The Minimum Standards and Guiding Principles
Inter-Agency Guidelines on
The Guiding Principles and Minimum Standards
for
Supporting and Establishing
Community-Based Child Protection Structures
Ugandan Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development
IASC and UNICEF
Jessica A. Lenz, Child Protection Specialist-UNICEF Consultant
2007
Forward
(Message from Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development)
(Message from IASC and UNICEF)
Table of Contents
Forward ……………………………………………………………………………….…2
Abbreviations and Acronyms ……………………………………………………….….5
I. Background and Framework ……………………………………………...……6
1. IASC-Child Protection
2. Rationale for the Development of The Guiding Principles and Minimum Standards for Community-Based Child Protection Structures
3. Target Audience
4. How to Use the Guidelines
5. Definition of Child Protection
6. Definition of Community-Based Structures
7. Child Protection Programs for War-Affected Children in Uganda
8. The Legal Framework
II. Guiding Principles …………………………………………………………..…12
1. Promote the Best Interest of the Child
2. Ensure initiatives follow a Do No Harm approach
3. Ensure that all initiatives where individuals directly work with children are trained and sign a child protection policy or code of conduct
4. Build from existing community-based initiatives to promote community ownership
5. Engage a range of stakeholders in the support of child protection within the community focusing on structures working WITH a community NOT on behalf of a community
6. Set up an exit strategy at the beginning of any agency-supported initiative
7. Deliver support and capacity-building based on the priorities and actions identified by the community NOT based on an agency’s agenda
8. Recognize that girls and boys and particular groups of children are confronted and affected differently with various degrees of protection concerns and will have different needs. Support should take this into consideration.
9. Ensure Children’s Agency and Participation in the protection of children is incorporated and strengthened
10. Promote the well-being, capacity and resilience of children and youth
11. Promote the rights and dignity of the child
12. Uphold the principle of non-discrimination
13. Establish a means for Inter-Agency Coordination to foster linkages and sharing of experiences; programs should not work in isolation from other agencies or from the community as a whole
14. Ensure initiatives are transparent establishing an open dialogue with all stakeholders
15. Maintain confidentiality by handling and disseminating information on a need to know basis that is guided by the principles:
i. Respect for an individual’s right to privacy
ii. Respect for the way in which sensitive information is disclosed to trusted sources
III. Chart on Minimum Standards and Key Indicators in Emergency and Stable Situations ……………………………………………………………………….17
1. Establishment and Structure
2. Participation
3. Roles and Responsibility
4. Coordination
5. Local Resources
6. Activities
7. Identification, Reporting, Referrals, Follow-Up
8. Support
9. Monitoring and Evaluation
10. Reporting (Management)
IV. Guidance Notes, Do’s and Don’ts Checklist and Examples of Selected Best Practices per Minimum Standard ……………………………………………26
1. Establishment and Structure
2. Participation
3. Roles and Responsibility
4. Coordination
5. Local Resources
6. Activities
7. Identification, Reporting, Referrals, Follow-Up
8. Support
9. Monitoring and Evaluation
10. Reporting (Management)
V. Example Code of Conduct ……………………………………………………49
Abbreviations and Acronyms
CBO- Community-Based Organization
CCF- Christian Children’s Fund
CDA- Community Development Assistant
CDO- Community Development Officer
CPC- Child Protection Committee
CRC- Convention on the Rights of the Child
IASC- InterAgency Standing Committee (InterAgency Sub-Cluster)
INGO- International Non-Governmental Organization
LRA- Lords Resistance Army
MoGLSD- Ministry of Gender, Labour, and Social Development
MOU- Memorandum of Understanding
NGO- Non-Governmental Organization
PRA- Participatory Rural Appraisal
RUFOU- Rural Focus Uganda
SC- Save the Children
TOR- Terms of Reference
UN- United Nations
WV- World Vision
I. Background and Framework
A. Interagency Sub-Cluster on Child Protection:
(Stephanie: Can you insert a comment/paragraph here about the background and purpose of the Interagency Sub-Cluster on Child Protection)
B. Rationale for the Development of The Guiding Principles and Minimum Standards for Establishing and Supporting Community-Based Child Protection Structures
Every child, whether in a conflict/emergency situation or time of stability, is entitled to basic human rights, including the right to be protected and supported by their family, community, government and international community—all those who carry the responsibility to ensure the full development and well-being of the child is fostered, upheld, and protected.
In recognition of this right, in the spring of 2007 the Uganda Interagency Sub-Cluster on Child Protection launched a review of community-based initiatives supporting the protection of children in the Acholi, Lango, and Teso regions of Uganda. Funded by the Uganda MoGSLD, a gathering of 65 participants from various NGOs, CBOs, UN agencies and government agencies was held to discuss the findings, recommendations, and to develop a strategy for supporting community-based structures committed to the protection of children.
The comprehensive assessment revealed a number of successes demonstrated by community-based initiatives but also unveiled challenges too great to be ignored. It was determined that it would be too difficult to create a ‘one-size-fits-all’ model for protecting children in Uganda and yet, at a minimum, there was a need for creating standards and developing guiding principles to ensure that children were protected by established community-based structures.
The launch of these Guidelines serve as a means to optimize community experiences across Uganda, document best practices and lay the foundation for a harmonized protection scheme that incorporates guiding principles and minimum standards and indicators that can be measured and are agreed upon by all stakeholders involved in the protection of children.
Humanitarian efforts working with children require a very clear understanding of the roles and responsibilities towards the welfare and protection of children. These Guidelines offer an excellent opportunity not only for the improvement of the quality and support given to community-based child protection structures, but most importantly they help to achieve a greater protective environment and impact for children.
C. Target Audience
These Guidelines serve to reach a broad range of stakeholders including community structures, CBOs, NGOs, INGOs, and government agencies. The Guidelines are essentially the ‘rules’ set forward by an interagency body comprised of the above stakeholders and provide direction to all those concerned for the welfare and protection of children within Uganda.
D. How to Use the Guidelines
These guidelines have been produced as a result of the agreed upon interagency strategy following the 2007 comprehensive review of Child Protection Committees (CPC). The guidelines do not provide information on helping CPCs specifically, but rather focus generally on all community-based child protection structures whether they be CPCs or not.
The guidelines are broken into five sections:
1. Guiding Principles for Supporting and Establishing Community-Based Child Protection Structures
These are agreed upon principles developed by the Interagency Sub-Cluster on Child Protection. Principles are not legally binding, but they are based on and are consistent with international human rights law, humanitarian law, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The principles provide guidance on how child protection programs and initiatives should be implemented. They represent the best practices in child protection and working with community-based child protection structures.
2. Minimum Standards and Indicators in Emergency and Stable Situations for Supporting and Establishing Community-Based Child Protection Structures
Minimum standards are based on the principle that affected populations have the right to life with dignity and that those working with populations, whether they be International NGOs or community-based structures must operate at a level that upholds these rights. Standards articulate the minimum level of support needed to ensure community-based structures are protective of children. They provide practical guidance that inform humanitarian action in the context of child protection from the establishment of community-based structures, to the development of child protection programs, as well as the implementation and support following. The minimum standards are categorized into 10 sections with the minimum standard following each heading. The 10 sections include:
Establishment and Structure
Participation
Roles and Responsibility
Coordination
Local Resources
Activities
Identification, Reporting, Referrals, Follow-Up
Support
Monitoring and Evaluation
Reporting (Management)
Following each standard is a key indicator that illustrates how to determine whether a standard has been met either in an emergency situation or a more stable environment. How minimum standards are used largely depends on the context of the situation. They are applicable in a wide variety of settings--emergency/stable. For this reason, the guidelines have produced indicators that can assist in both contexts. This is particularly relevant to Uganda where the current situation is fluctuating between conflict and peace. Therefore, based on the context, it may take weeks, months, years to achieve specific standards and indicators. In some cases the minimum standard and indicator will be achieved without the need for external support, in other cases it may be necessary to collaborate with various agencies to achieve them. When applying these standards and indicators it is important for the relevant stakeholders to agree upon a timeframe for implementation and achieving results.
The difference between minimum standards and a key indicator is that standards are qualitative in nature and are meant to be universal and applicable in any environment, whereas indicators are the signals or the factors that determine whether standards are achieved. They function as tools to measure and communicate the impact of support, programs and the process used. They may be qualitative or quantitative.
Standards and Indicators are listed in a table for easy reference. Corresponding Guiding Notes and the Dos and Don’ts Checklist follow the table with greater detail on how to practically apply the standards and measure the indicators.
3. Guiding Notes for Standards
The Guiding Notes for the minimum standards are useful points that are specific to that standard and/or other standards that may not be indicators or a standard, but will help agencies achieve the standard by practically understanding the issue. They are used to give helpful information or tips, and also provide dilemmas that may arise or where special attention must be made to ensure children area protected.
4. Dos and Don’ts Checklist
Similar to the Guiding Notes, the Checklist is designed for a quick overview of what agencies should and should not do when establishing and supporting community-based child protection structures. They are listed as a separate checklist per standard category. They are not an exhaustive list but a tool of the most essential dos and don’ts when supporting community-based structures. Agencies should use this tool as they implement and review their strategy with community-based structures to ensure they are operating under a protective framework and promote a protective environment for child and communities they work with.
5. Examples of Best Practices
The last section of the Guidelines provides examples and best practices of each standard. They are examples taken from the Ugandan context and highlight the agencies working within the interagency sub-cluster on child protection. Many of the examples have come out of the recent review on Child Protection Committees (CPCs), as CPCs represent one form of community-based child protection structures.
E. Definition of Child Protection
The definition of child protection can vary depending on the scope and mandate of an agency. For the purpose of these Guidelines, the IASC on Child Protection draws on the ICRC definition of protection which was developed in collaboration with 50 human rights and humanitarian NGOs.
Protection consists of “all activities aimed at ensuring full respect for the rights of the individual—in this case, the child—as set out in the relevant human rights instruments and international humanitarian law.”[1] The definition includes a holistic framework that includes responsive action, remedial action, and action to create an environment that promotes respect for the rights of individuals.
Responsive action aimed at preventing, putting a stop to, and/or alleviating the immediate effects of a specific pattern of abuse;
Remedial action aimed at restoring dignified living conditions through rehabilitation, restitution and reparation;
Environmental building aimed at creating and/or consolidating an environment (political, institutional, legal, social, cultural and economic) conducive to full respect for the rights of the individual.
Child Protection therefore consists of reducing risks to children’s holistic well-being, making children’s rights a reality, restoring hope and a dignified living where abuse has occurred and creating an enabling environment that supports children’s positive development.[2]
F. Definition of Community-Based Structure
Community-based structures are initiatives that are grounded within the context of cultural, economical, societal and traditional values within a given population. They draw upon the effective participation of community members in the initial stages of formulation, planning, decision-making, implementing and controlling/managing activities, and they support community-driven choices that respond with the community and not on behalf of the community.
The framework of a community-based structure promotes community ownership that is sustained by its local membership and joint commitment that is focused on addressing real needs and interests of the people within the society.
Ideally, such structures arise from a community’s own desire and initiative although they may also be established through the support and capacity of various humanitarian and government agencies working within communities/areas/camps.
To fully appreciate and respect the dignity of the peoples’ priorities, humanitarian agencies supporting community-based structures are seen as a catalyst for increasing the capacity, opening dialogue and strengthening community-based structures by working with initiatives to identify and draw upon local resources to create long-term and sustainable change.
