THAILAND CASE STUDY FIELD REPORT: Child-Centred Accountability and Protection Evaluation (CAPE)

July 2011 THAILAND CASE STUDY FIELD REPORT: Child-centred Accountability and Protection Evaluation (CAPE)

Overview This Thailand Case Study Field Report documents the key findings, reflections and recommendations emerging from the Thailand Case Study in the Provinces of Pattani and Chiang Rai. The majority of the data was gathered through Child and Youth Engagement Sessions in late June 2011, and where possible is supplemented with additional data.

It is important to note that this report does not include all of the raw data gathered during the Child and Youth Engagement Sessions, but rather highlights the main findings (including themes), observations, and recommendations. Where possible, quotes and stories are used to give ‘voice’ to the ideas and perspectives of children and youth.

Country and pilot site Thailand- Two provinces: Chiang Rai and Pattani locations: Pattani: Pattani province in located in the Deep South of Thailand. The Deep South is 80% Muslim (most of Thailand’s 4% Muslim minority) has been affected by political violence since 2004. IICRD has been working with We Peace since 2009 to give voice to children and youth about their experiences, and to strengthen the capacity of local government to develop, implement, and monitor and evaluate community action plans for children and youth.

Chiang Rai: Chiang Rai is a mountainous province in Northern Thailand boarding on Myanmar and Laos. Approximately 12.5% of the population belong to various hilltribe groups including Dara-ang, Akha, Lua, H’mong, Lisu, Lahu, Kachin, Mien, Mlabri, Mon, Kamu, Saek, Tai Kheun, Hme Su, U-Rak La-Wol, Mogan and Moglan. These are modern-day descendants of nomadic peoples from Tibet and southern China, driven by warfare and oppression into northern Myanmar, Thailand and Laos. Major child protection challenges include: child trafficking, and statelessness (birth registration). IICRD has been working in Chiang Rai since 2009 with Plan Thailand through the Child Protection Partnership Project and the work with the DLA.

Timing for data Pattani - June 21 – 23, 2011 collection: Chiang Rai- June 27 – 29, 2011

1 Partners and Team National Partners Members:  UNICEF Thailand, Local Governance and Capacity Building Section  Department of Local Administration, Ministry of Interior  Faculty of Education, Chulalongkorn University  Plan International Thailand

Local Partners Chiang Rai  Child Protection NGO: Plan International  Local Child & Youth Organization: Mekong Youth Net  Local University Partner: Rajabhat University

Pattani  Local Child and Youth Organization: We Peace  Local University Partner: Prince of Songkhla University

CAPE team members: Philip Cook, Cheryl Heykoop, Piyanut Kotsan

Summary of Total number of participating children: 31 Participants Chiang Rai Total Participants: 14 (Males: 6, Females: 8)

Many of the participants were youth leaders either with MYN or with the local youth council. Some of the MYN youth are also survivors of trafficking and exploitation. The MYN is comprised of youth from the Mekong sub- region and the group had representation from Thailand, Myanmar, and Laos.

Pattani Total Participants: 17 (Males: 12, Females: 5) Age Range: 17-24; Mean Age: 20 The group had mixed experiences. Some of the participants were youth representatives with the local youth council, whereas others had previously had limited opportunities to express themselves.

Other resources IICRD has been working with our partners in Thailand since 2009 through the Child Protection Partnership (focused on ICT and child protection) and to strengthen the capacity of local governments to plan, implement, and monitor and evaluate results for children. Data and resources (e.g. financial) from these projects will help to further shed light on the perspectives and ideas of children and youth about their protection.

Context for field work In 1999, the Government of Thailand passed the Decentralization Act of Thailand to provide greater opportunity for people to participate in local administration and give more responsibility and budget allocation to local government administration. With this new responsibility local governments are required to take full responsibility to ensure children’s rights are fulfilled, and require further capacity building initiatives to implement, monitor, and evaluate action plans for all children and youth in their community.

In response, UNICEF Thailand, the Department of Local Administration (DLA), and the Ministry of Interior (MOI), have been working together since 2007 to strengthen the local capacity of multi-sectoral teams in 25 priority provinces. These multi-sectoral teams are expected to be catalysts in the local planning process (planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the results for children) of each local authority. They must have a high commitment to work for children and the necessary knowledge and understanding in a range of topics including children’s rights, rights-based planning, budgeting, monitoring and evaluation of actions for children. They also need a basic knowledge of programming approaches to address key children’s issues including education, child protection and HIV/AIDS.

Since 2009, IICRD & the Faculty of Education, Chulalongkorn University, have been working with UNICEF, and the Ministry of Interior, Department of Local Administration, to support the capacity building and effectiveness of the multi-sectoral teams to plan, implement, monitor and evaluate child rights in local planning.

Phase Two of the partnership runs from 2011-2012 and is focused on further strengthening community planning with children and youth, specifically focused on systematic monitoring and evaluation. Phase two targets 100 communities from 10 provinces across Thailand including: Chiang Rai, Nan, Phuket, Ranong, Kanchanaburi, Srakaew, Ubonrachathani, Srisaket, Songkhla, and Pattani . In Phase two IICRD is providing strategic support to explore child and youth engagement in local planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation in two provinces Pattani and Chiang Rai, where child protection challenges are widespread and deemed to be of primary importance.

