EVALUATING THE IMPACT OF INDEPENDENT EVALUATING THE IMPACT OF INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S RIGHTS INSTITUTIONS (ICRIs) (ICRIs) PROFESSOR NIGEL THOMAS SARA IMANIAN
RESEARCH GROUP ON OMBUDSPERSONS FOR CHILDREN M Members: b Brian Gran (Case Western Reserve University) Karl Hanson (Institut Universitaire Kurt Bösch) Nigel Thomas (University of Central Lancashire) g ( y ) Areas of inquiry q y (based on interviews with ENOC members in 2010) Comparison of different models Comparison of different models Effectiveness and impact E id Evidence base for policy b f li
European ICRIs’ Experiences of Evaluation • Many ICRIs have not undergone any evaluation; shortages of time and budget • It is difficult for them to isolate their impact from larger networks • Measuring the impact of ICRIs is a challenge and the • Measuring the impact of ICRIs is a challenge and the UN admits it • ICRIs need evaluations to set up their strategic plans and monitoring indicators and monitoring indicators
• Focus of the evaluation was on: • Focus of the evaluation was on: 1- Impact on legislation and policy p g p y 2- Children’s Participation • The research was drawn on appreciative inquiry which is an asset based method. i i hi h i b d h d • The study has attempted to understand the mechanisms that produce successful outcomes and mechanisms that produce successful outcomes and the contexts in which they work.
The project was comprised of three main stages: ( ) (i) An exchange of ideas with the core team of the institution to develop g p the detailed plan for the case study to make a collaborative evaluation from the start, and to identify key sources and informants; (ii) A data gathering phase in which selected staff of the organisation and some of the ICRIs’ stakeholders (including the youth panel advisors, NGOs and representatives of Government) were interviewed NGOs and representatives of Government) were interviewed, and and relevant documents related to the institution’s work were examined; (iii) Data analysis is still on-going. By far, the findings have been shared with (iii) D l i i ill i B f h fi di h b h d i h the Offices in Finland and Northern Ireland and they have been offered an evaluation model. They have been asked to feedback on their experience of applying it.
The Office and its their stakeholders told us about: • Impact of the institution • Strong points of these instit tions • Strong points of these institutions • Examples of their good practice • Difference they have made to children’s lives
Interviewees in Finland Interviewees in Finland
Impact of the Organisation on Law Policy and Practice Impact of the Organisation on Law, Policy and Practice Children’s needs and experiences are more visible and taken into account •Politicians ask more about statements on children •No evaluation of children’s services without asking children •Finnish people associate the name of the office with child participation p p p p Child protection •Decline in corporal punishment p p •Social work for children whose parents are divorcing Making visible the gaps for child right implementation Making visible the gaps for child right implementation •Need for changes in law and policy is highlighted •Changes in the Child Welfare Act •N •Need for a new Ministry of children and family is emphasised d f Mi i t f hild d f il i ph i d
St Strengths of the Office th f th Offi The Ombudsman herself (her personality and background in politics) Existence of the Organisation and its independence Research based and realistic approach Quick reaction and creditability Committed and skilful staff Networking Some of the Effective Projects of the Office Tour of the Care System Surveys with Sami and Roma Children Child friendly Municipality Survey on Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children Website of the Office
What is needed for a stronger impact? • More staff and resources •More p blic awareness of the office •More public awareness of the office •Maintaining the Independence of the Office •Making the achievements of the Office known •More diversity of YP and engagement of children • Evaluating and Following up the impact of the activities and • E l ti d F ll i p th i p t f th ti iti d statements of the Office
Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People (NICCY) In 2011, the population of children (0–17 years) in Northern Ireland • was 430,800, about 24 per cent of the total population. 430 800 b 24 f h l l i The UK ratified the CRC on 16 December 1991. In 2003, a , • Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People (NICCY) was established in accordance with the provisions of the Commissioner for Children and Young People (NI) Order 2003. The Commissioner’s main aim is to “safeguard and promote the • rights and best interests of children and young persons” Whilst rights and best interests of children and young persons. Whilst the detailed powers are set out in the legislation, these include the powers to advise Government, promote children’s rights, conduct formal investigations, issue guidance on best practice, and to bring, intervene or assist in legal proceedings concerning the rights of children and young people. children and young people.
Target Population Target Population • Finland, 2011: • Approx. 5,400,000 pp • 1,200,000 Children (under 18) • NI , 2011: • Approx. 2,000,000 • 430,000 Children (under 18)
Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young g People (NICCY) 2013-14 Budget (Approximately) • Communication and Participation: £35,000 • Legal and Casework: £35,000 • L l d C k £35 000 • Policy and Research: £40,000 • NICCY’s provisional budget for the next four years is p g y being reduced by 3% each year. The annual budget for 2011-12 was £1,719,000. £ , ,
Contact details Contact details npthomas@uclan.ac.uk npthomas@uclan.ac.uk simanian@uclan.ac.uk wwwuclan ac uk/cypp www.uclan.ac.uk/cypp
Recommend
More recommend