G. Child Protection Programs for War-Affected Children in Uganda
Child protection has increasingly received greater attention in the past few years especially in the north of Uganda. During the past year, Northern Uganda has seen a period of calm as both sides to the 20+ conflict have come together to explore an end to the fighting and bring peace to the Northern regions of Uganda. Although the situation is still volatile, this advance and endeavor to restore peace has opened up the possibility of not only re-establishing social welfare and protection systems, but an opportunity to build on community-based mechanisms that engage communities and children in their own protection. Some examples of child protection programming initiated over the past five years include:
• The development of community-based mechanisms to respond to child protection issues called Child Protection Committees. These committees are made up of community members that represent a specific sub-county or parish within a given district and seek to be the focal point for child protection concerns in the community. To date, Uganda has over 130 of such committees across the Acholi, Lango and Teso regions of Uganda.
• The establishment of Rehabilitative Centers/Reintegration programs for war-affected children, specifically formerly abducted children returning and escaping from the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA)
• Programs that build on traditional practices for psychosocial rehabilitation including traditional cleansing and reconciliation ceremonies.
• The establishment of child centered/safe/protective spaces for children in camps and relocation sites that serve as a psychosocial and protection initiative that encourages play, education, and various support services for war affected children.
• Beginning in 2003 large numbers of children commuted each night into town centers, as Gulu, to avoid abduction from the LRA during night raids. Rather than sleep under the verandas of local shops and in bus stations, organizations came together to create a number of Night Commuting Shelters that served as a safe and protective space for children to sleep during the night before returning to schools and/or their communities the next morning.
• Feeding Centers were established in a number of camps where malnutrition of children was high.
• The creation of child and youth clubs focusing on child rights, HIV/AIDS, and other areas help bring children together to learn about issues and to participate in activities that promote better community policies and protection for children.
• District anonymous hotlines have been created for individuals (children) who have experienced acts of gender-based violence and child protection abuses.
• Livelihood and income generating programs have been developed to support out-of-school youth and child mothers returning from captivity.
• Sports, dramas and play activities have engaged children in peace and reconciliation programs that foster awareness raising and psychosocial healing.
H. The Legal Framework
The Guidelines are based on existing international and domestic legal and normative frameworks for child rights and child protection programming. The following are particularly important:
International Legal Framework
- The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
- The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict
- The African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child
- The four Geneva Conventions (1949) and their two additional protocols (1977)
- Resolution 1612
- The 1998 UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement
National Legal Framework:
- The Children Act
- The UPDF Act
- The Amnesty Act
- Others???
International Normative Framework:
Resources that can assist agencies working with community-based child protection structures include:
- The OCHA Handbook for applying the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, 1999
- Minimum Standards for Education in Emergencies, Chronic Crises and Early Reconstruction, 2004
- Data Collection in Humanitarian Response, Guidelines for Incorporating Protection, InterAction
- Keeping Children Safe Tool book; Standards for Child Protection, Keeping Children Safe Coalition
- Interagency Guiding Principles on Unaccompanied and Separated Children, 2004
- Setting the Standards; A Common Approach to Child Protection for International NGOs
- Making Protection a Priority, Integrating Protection and Humanitarian Assistance; InterAction 2004
- Guidelines for Gender-Based Violence Interventions in Humanitarian Settings, Focusing on Prevention of and Response to Sexual Violence in Emergencies, IASC, 2005
- The Cape Town Principles and Best Practices on Prevention of Recruitment of Children into the Armed Forces and Demobilization and Social Reintegration of Child Soldiers in Africa, 1997
- The InterAgency Standing Committee Guidelines on HIV/AIDS in Emergencies, 2004
- The Inter-Agency Standing Committee Guidelines for Mental Health and Psychosocial Support, 2006
- Uganda- The Handbook for the Implementation of the Amnesty Act, 2002
- Uganda- National Orphans and Vulnerable Children Policy and the National Strategic Programme Plan of Intervention for Orphans and Vulnerable Children, 2004
- Uganda- National Policy on Internally Displaced Persons, 2004
- Others?
II. Guiding Principles
Principle 1: Promote the Best Interest of the Child
The Best Interest of the Child is a core principle in the Convention on the Rights of the Child stating, “In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.”—Article 3 (1).
The Best Interest of the Child plays an especially important role for community-based child protection structures working with unique and often difficult child protection cases. It is paramount that those assessing a child protection case pay close attention to all the rights of the child, the child’s holistic well-being and safety and ensure that these rights are protected above all other factors. The parents and the child must be engaged and supported to be the prime determiners of the best interest. However, attention must be considered when the family is abusive and/or the rights of the child are threatened due to displacement and the impact of long-lasting conflict. A holistic approach should be encouraged when addressing child protection cases where families, communities and children are struggling socially and economically due to poverty, conflict, and/or other factors.
Principle 2: Ensure initiatives follow a Do No Harm approach
It is the responsibility of all relevant stakeholders, including members of community-based child protection structures and those supporting them, to protect those individuals (children/community/members of community-based structures) from harm as well as ensure that they experience the greatest possible benefit from their involvement in activities and programs. A child’s involvement in a program or willing participation in a set of actions taken up by a community-based structure or sponsoring agency must not only add value but must be greater than any harm that might be caused by the action. To Do No Harm, actions should empower individuals enabling them to take greater control of their lives rather than enhancing vulnerabilities and risks.
Principle 3: Ensure that all initiatives where individuals directly work with children are trained and sign a child protection policy or code of conduct
Working with children requires a certain amount of commitment and respect for the rights of children and the communities, families and individuals that one interacts with. All individuals working directly with children, including members of community-based structures, staff of national or international NGOs, teachers, police, and others should be properly trained on the rights of the child and child protection. It is the responsibility of all stakeholders to protect and ensure children’s rights are protected and upheld and to further the health development of children.
Signing a code of conduct reiterates this message and demonstrates that those individuals and organizations involved with children can be held accountable for their actions that may inflict harm on children and those they work with. A signed child protection policy and/or code of conduct demonstrate that an organization’s programs are of high quality designed to protect children from exploitation and all forms of abuse. Such a policy also ensures that the working environment of those involved with children is free from discrimination, harassment, and other forms of abuse.
Principle 4: Build from existing community-based initiatives to promote community ownership
It is imperative that programs intended for children and their community are supported by the community to create long-term sustainability, but more importantly to promote the empowerment of communities to take control and make decisions concerning their lives. Agencies attempting to assist children and their communities should avoid duplication of activities and the undermining of community initiatives. Supporting already established entities, local groups, activities, and traditions builds stronger commitment towards the ultimate goal. Agencies creating new programs with little or no community involvement and overshadowing community initiatives generate dependency and short-lived programs that elude community commitment and fail to become sustainable in the long run.
Principle 5: Engage a range of stakeholders in the support of child protection within the community focusing on structures working WITH a community NOT on behalf of a community
The protection of children depends on the entire community’s involvement and commitment. Organizations and entities, who although may ‘represent’ the diversity of a community, if left to solve all the child protection problems and/or design programs to respond to child protection abuses without the involvement of the broader community, will isolate themselves and undermine parent’s roles and responsibilities. Working on behalf of a community can remove responsibility of parents creating a non-supportive environment that slowly encourages dependency and/or apathy as individuals within the community take on the attitude that someone else will respond. Stakeholders supporting community-based structures should ensure that members work with the community by holding regular community meetings, involving community participation in program design and activities, and providing a means for the greater community to involve themselves in the protection of children. Community-based child protection structures must be known and respected by the community if they are to be welcomed and supported in their efforts towards the protection of children.
Principle 6: Set up an exit strategy at the beginning of any agency-supported initiative
Community-based structures often fail once an agency can no longer support the initiative. This is often the case when initiatives are designed during the intense periods of a conflict. At the on-set of peace and longer-term development, humanitarian agencies may depart leaving various community-based entities to continue on their own. However, without a proper exit strategy and transitional plan, many community-based structures fail to operate and/or become disillusioned and feeling abandoned if expectations are not met or planned for. Members of the community may join an initiative with expectations believing employment may develop through their involvement. Having a clear plan, including a transitional phase and exit strategy also informs those committed to its cause during the time of operation. A good example is the formation of Child Protection Committees in Northern Uganda. Many members believe that the committee will exist forever, however when speaking to the agencies that support them, they are often noted as an emergency response initiative to child protection and once families return to home communities such committees will no longer be necessary. Having a clear goal, expectations, and a plan for transitioning and exiting an initiative will support the success of the program.
Principle 7: Deliver support and capacity-building based on the priorities and actions identified by the community NOT based on an agency’s agenda
Initiatives that support the priorities identified by the community are stronger, have a greater commitment towards the goal, and build on community autonomy and empowerment. Community-based structures that view themselves as the “second arm” to an agency’s programs are less likely to gain trust from the community, create real change and approach issues holistically as child protection becomes narrowly defined in terms of what programs the supporting agency offers rather than what child protection issues the community is facing. Community-based structures following an agency’s agenda, for example child labor, may focus entirely on related issues and miss other forms of abuse and neglect. The degree of autonomy by a community-based structure will determine its longevity and ability to function without feeling dependent upon the supporting agency.
Principle 8: Recognize that girls and boys and particular groups of children are confronted and affected differently with various degrees of protection concerns and will have different needs. Support should take this into consideration.
Child protection concerns vary greatly across communities and districts in Uganda. While early marriage may be a factor concerning mostly girls in one community whereby boys experience higher rates of bullying at school, in other contexts, the opposite could be true. In other situations, both boys and girls may be affected, for example in the recruitment and abduction into armed conflict. Programs associated with protecting children must take this into consideration and assess the full environment surrounding children. Programs responding to such concerns will also need to address the problems according to the needs, respected traditions, and gender differences that girls and boys associate and feel comfortable with.
Principle 9: Ensure Children’s Agency and Participation in the protection of children is incorporated and strengthened
Protecting children involves empowering children to engage in the protection of themselves and this includes children’s involvement in the identification of child protection concerns/risks and the decision-making that affect their lives. Article 13 in the Convention on the Rights of the Child gives children the right to have a say in matters affecting their own lives and to prepare for their responsibilities in adulthood. This article is applicable to all children in all emergency situations, including chronic crises and early reconstruction/recovery.
Community-based child protection structures may include a child representative within the organization or entity, however, this does not conclude that children’s voices are heard, let alone incorporated into decisions and/or initiatives. Stakeholders must be active in ensuring that children’s agency is genuine and respects the dignity of the child. Children must be trained in practices that help protect themselves and other children in their community. Training should emphasize their capacity to participate constructively and initiate positive change.
Principle 10: Promote the well-being, capacity and resilience of children and youth
Responses to the needs of children affected by conflict must enhance the self-esteem of children and promote their capacity to protect their own integrity and construct a positive life. Community-based child protection structures will do little for children if children are seen as victims and unable to create positive change. The resilience of children should be embraced. Defined as the capacity to face, overcome and even be strengthened by the adversities of life, studies across Uganda continue to illustrate the innate resilience within children including those children abducted by the LRA, forced into exploitive and abusive labor, and those experiencing sexual abuse/rape. The ability of such children to bounce back should not be underestimated.
Principle 11: Promote the rights and dignity of the child
All duty bearers have the responsibility to ensure continuous protection of children in all forms of activities, care, support, and promotion of children’s rights. This includes protection from unwanted attention such as may be given by the media or other institutions or persons. Policies should be in place to regulate contact with children and the appropriate dissemination of information about them. The media has the responsibility to ensure that professional ethical standards are always applied in all contact with children, and in no way is their personal integrity or security compromised by irresponsible reporting.
It is also important that duty bearers and stakeholders do not inadvertently stigmatize children through the application of labels for certain categories to the actual children themselves. While the categories of “formerly abducted child” or “orphan” may be useful in the abstract, for the purposes of explanation and reporting, they should never be used to refer to actual human beings.
