in M&E 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 33

V. The way forward

1. Introduction

The overall aim of the workshop was to contribute to enhanced understanding of child-centred community development (CCCD) 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.This chapter summarises the results of the workshop and puts forward issues that need further discussion and research.

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.

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? The workshop participants took a practical stand. One should not wait for perfection but start somewhere. In this perception child participation is a gradual and ongoing process rather than an activity.

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 childcentredness in CCCD depends on the nature of the crises, the cognitive and emotional maturity/ability of the children and the contextual and individual coping resources available.

In many 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.

Child participation exposes children to other (older) children and adults, hence increasing exposure to situations of possible abuse. On the other hand, participating children may become more confident and self-aware.

Child participation should be included in all stages of the project cycle as much as possible. It should be noticed that the issue of child participation is also used manipulatively, i.e. to streamline a programme and increase its legitimacy, benefiting the project holder rather than the children.

page 35

4. Major issues regarding monitoring and evaluation of child participation

Adequate attention for defining the purposes and designing of a monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system is still relatively limited. Even less attention is paid to participation of stakeholders, let alone child participation in M&E. M&E issues should be integrated in all stages of the project cycle, including needs assessment, planning and implementation. Although in emergency situations it will be difficult to involve children in M&E activities, efforts should be made to consult them (and the adults) on their immediate needs.

While setting up an M&E system, children must be consulted on their information needs and possible ways of involvement in the M&E process. Adequate participation of children in M&E activities provides children with the opportunity not only to answer questions but also to ask their own questions.

Before implementing M&E activities the level of measurement should be clear. Measuring the input and output of interventions is often rather simple. For the assessment of outcome and impact more qualitative information is needed. Especially in situations of crisis this information is very difficult to obtain.

Involving children in M&E activities requires additional efforts and creativity in order to design appropriate tools for collecting information and reflection.

To prevent children from becoming overburdened, specific M&E activities should be combined with the implementation of regular activities as much as possible.

5. Issues for further discussion and research

- The concept of child participation in situations of crisis needs further elaboration. - Rights-based versus needs-based approaches. What are the pros and cons of both approaches in different situations of crisis and at different levels? - The development of crisis assessment tools which incorporate children’s per- spectives. - The development of methodologies for child participation which are inclusive for the poorest, most vulnerable and difficult to reach groups. - The development of adequate monitoring and evaluation tools for all stages of the project cycle.

6. The workshop process

Most participants appreciated the methodology of Participative Learning and Action as a way of integrating newly acquired knowledge in their own work.

page 36

page 37

Annex I – IVBackground documents of the workshop

Annex I List of participants 39Annex II Workshop programme 41 Annex III References and further readings 45Annex IV Participation, the case of children. 49 Summary of the lecture by Kristoffel Lieten, Soesterberg, June 21, 2005

Annex I List of participants

Participants Workshop Child-Centred Community Development: Participation of Children in Crisis, June 20-24 2005, Soesterberg, The Netherlands Participants Organisation 01 Ms Amareca Ashenafi Plan Ethiopia 02 Mr Moacyr Bittencourt Plan Albania 03 Mr Jose Campang Plan Guatamala 04 Ms Chitrakala Acharya Childline India 05 Ms Inez de Graauw Save the Children Netherlands 06 Ms Pauline McKeown* Plan International, UK 07 Ms Krista Kruft Plan Nederland 08 Mr Pendyala Lakshapathi Association for Promoting Social Action, India 09 Ms Julie Love Cordaid, The Netherlands 10 Mr Milon Bikash Paul Population Services and Training Centre, Bangladesh 11 Ms Rocio Mojica Save the Children Colombia 12 Mr Herbert Mugumya Save the Children Uganda 13 Ms Miriam Murray Plan Sierra Leone 14 Ms Lucy Mwenda Plan Malawi 15 Ms Helen Grace Namulwana Uganda Child Rights NGO Network 16 Ms Sofie Ovaa Hivos, The Netherlands 17 Ms Minty Prabha Pande Plan Nepal 18 Ms Heike Roschanski IREWOC, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands 19 Mr Sherzad A. Shabu Save the Childen Iraq 20 Mr Aram M. Shakaram Save the Children Iraq 21 Ms Gudrun Steiner Kindernothilfe, Germany 22 Ms Maaike Stolte Antares Foundation, The Netherlands 23 Ms Zhou Ye Save the Children, China

Facilitators/ resource persons 01 Mr Peter Dixon Independent consultant, United Kingdom 02 Ms Cecile Kusters International Agricultural Centre, Wageningen University, The Netherlands 03 Mr Kristoffel Lieten IREWOC, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands 04 Ms Ingrid Pallast Context, international cooperation, The Netherlands 05 Mr Fons van der Velden Context, international cooperation, The Netherlands

page 39* Ms. Pauline McKeown was also acting as a resource person.

