"Yes, Malala, we're listening" - youth participation

This blog, written by Wikichild co-ordinator Melinda George, is part of the Wikiprogress Series on child well-being. It focuses on three necessary steps to increase youth participation: listening, involvement in decision-making and involvement in the implementation.

Have you ever witnessed a child tugging on his or her parent’s clothes, soliciting a moment of attention? How long does it take for this primary caregiver to acknowledge the child’s presence? And then how much longer until this person, responsible for the child’s well-being, responds “yes, dear, I’m listening”, if ever? 

If our objective is to improve the lives and well-being of children, then we need to acknowledge their presence and take the necessary steps to include them in our efforts.

Listening to the youth is the first step in increasing youth participation.

Hear part of Malala Yousafzai's speech to the General Assembly:

All children have a voice, and we should do more to seek it out. Last week’s youth takeover at the UN General Assembly on “Malala Day” represents more than just a girl’s stand for education. Young people have been advocating for more rights and better treatment for centuries. The difference is that now we hear them. We are listening to what they have to say and are praising their efforts at an international level, at least those who speak loudly enough. We need to expand our audible range to go farther and deeper.

(See the Special Focus on Malala and her fight for education on Wikigender.)

Youth involvement in the policy-making process is the second step.

We have been saying for years that youth involvement is an important factor in generating sustainable progress. Agenda 21, a comprehensive plan of action on sustainable development for the 21st century [i], states that “youth comprise nearly 30 per cent of the world's population. The involvement of today's youth in environment and development decision-making and in the implementation of programmes is critical to the long-term success of Agenda 21”[ii]. It also states that beyond their intellectual contribution and their ability to mobilise support, children and young people bring unique perspectives which need to be taken into account. This report was written over 20 years ago.

This month, Wikichild hosted an online discussion entitled How should child well-being be measured in view of future development frameworks? Several participants mentioned the need to involve young people when deciding how to measure well-being and to include "having a voice" as an indicator. 

The discussion was launched at the HBSC 30th Anniversary Event, which discussed and executed youth participation. First, the Scottish Commissioner for Children and Young People presented the “7 Golden Rules for Participation” (see slides below).

(7 Golden Rules for Participation from Wikiprogress_slides)

Also at the event, HBSC welcomed a panel of youth from Canada, Scotland, Wales, Ireland and England, who presented a video on how they have been participatory in the decision-making process 
(see video below).

.

The audience, full of child well-being experts, had countless questions about how young people could be better supported by schools, parents, relevant agencies and the community during this transitional adolescent period. The exchange was enriching, with the main message of support us, trust us and ask us.

Here's a quote from the Wikichild online discussion: 

“We need to ask young people in a more systematic and constructive way. They need to be involved in the development and the implementation of well-being measures.” 

- HBSC Event Participant

The third step is to involve youth in the implementation process.

Empowering youth so that they may be involved in the implementation procedure is the final stage of youth participation. A report by the Youth Visioning for Island Living (YVIL) states that young people, while dynamic and innovative, “often lack the concrete skills and tools necessary to implement their ideas[iii].”  We should find out what skills and tools the youth are lacking and then do what we can to make them readily available. Reaching this level of involvement requires time, training and investment, but it’s worth it.

These three steps should loop around, as we listen to feedback from young people in order to continuously improve the means by which youth can participate in the decision-making and implementation of  programs.

But first thing’s first ... Go ahead, youth, we’re listening. 

Melinda Deleuze
Wikichild co-ordinator

---

 [i] Agenda 21 was drawn up after the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992

[ii] Chapter 25 of Section III of Agenda 21, entitled “Children & Youth in Sustainable Development”

[iii] Supporting Youth in the Implementation of Sustainable Development Activities (following the review of the SIDS programme of action, Mauritius 2005), initiative of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

Where is the Demand for Beyond GDP Indicators?

This blog by Saamah Abdallah, nef (the new economics foundation) profiles the recent report by BRAINPOoL*, Characterizing Demand for ‘Beyond GDP’. This article is part of the Wikiprogress series on Statistics and Data.

Where is the demand for Beyond GDP indicators? 

Which actors are interested in using such indicators and how do they want to use them? 

How might a societal demand for these indicators be understood? And, when there is a lack of demand, what factors explain it? 

These are the questions that are posed and answered in a recent report by BRAINPOoL, the EU funded project on bringing alternative indicators into policy. The presentation below provides a summary of the report.  Whilst there are some greenshoots emerging, it does highlight the many challenges faced by promoters of alternative indicators in terms of getting them to be use in the policy process.