Principle 12: Uphold the principle of non-discrimination
Non-discrimination is the recognition that every child should be given the opportunity to enjoy the rights recognized by the Convention on the Rights of the Child without regard to citizenship, immigration status, or any other status such as gender, disability, age, race, colour, sex, language, religion, national or social origin, property or birth, etc.
In upholding this principle, community-based child protection structures should avoid programs that ‘target’ children placing them in the above categories. Programs that are inclusive ensure that the most vulnerable children are identified and supported regardless of a specific status, condition, and/or experience. The term ‘vulnerability’ is better understood by communities that are able to see beyond the labels. Unfortunately, programs that promote specific groups of children (ie. formerly abducted) can unknowingly be discriminatory to more vulnerable populations and/or create further stigmatization on the group they target to support.
Principle 13: Establish a means for Inter-Agency Coordination to foster linkages and sharing of experiences; programs should not work in isolation from other agencies or from the community as a whole
Child protection is a cross-cutting issue that affects all agencies and sectors regardless of the area of specialty. Promoting the protection of children involves open dialogue between all stakeholders and an environment that is willing to share experiences and foster partnerships that support the protection of children. Effective coordination should extend beyond the donor agencies and child protection working groups that often engage more international NGOs than local stakeholders. Community-based child protection structures must be integrated into networking systems and engaged in community/parish development committees if real changes and initiatives in child protection are to be seen and heard at the parish, sub-county and district levels. Local and National agencies must be encouraged to participate in the dialogue on child protection and therefore, that may entail conducting meetings in the local language. Documents, guidelines, and standards should also be translated into local languages to ensure all stakeholders are “speaking” in the same language.
Principle 14: Ensure initiatives are transparent establishing an open dialogue with all stakeholders
The best programs will fail if people do not trust the system. Many Child Protection Committees in Uganda were established without the involvement of the greater community and even sometimes the support of local government. Operating in isolation, without a channel for open discourse created a lack of trust and confusion about the Child Protection Committees. Some community members went as far as calling the committees corrupt, intrusive, and deceitful.
For community-based child protection structures to be effective they must have the support of the community behind them. This entails ensuring that there is community buy-in for the structure, yet also that there are systems in place that hold community-based structures accountable. Activities must be monitored and child protection cases must be reported systematically and on a regular basis. All stakeholders must be committed to working together, sharing information and exchanging ideas, and providing the relevant information to organized central bodies for ensuring child protection issues are being addressed and handled appropriately.
Principle 15: Maintain confidentiality by handling and disseminating information on a need to know basis that is guided by the principles:
i. Respect for an individual’s right to privacy
ii. Respect for the way in which sensitive information is disclosed to trusted sources
Confidentiality pertains to restricting the disclosure of the identity of those involved in an investigation as well as the treatment of information that has been disclosed. Every effort should be made to ensure that confidentiality is maintained for all concerned. At the time that a child protection issue arises the information must be passed on to the appropriate people, but that information should be handled and disseminated at the appropriate time on a need-to-know basis only. Persons to whom the principle of confidentiality applies include the victim, the complainant, the witnesses and the accused or subject of the complaint. Paramount consideration must be given to ensuring the safety and security of those persons (victim/survivor, complainant, witnesses, accused) and this must take precedence over all.
The following guidelines should be followed:
➢ Disclose identities of those involved to those who ‘need to know” only.
➢ Make all records and reports anonymously (remove names and other identifying information and substitute with witness, subject, etc.)
➢ Keep records in a locked cabinet accessible only to investigators. Do not take records home or leave them lying on a desk.
➢ Interviews should be conducted in a location that ensures identities will be protected.
III. Table: Minimum Standards for Supporting and Establishing Community-Based Structures
Minimum Standards: these are qualitative in nature and specify the minimum levels to be attained in the provision of community-based child protection structures/initiatives
Key Indicators: these are ‘signals’ that show whether the standard has been attained. They provide a way of measuring and communicating the impact, or result, of programs as well as the process, or methods used. The indicators may be qualitative or quantitative. The chart below illustrates key indicators in an emergency situation and a stabilized situation.
Guidance Notes: these include specific points to consider when applying the standard and indicators in different situations, guidance on tackling practical difficulties and advice on priority issues.
|Minimum Standards for Supporting and Establishing Community-Based Structures | | |
| |Key Indicator |Key Indicator |
| |Immediate Support During an Emergency |Comprehensive Support for Community-Based Structures |
| | | |
| |(Emergency Situation) |(Stabilized situation) |
|Establishment and Structure |Establishment and Structure |Establishment and Structure |
| | | |
|I. Initiatives at the community-level launched for the protection of children |1.1 Rapid Assessment conducted by Supporting Agencies in |1.1 Comprehensive Assessment conducted by interagency child |
|are established, recognized and owned by the community. |coordination with child protection working groups to identify |protection networks identifying assessing functionality and |
| |locally-based structures. |effectiveness of community-based child protection structures. |
| | | |
| |1.2 Shared reports by Supporting Agencies of assessments. |1.2 Shared report by Inter-Agency Network/Group |
| | | |
| |1.3 Established community-based structures have clear objectives |1.3 Established community-based structures have clear objectives |
| |and an exit strategy. |and an exit strategy. |
| | | |
| |1.4 Community-based structures have access to training and |1.4 Community-based structures have established and agreed upon |
| |capacity-building on protection standards and codes of conduct. |TORs that are developed by the community-based structure. |
| | | |
| | |1.5 Members within community-based structures have signed consent |
| | |forms indicating their commitment and expectations. |
| | | |
| | |1.6 Community-based structures have developed codes of conduct and|
| | |all members have signed. |
| | | |
| |2.1 Members of community-based structures supported by agencies |2.1 Members of community-based structures supported by agencies |
| |have signed a Code of Conduct. |have signed a code of conduct and receive regular training on |
|2. Where community-based structures are established through outside initiative | |protection and child protection policies. |
|and support, structures adhere to humanitarian principles and codes of conduct.| | |
| |3.1 Child Protection working groups are established and include |3.1 Child Protection working groups are established at district |
| |the participation of supporting agencies to community-based |level with representatives from sub-county community-based |
| |structures. Supporting Agencies represent the views and concerns |structures represented and attending regularly. |
|3. Community-based structures are grounded at the grassroots level and have |of community-based child protection concerns/issues. | |
|networking linkages to parish, sub-county, and district levels. | |3.2 Members from community-based structures are represented on |
| | |parish development committees. |
|Participation |Participation |Participation |
| | | |
|1. Participation within community-based structures is voluntary and is |Community appointments for membership on community-based |Community elections are held to nominate members of |
|represented by members of the community. |structures are made through non-discriminatory, non-threatening, |community-based structures through transparent and |
| |and non-biased selection processes. |non-discriminatory election processes. |
| |Membership is diverse and incorporates representatives from | |
| |various aspects of the community (women, disabled, religion, |Criteria and term limits are developed for membership within |
| |unemployed, widows, elderly, etc.) |community-based structures |
| | | |
| | |Membership is diverse and incorporates representatives from |
| | |various aspects of the community (women, disabled, religion, |
| | |unemployed, widows, elderly, etc.) |
| | | |
| |2.1 Elected leaders within the community (local council), although|2.1 Elected leaders within the community (local council) serve as |
| |members, do not hold leadership positions within community-based |advisors to community-based structures. |
|2. Membership within community-based structures is non-political. |structures. | |
| | | |
| |3.1 Community-based structures, through its chosen |3.1 Community-based structures, through its chosen |
| |representatives, are involved in prioritizing and planning child |representatives, are involved in prioritizing and planning child |
|3. Community members actively participate in assessing, planning, implementing,|protection activities to ensure children are protected in the |protection activities to ensure children are protected in the |
|monitoring, and evaluating protection issues. |community. |community. |
| | | |
| |3.2 Community-based structures hold public meetings to inform the |3.2 Community-based structures hold public meetings to inform the |
| |community at large of activities and budgets related to child |community at large of activities and budgets related to child |
| |protection initiatives. |protection initiatives. |
| | | |
| |3.3 Training and capacity-building opportunities exist for members|3.3 Training and capacity-building opportunities exist for members|
| |of community-based structures, including children and youth, to |of community-based structures, including children and youth, to |
| |manage child protection activities and concerns within the |manage child protection activities and concerns within the |
| |community. |community. |
| | | |
| |4.1 Children and youth are involved in the development and |4.1 Child and youth-led community-based structures exist in |
| |implementation of child protection activities either through |partnership with community-based structures to coordinate and |
| |direct involvement or indirect participation (children/youth |inform decisions on child protection issues within the community. |
|4. Children’s agency is respected within community-based child protection |clubs). | |
|structures. | | |
|Roles and Responsibilities |Roles and Responsibilities |Roles and Responsibilities |
| | | |
|1. Members on community-based structures represent the community and work with |Systems are in place to ensure that members work with communities |Systems are in place to ensure that members work with communities |
|the community to identify and address child protection issues. |and do not operate on behalf of the community. |and do not operate on behalf of the community. |
| | | |
| |Actions taken up by the community-based structure are meaningful |Actions taken up by the community-based structure are meaningful |
| |and endorsed by the community at-large. |and endorsed by the community at-large. |
| | | |
| |Community-based structures provide regular monthly meetings to |Community-based structures provide regular monthly meetings to |
| |discuss progress, action needed, and additional support by the |discuss progress, action needed, and additional support by the |
| |community for child protection issues. |community for child protection issues. |
| | | |
| |Activities community-based structures initiate engage community |Activities community-based structures initiate engage community |
| |participation and open dialogue with members of society. |participation and open dialogue with members of society. |
| | | |
| |Through on-going support from Supporting Agencies, community-based|Community-based structures develop monthly action plans to address|
| |structures develop action plans to address child protection issues|child protection issues and manage the implementation of |
| |and manage the implementation of activities. |activities. |
|2. Members on community-based structures develop, plan, implement, and manage | | |
|all activities initiated by the structure. |Supporting Agencies working with community-based structures | |
| |require a long-term commitment; exit strategies by Supporting |Supporting Agencies have developed plans to end involvement and |
| |Agency are in place at the time of initial involvement. |handover their activities to national or other entities. |
| | | |
|3. Supporting Agencies provide guidance in reporting, referrals and follow-up |Supporting Agencies working with community-based structures foster|Supporting Agencies working with community-based structures foster|
|for child protection issues, in addition to technical backstopping and capacity|community ownership and therefore promote community initiatives |community ownership and therefore promote community initiatives |
|building of the community-based structure. |and avoid activities solely advocating the agency’s own agenda. |and avoid activities solely advocating the agency’s own agenda. |
| | | |
| |Supporting Agencies hold PRA workshops that engage communities in |Supporting Agencies hold PRA workshops that engage communities in |
| |identifying their own problems and solutions |identifying their own problems and solutions |
| | | |
| |Supporting Agencies initiate technical trainings and |Supporting Agencies initiate technical trainings and |
| |capacity-building workshops to strengthen skills and understanding|capacity-building workshops to strengthen skills and understanding|
| |of community-based structures that address child protection. |of community-based structures that address child protection. |
| | | |
| |Supporting agencies act as a first response for community-based |Supporting Agencies act as a guide to community-based structures |
| |structures seeking assistance for child protection cases. |to identify alternative resources and reporting mechanisms when |
| | |child protection cases are identified. |
| |District and Sub-County officials have appointed and established | |
| |linkages with community-based structures. | |
| | |District and Sub-County officials have appointed and established |
| |Meetings by sub-county officials are held with community-based |linkages with community-based structures. |
| |structures to receive updates and reports. | |
| | |Regular monthly meetings by sub-county officials are held with |
| | |community-based structures to receive updates and reports. |
| | | |
| | |Systems are in place for the relevant government agency to track |
| | |community-based structures. |