Annex II Workshop programme Programme Workshop Child-Centred Community Development: Participation of Children in crisis, June 20-24 2005, Soesterberg, The Netherlands

Sunday, June 19, 2005

19.00 – 21.00

Monday, June 20, 2005

09.00 – 11.00

11.00 – 12.30

12.30

14.00 – 15.30

16.00 – 17.30

18.30

20.00 – 21.30

Arrival Arrival of participants in Cenakel at Soesterberg Informal get-together Dinner

Sharing of experiences

Opening Welcome of the participants Self-introduction Learning questions Aim of the workshop and methodology

Introductions Introduction by participants of the organisations represented in the workshop (context, organisational set-up, programmes, relationships)

Lunch

Current practices Sharing of information on current practices by participants (policies, instruments and procedures of the various organisations) Emphasis on participation and moni-toring and evaluation

Conceptual issues: definitions Sharing of information of the parti-cipants regarding the (conceptual) understanding of the major workshop themes

Dinner Good practices Identification of good practices with regard to participation of children in crisis Formulation of questions/issues for the resource persons

Plenary session Individual and subgroup work Plenary presentation

Plenary and subgroup work

Plenary and subgroup session

Plenary session Methodology for identi-fication good practices: story-telling Subgroup work

Date & time Subject Remarks

page 41

Tuesday, June 21, 2005

09.00 – 09.30

09.30 – 10.30

11.00 – 12.30

12.30

14.00 – 16.00

16.30 – 17.30

18.30

20.00 – 21.30

Wednesday, June 22, 2005

09.00 – 09.30

09.30 – 11.00

11.15 – 12.30

Acquisition of new knowledge. Theme: Participation

Opening Recap and reflection about the previous day

Good practices Identification of good practices with regard to CCCD Presentation of questions/issues for resource persons Learning from others Introduction to conceptual issues relating to ‘participation of children in crisis’ by Mr K. Lieten (IREWOC/University of Amsterdam)

Lunch

Learning from others Interactive introductions by Ms P. McKeown (Plan International) and Mr P. Dixon (independent consul-tant)

Learning from others Interactive introductions by Ms P. McKeown and Mr P. Dixon

Dinner Learning from others Identification of major lessons from the experiences of participants, resource persons, research and back-ground documentation

Acquisition of new knowledge. Theme: Monitoring & Evaluation

Opening Wrap-up of the first two days of the workshop Major eye openers

Learning from othersInteractive introduction by Ms C. Kus-ters, International Agricultural Centre, University of Wageningen

Learning from others Interactive introduction by Ms P. McKeown (Plan International)

Plenary

Plenary reportsInformative questions Dialogue

Plenary introduction Informative questionsDialogue

Short introductions by the resource persons relating to participants’ learning questions Interactive dialogue.

Subgroup sessions as a follow-up of the exter-nal input and case work (optional).

Plenary sessionRevisiting the agenda Creative wrap-up by two/three participants

Short introductions by the resource person relating to participants’ learning questions Interactive dialogue. Same

Date & time Subject Remarks

page 42

12.30

14.00 – 15.30

18.00

20.00 – 21.30

Thursday, June 23, 2005

09.00 – 09.30

09.30 - 10.30

11.00 – 12.30

12.30

14.00 – 15.30

16.00 – 17.30

18:00

20.00

Friday, June 24, 2005

09.00 – 09.30

09.30 – 10.30

10.45 – 12.15

12.15 – 12.30

12.30 – 14.00

14.00 – 16.00

Lunch

Learning from others Case work and/or small working group sessions.

Diner

Open space

Knowledge application

Opening Wrap-up of the previous day Major eye openers

Learning from othersIdentification of major learning’s from the experiences of participants, resource persons, research and back-ground documentation

Application: follow-up Brainstorm

Lunch Application: individual action plans Individual short and long term objectives Individual action plans

Application: individual action plans Presentations and feedback Dinner

Social evening

Evaluation and dissemination

Opening

Open space Interactive evaluation workshop

Closure

Lunch

Dissemination: public seminar

Plenary session Creative wrap-up by two/three participants

Subgroup work

Individual brainstorm session Plenary gallery

Individual preparation/ in pairs

Plenary session

Optional

Plenary session

Individual and plenary session Plenary session

Plenary session

Date & time Subject Remarks

page 43

Annex III References and further readings

Ackerman, L., T. Feeny, J. Hart & J. Newman 2003 Understanding and evaluating children’s participation: a review of contemporary literature, London, Plan UK/ Plan International

Ackerman, L., J. Newman & J. Hart n.d. Facilitating and evaluating children’s participation in development: defining principles and identifying impact, London, Plan International

Balkh, Badakshan, Jowzjan, Kunduz, Saripul & Takhar 2004 Declaration Northern gathering of children’s group representatives, Unicef Voices of Youth conference, Augustus 8-11, 2004, Afghanistan, at: www.unicef.org/voy/explore/rights/explore_1244.html

Black, M. 2004 Opening minds, opening up opportunities: children’s participation in action for working children, London, Save the Children Fund

Chawla, L. 2001 Evaluating children’s participation: seeking areas of consensus, PLA Notes, issue 42, pp 9-13

