NATIONAL CHILD PROTECTION WORKING GROUP [N- CPWG] - MEMBER INSTITUTIONS BI-MONTHLY MEETING
30 /04/2014 [GRAND IMPERIAL HOTEL, KAMPALA] Participants MoGLSD, Retrak Uganda, TPO Uganda, Action for Community Development [ACODEV], UWESO, Save the Children, UNICEF, World Vision, Terre des Hommes, RECO-PIN Project, WEI/ Bantwana, REPPSI, UNHCR, Uganda Reproductive Health Bureau [ URHB], Uganda Red Cross Society, HIAS Refugee Trust, Uganda Muslim Supreme Council [ UMSC],VIVA Africa, Afri Child Centre, Childs i Foundation, JLOS Secretariat, OPM – Refugees, National Council for Children, SCORE, ANPPCAN, Child Fund Uganda, USAID-SUNRISE OVC, National Association of Social Workers of Uganda [NASWU], Development Links Consult. List with details of individual representatives by institution and their contacts is available at N-CPWG coordination office. Meeting Agenda 1. Communication and policy updates by MoGLSD 2. Response to MoGLSD communication and updates 3. Progress briefs from CPWG standing committees 4. Child Protection trends from STAR E LQAS Reports 5. Wrap up / Meeting Resolutions 6. Announcement – SAFe Campaign Discussion Notes NOTES 1] Communication and policy updates by MoGLSD • MoGLSD pleased with momentum gained by CPWG in discussing emerging issues in child care and protection. • National CP systems mapping report ready and dissemination on going. Process for developing the national Child protection strategy on going. National level sector consultations complete; regional consultations
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
All to note
1|Page
NOTES • • • • •
• • • • • •
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
underway. Violence Against Children study to be undertaken by Uganda Bureau of Statistics has been postponed from September 2014 to January 2015 because of shift in dates for National census to August 2014. CREATE Curriculum- a regional child rights curriculum for health professionals in East Africa was developed. We need resources to contextualise it in Uganda. Uganda UNCRC Report is ready for onward submission through Ministry of Foreign Affairs Alternative Care framework and its costed budget for implementation ready for review by MoGLSD top management. 2nd bill on the Children’s Act amendment is out. MoGLSD held recent consultation with Justice, Law and Order Sector and reached a consensus of sending bill in its present state to cabinet for clearance. Development partners encouraged to continue lobbying for passing of the bill. Practice Audit on adoption practices study. MoGLSD has commissioned a study on legal guardianship and adoption practices in Uganda. Rules and regulations on babies and children’s homes. Approved guidelines have been printed –copies can be accessed through CPWG Coordination office. National Child Helpline is now functional as a government service. MoGLSD is delivering the service in partnership with Uganda Child Rights NGO Network (UCRNN). National Psycho-social support manual currently under review with support from REPSSI and TPO Uganda National ECD Policy framework was approved by MoGLSD technical leadership. Plans are underway to get a Policy certificate from Ministry of Finance; then submit it to cabinet for endorsement. Review of National OVC implementation - National OVC Implementation unit is planning OVC Policy / NSPPI II with support from Unicef
2. Response to MoGLSD communication and Policy updates An inquiry on availability of a roll out budget & plan for CREATE Curriculum on child rights for health professionals was made. MoGLSD clarified that roll out plan was not yet available but could be developed.