|4. District and Sub-County Officials serve supervisory roles and oversee the | | |
|accountability of the community-based structure. Supporting Agencies working | |Supporting Agencies have a system in place to work with the |
|with government authorities supervise and oversee the transparency of this | |relevant government agencies to offer advice and technical |
|process. | |support. |
|Coordination |Coordination |Coordination |
| | | |
|1. There is a transparent coordination mechanism for child protection |Child protection working groups are established at the district |Child protection working groups are established at the district |
|activities, including effective sharing between stakeholders. |and national level. |and national level. |
| | | |
| |Authorities, donors, and other agencies establish financing |Joint interagency initiatives (assessments, trainings, programs) |
| |structures that are coordinated with and support activities of |are launched to support community-based child protection |
| |community-based child protection structures. |structures. |
| | | |
| | |Lead agencies are identified and established in each sub-county as|
| | |child protection focal points. |
| | | |
| | |Supporting Agencies are coordinated by and report to Lead Agencies|
| | |for all child protection matters. |
| | | |
| | |Authorities, donors, and other agencies establish financing |
| | |structures that are coordinated with and support activities of |
| | |community-based child protection structures. |
| | | |
| | |A common statement of coordination aims, indicators, and |
| | |monitoring procedures is in place and all stakeholders commit |
| | |themselves to work within that framework and make key information |
| | |and statistics available in the public domain. |
| | | |
| | |Mechanisms are established for community-based structures to |
| | |report regularly to the relevant government authority concerning |
| | |their activities. |
|2. Community-based structures are linked to the relevant government agency for |Mechanisms are established for Supporting Agencies to report | |
|coordination mechanisms. |regularly on community-based structures activities to the relevant| |
| |government authority. | |
|Local Resources |Local Resources |Local Resources |
| | | |
|1. Local resources are identified, mobilized and used to respond to child |Community members and community-based structure identify child |Community members and community-based structure identify child |
|protection issues within the community. |protection resources in the community. |protection resources in the community. |
| | | |
| |Community resources are mobilized to strengthen access to child |Community resources are mobilized to strengthen access to child |
| |protection. |protection. |
| | | |
| |Supporting Agencies recognize and support the capacity of |Supporting Agencies recognize and support the capacity of |
| |communities and community-based structures. |communities and community-based structures. |
| | | |
| | |Community-based structures develop networking initiatives with |
| | |neighboring communities to expand access to resources |
|Activities |Activities |Activities |
| | | |
|1. Activities are set forward by the community-based structure according to |Community meetings and PRA workshops are held with members of the |Community meetings and PRA workshops are held with members of the |
|community needs and guidance that enhance and protect the welfare of children |community to identify community needs/concerns in relation to |community to identify community needs/concerns in relation to |
|within the community. |child protection. |child protection. |
| | | |
| |Women, men, children and youth are involved in identifying, |Women, men, children and youth are involved in identifying, |
| |developing and implementing child protection activities within the|developing and implementing child protection activities within the|
| |community. |community. |
| | | |
| |Child protection activities launched by community-based structures|Child protection activities launched by community-based structures|
| |are supported by relevant stakeholders. |are supported by relevant stakeholders. |
| | | |
| |Baseline data is collected to analyze the affects of child |Baseline data is collected to analyze the affects of child |
| |protection activities. |protection activities. |
| | | |
| |On-going assessments of programs by community-based structures are|On-going assessments of programs by community-based structures are|
| |conducted to ensure programs are relevant and have an impact. |conducted to ensure programs are relevant and have an impact. |
| | | |
| |Activities are in line with the guiding principles on child |Activities are in line with the guiding principles on child |
| |protection. |protection. |
| | | |
| |Quantitative data is collected to determine the reach of child |Quantitative data is collected to determine the reach of child |
| |protection activities and initiatives. |protection activities and initiatives. |
| | | |
| | |Programs are adjusted to reflect the child protection issues |
| | |during transition and stability. |
| | | |
| | |Programs reflect the community’s commitment and ability to draw |
| | |upon local resources. |
|Identification, Reporting, Referrals, Follow-Up |Identification, Reporting, Referrals, Follow-Up |Identification, Reporting, Referrals, Follow-Up |
| | | |
|1. Child protection cases are properly identified, reported, referred and |Community-based structures are supported to properly identify, |Community-based structures are supported to properly identify, |
|followed-up in coordination with community-based structures and national social|report, refer and follow-up child protection cases. |report, refer and follow-up child protection cases. |
|welfare services in accordance with national child protection guiding | | |
|principles. |Community-based structures have access to training and |Community-based structures have access to regular training and |
| |capacity-building on how to identify, report, refer and follow-up |capacity-building on how to identify, report, refer and follow-up |
| |on child protection cases. |on child protection cases. |
| | | |
| |Community-based structures adhere to the guiding principles on |Community-based structures adhere to the guiding principles on |
| |child protection when responding to child protection cases, ie. |child protection when responding to child protection cases, ie. |
| |confidentiality, do no harm, best interest of the child. |confidentiality, do no harm, best interest of the child. |
| | | |
| |Limits are set within community-based structures for both adult |Hotlines, safe havens, and immediate response initiatives operated|
| |members and children/youth directly participating in the |by community-based child protection structures are established, |
| |identification, reporting, monitoring and follow-up of child |introduced to the wider community, and functioning. |
| |protection. | |
| | |Coordinated efforts are made with the relevant authorities who |
| |Coordinated efforts are made with the relevant authorities who |handle child protection cases. |
| |handle child protection cases. | |
| | |Limits are set within community-based structures for both adult |
| | |members and children/youth directly participating in the |
| | |identification, reporting, monitoring and follow-up of child |
| | |protection. |
|Support |Support |Support |
| | | |
|1. Support to community-based structures encompasses oversight, accountability,|Child protection training is provided to community-based |Joint training initiatives by interagency networks are held on |
|and capacity-building. (In some instances support can mean material and/or |structures at start-up and/or as a means for building capacity and|child protection for community-based structures on a regular |
|financial though this is not a standard.) |skills of community members. |basis. |
| | | |
| |Training given to community-based structures is provided by |Interagency training tools and guidelines are developed and shared|
| |qualified child protection specialists. |with community-based structures. |
| | | |
| |Trainings encourage participants to become facilitators in child |Training given to community-based structures is provided by |
| |protection, promote participatory methods, and demonstrate through|qualified child protection specialists. |
| |practical example. | |
| | |Trainings encourage participants to become facilitators in child |
| |On-going evaluation of trainings is conducted to provide |protection, promote participatory methods, and demonstrate through|
| |appropriate and relevant support; in addition the provision of |practical example. |
| |trainings is made to cover emerging child protection trends and as| |
| |refresher trainings in the future. |On-going evaluation of trainings is conducted to provide |
| | |appropriate and relevant support; in addition the provision of |
| |Tools for supporting community-based structures are developed by |trainings is made to cover emerging child protection trends and as|
| |Supporting Agencies for assisting with various activities |refresher trainings in the future. |
| |responding to child protection issues. | |
| | |Standardized tools are developed by interagency child protection |
| |Supporting Agencies take on supervisory roles of community-based |working groups for assisting with various activities responding to|
| |structures and actively administer the activities of the |child protection issues. |
| |community-based structure. | |
| |Community-based structure reports regularly to the Supporting |Capacity of community-based structures extends beyond child |
| |Agency on activities. |protection and includes management, team-building, facilitation, |
| | |action planning, conflict resolution, leadership, and |
| | |community-mobilization. |
| | | |
| | |Check and balance procedures are developed to monitor the |
| | |transparency and accountability of community-based structures. |
| | | |
| | |Standards are developed by interagency child protection groups for|
| |Per Diems and other financial support given to community-based |financial and material support per district. |
| |structures are restricted to a limited timeframe (set by | |
| |interagency working groups) during the immediate emergency with |Material and Financial support is provided in a manner that does |
| |clear expectations and a phase-out strategy. |not raise expectations or create dependency. |
| | | |
|2. Where material and financial support is provided, such support is |Material and financial support is provided to community-based | |
|coordinated with standards set forth by district child protection working |structures in a manner that does not raise expectations or create | |
|groups. |dependency. | |
|Monitoring and Evaluation |Monitoring and Evaluation |Monitoring and Evaluation |
| | | |
|1. All relevant stakeholders regularly monitor the activities of the |Systems for continuous monitoring of child protection issues and |Systems for continuous monitoring of child protection issues and |
|community-based child protection response and the evolving child protection |interventions are in place and functioning. |interventions are in place and functioning. |
|needs of the community. | | |
| |Women, men, children and youth from all affected groups are |Women, men, children and youth from all affected groups are |
| |regularly consulted and are involved in monitoring activities. |regularly consulted and are involved in monitoring activities. |
| | | |
| |Information on child protection cases is systematically and |Information on child protection cases is systematically and |
| |regularly collected, starting with baseline information and |regularly collected, starting with baseline information and |
| |following with tracking of subsequent changes and trends. |following with tracking of subsequent changes and trends. |
| | | |
| |Personnel are trained in data collection methodologies and |Personnel are trained in data collection methodologies and |
| |analysis to ensure that the data are reliable and the analysis is |analysis to ensure that the data are reliable and the analysis is |
| |verifiable and credible. |verifiable and credible. |
| | | |
| |Data is shared with relevant stakeholders |Data is shared with relevant stakeholders |
| | | |
| |Monitoring systems and databases are regularly updated on the |Monitoring systems and databases are regularly updated on the |
| |basis of feedback to reflect new trends and to allow for informed |basis of feedback to reflect new trends and to allow for informed |
| |decision-making. |decision-making. |
| | | |
| |Programs are adjusted when necessary as a result of monitoring. |Programs are adjusted when necessary as a result of monitoring. |
| | | |
| |Evaluation of community-based structures and their |Evaluation of community-based structures and their |
| |activities/interventions is conducted at appropriate intervals |activities/interventions is conducted at appropriate intervals |
| |against overall response strategies. |against overall response strategies. |
| | | |
| |Information is collected in a transparent and impartial manner |Information is collected in a transparent and impartial manner |
| |from all stakeholders, including the affected population and |from all stakeholders, including the affected population and |
|2. There is a systematic and impartial evaluation of community-based child |partners from other sectors. |partners from other sectors. |
|protection structures to improve practice and enhance accountability. | | |
| |All stakeholders are included in evaluation activities. |All stakeholders are included in evaluation activities. |
| | | |
| |Lessons and good practices are widely shared with broader and |Lessons and good practices are widely shared with broader and |
| |national and local community and humanitarian community, and are |national and local community and humanitarian community, and are |
| |fed into advocacy, programs, and policies that contribute to the |fed into advocacy, programs, and policies that contribute to the |
| |national and global child protection goals. |national and global child protection goals. |
|Reporting (Management) |Reporting (Management) |Reporting (Management) |
| | | |
|1. Systematic reporting processes of community-based child protection |Supervisory roles of community-based structures are identified and|Check and balance procedures are developed to monitor the |
|structures are in place to ensure transparency and accountability. |actively administering the activities of the community-based |transparency and accountability of community-based structures. |
| |structure. | |
| | |Community-based structures have access to training and |
| |Community-based structure reports regularly on activities to the |capacity-building on action planning and management. |
| |agency taking on supervisory role. | |
| | | |
| |Reporting Tools are developed and used to collect information on |Standardized Inter-Agency Reporting Tools are developed and used |
|2. Standardized reports on child protection cases and activities are routinely |child protection issues/cases. |to collect information on child protection issues/cases. |
|submitted to district authorities to monitor program needs and funding | | |
|requirements. |Reports are compiled and submitted to relative authority. |Standardized reports are compiled, analyzed and submitted to the |
| | |relative government authority by community-based structures. |
| |Community-based structures have access to training and | |
| |capacity-building on proper reporting mechanisms. |Community-based structures have access to training and |
| | |capacity-building on proper reporting mechanisms. |
IV. Standard 1: Establishment and Structure
1. Initiatives at the community-level launched for the protection of children are established, recognized and owned by the community.