Children of Balkur Panchayat, Bangalore India 1999 Work we can do and cannot do, Bangalore, Concerned for Working Children

Cornwall, A. & J. Gecenta 2001 Bridging the gap: citizenship, participation and accountability, PLA Notes, issue 40, pp 32-35

De Berry, J., A. Fazil & S. Farhad 2003 The children of Kabul: discussions with Afghan families, Unicef & Save the Children USA, at: www.savethechildren.org/publications

Hart, J. 2004 Children’s participation in humanitarian action: learning from zones of armed conflict, Gatineau, Canadian International Development Agency

Hart, J., J. Newman, L. Ackermann & T. Feeny 2004 Children changing their world: understanding and evaluating children’s participation in development, London, Plan UK/International

Kirby, P., C. Lanyon, K. Cronning & R. Esinclair 2003 Building a culture of participation: involving children and young people in policy, service planning, delivery and evaluation, London, National Children’s Bureau, at: www.ncb.org.uk/resources/res

page 45

Laws, S. & G. Mann 2004 So you want to involve children in research? A toolkit supporting children’s meaningful and ethical participation in research relating to violence against children, London, Save the Children Fund

Lansdown, G. 2005 Save the Children: Benchmarking progress in adopting and implementing childrights programming, London, International Save the Children Fund 2003 Criteria for assessing good practice. The evolving capacities of children: implications for the exercise of rights, Florence, UNICEF/Innocente Research Centre 2001 Promoting children’s participation in democratic decisionmaking, Florence, UNICEF/Innocente Research Centre

Lieten, G. K. 2005 Participation: the case of children, Amsterdam, IREWOC 2002 Child labour in India: disentangling essence and solutions, in: Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 37, no. 1, pp 5190-95

Phillips, B. 2000 The end of paternalism? Child beneficiary participation and project effective- ness, MA research paper, The Hague, Institute of Social Studies, at: www.iss.nl/faculty/SG3/research_sg3.htm

Rajbhandary, J., R. Hart & C. Khatiwada 1999 Child clubs of Nepal: a democratic experiment. Summary and recommen- dations from a study of children’s clubs, London, International Save the Children Fund

Reddy, N. & K. Ratna 2002 A journey in children’s participation, Bangalore, Concerned for Working Children

Robinson, M. 1999 Foreword, in: A human rights conceptual framework for UNICEF, Florence, Unicef Innocente Insight

Santos Pais, M. 1999 A human rights conceptual framework for UNICEF, Florence, Unicef Innocente Insight, pp 1

Save the Children 2003 So you want to consult with children: A toolkit of good practice, London, Save the Children Fund 2003 Promoting children’s meaningful and ethical participation in the UN global study on violence against children, a short guide for members of the NGO Advisory Panel and others, London, Save the Children Fund n.d. Practice standards in children’s participation, London, Save the Children Fund

Save the Children & UNICEF n.d. Bringing up children in a changing world: Who is right? Whose right? Conversations with families in Nepal, Geneva/London, United Nations Children’s Fund & Save the Children Fund

page 46

Stegeman, I. 2002 The child participation approach of Plan International, Child Pro and Child Media in Central America, Children as agents in development series report nr. 4, Amsterdam, IREWOC

Theis, J. 2004 Promoting rights-based approaches: experiences and ideas from Asia and the Pacific, London, Save the Children Fund

UNICEF n.d. Guidance note on promoting participation of children and young people, New York, UNICEF

Senge, P. 1998 Through the eye of the needle, in: Gibson, R. (ed.) Rethinking the future, London, Nicolas Brealy

Sylwander, L. 2001 Children as participants: Swedish experience of child participation in society’s decision-making processes, Stockholm, Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Weinstein, K. 1999 Action Learning: a practical guide, second edition, Burlington, Gower Publishing Company

White, S.C. 2005 Being, becoming and relationship: conceptual challenges of a child rights approach in development, Journal of International Development, vol. 14, nr. 8, pp 1095-1104

World Youth Report 2003 Youth participation in decision making, New York, United Nations Youth Unit, pp 270-288

Internet-sources:

www.childlabour.net IREWOC, International Research on Working Childrenwww.developmenttraining.org Context, international cooperationwww.hrea.org Global Human Rights Education Networkwww.iac.wur.nl/ppme International Agricultural Centre, monitoring and evaluation www.iicrd.org International Institute for Child Rights Developmentwww.plannederland.nl Plan Netherlandswww.savethechildren.nl Save the Children Netherlandswww.therightsapproach.org Child Rights Information Network

page 47

Annex IV Participation, the case of children Summary of the lecture by Kristoffel Lieten*, Soesterberg, June 21, 2005

Participation and ownership have become fashionable concepts. The concepts reflect a con-cern to involve people in their own practice of development. People should come forward and claim their rights in a world where, precisely because of the free-market and the withdrawal of the state bureaucracy, opportunities are plenty. Chambers was one of the first to formulate this approach for the ongoing period: it means that ‘outsiders hand over the stick’.Interventions would have to be organised in such a way that the target groups would be sup-ported to help themselves. Concepts such as participation, empowerment, agency, ownership and social capital. have moved centre-stage in the development aid discourse. Participation is advocated because ‘it works’. It is the new panacea. As a paradigm it has replaced earlier paradigms such as structural reforms and poverty alleviation.