MoGLSD to develop roll out plan and budget for CREATE curriculum 2|Page
NOTES
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
3. Progress briefs from CPWG standing committees Progress briefs were made by each of the 5 CPWG standing committees [See Annex]. The following general comments were made on Commitee progress briefs. • It is evident that standing committees have provided space for more members to actively participate in CPWG activities • Committees can identify issues that CPWG should share with the social protection committee for onward submission to National Planning Authority. • Committees need not be so ambitious but rather focus on a few issues and pursue them to conclusion i.e. CPWG Coordinator to follow up prioritize activities and allocate them weight and time based on importance. with committees on comments • NCPWG should consider putting in place a clear framework into which each committee contributes and and recommended actions. which links its activities to the broader social protection sector objectives so that its contribution to the sector is clearly tracked. • There should be inter-committee coordination for complimentality and avoid duplication • The standing committee on capacity building should in addition to Child protection curriculum recognized by MoGLSD also take care of child care and protection courses approved by Ministry of Education and Sports and the National Council for Higher Education. In addition whereas accredited training materials are used by institutions, individuals should be encouraged to use them for personal skills development. • Observation: There was no committee to take care of advocacy issues (how do issues agreed on in CPWG reach higher policy levels?) • There was concern that NCPWG Capacity building committee focus was on capacity building within NCPWG but not districts. Clarification made that focus at National level because its mandate lies with National level child protection stakeholders. 4. Child Protection trends from STAR E LQAS Reports A presentation on Child Protection Trends from LQAS reports was made by a representative from USAID/ MSH STAR-E Project, followed by two discussants from within the National CPWG; and finally a plenary discussion. The presentation covered an introduction to the LQAS project in Uganda; LQAS Methodology; relevance of LQAS 3|Page
NOTES methodology to child protection services; selected LQAS Results; OVC facility assessment; and implications. In summary LQAS is a quantitative analysis that involves capacity building of districts to assess the situation and take action. In Uganda LQAS started in 2009 and has documented lessons especially on working with Districts. In this regard, LQAS facilitates usage of data to plan for OVC services. In 2013 LQAS contributed to National HIV planning for OVC and experience with LQAS in Uganda shows that all the 34 districts that have done LQAS assessments prioritize OVC and child protection services. OVC indicators assessed in LQAS whose 2013 findings were shared include: • % of OVC 5-17 years who are currently in school (results average of 75%) • % of OVC 5-17 years who have their basic material needs met ( Out of the national target of 70% results are far below as 27% for northern Uganda) • % of OVC 5-17 years living in a household that receive external support in the past 12 months • % of OVC 5-17 years experiencing cases of abuse (the average in northern Uganda is as high as 36%) • % of individuals who know where to report cases of child abuse (results show high knowledge levels as high as 90%) • % of households that are food secure (results show low food security with some districts below 30%) • % of OVC 5-17 years who have consumed the 3 major food groups the night before the survey or last evening More information on LQAS can be obtained at http://www.starelqas.ug
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
All to note
Discussants raised the following points / issues some of which were clarified by STAR E representatives. a) LQAS gives a quick zoom in i.e. an indication of districts doing better or badly but does not give the detail of causes and effects of the identified gaps. STAR E Response: Quantitative information from LQAS is a quick pointer to a problem where actors should respond by exploring further what the issue is. LQAS operations research also uses the initial pointer information to identify research focus. b) LQAS surveys in Uganda targets age group 5 years and above meaning that the Early Child hood Care and Development component is not assessed. 4|Page
NOTES STARE-E Response: Uganda Bureau of Statistics has defined age brackets for Household Assessments which were adopted by the project. LQAS is a community survey on OVCs in a household. Project limitation was could not interview children below 12 years. For children below 12 years, parents were interviewed instead. c) In assessing indicator on basic materials met, it is important to reflect on whether this is having an impact on other forms of vulnerabilities and abuse e.g. child commercial sex exploitation, child labour etc. Can the indicators covered by LQAS be correlated with other indicators to give in depth information on child protection e.g. the link between food security and child abuse? STAR-E Response: STAR E will attempt doing the co relation and share results with the CPWG. STAR E open to further interactions with the NCPWG. d) The LQAS assessment on parents talking to their children about HIV/AIDS targeted 6-12 years. The how of message transmission unknown and age group 12-13 though clearly in need of HIV AIDS information was not targeted. e) There is need to look beyond the research i.e. use of results to inform interventions and policy. How are emerging issues along LQAS assessments captured by the project? How do we transform data into policy interventions? STARE E Response: The LQAS consolidated report is at national level and specific reports are generated at district level including summary sharts of the supervision areas.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
All to note
The following key issues emerged from the plenary discussion of the LQAS presentation guided by a moderator (Mr. Deo Yiga of Development Links Consult) in reference to three questions – How can child protection actors use LAQS results in child protection work? How can actors in CPWG use the LQAS methodology? Does this adequately answer Child protection needs on performance measurement and accountability? If not, what can we do? i. LQAS survey indicators focus on OVC – What is the OVC interpretation by STAR E Project (cohort of OVCs in a place or generally all children)? What are the operation definitions of child abuse- explanatory notes on this missing. ii. Northern Uganda has a rise in child abuse while other regions are registering a decline – why? iii. LQAS data is relevant for child protection for specific category of OVCs by age bracket. CPWG institutions 5|Page
NOTES iv. v. vi. vii. viii.