2. Where community-based structures are established through outside initiative and support, structures adhere to humanitarian principles and codes of conduct.
3. Community-based structures are grounded at the grassroots level and have networking linkages to parish, sub-county, and district levels.
Guidance Notes
Rapid and Comprehensive Assessments- Assessments need to be carried out during both emergency and development stages, especially where a population is undergoing transitional phases of a conflict. Assessments are useful in understanding the dynamics, impact, and strength of a population in a given situation. Furthermore, assessments help to identify the immediate child protection concerns and help analyze a situation to develop an appropriate response. A rapid assessment focuses greatly on the immediate need and direct response; whereas a more comprehensive assessment will incorporate a wide range of topics and make every effort to be inclusive. As much as possible, both assessments should be coordinated with interagency child protection working groups to prevent duplication and to instill a cohesive and common strategy in child protection and in support of community-based child protection structures. This coordination can also highlight agency strengths, ability, and linkages for partnerships.
Shared Reports- For a coordinated and transparent response, it is imperative that all stakeholders share information, agency assessment reports, and methodologies used. Sharing of information prevents overlap of activities, double support to community-based child protection structures, and helps to identify missed populations and/or areas underserved.
Exit Strategy- An exit strategy is determined at the onset of any programming model and emergency response. It is a multi-faceted process that includes an analysis of the response/program to be implemented, contingency plans for various changes and setbacks, a transition phase for transferring program ownership or program activities, and includes a realistic timeframe for phasing-out a program or transferring ownership. Agencies supporting community-based child protection structures should be realistic in their commitments (financial, time, capacity, technical skill, personnel) to the structure and determine a strategy based on those possible commitments. An open dialogue should be presented with community-based structures in order to not raise expectations and to ensure that structures do not become dependent on one supporting agency.
Signed Consent Forms- As with any employee of an organization, a Terms of Reference for a position is created for each staff recruitment. A Terms of Reference can include expectations, responsibilities, hours, job location, etc. Where volunteers are engaged in community-based structures supported by outside agencies, a consent form offers the best protection for ensuring that both the volunteer and the supporting agency are not led to higher expectations and/or disappointment in their involvement. Consent forms help volunteers hold agencies accountable for the type of work and/or benefits they are entitled to, and they also assist agencies for pointing out the limits to a volunteer position that an individual agreed to. Therefore, if the consent form indicates volunteers will commit 2 hours a week of voluntary service with no stipend, however, lunch will be provided, the volunteer can approach the agency regarding the lunch if they were not provided this benefit. Likewise, if an agency expects a volunteer to work 10 hours a week, this exceeds the commitment indicated on the consent form. Again, the volunteer can hold the agency accountable for its commitment. On the other hand, if a volunteer demands compensation for transportation or fees for service, the agency too can refer the volunteer back to the consent form they signed.
Code of Conduct- It is the responsibility of all stakeholders to protect and ensure children’s rights are protected and upheld and to further the healthy development of children. Signing a code of conduct reiterates this message and demonstrates that those individuals and organizations involved with children can be held accountable for their actions if they inflict harm on children and those they work with. A signed child protection policy and/or code of conduct demonstrate that an organization’s programs are of high quality designed to protect children from exploitation and all forms of abuse. Such a policy also ensures that the working environment of those involved with children is free from discrimination, harassment, and other forms of abuse.
Parish Development Committees- To incorporate real change into communities, community-based child protection structures should be linked to parish development committees, either by membership or occasional joint meetings. To influence development, ensure community budgets are allocated to child protection initiatives/services/resources, and to advocate for local child protection policies, this connection is vital in grassroots change for child protection and empowerment by communities working to make a difference.
Dos Checklist:
← Do support existing community-based child protection structures and initiatives by building on community identified priorities.
← Do conduct periodic reviews and internal assessments of existing structures.
← Do coordinate efforts in creating standardized TORS, Codes of Conduct, and other tools that serve common child protection structures across sub-counties and districts.
← Do have all members of community-based structures sign a code of conduct or a Child Protection Policy.
← Do train all members of a community-based structure on child protection and the code of conduct and/or policy.
← Do set hourly limits for members’ minimum and maximum volunteer efforts.
← Do incorporate an orientation training for all members at the start of the initiative and create an orientation packet for new members.
← Do include the participation of members in the development of TORs, objectives, goals.
← Do create consent forms with common expectations that both members and the supporting agency sign.
Don’ts Checklist:
← Do not create community-based structures from the top down relying heavily on political leaders within the community.
← Do not create additional structures and activities where others exist.
← Do not create community-based child protection structures whose sole purpose is to carryout your agency’s objectives/goals.
← Do not encourage appointments for membership but rather open-up membership through elections by the broader community.
← Do not assume that membership is permanent.
Examples and Selected Best Practice:
Protecting Children in Programs
To ensure that both staff, volunteers and community partners that Christian Children’s Fund (CCF) hires or engages with understand and uphold the protection and rights of children and individuals they work and interact with, CCF has launched a series of child protection policy trainings across all districts it is engaged in, these include programs in the North and the Teso region of Uganda. Staff and volunteers participated in two-day trainings that cover basic definitions of child protection, child rights, gender-base violence, and the child protection policy components that include discrimination, harassment, sexual harassment, exploitation, sexual exploitation, prostitution and sex trafficking, child abuse, neglect and safety, reporting, and the code of conduct. This same training was also conducted with CCF affiliate partners and child well-being committees (community-based structures) and encourages these partners to develop their own policies and codes of conducts. Following all the trainings, participants signed a code of conduct.
Joint Strides towards in Child Protection Standards
Efforts launched in Gulu to create a standardized TOR for all Child Protection Committees sparked interest across the north leading to both Kitgum and Lira developing similar TORs for committees initiated in their districts. Child Protection Working Groups in all districts coordinated together to develop common objectives and goals.
Sustainability
TPO supported CPCs in Soroti District have been provided with intensive trainings over the past year and a half. The members are committed to their work and volunteer without complaint. Their passion has recently led to the group deciding to become independent and more empowered in which one month ago they officially registered as a community-based organization known as ARAPL, which stands for the “Family, Child Support Association.” They are well accepted within the community and continue to link directly with the sub-county authorities.
Standard 2: Participation
1. Participation within community-based structures is voluntary and is represented by members of the community.
2. Membership within community-based structures is non-political.
3. Community members actively participate in assessing, planning, implementing, monitoring, and evaluating protection issues.
4. Children’s agency is respected within community-based child protection structures.
Guidance Notes:
Criteria and Term Limits- With any position, whether that is paid or voluntary, individuals should be aware of the commitment involved. This is true for both the employer and the employee/volunteer. Setting a ‘term limit’ informs volunteers and the general community about the timeframe ensuring that volunteers are not overly worked and/or commit to volunteer under false expectations of receiving employment. It also allows the community to participate in the selection process by either electing individuals for re-election or seeking out stronger candidates. It ensures that members are also held accountable to the public that they serve and work with.
Criteria should also be established for each volunteer role/responsibility to ensure that volunteers that participate meet needed skills and requirements. Criteria should be inclusive and balanced and should reflect the diversity of the affected population including, but limited to, gender, age, ethnic and religious groups and social categories. In addition, although specific skills needed can be listed, for example ability to read and write and/or a specific language skill, criteria should also include job expectations indicating, for example the number of hours a volunteer must commit a week, or that a volunteer must participate in 1 training workshop a month. Setting out criteria prior to recruitment will increase the quality of participants and counter against high turnover which often results due to miscommunication about positions, high expectations of both parties without clear goals/objectives, and overlapping with other responsibilities.
Public Meetings- For a community-based child protection structure to be truly “community-based” it is vital that the structure be able to report back to the wider community about programs, successes, and challenges. Holding monthly meetings with members is one-step, but this information must be relayed back to the community either through public meetings, newsletters, door-to-door campaigns, radio announcements, and other mechanisms. When holding a public meeting members should be aware of the timing of such meetings and also who typically shows up for the meetings. If meetings interfere with working hours, or when women are cooking or caring for children, this can result in less women participating in the meeting and being less informed. It is highly recommended that multiple sources of information sharing be used.
Children and Youth’s Participation- Participation in general means taking part. In order to participate, children need to have a meaningful role—to do something they think is worthwhile, to take a part in initiatives that empower them, to play a role that shows people care for them and overall to have their rights to dignity, safety, protection and comfort respected. According to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, children have the right to participate in decision-making, and that due weight should be given to their opinions, according to their age and maturity.
This means that children and young people have the right to participate in family decisions, in school and class decisions, in faith communities, in their cultural and sporting organizations, and also in local and national government, and in the UN and other international bodies.
What participation is not:
• Children do not participate by merely attending a function.
• They do not participate by being merely consulted when adults make all the decisions (For example the children have no say concerning what questions they will be asked, how they will express their answers, and what will be done with the results.)
• They do not participate if they are manipulated so that they express views that are not genuinely their own, nor rooted in their own experience.
• It is merely tokenism if they are asked to give their opinion as representing "the children" when they are not properly briefed nor have the opportunity to discuss the issues with the very peers they are meant to be representing.
For participation to be meaningful it must involve at least some power-sharing and some involvement in at least some of the processes. The degree of participation varies according to the capability of the child concerned and the nature of the event. Limits must also be set to children’s power as adults have the responsibility for ensuring that children are safe, healthy and educated. There may also be financial and practical limits which adults will need to apply.
Dos Checklist:
← Do encourage diversity within community-based child protection structures.
← Do establish regular meetings with the broader community to incorporate their views into decision-making.
← Do conduct community-wide awareness campaigns about community-based child protection structures to inform about the role and responsibility as well as activities being initiated.
← Do set specific criteria for members, including the number of hours a volunteer is expected to commit a week.
← Do set term limits to allow for turnover and change in leadership.
← Do plan for a variety of creative mechanism to reach the broader community including public meetings, newsletters, radio, film, dance, drama
← Do provide trainings and capacity-building for community members and members of community-based structures about their roles and responsibilities.
← Do create a monitoring system where community members participate in regularly assessing the work of community-based child protection structures and evaluating its effectiveness.
← Do provide an appropriate means for children and youth to participate within community-based structures.
← Do encourage the linkage between child-led organizations/clubs and community-based structures through regular interaction and participation in each other’s activities and decision-making.
← Do encourage the membership of young adults within community-based structures as they often have passion and new ideas about handling old problems. Young adults are eager to learn new skills and leadership and their participation in such structures can increase this potential.
Don’ts Checklist:
← Do not force children to participate in community-based structures as “representatives of all children in the community” where that role is unclear and the child does not interact or have a means for assessing the views of all children.
← Do not limit public meetings as your only source of information sharing for the wider community. Seek out ways to involve members of society that might not otherwise attend such meetings.
