Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
CRC Dainius Puras - Challenges of monitoring and implementation
CRC Dainius Puras - Challenges of monitoring and implementation
CRC Dainius Puras - Challenges of monitoring and implementation
CRC Dainius Puras - Challenges of monitoring and implementation
CRC Dainius Puras - Challenges of monitoring and implementation
CRC Dainius Puras - Challenges of monitoring and implementation
CRC Dainius Puras - Challenges of monitoring and implementation
CRC Dainius Puras - Challenges of monitoring and implementation
CRC Dainius Puras - Challenges of monitoring and implementation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

CRC Dainius Puras - Challenges of monitoring and implementation

395

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
395
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Rights of Children in EU – challenges of monitoring and implementation: view from UN CRC and Lithuania Dainius Puras UN Committee on the Rights of the Child Vilnius university EU FRA Stakeholders Meeting , Vienna , 2 3 02 201 1
  • 2. Experience from UN CRC and process of transition in the region of C EE
    • Enthusiastic reform movement in the 1990’s towards modern alternatives to institutional care and punitive approaches : focus on civil rights and freedoms, pilot community based services supported by international foundations, concept of institutional care c hallenged as outdated. Ratification of CRC and ambitious goal to join EU
    • Stagnation during the next decade (2000-2010): improving conditions in institutional care as a priority. Opportunistic approach and survivalistic attitudes prevail over vision of empowering children as right holders and principles of autonomy/participation and civil rights/freedoms. After EU accession and during economic crisis institutional care and punitive approaches strengthen their positions while development of modern child/youth friendly and f amily support services is under threat
  • 3. UN CRC: experience from monitoring process
    • Institutional care overused throughout all Europe (Browne K., 2006), still much more pronounced this phenomenon is in CEE countries , including newer EU Member States
    • Children from 0 to 3 in institutional care. Disabilities and perceived disabilities. Institutional care, starting from “infant homes” , sadly contributes to growth of numbers of children and adults with disabilities and in institutional care
    • Weak alternatives to institutional care, especially in new er Member states. Weak concept of investing in more competent parenting, instead – tradition of moralizing “bad parents” and “protection” of children in institutional care
    • EU membership factor – more visible before accession, not so effective after accession. Alarming information about EU structural funds supporting institutional care .
    • Incentives for prioritizing institutional care: lack of holistic approach to RoC
    • Vicious cycles of stigma, social exclusion, intolerance and reliance on institutional care reinforcing each other : urgent need to recognize the systemic failure and to seriously address it . How can data collection and monitoring activities contribute? Who, how and what should measure and monitor?
  • 4. Challenges of ( de ) institutionalisation
    • Economic / social rights vs. civil rights and freedoms – hidden hierarchy of rights as justification of institutional care and other regressive tendencies
    • Right to life and survival or right to life, survival and development? (CRC art.6) . Shortcomings of the UN MDG concept
    • Rights of persons in institutions vs. right to live in family and community ( least restricted ) environment
    • Legislation and everyday practice: when exceptions (violating human rights) turn into unwritten rules
    • Risky compromises throughout Europe: Concepts of “good” institution and “balanced” spectrum of services including institutional care. Justification of institutional care as “real-politik”
    • Lack of culture of evaluation of outcomes and inde pendent monitoring.
    • To address all these challenges, EU membership and EU enlargement needs to be effectively used as a unique opportunity for change of paradigm in culture of human services in all Member states
    • Trends in capacities of duty-bearers (to respect, protect and fulfill rights) and capacities of rights holders to claim their rights) need to be monitored. This could be a guiding principle in prioritizing data collection
  • 5. Violence against/among children – a need of indicators monitoring
    • CRC General comment N.13
    • Tendencies of retrogressive policies with regard to challenging behavior of adolescents
    • Misuse of “zero tolerance” policies
    • Selective focus on high-profile cases vs. evidence-based analysis of societal/contextual trends
    • Ban of corporal punishment of children – important indicator. Evaluation of prevention activities (e.g., parent training programs)
  • 6. A need for balancing to secure holistic approach and avoid fragmentation
    • Protection – participation – provision
    • Economic/social/cultural – civil/political rights
    • Right to life/survival – right to development
    • Quantitative – qualitative analysis
    • Process - outcomes
    • Risk factors – protective factors (resilience)
    • Legal measures (criminalization of offenses)– preventive measures (e.g., parent training)
    • Evidence – values
    • Quantity – quality – direction of measures
  • 7. Safeguards to prevent pitfalls in the process of monitoring
    • EU child rights agenda plus monitoring of implementation of UN CRC – unique opportunity of effective combination, to prevent fragmented approach. E.g., early childhood indicators (CRC)
    • Meaning of data collection and monitoring: who needs it? The need of self-reflection and self-critical analysis – how to motivate governments?
    • Openness and transparency of the process is crucial for supporting the culture of evaluation as a basic condition for healthy policies
    • Large number of just quantitative data may hide the systemic challenges. Qualitative approach needs to be added, to monitor contextual trends, involvement of children, attitudes, de-facto discrimination, etc.
    • Synergies: EC – FRA - CRC, CRPD, CoE, NGOs,,etc.
    • Public health approach can be helpful
  • 8. Most important finding (CAMHEE and other projects /studies ) - identification of existing gaps and vicious circles
    • Lack of evidence based national policies
    • Weak culture of evaluation of outcomes
    • Lack of involvement of service users in decision making – participation and empowerment principles challenged
    • Lack of trust between main actors (government, civil society, professional groups). Lack of self-critical analysis by governmental sector – hence defensive ness and self-feeding systems of care
    • Weak intersectorial coordination. Lack of managerial skills in all levels (policy, services, individual cases)
    • COMBINATION OF THESE GAPS MAY LEAD TO INEFFECTIVE ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND SYSTEMIC FAILURES
  • 9. A need to break vicious circles – opportunities and challenges. What is the role of monitoring and indicators?
    • Think globally, act locally – how can this principle be applied to holistic realization of child rights in the context of EU enlargement?
    • How to translate messages from modern research into everyday practice of policy makers and service providers?
    • How to make arguments based on evidence and human rights approach prevail over arguments based on lobby of interest groups and “historical” principle of resource allocations?
    • How can be issues of pr otection of rights of children raised higher in political agenda?
    • How to form a strong coalition of stakeholders on the side of progressive realization of the CRC? How to motivate stakeholders?
    • Independent monitoring of implementation of child rights , with meaningful data collection, is a crucial issue. Importance of good governance and strong civil society
    • It is of vital importance for the future of EU that , EU countries break vicious circles of stigma, helplessness and social exclusion and develop effective child friendly services , with dignity and respect as key concepts

×