Where do children fit in this understanding? In the 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 have become young partners in their own development. It is somewhat assumed that children have an innate knowledge and innate capacity to deve-lop and the effort should be to allow it to blossom.

Agency in children is fraught with complexities: - Care should be taken to differentiate between the duties towards children (and the demands put on children) and the rights that children can claim to have. - Care should also be taken of psychological needs which may put children in a different position: the psychological need for guidance and socialisation. - Care should also be taken to develop policies on the basis of the specific characteris- tics (intellectual, psychological) and the socio-economic background of each child. - Finally, care should be taken to distinguish agency as a good and as a bad.

How important is participation of the child and how does a development aid organiza-tion allocate its knowledge and its resources for this purpose? Participation is not a ‘free good’. There are three important caveats: - the opportunity costs, - the tension between multiple goals, - insufficient knowledge to come to rational decisions.

What is participation? 1. the autonomy of the children? 2. adult-run programs meant to allow all the children to participate in meanstream society: participation in education, health, leisure, etc.? 3. the access of all children to developmental programs with more interaction with the target group?

These are 3 ways of thinking about participation: ‘as a process by the people to whom de-velopment projects and programs are aimed, or for the people (with a development agency taking the initiative and often limiting participation to consultation) or with the people’.The autonomy principle assumes that the child an active change agent and that it has the rights to do so.

page 49* Address details: Prof. dr. G. K. Lieten, IREWOC, Foundation for International Research on Working Children, Cruquiusweg 68-70, Postbus 75297, 1019 AH Amsterdam, tel.: 0031(0) 20 4651736, www.childlabour.net, irewoc@childlabour.net

Children have rights, and since the 1989 UN Convention, we have a handle to deal with these rights. It is a useful handle, but it is only an abstract principle, not a guide to action.

Some difficulties: 1. Is it an aim or rather an instrumental best-practice approach: development leading to participation rather than taking participation as the basis of development? 2. How do duties towards children (and the demands put on them) relate to rights: a pro- active policy on duties preceding a pro-active policy on rights? 3. Given the heterogeneity (and hierarchy) of rights, the question of priorities imposes itself: Provision, Protection, Participation. Rights follow from other factors, enabling factors, by which rights can be made to exist in practice. CRC article 3, which guarantees ‘the child’s best interest’, is usually seen as having priority over article 12. In the threesome the latter may always have to play third fiddle to the other two. 4. The rights’ approach is based on a liberal idea of individual freedom and rational choices based on an informed view of the individual’s best interests. 5. Development is holistic, with overarching rights. Prioritisation of rights thus involves an approach which transcends the individual good and includes the public good. A child rights approach, therefore, cannot possibly be separated from a community approach and from nation building. 6. The CRC does mention participation as a basic right of children, but it is also very cautious to stress the responsibilities, rights and duties of the parents. The 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, to lerance, freedom, equality and solidarity’. Adults will be required to guide this process in accordance with their own views on what is best for the child and on what is best for society.

Participation is an attractive concept since it makes the object of development into its own subject and defends the promotion of a child-based development. As a concept, however, ‘participation’ is also elusive, like many other commonsense concepts. Hart has used a lad-der as a metaphor to illustrate the different degrees of involvement children can have in a project. The ladder shows the various forms in which adults (project holders) can involve the children. Some of these forms are mere tokenism or, even worse, manipulation. Other forms of participation are controlled by children. Others have many a similar ladders.

Table. Typologies of (Child) Participation Hart Goetz UNICEF World Bank

Child-initiated, shared decisions with adults

Self-mobilization Analysing situations and making choices

Child-initiated and directed

Initiating ideas, proposals and projects

Social invention

Adult-initiated, shared with children

Interactive participation Being informed and consulted in decision making

Social learning

Functional participation activities and processes

Participation by material incentives

Consulted and informed

Participation by consultation

Forming views, expressing ideas

Assigned but informed Participation in information giving

Seeking information Consulting

Passive participation Tokenism Decoration External expert

stance Manipulation

Listening

Taking part in

page 50

The different typologies are helpful for a self-critical reflection on how children are treated within a project. There, however, are various problems with applying such a model.