ix. x.
can use this data in districts where they are working especially districts that participated in LQAS. LQAS methodology has a limitation of YES/NO approach and does not respond to qualitative aspects. Reports from LQAS assessments have hardly been utilised by child protection stakeholders What complimentary information can child protection actors get and blend with to ensure LQAS results are utilized at lower level STAR E should consider sharing its experiences on research methodologies and how they can be improved with CPWG at a future date There is need for further reflection on information packaging and sharing to targeted audiences CPWG needs to agree on core child protection indicators and proxy child protection indicators to make synthesis of child protection reports and data easy. STAR E comment: If CPWG can identify more indicators that can be accessed by LQAS, the project is willing to assess such indicators too. There is need to address capacities of child protection stakeholders especially policy makers on interpretation of statistics LQAS as a methodology has had the following emerging issues –institutionalization (continuity since it is a 5 year project); changes in indicators; changes in policy; and non-utilization of available LQAS data base.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
All to note
As part of the way forward, CPWG participants agreed to the following as what needs to be done to address Child protection Quality standards and programming. • CPWG to document what is working so efforts are focused on key issues to move forward child protection work’ • Future LQAS should test knowledge and practice e.g. currently LAQS tests community knowledge of where to report child abuse but in practice is child abuse being reported? • There should be a comparison of LQAS and other operational researches to strengthen aunthecity of results. Also LQAS could be done in a control area ( non-intervention area and compare results) • Afri child centre and NCPWG could explore LQAS findings further to generate in depth information on child protection 6|Page
NOTES •
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
CPWG needs to engage with other sectors that impact children (health, education, police) especially dissemination, if children issues can be addressed in a multi-sectoral way. CPWG committee on quality standards should get LQAS overall report and pull out key child protection issues including tools used.