Where is the demand for ‘Beyond GDP’ indicators? from Wikiprogress_slides

Saamah Abdallah

*BRAINPOol (Bringing Alternative Indicators into Policy) is a consortium of European partners with the aim of influencing policy makers to consider indicators for well-being and progress alternative to GDP. It was formed in 2010 following a push for further engagement in a beyond GDP society, and is funded by the European Commission’s 7th Framework Program. 

Read the report - Characterizing Demand for ‘Beyond GDP’

The U.S. versus the rich world in child well-being

This blog, written by Wikichild coordinator Melinda George, is a comparison between the recently published 2013 KIDS COUNT Data Book on America's child well-being with UNICEF's 11th Report card on rich countries' child well-being. This blog is a part of the Wikiprogress Series on its well-being and progress networks.

Since last week’s launch of the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s 2013 KIDS COUNT Data Book, discussions about America’s child well-being, particularly concerning each states’ rankings, have been a hot topic. (For those of you who missed the highlights, read more here.) The Data Book examine trends of 16 indicators pertaining to 4 dimensions (economic well-being; education; health; and family and community). 

In April 2013, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) Innocenti office of research launched its 11^th Report Card on child well-being in rich countries. This report ranks the world’s 29 advanced economies in terms of their overall well-being, using 26 internationally comparable indicators separated into 5 dimensions (material; education; health and safety; behaviors and risks; housing and environment).

According to this UNICEF study, the U.S. was ranked 26^th out of 29 in overall child well-being and was on the lower end for most dimensions and indicators. The Data Book recognises that when the data was disaggregated, the results were strikingly different, particularly the education data for the lowest-income students.

So, how do America’s states and races compare to 

the well-being of children in other advanced economies?

Between these two studies, there are 3 shared indicators (low-birthweight babies; child and youth mortality; teen births) and a 4^th indicator where the observed age range differs by one year (teens not in education, employment or training; i.e. NEET rate). 

I've aligned the state and race data* with the rich countries implementing UNICEF's 3 color system**, showing the first, second and third tiers. I also added a 4th color (the darkest) to indicate the states which are off the country charts. 

Low-birthweight babies

(% born below 2.5 kilograms or 5.5 pounds)

Regarding the percentage of babies born below 2.5 kilograms, Alaska is comparable to Norway, Idaho to Belgium, Georgia to Greece, and Mississippi is off the charts. A majority of the states are in the bottom third of the advanced countries. However, Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites are in the middle, closer to Germany, while African Americans (at 13.2%) have a much higher percentage of babies below 2.5 grams than the average in Greece (around 9.5%). 

Child and youth mortality rate

(deaths per 100,000 among 1-19 year-olds)

We see the same trend in child and youth mortality rates as we did in the low birthweight percentages. The majority of states are in the bottom third of advanced countries' rates, with only 5 states in the top two-thirds. However, the Asian and Pacific Islanders in the U.S. have the same rate as Sweden and the Netherlands.

Teen births

(per 1,000 15-19 year olds) 

Since the United States has the second highest number of teen births next to Bulgaria, it is not surprising that 21 out of 50 states are off the charts. There are no states in the top two-thirds of the rich countries; however, the Asian and Pacific Islanders are in the middle third, with the same number of teen births (11 births per 1,000 15-19 year-olds) as Greece and the Czech Republic.

NEET rate

Percentage of 15-19 or 16-19 year olds not in education, employment or training 

The percentage of teens in the United States neither attending school nor working varies a lot between the states. In comparing with the advanced country rankings, most states were in the bottom third, and 13 states were in the middle third. Also, Vermont and Wyoming have rather low percentages (4%) and are comparable to Germany. When the U.S. data is disaggregated by race, it also is more evenly spread, covering all three tiers of the advanced countries. American Indians have the lowest percentage (15%), only slightly lower than Bulgaria's percentage. I must note that the UNICEF study observed teens 15 to 19 years old, while KIDS COUNT observed only 16 to 19 year olds in its study.

It’s unfortunate that there were not more shared indicators among the two studies and most of the shared indicators were related to children's health. While the KIDS COUNT data is most likely very relevant to local policy-making, it cannot be compared internationally.

The Data Book recognises childhood obesity as a growing problem; however, the KIDS COUNT index regrettably does not include an indicator for childhood obesity as there is no 50-state data source available. In the 11^th Report Card, the U.S. is almost off-the-charts for its childhood obesity rate in comparison with other rich countries. Comparable data is crucial in order to highlight the problem areas, share best practices, and tackle America’s childhood obesity. 

When considering America's improvements and declines in child well-being, we should look across states, across races and across other advanced economies to get a better understanding of what success looks like. I hope that policy-makers will do the same when deciding where efforts should be spent.