1. It is absolute and abstract, isolated from social reality. 2. Self-management by the children can be tokenism at the same time. 3. Handing over of power as the highest and ultimate aim of participation is not consistent with accepted legal and pedagogical practices. 4. The approaches appear to work within the framework of ‘projects’; it apparently dismis- ses inequality, discord and dominance as structural elements of daily life. 5. It is based on the vision of the romantic, unspoilt, altruistic and accommodating child. 6. The stress is on individualism rather than on the emancipation of entire groups or nations. 7. Participation may actually go side by side with a segmentation of society; if the focus on participation substitutes for structural intervention, it functions within a status quo, which children are learning to accept. 8. The concept can be used in any context and actually can be devoid of content: ‘window dressing, tokens of child participation’ by children who ‘may become part of a new elite’. 9. Participation can be used ‘manipulatively’, originating from outside forces, helping to improve the efficiency of projects: the access to knowledge from below and the stimula- tion of a feeling of attachment may help to streamline the program and to increase its legitimacy. It may benefit the project holder (in realizing concrete targets) without necessarily benefiting the target group. Adults when they involve children in participa- tion have their own vision of what is to be achieved.

Children are not only targets of development and receivers of development aid, but could pos-sibly also be active participants in development projects. The question is how this is to be done and how ‘empowerment’ of children helps them to play a more active role. There is the need to explore this field and gain better insight in the potential of children under different circumstances. Such studies should not be partisan.

Having a strategic vision on the importance of involving children in the making of the world around them is one thing; the translation of this strategic vision into a realistic involvement in community development is another thing. Is it sufficient in addition to rights’ holders also to talk of duty bearers, or should the prior attention still remain with duty bearers? In short, how does a participation right relate to macro-economic, social, cultural and political structures? Is participation the panacea to a child-friendly development?

page 51

page 53

Annex V- IXWorkshop presentations*

Annex V Balancing participation and protection: 55 making it work, Pauline McKeown Annex VI Causes or markers of poor quality of life applied 61 to groups of ‘vulnerable children’ including ‘the poorest’, Pauline McKeown Annex VII Child participation: a rights-based perspective, 63 Peter Dixon Annex VIII Child-centred community development – 67 participation of children in crisis, Cecile Kusters Annex IX Participatory monitoring and evaluation with children 87 in crisis, Pauline McKeown

*These are the presentations as they were presented by the resource persons during the workshop, in the original lay-out.

Annex V Balancing participation and protection: making it work,Pauline McKeown

© Plan

• Access to information: formal and informal• Increased self confidence, self-esteem• Life skills e.g. negotiation• Learning about ‘the way the world works’-rights

and violations, human relationships, powerrelationships, society

• Changes expectations

Annex V Balancing participation and protection: making it workPauline McKeown

page 55

2

© Plan

• Children bring their new skills and knowledgeinto family/’community’ /to their peers

• Potential for changing dynamics (positive andnegative)

• Some evidence to suggest that impactparticularly on females (adults and children)

© Plan

• Provides a platform for children to voice theirconcerns and identify solutions

• Changes in community perceptions of children:increased respect for children-knowledge &abilities

• Challenges/changes in power relationships• Mobilisation of community resources• Children often say what adults are not able to

say

page 56

3

© Plan

• Promotes organisational /societal culture that isresponsive, transparent and accountable

• Challenges/changes power relationships• Influences policy and practice

© Plan

Exposes children to: other children, adults

information & new situations-beyond their level of

maturity (evolving capacities)

power relationships (peers, family, community, society)

Can contribute to increasing their vulnerability to abuseby: being in a group

being overburdened

raising their visibility (including differently abled)

challenging traditional roles and cultural norms(particularly girls)

page 57

4

© Plan

• Fulfilling adult responsibilities and individual/organisational duty of care

• Ensuring the Child Protection guidelines exist &are integrated into all activities

• Children know what they can expect of adultswho are facilitating participatory processes andthe adults have a good understanding of childdevelopment/context/power

• Providing information (causes, consequencesand resources) for self-protection and child andadult awareness

© Plan

• Mobilising resources both formal and informal atall levels (personal, family, community, national)

• Continuous risk analysis/assessment ofchildren’s participation

page 58

5

© Plan

Assessing Risk

Whom?

Why?

What

Children

say?

Whom?

Why?

What

children

say?

From..

Whom?

Why?

Whatchildren

say?

Children are…

1.

2.

3.

4.

Evolvingcapacities

Action to red.risk,Incr.supp.

LowMediumHighActivity

page 59

6

Annex VI Causes or markers of poor quality of life applied to groups of‘vulnerable children’ including ‘the poorest’, Pauline McKeown

Likelihood ofmaterialdeprivation

Risk anduncertainty

Likelihoodof exclusion

Risk ofviolence,abuse,

neglect orexploitation

Childhoodvulnerability

andresilience

Affected by conflict High High Depends High

Affected by disaster High High Depends High

Worst forms ofchild labour

High High High High

Street children High High High High

Disabled children High May be high High High

Children from lowcaste

Often high May be high High Depends oncontext

Indigenous groups Often high May be high High Depends oncontext

Children affectedby violence, abuse,neglect

Often high High May be high High

Children affectedby HIV/AIDS

High High High High

Children in conflictwith the law

High High High High

Poorest High High High High

Dependson

Individualchild

Annex VI Causes or markers of poor quality of life applied to groups of ‘vulnerable children’ including ‘the poorest’Pauline McKeown

page 61

7

Annex VII Child participation: a rights-based perspective, Peter Dixon

Child ParticipationA Rights Based

Perspective

"The rights-based approach... meansdescribing situations not in terms ofhuman needs, or areas of development,but in terms of the obligation to respondto the rights of individuals.