← Do not overwork volunteers and/or expect them to take on similar roles as staff within your organization unless you expect to compensate them for the hours worked. Set limits to what volunteers should and should not be doing.
Examples and Selected Best Practice:
Child Participation
The RUFOU supported CPCs in Paicho Sub-County, Gulu, engage young adults, youth and children as their core members. One advantage of a younger CPC membership allows parents to call on CPC members to speak to their children, especially those in conflict with the law or engaging in drugs or dropping out school. The CPCs are role models for other children and youth within the community and have a unique approach to reach out ot children when they need help and/or advice. Unlike adults, these CPC members provide a comfortable and more approachable setting for children and youth. Furthermore, parents appreciate the role the CPC members play especially when they are having difficulty communicating with their own children.
Specialized Participation
When World Vision launched Child Protection Committees in Gulu District they did so by selecting members that could participate in a specialized manner. After general elections from the community, members were given ‘selected’ areas of specialty concerning child protection and were trained accordingly. Some members were the focal point for children affected by HIV/AIDS where others were the focal point for formerly abducted children, sill others focused on education or health, and others on night commuters or gender-based violence issues. Having specialized participation allowed members to receive greater skills in a particular area and they could respond immediately when an issue came up that called for their specialty. They also learned referral pathways appropriate and could tap into community resources faster.
Standard 3: Roles and Responsibilities
1. Members on community-based structures represent the community and work with the community to identify and address child protection issues.
2. Members on community-based structures develop, plan, implement, and manage all activities initiated by the structure.
3. Supporting Agencies provide guidance in reporting, referrals and follow-up for child protection issues, in addition to technical backstopping and capacity building of the community-based structure.
4. District and Sub-County Officials serve supervisory roles and oversee the accountability of the community-based structure. Supporting Agencies working with government authorities supervise and oversee the transparency of this process.
Guidance Notes:
Monthly Action Plans- Community-based structures should be supported to create monthly action plans that provide better management of the structure and better implementation of programs initiated. Action plans should incorporate community priorities and mechanisms to effectively access local resources. Training on how to develop action plans that can be properly executed and evaluated should accompany any capacity-building effort by supporting agencies.
Long-Term Commitment- Agencies working with community-based structures must recognize both the short and long-term impact that their support poses not only on the structure but how its involvement influences the community at large. Deciding to support a community-based structure should be coupled with proper transition and exit plans that ensure the support can continue or the structure will sustain itself well beyond the supporting agency’s assistance. A long-term commitment does not necessarily mean lasting until a humanitarian situation has subsided, but it does mean recognizing how support must be managed, including the expectations of both parties. Empowerment should be key in the type of support given assuring that the long-term commitment does not result in various forms of dependency.
Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) Workshops- PRA is an approach that enables local people within communities to share, enhance, and analyze their knowledge of life and conditions as well as to plan and to act. The PRA process can be an empowering device as local people are given a central role in the development process and with initiatives that affect their lives. By focusing on diversity and full participation, PRA actually engages even the most marginalized voices in the community, including women, children and the poorest of the poor to share their ideas and knowledge. Attention to PRA techniques not only requires proper training in their use but also particular aptitudes among practitioners to carryout the process (facilitation skills, ability to relax and not push the process, respect, flexibility, etc.).
Supporting Agency as First Response vs. Guide- Recent studies have shown that community-based structures supported by agencies tend to rely on the agency as a first response resource when child protection issues arise regardless if the supporting agency has the means or knowledge to respond. Community-based structures dependent on direction of an agency will be less empowered to identify local resources and develop a plan of response for pressing child protection issues. Where supporting agencies act as a guide or an advisor allowing community-based structures the flexibility and autonomy to respond to child protection issues, ownership of a community-based structure is stronger. Enabling community-based structures to identify local resources and appropriate responses without solely depending on the supporting agency as a resource strengthens the protective environment for children within the community in the long-run.
Do’s Checklist:
← Do ensure community-based structures hold regular meetings with the community to encourage community participation in child protection initiatives.
← Do support community-based structures in the development of community action plans that can respond to child protection issues.
← Do serve as an advisor to community-based structures.
← Do create an exit strategy and transition plans at the start of any support given to a community-based structure.
← Do hold PRA workshops with both the community and the community-based structure to help identify child protection issues and appropriate community responses.
← Do encourage a linkage between community-based structures and the relevant government agency for better coordination, planning and budgeting of child protection initiatives within community development plans.
← Do provide capacity-building workshops for community-based structures to strengthen skills and the roles and responsibilities of community-based structures in handling child protection.
← Do encourage a sense of independence and ownership by the community of a community-based agency.
Don’ts Checklist:
← Do not allow members of community-based structures to overstep their role within the community by eliminating the roles and responsibilities of parents.
← Do not support community-based structures as a means for fulfilling program requirements for your own agency.
← Do not takeover child protection cases from a community-based structure but provide guidance for identifying community resources and solutions.
Examples and Selected Best Practice:
Solving Community Problems through Action Plans
Although there are many agencies providing services for vulnerable children, many times the need surpasses the available resources. RUFOU supported CPCs in Paicho Sub-County, Gulu often identify and refer vulnerable children to agencies offering services. However, in times when there is little response or a delay in services, CPC members come together and create individual action plans for families to resolve their own challenges without the support or the dependence on agencies. Where children are lacking school supplies or a uniform, CPCs encourage families to think creatively in coming up with extra funds to purchase such materials. At other times, CPCs have brought together families for various exchanges such as asking community tailors to sew school uniforms in exchange for families helping to construct fences or roofs of huts.
Standard 4: Coordination
1. There is a transparent coordination mechanism for child protection activities, including effective sharing between stakeholders.
2. Community-based structures are linked to the relevant government agency for coordination mechanisms.
Guidance Notes:
Child Protection Working Groups- Essential to coordination is the establishment of local interagency working groups. Child protection working groups can be launched at the national, district, sub-county and/or community level. Every effort should be made to include community-based agencies. This effort might include conducting meetings in the local language or adding translation to the meeting. Although there may be child protection working groups at every level (community, district, national) these working groups must also be coordinated between each other to ensure proper information sharing across districts. Working groups should be interagency and include local, national and international (when present) organizations. Relevant government agencies should also be involved, although there are times when agencies should meet separately from governmental and/or donor (USAID, UN, DCOF, etc) agencies.
A common Terms of Reference (TOR) should be developed with agencies participating in the working group to ensure a shared vision, coordinated initiatives, and an openness to share information leading to transparent reporting and joint collaboration.
Workings groups are designed to discuss child protection issues, related policies, advocacy initiatives, and joint initiatives such as reviews, guiding principles, and common tools. Child protection working groups should not, however, be a place to openly discuss details of child protection cases. Child protection guiding principles should be upheld, including the principle of confidentiality.
Joint Interagency Initiatives- To ensure a holistic and solid protective environment for children, their families and community, joint coordination between agencies regarding programs, response mechanisms, capacity-building, and the development of various tools and methodologies for assessments/reviews should be done. Joint initiatives promote a common strategy and goal towards the protection of children in a community and mitigate the risk of jealousy between communities due to programs and benefits associated with them while at the same time, strengthen initiatives where the capacity of one organization may be less. Using common tools agreed upon by interagency child protection working groups can lessen the impact on communities when assessments are carried out, for example. The tendency for ‘over-assessing’ due to a lack of coordination between emergency/development efforts can lead to community fatigue, high or low expectations, and/or less cooperation and high resentment by families to agencies within their community.
Lead Agencies- To better coordinate child protection initiatives within districts and/or sub-counties, a lead agency working in a particular district/sub-county can be selected to act as a focal point to help coordinate a variety of child protection programs by varied agencies. They are also valuable as a linkage between community-based child protection structures and district level child protection working groups. Furthermore, a lead agency serves as a point of reference for outside agencies exploring the possibility of launching new child-related programs in the area. A lead agency can facilitate child protection working groups within a sub-county, for example, and they can disseminate information to other agencies working in the sub-county concerning child protection. They serve as an information hub, but also a central location where agencies can provide data and other information about their projects that can be shared forward with other sub-counties and districts.
Common Statement- A common statement is similar to a common vision by an interagency child protection working group. A Terms of Reference (TOR) should be developed to promote cooperation and instill a level of trust and transparency amongst the agencies working in a district/sub-county for the protection of children.
Dos Checklist:
← Do establish child protection working groups at each district that include local, national and international organizations working with children.
← Do try to establish child protection working groups at the sub-county level. Where this is not possible, provide a linkage for community-based structures to report to lead agencies for inclusion on discussions and initiatives being made at the district level.
← Do launch standardized and joint interagency initiatives as trainings, assessments, tools, and programs.
← Do appoint a lead agency to oversee and coordinate child protection programs and cases within a particular sub-county.
← Do develop a common statement of aims, indicators, and monitoring procedures for all stakeholders
← Do create an open environment where information can be shared and decisions concerning child protection issues can be made in a coordinated manner.
← Do support community-based structures to link back to select groups (teachers, hospitals, religious institutions) whom members may represent.
← Do create opportunities for community-based structures to meet with each other for networking purposes.
← Do provide an open and friendly environment where information can be shared equally. This might mean conducting working groups in the local language or at a location more convenient for others.
Don’ts Checklist:
← Do not isolate your agency or the community-based structure you are supporting from other initiatives or child protection working groups.
← Do not skip communicating with the wider community on initiatives, decisions, and action plans.
← Do not create a TOR for a community-based structure, but rather guide them to develop their own TOR.
Examples and Selected Best Practice:
Interagency Coordination
Coordination among agencies within Northern Uganda has been remarkably strong. At the start of launching the idea of Child Protection Committees (CPC) in Gulu as a pilot a number of agencies came together to develop common TORs, Memorandums of Understanding, and worked together to develop and deliver interagency trainings and orientation sessions for members of CPCs. Throughout the pilot they met regularly to discuss progress and areas needing improvement.
Appointment of Lead Agencies Across Uganda
Although in the initial stages across Northern Uganda and in the Teso region, Lead Agencies in child protection are being formed at the sub-county level in various districts. The purpose is to create focal points for communication, coordination, referral pathways for child protection, and a point for disseminating new information to partners and new comers. The Lead Agency is responsible for collecting child protection reports from various agencies and community-based child protection structures and submitting them to district authorities during District Child Protection Working Groups. Common TORs are still being developed, however, agencies are being appointed across the country to help harmonize child protection initiatives and awareness-raising in a coordinated and effective manner.
Standard 5: Local Resources
1. Local resources are identified, mobilized and used to respond to child protection issues within the community.
Guidance Notes:
Community’s Participation- Community participation is essential in identifying community resources; it also reinforces people’s sense of dignity and hope in times of crisis as it builds on the resilience of a community and empowers them to take action. Programs should be designed to build upon local capacity and avoid undermining people’s own coping strategies.
Local Resource- Community or local resources include human, intellectual, monetary or material resources existing in the community. Resource mobilization should be linked to improving the quality of protection in a given environment for children. This may include the physical environment (material and labor) and the mental and emotional environment (psychosocial support). Records should be kept to promote transparency and accountability.
Dos Checklist:
← Do create opportunities, such as through PRA workshops, to work with communities to identify local resources that can support the protection of children.
← Do recognize that resources can refer to human, intellectual, monetary or material resources and creative means should be explored to identify the variety of such resources within the community.
Don’ts Checklist:
← Do not replace or substitute community resources with an outside agency response unless there is a complete absence of resources and when used, a plan is in place to strengthen the community’s ability to respond in the future.