*The data concerning the U.S. is available online at www.datacenter.kidscount.org. 

**The countries with grey bars have data for fewer than 75% of the total number of indicators used in the UNICEF study.

Melinda Deleuze

The Power of Numbers

This blog by Charlotte Demuijnck, provides an overview of the presentation by Mrs. Sakiko Fukuda-Parr on the Power of Numbers Project at the OECD,  June 2013. This post is part of the Wikiprogress Post-2015 Series.

“Before defining a new development agenda, we should fully understand and assess the MDGs’ intended and unintended impact on international development,” explained Mrs. Sakiko Fukuda-Parr[1]. The professor’s intervention at the OECD Development Co-operation Directorate (DCD) centered on the Power of Numbers Project, which focuses on broad lessons from pre-2015 global goal-setting and its positive, but also perverse, consequences. The project  looks at 11 of the current MDG targets to explore the effects they had on policy and development thinking (the 11 case studies and the full synthesis paper are available online here.

Introducing the conceptual base of her argument, Mrs. Fukuda-Parr shows that “numbers have power”, due to their scientific concreteness,  Indeed, quantified targets impact governance and knowledge; they give incentives for policy makers to focus and move in a specific direction and self-regulate according to numbers and rankings. What’s more is that “quantified goals shape ideas.” They simplify and reduce complex and contextually-specific concepts, such as poverty and gender inequality, to abstract and universally applicable measurements. 

She described her research project as an “empirical study of consequences of MDG targets on policy and idea change.” More specifically, the 11 case studies look at the indicators’ normative effects on discourses, narratives and policy choices, as well as the alternative indicators that could have been used.  Her research findings include the intended and unintended consequences of MDGs and the global quest for quantified results.

The intended effect was to mobilise political support; however, not all goals brought about this result. Unintended consequences concern both policy and knowledge in international development. MDGs had the reductionist effect of “selling human development as a package of basic needs away from the fundamental objectives of transformative social change and empowerment.” 

The confusion around the purpose of these goals (campaign slogans versus global development strategies) is a crucial issue that needs to be addressed in the post-2015 debate, because it implies conceptual differences between the goals. In particular, the “SMART” goals (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant and Time-bound) of the High Level Panel report on the Post-2015 Development Agenda are not sufficient if future goals are aimed at “development programming.” Different criteria should apply to different goals, depending on the objective itself. As such, goals should not only be quantitative and outcomes-driven, but should also be qualitative and tackle institutional arrangements. 

Related to the perceived need for “measurable” targets, other challenges mentioned for future objectives were the bias of defining goals based on data availability. The professor argued that “statistical availability should be driven by policy, and not the other way around.” In this respect, she welcomes both the HLP’s call for a “data revolution” and PARIS21’s efforts to build national statistical capacity. 

Concluding her oral presentation, she stressed the necessity of fairness in measuring the achievements of countries. The future goals need to be global as well as local. The oversimplified “off-track/on-track” distinction between countries prevents the international community to see the strong progress sub-Saharan countries have made towards the realisation of the MDGs. 

All in all, her work closely links to that of the OECD. Since October 2012, the Organisation began openly communicating ways that it could become involved in the post-2015 debate (which can be followed here). Dr. Hildegard Lingnau, the OECD’s representative for post-2015 welcomes a two-level approach and stresses the need to take national poverty lines into account in the Post-2015 framework. The OECD’s contribution to the global debate on the future goals is being published in a series of papers. An Overview paper has already been published and can be read here. 

For more information on the Power of Numbers project, click here. 

---

[1] Mrs. Sakiko Fukuda-Parr is a professor of International Affairs (GPIA) at the New School University, New York. From 1995 to 2004, Mrs Fukuda-Parr  was the author and director of the UNDP Human Development Reports.  Previously, she worked at the World Bank and UNDP on agriculture, aid coordination in Africa and capacity development.

Build strong children to avoid repairing broken men

This blog, written by Wikichild coordinator Melinda George, is an overview of the comments made in the recent Wikichild online discussion on measuring child well-being. This blog is a part of the Wikiprogress Series its well-being and progress networks.

This week, Wikichild concluded an online conversation about the most effective means of measuring child well-being and how these measures should be applied to the Post 2015 agenda. Over 50 participants shared their thoughts on the subject. 

Measuring child well-being has traditionally rested on economic measures such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP); however, it is now widely accepted that the well-being of the nation is influenced by a broad range of factors. 

Below, you will find slides from Professor Fiona Stanley's presentation on child well-being at last year's OECD 4th World Forum on Statistics, Knowledge and Policy.