(Mary Robinson - foreword to "A human rights conceptual framework forUNICEF" by Marta Santos Pais 1999)

Annex VII Child participation: a rights- based perspectivePeter Dixon

page 63

8

From: The Human RightsApproach to Programming, whathave we learnt ~ Fabio Sabatini

Child =RightsHolder

Immediate Care GiverFamily

Community

Institutions

Sub-National

National (Policy)

National (Institutions andLegal)

International

Obligation/claimspatterns atdifferent levels

page 64

9

Example .. As All children have a right toeducation then …

Have an obligation to support their peers, not tobully, to take full advantage of the opportunities

Children

Have an obligation to send their children toschool … without discrimination, supportthem, ensure that they are given time etc

Parents

Have an obligation to teach as best they can, toencourage parents to support all children

Teachers

Have an obligation to train teachers, organiseresources, create child friendly environment forall children

Education institutions

Have an obligation to find, and allocateresources, define policy, achieve progressagainst targets for all children

Governments

page 65

10

Programming Components• Identifying what rights are not realised …,

researching and mapping, making visible …• Identifying why, they are not realised

– Identifying who or which institution has duties, bearsresponsibility,

– Identifying what the duty or responsibility consists of,– Identifying the constraints and obstacles to meeting

responsibilities .. Capacity, attitude, resources,legislation, …. ?

• Identifying how best to change … what strengthscan be reinforced, what additional needs to bedone, or done differently, who with, hownegotiated ?

page 66

11

Annex VIII Child-centred community development – participation ofchildren in crisis, Cecile Kusters

Child Centred CommunityDevelopment –Participation of Children in CrisisMeasuring Child Participation

2

Thank you for your attention & good luck!

Annex VIII Child-centred community development – participation of children in crisisCecile Kusters

11

Annex VIII Child-centred community development – participation ofchildren in crisis, Cecile Kusters

Child Centred CommunityDevelopment –Participation of Children in CrisisMeasuring Child Participation

2

Thank you for your attention & good luck!

page 67

12

3

Without organised pressure, withoutcoordinated effort and a commitment to upholdour participation rights, no doors will open forus.

Delegates of The First International Meeting ofWorking Children, Kundapura, 1996

4

Program

Purpose(s) of M&E

Guiding principles with regard to measurement ofchild participation

Design of an M&E system

Implementation

page 68

13

5

Purposes of Monitoring &Evaluation (M&E)

6

Purposes of M&E

Positive / negative experience with M&E?

Why is M&E important?

What are possible reasons for doing M&E?

page 69

14

7

Purposes of participatory M&E

Accountability Strategic directions Operational management New knowledge generation Empowerment

8

Guiding principles of measuringchild participation

page 70

15

9

Guiding principles of measuring child participation:

Broad principles of participatory M&E

Principles of child participation

Principles of Participatory Learning and Action(PLA)

10

Broad principles of participatory M&E 'Participation‘:

opening up the design of the process to include those mostdirectly affected, and agreeing to analyse data together;

This requires 'negotiation‘: what to monitor or evaluate, how and when data to collect &

analyse data, making sense of and sharing findings, decisionmaking for actions;

This leads to 'learning‘: the basis for subsequent improvement and corrective action;

‘Flexibility' is essential: number, role, and skills of stakeholders, the external environment,

and other factors change over time.

page 71

16

11

Principles of child participation non-discrimination & inclusiveness

democracy & equality of opportunity

the physical, emotional and psychological safety ofparticipants

adult responsibility

voluntarism, informed consent and transparency

participation should be an enjoyable and stimulatingexperience

12

Principles of Participatory Learning and Action (PLA)

Defined methodologyand systematic learningprocess

Multiple perspectives

Group learning process

Context specific

Facilitating experts andstakeholders

Leading to change

Sharing

Behavior& Attitudes

Methods

page 72

17

13

Design of an M&E system

14

Managing for Impact

Children decide on what to measure,M&E, use of findings

Context - situation ofchildren:

• History ofparticipation?