Examples and Selected Best Practice:
Creating Change
When the local school in Kapelebyong Sub-County in Amuria District raised the school fees for primary school students up to 5,000 Shillings, the impacton the more vulnerable children in the community resulted in many children, especially orphaned children and child-headed households, dropping out of school. The parish-level CPC supported by Christian Children’s Fund (CCF) came together to discuss the effects of this increase. As a result, the group developed an action plan to advocate for a decrease in school fees to orphan and vulnerable children. Their joint initiative that included dialogue and advocacy to school administrators led the way to a drop in school fees from 5,000 Shillings to 3,000 Shillings for those children who were orphans or alone and heading households on their own.
Standard 6: Activities
1. Activities are set forward by the community-based structure according to community needs and guidance that enhance and protect the welfare of children within the community.
Guidance Notes:
Guiding Principles on Child Protection- All activities designed to improve the well-being of children within a community and increase their protection must operate under the agreed upon child protection principles set forward within these Guidelines. A signature of commitment can be obtained from participating agencies and a wider campaign targeting other agencies within the country working with children is encouraged.
Transition and Stability- Many parts of country, especially Northern Uganda, are experiencing various levels of transition and fluctuations of stability within their regions. Activities designed to assist and protect children should consider the long-term affects and how these fluctuations will affect their programming and commitment in an area. Movement of populations out of IDP camps into transit centers or relocation sites will have an enormous impact on programs where limits are placed to conduct activities only within camps. The capacity of organizations, as well as community-based structures to reach communities in transition should be incorporated into plans and strategies before activities are launched. How movement affects child protection within communities should be assessed and responded to appropriately.
Dos Checklist:
← Do carryout PRA exercises to determine the types of child protection activities that are most appropriate for a community.
← Do include women, men, girls and boys, and vulnerable populations in the identification of child protection issues and their involvement in the response.
← Do carryout an initial assessment to gather baseline information in order to measure the effectiveness of programs in the future.
← Do carryout regular assessments of program activities by community-based structures to ensure the relevance of the initiative as well as whether the program is reaching its intended audience.
← Do plan for changes within a given context taking into account the fluctuation of stability and conflict over a particular period of time. Adjust programs accordingly through pre-planned strategies and action plans.
← Do ensure that community-based structures have guidance in carrying out activities.
Don’ts Checklist:
← Do not bypass a community-based structure to set up your own initiative. Work with community-based structures to build on their own initiatives.
← Do not assume a community-based structure will still exist after a conflict situation. Plan for transition and alternative structures.
Examples and Selected Best Practice:
Protecting Children During Population Movement
In Kitgum the rising thought of population movement prompted an immediate response by child protection agencies to establish guidelines for population movement before it happened and to ensure protection was integrated into those guidelines. The basic objectives of the guidelines are:
1. To preserve family unity by preventing and quickly responding to family separation during population movement.
2. To develop and implement a prevention strategy that reduces the exposure of children to exploitation and abuse (including their exposure to sexual abuse and exploitation) during population movement.
Guidelines included a (a) minimum package to be delivered, (b) action plans, for example: Put in place a system to ensure separated children or children left behind by their families are quickly identified/tracked and reunited with their families; and (c) implementation procedures that include:
1. Establishment and strengthening CPCs at sub-county level
2. Working with child and youth groups
3. Preventing family separation
4. Preventing exploitation of children
5. Coordination among agencies specifically developing common messages for children, parents, teachers, and agencies
Such guidelines have now been shared widely with neighboring districts to prepare communities, community-based structures, and agencies for possible transitions elsewhere.
Sensitization through Traditional Methods
Awareness-raising within the community is a key task of the World Vision supported CPC in Bungatara Sub-County, Gulu. Challenged by conveying messages that the community would respond to, the CPC approached the local Goma group; a traditional music group that communicates messages and traditional stories by song and through musical instruments. Collaborating together, the CPC and the Goma developed stories and creative messages on issues concerning children and child rights. The Goma performs their songs within the community; especially at night during the traditional camp fire gatherings that Acholi people are accustomed to attending to learn life lessons and important morals.
Standard 7: Identification, Reporting, Referral, Follow-Up
1. Child protection cases are properly identified, reported, referred and followed-up in coordination with community-based structures and national social welfare services in accordance with national child protection guiding principles.
Guidance Notes:
Guiding Principles on Child Protection- With every child protection initiative, including the identification, reporting, referring and follow-up of child protection cases, the interagency agreed upon guiding principles for child protection should be followed and upheld. Refer to the first section of these guidelines for a detailed list and description of each guiding principle. Specific guiding principles that pertain directly to the identification, reporting, referral and follow-up of child protection issues are: Principle 1: Best Interest of the Child, Principle 2: Do No Harm, Principle 8: Recognizing boys and girls have special and different needs, Principle 10: Resilience of Children, Principle 12: Non-discrimination, and Principle 15: Confidentiality.
Limits are Set- Community-based child protection structures tend to rely on community involvement through the use of volunteers. Some volunteers will have experience working with children in difficult circumstances, where others will not. Children and youth, as well, will be involved in initiatives set forward by these structures. Volunteers, whether they are children or adults must have limits placed on the extent of their involvement to avoid both risks to the children and families they work with, but also security risks that can develop for the volunteers themselves. For example, volunteers should not be asked to provide in-depth counseling to a family or child where that volunteer is untrained or unprepared for the consequences or response by an individual they are providing the service to. Children should not be involved in the mediation between parents where a domestic dispute or violence is occurring. In addition, volunteers should not house or provide monetary support to the children or families they are working with regardless of the need. Where this is occurring, plans should be developed to create “community safety-net funds” or alternative response strategies to both protect the volunteer but also the child/individual involved.
Hotlines, Safe Havens, etc.- Emergency hotlines and safe havens can be developed and launched within communities and/or districts to provide a source of anonymous protection for both a witness and a survivor/victim of a child protection violation. To ensure the hotlines and safe havens are truly protective and offer effective support, such initiatives must be maintained physically, monetarily, and through proper capacity building. If an emergency hotline exists, however it only operates Monday through Friday, and a caller cannot get through, then the hotline will be useless. If the location of a safe haven is identified, individuals seeking protection there will not feel safe. Careful considerations must be put in place to ensure the protection of all those involved. Such initiatives should also strive to be sustainable. If an outside agency runs the program and provides transportation, a long-term strategy must be in place at the onset of the program to ensure that the activities can still be carried out if the agency leaves. In addition, the capacity of a safe haven or a hotline to handle a few cases vs. hundreds or thousands of cases must also be considered. If the numbers are high, but the staff capacity is low, the quality of the program and its personnel will suffer.
Coordination- The role of identifying, reporting, referring and follow-up for child protection cases does not rest on one single agency or entity within a community. Even where one agency is stronger, the capacity to handle all child protection cases is not realistic, nor is it an effective use of community resources. Coordination between multiple stakeholders on the response to child protection issues is essential if a child is truly to be protected and transparency is to be maintained when cases are handled.
Dos Checklist:
← Do support community-based child protection structures to properly identify, report, refer and follow-up child protection cases.
← Do uphold the principle of confidentiality.
← Do ensure that community-based structures obtain informed consent from individuals when addressing child protection concerns.
← Do develop reporting and referral pathways that can be used as a tool for a variety of child protection cases.
← Do advise community-based agencies on how to handle child protection cases, but do not act as the first response or first point of a referral process for every child protection case. Supporting agencies should look at the wider community resources before committing to respond to a case. Where local resources exist, the supporting agency should work with the community-based structure to tap into these sources.
← Do work with community-based structures to understand the term “vulnerability” and “prioritization.”
← Do follow-up on child protection cases that the community-based structure referred.
← Do place limits on both adult and child members within a community-based child protection structure.
← Do establish hotlines and safe havens if the capacity and funding is available and is sustainable over the long-term.
← Do ensure that members are properly trained on child protection and how to handle child protection cases before community-based structures take on such activities and/or services.
← Do ensure proper and transparent coordination is established when identifying, reporting, referring and following-up child protection cases.
← Do share only relevant information to appropriate stakeholders keeping information confidential and detailed information shared only on a need to know basis.
Don’ts Checklist:
← Do not develop a standardized reporting and referral pathway as child protection cases vary.
← Do not assume that members within community-based child protection structures have full capacity to handle every case. Work with structures as advisories.
← Do not allow members of a community-based structure to house a child or provide monetary or material support to a child (unless done anonymously).
Examples and Selected Best Practice:
Referral and Reintegration
In Pader, in the sub-county Lapul, a district established CPC has been operating for the past 8 months. Recently a case of defilement inflicted upon a mentally disabled girl of fourteen years by a 70 year old man was brought to the attention of the CPC members. The parents of the young girl had decided to negotiate and settle the case by exchange of money with the perpetrator to primarily hide the incident and continue to hide their child for fear of stigmatization. The CPC, recognizing the rights of the child, intervened to ensure that the case was properly handled by the appropriate authorities and the girl was provided with medical treatment. In addition, knowing that the girl would be stigmatized, the CPC has organized a traditional cleansing ceremony that will welcome her back into the community.
Standard 8: Support
1. Support to community-based structures encompasses oversight, accountability, and capacity-building. (In some instances support can mean material and/or financial though this is not a standard.)
2. Where material and financial support is provided, such support is coordinated with standards set forth by district child protection working groups.
Guidance Notes:
Joint Training Initiatives- Support for community-based child protection structures is better maintained when capacity can be built jointly through interagency goals and commitments. Collaboration on training can build stronger community-based structures, but also ensure that all agencies and structures are receiving common skills to respond to child protection. Where some agencies are strong in psychosocial programming, for example, another might have skills in mediation. Working together and sharing resources, trainings, and tools will provide a more protective environment for children in the long-run.
Interagency Training Tools- Similar to training, the training tools developed should also be shared and standardized as a way to promote common goals, but also allow for new initiatives to start without reinventing the wheel.
Qualified Child Protection Specialists- Facilitators of child protection trainings must be qualified personnel who not only have an appreciation of local protection issues, but a broader understanding of the international legal standards and guidelines on child protection. Facilitators should use participatory methods and have skills on adult-learning methodologies as well as how to work with children and youth. Training conducted should be developed and tailored to suit the context, needs, age and capacities of the audience. Where there are limited numbers of trainers available or they are themselves inadequately trained, outside agencies (UN, INGOS) and local, national and regional institutions should make coordinated efforts to strengthen existing groups by offering training of trainers (TOTs) workshops.
Training of Trainers- One of the biggest mistakes agencies make when it comes to developing TOTs in child protection is to pull together a group of individuals (that may or may not understand children) and teach them child protection thereby concluding that because they have gone through a workshop on child protection they are now able to teach on the subject matter. For most individuals this will be the first time some of the concepts, techniques, and policies have been introduced. An effective TOT takes staff and volunteers who already understand thoroughly the ins and outs of child protection and works with them on how to TEACH this information to others in a participatory manner. This includes working with individuals on facilitation skills, how to carryout practical exercises, and how to answer questions from participants. A TOT should not include new information about a topic, because trainers should already know and understand the material. Where new information is needed, a separate training should be conducted for facilitators on updating their own knowledge on the subject. This should then be followed by an additional training on how to facilitate this information…but it should NEVER be ASSUMED that because an individual was trained on the subject they now can facilitate it.
Facilitators conducting TOTs should evaluate each participant in both facilitation skills but also on the subject matter before acknowledging the completion and/or passing of a workshop/training. Certificates should not be given out indicating participants have the skills and knowledge to facilitate unless they were tested and evaluated and a record has been kept indicating the strength of the participant.