5. Wrap up / Meeting Resolutions a] CPWG Committees – TORS & Action Plan refining b] Include New Indicators c] LQAS CDs available at STAR E d] Build on LQAS Data with qualitative information
CPWG Coordinator to pick LQAS CDs from STAR E office CPWG Quality standards committee to work with CPWG Coordinator on meeting Resolutions
6. Announcement – SAFe Campaign An announcement on SAFe Campaign, a new advocacy initiative that stands for Strengthening African Families for care and protection of children was made by Isobel booth of VIVA Africa. SAFe Campaign is a multi –agency advocacy for strengthening African families as the best place to nurture children. The campaign is to target among others US based donors and churches that support orphanages and the kick start event was due in May 2014 with an Orphan campaign in the US. SAFe Wrist bands and Fliers were distributed to CPWG members who were encouraged to join the campaign through materials distribution. SAFe campaign key messages are: - strengthen family care for children - International Adoption not best for children - Strengthen families and communities - Work together to strengthen local welfare system 7. Other Issues Discussed a] CPWG Coordinator reported that she had inquired from Social protection secretariat how social development 7|Page
NOTES
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
practitioners under NCPWG can participate in on going Social protection policy development process and how CPWG concerns on child protection can reach the social protection committee, to which she received the following responses • Child Protection concerns should be forwarded through Director Social protection who also doubles as social protection committee chairperson; • CPWG consultation on social protection policy development can only be determined after CPWG makes a presentation to the Social Protection Secretariat about its work. Meanwhile Copy of draft Social protection Share out draft social protection policy was shared with NCPWG Coordinator. policy with rest of CPWG b] SUNRISE OVC Project had been previously consulted by World Bank Team on the Social Protection policy but CPWG to get detailed did not get feedback from the consultation. information on social protection policy review process and how other actors can participate in the policy formulation. c] National OVC Management Information System though in existence needs NCPWG support on functionalization. The National OVC Implementation unit holds quarterly meetings with academia and therefore CPWG Research and Learning Committee identified as a possible some of the concerns raised in CPWG can be shared with this category of stakeholders. support structure on OVC MIS. d] Previous NCPWG meetings attempted to define mandates of PLG, Afri child centre and NCPWG to avoid overlaps – what is the status today? Clarification was made to the fact that NCPWG is the overall coordination mechanism for any national level actors TORs for CPWG, PLG and Afri involved in work related to child protection. As such the PLG that focuses on research and learning feeds into the child should be revisited to CPWG agenda through the Research and Learning Committee. Afri child focus is on Policy, Research and Capacity eliminate overlaps. Building but what remains to be done is see how the different agendas are clearly stated in respective TORs and existing expertise shared. 8|Page
NOTES
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
e] NCPWG needs a simple communication strategy to guide its communication within and without including definition of audience. f] Clarity was sought about the development of National Referral forms – are they still being developed by MoGLSD OVC NIU to liaise MoGLSD? Is there an Inventory of Child Protection Actors? with CPWG coordination office for action on referral and inventory through relevant committee.
ANNEX: PROGRESS BRIEFS BY CPWG STANDING COMMITEES – 30th April 2014 9|Page
Commitee
Research and Learning
Commitee Purpose
Committee purpose is to promote wellcoordinated research and learning in child protection as well as maintenance of an appropriate child protection information and data management system.
Membership & Leadership
Projected outputs 2014
Resourcing, Quality standards & Accountability Committee exists to Committee exists to coordinate promote progressive establishment of an increase in the standard appropriate and quality of resources information system on committed to child existing capacities and protection by stakeholders gaps in delivery of effective child protection services, as well as advocate for expansion of child protection capacity building across professions.
Child Protection in Emergency (CPiE)
Laws, policies and Procedures
Committee objective is to support MoGLSD in coordinating and monitoring humanitarian response to children at risk and or affected by emergencies/disasters.
Committee exists to support efforts towards the enactment, review and monitoring implementation of appropriate child protection laws and policies procedures.
The committee has 12 signed up institutions. Committee leadership for 2014 is provided by Platform for Lapur Action (Lead agency); Child Fund (co lead Agency)
The committee has 16 signed up institutions. Committee leadership for 2014 is by REPSSI (Lead agency); TPO Uganda (co lead Agency).
The committee has 8 signed up institutions. Committee leadership for 2014 is by Save the Children (Lead agency); Alternative Care Initiatives (co lead Agency).
The committee has 11 signed up institutions. Committee leadership for 2014 is yet to be put in place
Current committee leadership – ANPPCAN (Lead Agency), Save the Children (Co lead agency).The committee has 12 institutions signed up.
Working relationship established between the CPWG and national level institutions involved in research regulation and undertaking.
Capacity gaps among CPWG institutions in delivery of child protection services established
CPWG institutions knowledgeable about existing sector specific standards on child protection.