• Influencing factors:gender, knowledge,social structures &processes etc

page 73

18

15

Key parts of the M&E system

Designing & setting upthe M&E system

Gathering andmanaging information

Reflectingcritically toimprove action

Communicating andreporting results

16

An M&E (learning) system

Programstrategy

Performance &learning questions Information needs

& indicators

Informationgathering

InformationSynthesisAnalysis &

reflection

Making senseof findings

Strategic /Operational Decisions

Externalaccountability

Human capacityfor M&E

Incentivesfor carrying

out M&E

Structures& processes

InformationManagement

Systems

FinancialResources

ProgramImplementation

page 74

19

17

Data JourneyObjective Hierarchy

O b j e c t i v eH i e r a r c h y

I n d i c a t o r s M o n i t o r i n gM e c h a n i s m s

A s s u m p t i o n sa n d R i s k s

I n p u t sI n p u t s C o s tC o s tA c t i v i t i e s

G o a l

P u r p o s e s

O u t p u t s

P r e -c o n d i t i o n s

P r e -c o n d i t i o n s

O b j e c t i v eH i e r a r c h y

I n d i c a t o r s M o n i t o r i n gM e c h a n i s m s

A s s u m p t i o n sa n d R i s k s

I n p u t sI n p u t s C o s tC o s tA c t i v i t i e s

G o a l

P u r p o s e s

O u t p u t s

P r e -c o n d i t i o n s

P r e -c o n d i t i o n s

Logframe

M&E PLAN

Analysis,Reportingfeedback andchange

Forms,planning,training, datamanagement

Datagatheringmethods

Baselineneeds andindicators

Informationneeds andindicators

PerformanceQuestion

Analysis,Reportingfeedback andchange

Forms,planning,training, datamanagement

Datagatheringmethods

Baselineneeds andindicators

Informationneeds andindicators

PerformanceQuestion

M&E Matrix

Field DataGathering

Quantitative

Qualitative

PRAPIA

Informaldiscussion

DecisionsOn Change

DataManagement

Stakeholder Meetings andWorkshops

Analysis and Conclusions Staff meetings

Stakeholder workshops

Annual project reviews

Village meetings

CommunicatingResults

18

Developing the M&E system – M&E plan Purpose & scope Performance questions, indicators & information

needs Information gathering & organising Key reflection events and processes Communication & reporting Capacities & conditions:

Human capacities Incentives for M&E Structures & processes MIS Financial capacities

page 75

20

19

Purpose & scope of the M&E system

Purpose – why do we want/need M&E: Accountability Strategic directions Operational management New knowledge generation Empowerment

Scope – how comprehensive? Level of detail Level of participation Level of funding

20

Deciding what to monitor and evaluate

How can we choose whatto track, document andanalyse and with whom todo this?

page 76

21

21

Performance questions, indicators & information needs

Key performance questions: Relevance Impact Sustainability Effectiveness Efficiency

Example: What is the effect of children’s participation in program

development & implementation on children’s lives? Why/not? To what extent is the level of participation of children sustainable?

Why/not? Children’s perspective: how can girls be more involved?

22

Indicators & information needs Variables, qualitative / quantitative

Example: The number of male and female children that have actively

participated in problem analysis, program planning, andmonitoring and evaluation

Background of children (in a crisis or not?) Type of participation (eg from being informed up to participation in

decision making) The reasons for non-/active participation and what they would like

to change The level of satisfaction with the type of participation & why The changes brought about by the participation of children in

program development

page 77

22

23

Information gathering and organising How will we make sense of the information

gathered and use it to make improvements?

Different methods for data collection, synthesis,analysis, recording….

Methods: Qualitative (eg flow chart) / quantitative (eg measuring,

counting) Individual (eg dietary records) / group based (eg focus

group discussion) Participatory (eg PRA) / conventional (eg

questionnaire)

24

Key reflection events and processes

How will we make sense of the informationgathered and use it to make improvements?

Critical reflection!

Formally & informally E.g. children’s review and planning workshops (with eg

children’s videos/ theatre performances / series of photos ordrawings on progress & problems), annual stakeholderworkshops, youth group meetings, interviews withchildren by children, etc……

page 78

23

25

Integrated sequence of events - example (box 8-9)

jan marfeb apr sep novoct decmay julyjune aug

(Illustrative Only)

Youthmeeting

Youthmeeting

Project mgt coordcomm meeting

Project mgt coordcomm meeting

Annual stakeholder

workshop

Annual stakeholder

workshopSpecial reviewon childparticipation

Special reviewon childparticipation

Quarterlyreport

Quarterlyreport

Half-yearly &yearly report

Half-yearly &yearly report

26

Communicating and reporting

How and to whom do we want to communicatewhat in terms of our project activities andprocesses?

page 79

24

27

Different media to communicate findings

Written reporting.

Oral reporting.

Visual displays.

28

Necessary conditions and capacities

What is needed to ensure the M&E systemactually works?

Human capacities Incentives for M&E Structures & processes MIS Financial capacity

page 80

25

29

M&E Matrix

Informationuse: analysis,reporting,feedback,changeprocesses,frequency,responsibilities

Planning &resources:forms,planning,training, datamanagement,expertise,resources,responsibilities

Datagathering:methods,frequency,responsibilities

Baseline infoneeds andindicators:requirements,status,responsibilities

Informationneeds andindicators

Performance /evaluationQuestion

Project Objective (output Purpose):

30

M&E Made Simple

What

Why

So what

Now What

(has succeeded or failed)

(have we had success orfailure)

(what are the implications forthe project)

(What action will we now taketo make improvements

page 81

26

31

Implementation – measuring childparticipation

32

Measuring child participation – what do we

want to know & why?Child rights,human rights

“ All personshaveequal rights toparticipate insociety & tohave access toopportunities forreaching theirpotential”

Principlesof childparticipation* non-discrimination&inclusiveness•democracy &equality ofopportunity•physical,emotional andpsychologicalsafety• adultresponsibility•…..