Nurturing Children by Fiona Stanley from Wikiprogress_slides

According to the participants ...

...WHY should we measure child well-being? 

"It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men." 

Frederick Douglas

"The World Bank, OECD, and most governments all recognise that sustained economic prosperity and security relies on policies that both enhances the health and well-being of future generations and closes the gap in well-being between the rich and poor." 

Dr. Frank Elgar, McGill University

...WHAT should be measured? 

Health          Material security         Safety       

Education        Malnutrition         Interaction with animals

Social and economic rights       Child marriage          Depression       

Relationships           Resilience          Satisfaction    

Aspirations and expectations      Spirituality        

Access to justice      Family income  

...WHO should be measured? 

Vulnerable       Disabled       Indigenous       Very young       Youth       Adolescents 

...HOW should it be measured?

• Use tools such as the Kidscreen and the Early Development Index (EDI)
• Integrate indicators related to child health with indicators collected at birth
• Create a strong international measurement for early childhood development
• Increase data and its availability, particularly regarding very young children
• Decrease the amount of time it takes to publish quality data
• Use both subjective and objective indicators
• Ask young people about their own well-being in a more systematic and constructive way
• Use family-based indicators (i.e. rate of wanted pregnancies, family structure, parental responsibilities, parental engagement)

SNEAK PEAK - here are a few quotes from participants: 

“Subjective well-being measured by reports given by children themselves will provide a clear view of what children think about themselves and their surroundings.” - Theodore Joloza

“Children are frequently the adjustment variable intended to compensate the loose of purchase power after the income loss or price rises. Empirical work in Bangladesh provides evidence regarding the reduced child provision of protein after the rise of the food prices.” - Gaelle Ferrant

"Emotional security is one key aspect of children's well-being. And this aspect is all the more important in a school setting, where peer pressure is predominant and especially given the negative repercussions of emotional insecurity on educational performance." - Estelle

“One category that needs to be prioritized are vulnerable children. Vulnerable children certainly view themselves as less happy than the average child in their societies.” - Ousmane

Read all comments here. 

Eleven Elements for a Post-2015 Agenda

This blog by Charlotte Demuijnck, provides an overview of the OECD’s input on the Post-2015 agenda and framework. This OECD Overview paper on post-2015 is the first in a series that will outline the Organisation’s position on the global debate in the lead up to the UN General Assembly in September 2013. This post is part of the Wikiprogress Post-2015 series.

This Overview paper, Beyond theMillennium Development Goals:Towards an OECD contribution to the post-2015agenda, outlines the OECD’s involvement in the global transition beyond the MDGs. This preliminary proposal is not intended to be an exhaustive and complete list of OECD contributions but rather a reflection that will help the readers gain understanding of the OECD’s starting point in its participation in the global debate. A series of detailed papers will follow shortly.

In this paper, the OECD acknowledges that “times have changed” and the new global context is characterised by new actors, new resources, a different distribution of growth as well as growing inequalities and a changing geography of poverty.

Against this background, the OECD focuses on eleven elements to help adapt to these new realities in a meaningful and effective way. The need is emphasised for a two-level approach; unlike the MDG framework, the new development agenda should not only be aimed at the global and universal level with limited goals and targets but also at the national level with specific targets adapted to the capacities of countries.

The eleven elements include both outcomes and tools. The outcomes focus around achievements in poverty reduction, educational success, gender and sustainability.

The six tools are the “means to achieve the outcomes” and include “development enablers” such as strengthening the national statistical systems and accountability mechanisms, improving policy coherence (for instance, trade policy versus aid policy), adapting the formation and distribution of knowledge, as local, evidence-based and peer-reviewed knowledge should be of primary focus when designing and implementing reforms. Equally important is the eleventh tool, financing development.

For all these elements, the Overview paper underlines the OECD’s experience and desire to be the Best Supporting Actor in the global development debate, making it an important source of expertise. With partnerships such as PARIS21 on statistics, the New Deal for fragile states, the Knowledge Sharing Alliance for peer learning, the Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation and many others, the OECD has already started to engage with the global concerns and take concrete actions. Particularly interesting is the multi-stakeholder Task Force on Tax and Development launched by the OECD in January 2010 and its “Tax Inspectors Without Borders” (TIWB) proposal.  

All in all, this Overview paper not only lists innovative and inspiring ways of supporting outcomes to reach, but also gives the tools to do so which makes it particularly engaging and an interesting read. 

Charlotte Demuijnck

See also:

The OECD’s contribution on education to the post-2015 framework: PISA for development