Broad Capacity- Another big mistake supporting agencies make when training community-based structures is limiting training to the core subject matter….child protection or child rights. This is only one part of working to protect children. Community-based structures to function properly and effectively implement child protection initiatives, must have training in an array of ‘business-like’ topics including: action plan development, team building, coordination/networking, conflict resolution, strategy development, fundraising, advocacy, community mobilization, and other trainings that will strengthen their effectiveness as an organization.
Check and Balance System- A check and balance system is another way of guaranteeing agencies are held accountable for programs initiated within a community and that they operate in a transparent manner. Having different levels of a system (the community, children, community-based structures, supporting agency, government, national and international laws/policies) provides a mechanism for tracking commitments made by each. Where there are gaps or false promises made empowers the different levels to voice their concern and challenge the issue at hand openly without fear of repercussions. Check and Balance systems can include “watch-dog”-like organizations, but it can also mean putting in place internal audits that verify the validity of the activities carried out.
Material Support, Per Diems and Other Financial Support- Support provided to community-based child protection structures must be monitored and standardized to prevent dependency, jealousy, and expectations among members. Currently, there are no set standards for providing material support, per diems, and other financial forms of support. This discrepancy will create frustration among agencies and the programs being initiated. Some agencies provide a small stipend to individual members, while others only provide a t-shirt. Transportation and lunch might be provided to some, where others receive a monthly bonus, for example. As much as it is possible, agencies should coordinate as well as be open about information pertaining to benefits being given to community-based child protection structures. Standards should be developed within each district to determine the appropriateness of these support mechanism and where they may be needed with a given timeframe and scope and also where the presence of such support could be detrimental and disempowering to communities. Where per diems or financial benefits are provided they must guarantee that no long-term affects will result in such action that would create dependency and jealousy amongst community members.
Dos Checklist:
← Do ensure that if you are supporting a community-based structure that members have a proper orientation training on their roles and responsibilities as well as the roles and responsibilities of other key stakeholders.
← Do ensure that community-based structures receive proper training periodically.
← Do coordinate trainings with other agencies to ensure standards are met for all community-based child protection structures.
← Do create standardized training, training tools, and other materials that can support all community-based structures ensuring a more protective environment for children.
← Do build the capacity of a community-based structure beyond child protection and child rights. Incorporate trainings on team building, action planning, leadership, community mobilization, and other “business-like” trainings that will help the structure sustain itself and respond and initiate more effective child protection programs and activities.
← Do create tools to help capture monthly meetings and reports to share with the wider community and child protection working groups.
← Do develop interagency standards for material and financial support in each district for supporting community-based structures.
← Do ensure there is an agreed upon expectation and commitment of each stakeholders’ role in the support of community-based structures.
← Do ensure that after a TOT is conducted that there is a proper evaluation and/or test to ensure that individuals have mastered the skill of facilitation and know the information they are training on.
← Do encourage periodic reflection of challenges, lessons learned and successes.
Don’ts Checklist:
← Do not conduct a one-off training without refresher or follow-up trainings in the future.
← Do not use any individual to train on child protection. Ensure that facilitators are properly trained in child protection and have an understanding of the situation and the broader international policies and standards in child protection.
← Do not have a TOT that covers new topics or issues regarding child protection or where individuals attending the TOT have never worked in child protection. TOTs should be designed to make better facilitators that can convey information more effectively.
← Do put in place check and balance systems to monitor the work of key stakeholders in child protection.
← Do not provide per diems or other forms of financial benefits to a community-based structure without first going through interagency child protection networks and agreeing on standards that should be upheld.
← Do not provide support that will disempower and make dependent a community-based structure.
Examples and Selected Best Practice:
Coordination, Capacity Building, and Tools
International, national, and local agencies in coordination with the Kitgum Community Development Officer (CDO) have collaborated on a joint initiative to develop a basic training guide for CPC members within the entire Kitgum district. From January until April 2007, each agency committed to the development of one module within the training in which the agency had expertise. These modules ranged from the definition of child protection, to the legal aspects of child protection, to community mobilization and responding to separated and unaccompanied children. Following the development of the modules, the inter-agency group trained each other’s field staff and has since launched an initiative to jointly train all CPCs. A pilot training was recently held in one location with three different agencies participating in the training for a War Child-Holland supported CPC. The excellent coordination of the group has also encouraged the development of child protection guidelines during resettlement of IDP populations. Not only is this guideline being shared and incorporated into the training with CPCs, but it has also been shared with other districts to promote the protection of children in all conflict-affected locations of Uganda.
Standard 9: Monitoring and Evaluation
1. All relevant stakeholders regularly monitor the activities of the community-based child protection response and the evolving child protection needs of the community.
2. There is a systematic and impartial evaluation of community-based child protection structures to improve practice and enhance accountability.
Guidance Notes:
Information on Child Protection is Systematically and Regularly Collected- To monitor child protection issues accurately, information about the frequency as well as the response and support to violations must be regularly collected to determine the effectiveness of programs and to determine gaps and/or areas for improvement. Standardized tools should be created to help analyze information and promote coordination among agencies working towards common child protection goals. Information collected sporadically creates false impressions and unrealistic goals that are not backed with solid data over a specific period of time. To assess the progress and/or increase or decrease of child protection cases, information must be collected recurrently. Such timeframes and tools should be agreed upon by interagency networks and linked to national reporting requirements.
On-Going Assessments- In general, an assessment is the process of documenting, often times in measurable terms, the knowledge, skills, attitudes and beliefs of an issue…in this case, child protection. Assessments help determine both strengths and weaknesses of child protection initiatives in addition to finding gaps and overlaps within communities. Assessments must be conducted in a holistic and participatory manner throughout both humanitarian/emergency situations and more stabilized environments. Core stakeholders must be involved in identifying what data needs to be collected, in the development of the methodology and how information is managed and disseminated. Refer to the InterAction Guidelines on Data Collection in Humanitarian Response; A Guide for Incorporating Protection,2005 for the ethical considerations and checklists for conducting assessments.
Personnel are Trained in Data Collection- Gathering information on child protection issues requires careful planning and trained personnel that have the capacity and the understanding of the ethical considerations required when collecting sensitive information from children and families. A good resource for incorporating child protection into data collection is the InterAction guide on Data Collection in Humanitarian Response; A Guide for Incorporating Protection, 2005. Three basic principles are pointed out as essential guidelines for trained personnel. These include: Respect, Do No Harm, and Non-Discrimination. An ethical checklist is also provided to ensure information is collected with the following considerations: Dignity of the individual information is collected from; A risk-benefit analysis; Obtaining informed consent; Confidentiality; Security; and Fairness.
Ethical considerations are essential to any form of data collection as collecting information for any purposes can people at risk, not only because of the sensitive nature of the information collected, but also because simply participating in the process may cause people to be targeted or put at risk.
Transparency- Transparency is about openness. It is about being able to see what decisions are being made and how they are made, as well as if and how decisions are implanted once they are agreed to. Transparency is about creating the “political space” for people to defend and exercise their rights. When we talk about transparent systems that identify, monitor, and report on child protection issues, the systems put in place will have a positive or negative response depending on community involvement and how well these systems are held accountable. Recent studies have shown that much of the community within Uganda is skeptical of Child Protection Committees due to their lack of openness or full disclosure on how children within the community have been selected for specific benefits and/or support. A lack of general awareness about a program can also create ambiguity even if the system itself is transparent. Outside sources should be used for monitoring and evaluating initiatives to reduce the bias that can accompany community or agency-owned activities.
Dos Checklist:
← Do ensure that women, men, children and youth are regularly consulted and involved in the monitoring of child protection activities.
← Do follow ethical guidelines when collecting information from children and families on child protection issues.
← Do ensure that those collecting information are properly trained and understand the ethical guidelines.
← Do create standardized tools to assist in both monitoring and evaluating activities of community-based structures
← Do create transparent system for collecting and distributing information collected.
← Do share lessons learned and best practices widely.
Don’ts Checklist:
← Do not allow any individual to collect information on child protection cases/issues without proper training and guidance.
← Do not collect information without the informed consent of the individual.
← Do not share information collected on child protection cases to everyone but rather on a need to know basis.
Examples and Selected Best Practice:
Child Protection Committee Review
Monitoring and evaluating initiatives is a critical step in determining whether programs are in fact working towards the protection of children or further harm is taking place. The Interagency Sub-Cluster on Child Protection came together in March of 2007 and determined that a comprehensive review on Child Protection Committees across the Acholi, Lango and Teso regions of Uganda was needed to harmonize child protection initiatives and messages, as well as to assess whether such committees were an effective response to child protection issues at the community level. In April of 2007 the review was launched. The assessment covered a range of topics to explore the full scope of how CPCs across Uganda were functioning. The assessment incorporated elements of gender, participation, coordination and protection and was carried out interagency in order to capture best practices, commonalities, strengths and weaknesses in order to make recommendations for moving a common strategy forward. The guidelines you are reading now are a result of the interagency strategy put forward following this comprehensive review.
Standard 10: Reporting (Management)
1. Systematic reporting processes of community-based child protection structures are in place to ensure transparency and accountability.
2. Standardized reports on child protection cases and activities are routinely submitted to district authorities to monitor program needs and funding requirements.
Guidance Notes:
Standardized Interagency Reporting Tools- The mechanism, training, and information collected on child protection issues must be standardized if effective programming is to take place and common strategies are to be developed around child protection issues. In recent months, the interagency sub-committee on child protection developed a common reporting tool for capturing child protection issues within a given month by a particular agency per district. This information reported is provided to district governmental authorities that compile individual reports and produce a monthly district-wide report on the totals for child protection cases identified and the child protection activities initiated within a given district. Such reporting helps donors better understand the issues and the gaps in programming and funding needs. Standardized reporting tools should also maintain confidentiality and report only on general statistics and activities and not identify specific case details in such reports.
Dos Checklist:
← Do create joint initiatives to develop standardized tools for monitoring, evaluating and reporting on child protection activities and cases.
← Do provide training on how to use the standardized tools.
← Do reflect periodically on the use of tools and adjust accordingly.
← Do agree on specific data to collect and avoid information that will be too confidential.
← Do ensure that community-based structures report regularly (same time each month) and that the relevant government agency collects, analyzes the reports and produces an overall report that covers the district activities and child protection cases.
Don’ts Checklist:
← Do not establish a database on individual child protection cases, but a general reporting format that covers sub-county reports on child protection.
Examples and Selected Best Practice:
Child Protection Committee Monthly Reporting Form
After the 2007 review of CPCs across the Acholi, Lango and Teso regions of Uganda, several interagency strategies were agreed upon as next steps in strengthening community-based child protection structures. One of those was the creation of a standardized CPC monthly reporting format that was then created and tested in selected districts in Uganda. The format for the report is in line with fundamental principles of confidentiality and the Do No Harm approach. It helps CPCs report activities undertaken during the course of a month as well a report child protection cases handled by that CPC.
-----------------------
[1] ICRC 2001
[2] This definition draws upon the definitions of ICRC, UNICEF, and Christian Children’s Fund
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- dhs employee s manual 18 a definitions
- the minimum standards and guiding principles
- exploring values rules and principles
- the core value compass visually evaluating the
- consultation and collaboration
- fill in the blank
- getting to outcomes in systems of care
- iowa department of corrections
- the search for principles of disaster management
Related searches
- guiding principles and values examples
- na guiding principles pdf
- guiding principles na book pdf
- narcotics anonymous guiding principles pdf
- guiding principles book na pdf
- guiding principles for ethical research
- guiding principles vs objectives
- guiding principles of narcotics anonymous
- complete guiding principles na pdf
- guiding principles na pdf free download
- guiding principles vs values
- na guiding principles book