Comprehensive list of district level past actors in responding to children affected by emergencies in conflict and disaster prone districts
The concept of
More coordinated response by institutions in CPWG to
Up to date with progress being made on national laws and policies related to child protection notably the Children’s Act amendment bill; feedback on government report on UN CRC to Geneva; Probation Act
National level gaps in
Capacity Building
Existing child protection materials
10 | P a g e
Commitee
Research and Learning
Capacity Building
existing child protection research identified and priority areas for further research in child protection defined.
approved of MoGLSD described in scope and disseminated at sub national level.
At least one think tank meeting or a policy dialogue on emerging child protection concerns from research or practice held CPWG electronic Newsletter compiled and shared across sectors and levels
Achievements to date
Committee TORS adopted; Committee
Resourcing, Quality standards & Accountability accountability in child protection initiated in CPWG at both individual institutional level as well as corporate CPWG
Centralized information on graduates of National Child protection curriculum generated including their current placements in child protection service provision
Child Protection in Emergency (CPiE) children affected emergencies
by review and Birth Registration Act Review; and make input to cater for child protection Up to date reports on interests where possible. situation of children in refugee settlements Engaged in advocacy with maintained MoGLSD for prioritization of child protection issues and the National Planning Authority for inclusion of child protection in the national Development Plan II currently under draft. Advocated for a policy in practice evaluation of current National OVC policy and further research on current modalities used in provision of child protection services
Advocacy on training in national child protection curriculum as a prerequisite for appointment of Probation officers.
Committee TORS adopted; Committee
Laws, policies and Procedures
Committee TORS adopted; Committee
Committee TORS adopted; and Committee 2014 Action
Developed a guide to implementing laws & policies related to child protection for reference by field based providers of child protection services. Committee TORS adopted; Committee leadership in
11 | P a g e
Commitee
Support required of broader CPWG
Activities for next 2 months
Research and Learning
Capacity Building
Resourcing, Quality standards & Accountability leadership in place; Committee 2014 Action Plan
leadership in place; Committee 2014 Action Plan.
leadership in place; Committee 2014 Action Plan.
Providing information on known national research reports on child protection
Providing information Cooperation in utilizing on own institutional national standards shared capacities as shall be and accounting for own work on child protection requested
Participation in policy dialogues and other meetings organized by committee to define research agenda and or build consensus on priorities for further child protection research.
Voluntarily sharing information and resource materials on child protection training with the committee through CPWG coordination office
Collecting information on existing national level research reports on child protection and generating preliminary list of research gaps in child protection
Collecting information on CPWG institutions i.e. capacity self – assessment; and graduates of Child protection trainings approved by MoGLSD.
Child Protection in Emergency (CPiE)
Laws, policies and Procedures
Plan developed.
place; Committee 2014 Action Plan.
Sharing information on identified eminent disaster or emergency with the committee through CPWG Coordination office; or children affected by emergency that are without appropriate care and protection.
Sharing with committee any new developments related to child protection laws and policies
Support in mobilizing resources/ materials to support children affected by emergencies as identified by CPiE Committee Tracking progress of different CPWG standing committees Action plans Soliciting sector standards on child protection Coordinate initial process for the planned CPWG external evaluation on work methods and
Review latest assessment reports on refugee children undertaken by individual institutions in CPWG and build consensus on status Compile list of past actors in protecting children in emergency at district level Develop a capacity
Supporting committee on earmarked areas of advocacy including documenting some of the policy issues in CPWG e- newsletter Participate in development and roll out of practical guide on implementing child protection laws and policies as shall be requested. Keep track of new developments on laws and policies Start the process of drafting the practical implementation guide on child protection laws and policies Documentation of child protection issues into an
12 | P a g e
Commitee
Research and Learning
Capacity Building
Resourcing, Quality standards & Accountability strategy
Child Protection in Emergency (CPiE)
Laws, policies and Procedures
assessment tool for actors that respond to protect children in emergencies at district level
advocacy information pack Initiate dialogue with MoGLSD leadership and national Planning Authority in prioritization of child protection issues
13 | P a g e