Marco Conceptual para la Información Financiera

Phase 2 will make it possible to test and refine many of the key findings from Phase 1. Effective work in Phase 2 requires preparation and extensive inter- agency collaboration with members of the Reference Group, and also with agencies that are not currently members. It also requires a sharpened sense of priorities regarding field work. This section offers suggestions about the preparation and the conduct of the field work in Phase 2. These are offered not as prescriptions, but as inputs for discussion and additional planning.

7.3.1 Key questions

This review identified a number of key questions, which are summarised in the adjacent box, that warrant additional inquiry in Phase 2.

7.3.2 Preparation

1. Collect additional information from Latin America on community-based child protection groups and mechanisms.

2. Continue the process of interviews with field representatives of the programmes that seem promising candidates for the field work to be conducted in Phase 2.

3. Organise and conduct a face-to-face meeting of representatives of agencies that organise work with community-based child protection groups.142 Ideally, the meeting will include agency representatives from the Reference Group, and from agencies that do not currently belong to the Reference Group but are in a position to support effective field work and further development of this project. Key outputs from this meeting should be defined objectives and priorities (e.g., key questions, likely candidate programmes, contexts and geographic areas for work, etc.) for data gathering in Phase 2, and ideas about possible operational partners that could facilitate the work. This review identified numerous programmes that could be candidates for field work in Phase 2 (see Table 2, which is organised in alphabetical order by agency). These suggestions were based on criteria such as pertinence to key questions identified in the review, demonstrated positive outcomes for children, success in community mobilization or building community ownership, and diversity of context, issues, and technical approaches. However, these are

preliminary suggestions only, and require systematic follow-up to determine their suitability and value added. It is anticipated that participants in the face-to-face meeting will bring additional ideas about programmes that might be candidates for the field work in Phase 2.

Table 2. Possible candidate programmes and questions to explore further in Phase 2 Agency source or

implementing partner

Country, programme, and matrix document number

Topics/issues of interest

Religions for Peace and UNICEF

Southern Africa, Study of the Response of Faith-Based Organisations to Orphans and Other Vulnerable Children, Matrix 71

Partnerships with FBOs as a means of developing community-owned child protection groups; can community owned groups that start with a focused approach expand to a broad spectrum approach? How can child protection groups build on what communities already do to protect their children? Save the Children UK Sudan, Community-based Child

Protection Network Model, Matrix 111 (See also Matrix 106)

What are effective ways of managing issues of power, diversity and tolerance over time? How can an ILI category 2 programme evolve toward higher levels of community ownership? How do effective programmes engage with/build upon local traditions and mechanisms?

Save the Children UK Cote D’Ivoire, Evaluation of community monitoring committees and the protection of child victims of trafficking in West and Central Africa, Matrix 128 (See also Matrix 26, 98)

How can high levels of community ownership of child protection groups be developed? What enables community-based child protection groups to address harder issues such as forced early marriage? How can effective links be established with national child protection systems? How can children from

different ethnic groups be included more fully? Save the Children UK India (W. Bengal), Community-

based child protection

mechanisms; Matrix Nos. 12, 23

What enables the effective community mobilization around domestic labour? How can an ILI category 2 programme evolve toward higher levels of

community ownership? How can the scope of issues

       142

A meeting for these purposes was organised by Save the Children UK, and was conducted in Nairobi, September 23-25, 2009.

addressed be enlarged? Save the Children U.S. Indonesia, Uganda, Protecting

Children from Exploitation & Trafficking: A Positive Deviance Approach; Matrix 48.

What are effective ways of mapping what local people do to protect themselves, and how can these be built upon programmatically? Can PD

methodology be used to address other highly sensitive issues?

Unicef Nepal, Paralegal Committees, Matrix Nos. 24-25

Paralegal committees and justice; how have the committees been able to stimulate work on difficult issues such as violence against women that are institutionalised and endemic in the socio-cultural setting? Can category 2 programmes evolve toward higher levels of community ownership?

World Vision Philippines, ABK Initiative: Matrix Nos. 4-5

Linking community groups with government-led child protection systems. Role of community-based groups in achieving positive outcomes on a scale for children at risk of or engaged in child labour; can focused groups expand to address a wider array of issues? Can category 2 programmes evolve toward higher levels of community ownership?

World Vision Sierra Leone, Integrated Child Protection Programme, Matrix 36

Can focused child protection groups expand their attention to address a wider array of child protection issues? What factors enabled effective community mobilization? What are the implications of the national legislation that established Child Welfare Committees as statutory bodies?

World Vision Cambodia, Reducing GBV Project, Matrix 73

What supports effective community mobilization around the sensitive issues of GBV?

4. Prepare a written research plan for Phase 2 via a consultant working with a sub-group of interested agencies.

7.3.3 The field work

1. Conduct field research that uses ethnographic methodology to identify and document

indigenous mechanisms that support children’s protection and well-being. Also, identify how the establishment and maintenance of externally initiated, community-based child protection groups has affected these indigenous mechanisms.

2. Address priority issues identified in the face-to-face meeting through focused field work, using contextually appropriate, ethical methodologies. Consider using an academic-practitioner partnership approach to developing the methodology and analysing the data.

3. Organise an inter-agency peer review team to examine the data and the written report from Phase 2, making suggestions for follow-on work.

As envisioned here, Phase 2 would entail a highly collaborative process. This is appropriate, since this project has taken a highly collaborative approach from its inception. Nothing short of a fully collaborative approach will make it possible to elevate the child protection sector to a higher level.