Chapter 7. The Community-Led Action
The community-led action process is in many respects an organic extension of the community planning process. As communities discuss and prioritize which harm(s) to children to address, the level of community concern about particular harms to children may increase, thereby boosting the motivation of community members to take action to address those harms. Similarly, discussions of how to address particular harm(s) may increase community members’ desire to move into action now.
Naturally, some of the people who were most animated by and engaged with the community planning process may come forward to help lead the community action to address the selected harm(s) to children. The community-led action may also overlap with community planning—since as the community acts, it learns from its initial steps. As it reflects on its progress and challenges, it may plan for and make adjustments.
In these respects, there are not two entirely separate phases of community-led planning followed by community-led action, but continuous, partially overlapping cycles of community-led planning and action. For the purposes of focus, however, it is useful to examine community-led action as if it were a separate phase.
The purpose of this chapter is to explore community action processes that enable communities to their self-selected harm(s) to children. Its objectives are to:
- outline the processes through which communities take steps to address the selected harm(s) to children and manage their action;
- explore how communities can monitor and evaluate their actions to address the harm(s) to children; and
- examine how to increase the community ownership and sustainability of the community-led action to address the harm(s) to children.
|
Key Question for Practitioners How can we help communities to own, manage, and run their own, community-led, sustainable actions on behalf of vulnerable children? |
The community-led action process is in many respects an organic extension of the community planning process. As communities discuss and prioritize which harm(s) to children to address, the level of community concern about particular harms to children may increase, thereby boosting the motivation of community members to take action to address those harms. Similarly, discussions of how to address particular harm(s) may increase community members’ desire to move into action now.
Naturally, some of the people who were most animated by and engaged with the community planning process may come forward to help lead the community action to address the selected harm(s) to children. The community-led action may also overlap with community planning—since as the community acts, it learns from its initial steps. As it reflects on its progress and challenges, it may plan for and make adjustments.
In these respects, there are not two entirely separate phases of community-led planning followed by community-led action, but continuous, partially overlapping cycles of community-led planning and action. For the purposes of focus, however, it is useful to examine community-led action as if it were a separate phase.
The purpose of this chapter is to explore community action processes that enable communities to their self-selected harm(s) to children. Its objectives are to:
- outline the processes through which communities take steps to address the selected harm(s) to children and manage their action;
- explore how communities can monitor and evaluate their actions to address the harm(s) to children; and
- examine how to increase the community ownership and sustainability of the community-led action to address the harm(s) to children.
|
Key Question for Practitioners How can we help communities to own, manage, and run their own, community-led, sustainable actions on behalf of vulnerable children? |
Like all aspects of community-led work, the community-led action is highly contextual, and is created, managed, and led by the community.
In some cases, community-led action can spring up without the extensive planning and steps to develop an inclusive process that were discussed in previous chapters. In some settings, the action process may begin with a small group of people who have identified a harm to children and have decided to take action to address it.
Most communities have a history of collectively planning activities around issues such as poverty, farming, and education and then taking action in accordance with their plans. As they work, they periodically take stock of how they are doing and make needed adjustments. Although they may not refer to these activities as “monitoring and evaluation” (or M&E), the process is important.
The international humanitarian community has prioritized sustainability in its global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The links between these SDGs and child protection are most visible in SDG 16, which targets the ending of abuse, exploitation, trafficking and all forms of violence against and torture of children. Another target of SDG 16 is ensuring responsive, inclusive, participatory, and representative decision-making at all levels.
Like all aspects of community-led work, the community-led action is highly contextual, and is created, managed, and led by the community.
In some cases, community-led action can spring up without the extensive planning and steps to develop an inclusive process that were discussed in previous chapters. In some settings, the action process may begin with a small group of people who have identified a harm to children and have decided to take action to address it.
Most communities have a history of collectively planning activities around issues such as poverty, farming, and education and then taking action in accordance with their plans. As they work, they periodically take stock of how they are doing and make needed adjustments. Although they may not refer to these activities as “monitoring and evaluation” (or M&E), the process is important.
The international humanitarian community has prioritized sustainability in its global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The links between these SDGs and child protection are most visible in SDG 16, which targets the ending of abuse, exploitation, trafficking and all forms of violence against and torture of children. Another target of SDG 16 is ensuring responsive, inclusive, participatory, and representative decision-making at all levels.
This Guide and its companion Toolkit were developed by the Child Resilience Alliance (CRA, formerly the Columbia Group for Children in Adversity), for the Interagency Learning Initiative on Community-Based Child Protection Mechanisms and Child Protection Systems. The CRA, which is a member of the Initiative and its technical arm, organized the community-led work in Sierra Leone and Kenya. The CRA expresses keen appreciation to Save the Children, particularly Sarah Lilley, Judy Roberts, and Bill Bell, for coordinating the Initiative.
The community-led approach developed in this Guide and Toolkit owe a significant debt to the inspiring work of David Lamin, who led and mentored the work in Sierra Leone. Thanks also go to Marie Manyeh (Mentor), Dora King (Lead National Researcher for the Ethnographic Phase), Samba Charlie and Ernest Brimah (Facilitators), and also to the wider team who did the action research and learning. This talented national team were supported by three international researchers—Drs. Lindsay Stark, Kathleen Kostelny, and Mike Wessells. Also in Sierra Leone, we give special thanks to UNICEF, Save the Children, Plan International, World Vision, the national Child Protection Committee, and the Ministry of Social Welfare, Gender and Children’s Affairs. The work in Sierra Leone was made possible by the generous support of the Oak Foundation, UNICEF, the ESRC-DFID Joint Fund for Poverty Alleviation Research, Plan International, Save the Children, World Vision, and an anonymous donor.
The approach presented here also reflects the learning from the Initiative’s work in Kenya, led by Dr. Kathleen Kostelny of the Columbia Group, Ken Ondoro (National Researcher), and Jotham Mchambo (Facilitator). We thank World Vision—the lead operational partner in Kenya—Save the Children Sweden, and the Department of Children’s Services for their kind support and spirit of co-learning. This work in Kenya was made possible by the generous support of the Oak Foundation, USAID/PEPFAR, UNICEF, and an anonymous donor.
Apart from the research in Kenya and Sierra Leone, parallel streams of work have informed this Guide and Toolkit. Particularly useful have been the insights from the interagency action research conducted in India with the support of the Oak Foundation. Thanks also go to Lucy Hillier, who coordinates the Child Protection Exchange and helped to organize valuable workshops in Uganda and Tanzania.. The illustrations in this Guide and Toolkit were created by Alastair Findlay, under Lucy’s direction. Special thanks go especially to Mark Canavera, Kathleen Kostelny, Patrick Onyango, and John Williamson. Thanks go also to Ben Cislaghi, Rinske Ellermeijer, Martin Hayes, Sarah Lilley, Hani Mansourian, Terry Saw, Alexandra Shaphren, and Richard Wamimbi, for their systematic, helpful reviews of the entire Guide.
Finally, our deep thanks go to the diverse communities who have taught us about community-led processes, exhibited tremendous resilience and creativity in challenging circumstances, and shown us the way toward a more grounded, sustainable approach to child protection.
Mike Wessells for the CRA
| Prev |