Child centredapproaches

•Promotingchildren’s rights•Facilitatingchildren’sparticipation inthe developmentprocess•Issues &causesidentified bychildrenaddressed•Shared policydiscussions

IncreasedInvolvementof children

Problemidentification& analysis

Planning

Implementing

M&E

Improvingthe qualityof life ofchildrenin crisis

Results(Errors /

Successes):

page 82

27

33

Measuring child participation – what do you want tomeasure?

Think about your key evaluation or learningquestions: Relevance? Impact? Sustainability? Effectiveness?

Efficiency?

At what level do we want to measure childparticipation?

34

Measuring child participation – at what level? Improved lives of children in crisis:

Eg “to what extent has the quality of life of children improved as a result ofincreased participation? Why/not?”

Increased involvement of children: Eg “to what extent are children now actively participating in problem

identification & analysis, program design, implementation & M&E?Why/not?

Child centred approaches: Eg “To what extent have children’s rights been promoted?” or “To what

extent has the participation of children been facilitated? Why/not?

Principles of child participation: Eg ‘To what extent have children been included and not discriminated?

Why/not? Child rights:

Eg “To what extent do children have equal rights to participate in societyas a result of our program? Why/not?”

page 83

28

35

Characteristics of effective projects for children’sparticipation – example indicators of principles Conditions of convergence:

Project is based on children’s own issues and interests

Conditions of entry: Participants are fairly selected

Conditions of social support Children are respected as human beings with essential

worth and dignity

Conditions of competence Children understand and have a part in defining goals

Conditions for reflection There are opportunities for reflection

36

Measuring child participation – how? Agree on stakeholder involvement in design &

implementation of M&E system

Define ‘child participation’ and review intervention logic

Decide on key stakeholder information needs

Design the process for data collection, collation, analysis,recording, communication, reporting, decision making(M&E matrix)

Put in place M&E capacities & conditions (eg M&Etraining, incentives for M&E)

page 84

29

37

M&E Matrix – example

Number of childrenthat have activelyparticipated inproblem analysis,planning,implementation andM&E

Level/type ofparticipation

Type of change

Annual impactassessmentAnnual stakeholderreview andplanning meetings

Drama & songcompetition forshowing effects ofparticipation onchildren’s lives

M&E officer &Project staff

Develop recordingsheets, train youthleadersDevelop communitybased informationsystem

Flow chart, matrix,group discussions

YearlyYouth leaders &project stafffacilitate

Baseline done inDecember 2002 byMoH, MAFS, …

Number ofmale/female childrenthat indicate to havebetter lives due totheir participation

To what extenthave the lives ofchildren improvedas a result ofchildparticipation?

Informationuse: analysis,reporting,feedback,changeprocesses,frequency,responsibilities

Planning &resources:forms, planning,training, datamanagement,expertise,resources,responsibilities

Data gathering:methods,frequency,responsibilities

Baseline infoneeds andindicators:requirements,status,responsibilities

Informationneeds andindicators

Performance /evaluationQuestion

Objective: the quality of life of children in a crisis has improved

38

Thank you for your attention & good luck!

page 85

30

Annex IX Participatory monitoring and evaluation with children in crisis,Pauline McKeown

© Plan

Principles of Child Participation

• Non-discrimination & inclusiveness• Democracy and equality of opportunity• Physical, emotional and psychological safety of

participants• Adult responsibility• Voluntarism, informed consent and transparency• Participation should be an enjoyable and

stimulating experience

Annex IX Participatory monitoring and evaluation with children in crisisPauline McKeown

page 87

31

© Plan

• Clarity of purpose-do you seriously want to know

what children think and can you prove you aregoing to act on it?

• Will children’s opinion have equal weight withothers including adults and provide understandingfor joint action

• Will ‘children’ be the same at the evaluation stageof the project as at the beginning? How youdocument the design phase will be important

• Clarity on boundaries of their involvement:honesty from both adults and children

© Plan

2.Issues to consider when involvingchildren…

• Consider children’s evolving capacities: cognitiveskills and understanding both for how involvedand what involved in

• Consider training requirements before childrencan make an informed decision about what theywill be involved in

• Child Protection and Risk assessment ofchildren’s participation: regularly reviewed

• Overburdening children-what else are theydoing?

• Managing children’s expectations

page 88

32

© Plan

3.Issues to consider when involving children..

• Methodologies are child friendly and ‘immediate’and will be respected by adult stakeholders &they are prepared.

• Will you pay for children’s time?• Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation is built in

from the start of a project and is flexible to thelocal context

• Commitment to follow up after evaluation• Children’s contribution to organisational learning-

how will organisation be accountable?

© Plan

Issues to consider when involving children…

• Be realistic about what and where children canparticipate: resource commitment, lack ofunderstanding of other stakeholders, differentreports/media

• Be rigorous in analysis if adults say wherechildren can be involved

page 89