The CAPE project enables IICRD to build from existing partnerships to explore the child protection context and their engagement in local government processes (planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation) with children, youth, and their communities, in the provinces

3 of Chiang Rai and Pattani. Partnership through the Child Protection Partnership (CPP) also provides an entry point to explore how information, communication and technology (ICT) can be actively used in planning, monitoring, and evaluating the rights and protection situation for children and youth.

Purpose/Objectives To develop and test monitoring and evaluation tools and approaches that place children at the centre of the process, actively engaging them in understanding the risks and protection strategies present in their daily lives. The Thailand case study specifically focused on understanding children’s perspectives about their lives and their communities through the identification of risks and protective factors and exploring engagement in the development, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation of programs and services for children and youth at the community level. These results, and the use of the tools, will help local governments to better understand the unique needs and perspectives of children and young people and work with them as partners to create holistic and sustainable solutions to improve the rights and well-being of communities. Methodologies Used 1. Community Child Protection Rainbow (beginning with balloons and yarn) 2. Social Mapping 3. Child Engagement Spidergram 4. Individual Strengths and Challenges 5. Child Protection Case Scenarios 6. Poi Mapping (Chiang Rai only) Process Summary: Brief description of steps for each methodology/activity including time, participants, key questions, etc. For both Pattani and Chiang Rai, 2-3 days were planned to work with our partners and young people to pilot the CAPE tools. In Chiang Rai additional tools were used to explore how technology can be used to map, monitor, and evaluate child protection indicators. For an overview of Poi Mapping please see the attached powerpoint. While each of the workshops were adapted to reflect the specific context, the general overview of the workshop was as follows:

Getting to know you  Unity Circle  Pod game  If I wasn’t a human being, I would be a…

Overview of the research process  Review of process  Review of agenda  Consent forms  Creating a community agreement

4  Q&A

Balloons (segue into Web of Protection)  Asked young people to draw names on the balloon and identify who this child was in their life. This helped young people to identify with the balloons as children.  Each youth was then asked to take care of their child playing keep up with the balloon (added increased levels of difficulty  Youth were then asked to work in small groups to try and protect many children

Web of Protection  In a small circle youth were asked to identify the things that children need to feel safe and supported in their community and created a web of support with all of these factors (see activity workbook)  Participants were encouraged to explore different factors that support and protect children e.g. behaviours, people, places, spaces, activities, culture etc.  We did not use different colours of yarn but rather kept it simple (colours were introduced for the rainbow of support.

Rainbow of Protection  In small groups participants were asked to identify the protective and risk factors for each colour of the protection rainbow: o Red- laws/legislation o Orange- cultural and religious beliefs and practices o Yellow- important people o Green- support for carers o Blue- Places, spaces and activities o Indigo- Behaviours and values o Violet- child and youth engagement

Social Mapping Activity  Through the use of drawing, youth worked in groups to identify and describe their community and the strengths and challenges within. Activities primarily focused on people, places, spaces, and activities  Did not get youth to use specific colours in their maps relating to the colours in the rainbow of protection, rather got the group to refer back to the many factors to think about in their maps  Groups presented back one by one in Pattani (would suggest an alternative feedback mechanism in the future) and a gallery was used in Chiang Rai

Child Engagement Spidergram

5  Adapted spidergram tool originally developed from Gerison Lansdown’s child participation matrix, and the Brazil spidergram  10 engagement metrics were identified: o Family o School o Community o Activities related to education, culture, leisure, and sports o Local Government o Policy and program development and budget allocation o Feedback on government services o Child and youth organizations o Access to media and information communication technology to communicate o Security  Activity was done as one large group, yet two spidergrams emerged- one for boys and one for girls

Individual Well-being Maps  Participants were asked to identify factors that are important to support and protect children at the level of self, family, school, community and local government. At each level participants also identified the risks/challenges that hinder opportunities for optimal health and development  This activity was done as homework by each individual

Case Studies  Males and females were separated  In Pattani two cases were explored: o Girl 13, Boy 20 are in a relationship o Girl 15 walking home and is sexually harassed by military o This second case was identified given the context in Pattani. We Peace staff felt the case focused on a women’s boyfriend raping the child was inappropriate in this religious context.  In Chiang Rai three cases were explored: o Girl 13, Boy 20 in a relationship o Girl is raped by step father o Trafficking (specific scenarios were generated for males and females)

Poi Mapping Activity (Chiang Rai only)

6 Closing  Reflections and next steps  IICRD indicated they will follow-up with the young people in September

For an overview of the results from the Chiang Rai and Pattani workshops please see the attached workshop reports.

Case Study Observations

1. What are the protective and risk factors that children/youth, their families and communities identify in each of the pilot sites, and how do these articulate with what children/youth, families and communities define as constituting their wellbeing?

Rather than presenting the protective and risk factors independently, the charts below identify what children are youth feel they need to feel safe and supported, and what are the major challenges or risks that inhibit their ability to feel safe and supported?

Child Pattani Chiang Rai What is important to ensure children What are the major challenges? What is important to ensure children What are the major challenges? are safe and supported? are safe and supported?  Self-respect (G & B)  Lack of self confidence (G)  Opportunity (G)  Lack of self confidence (G)  Responsibility (G)  Quick decision making (G)  Eager to learn  Lazy  Honesty (G)  Being self-centred (G)  Good conscience  Procrastination (G)  Self-confidence (G & B)  Temper (G)  Commitment (never give up) (b)  Self-centred (B)  Commitment and perseverance  Lack of love (B)- without love  Friendly (G)  Shy (B) (e.g. work hard, do not give up children will get depressed (B)  Confident to express self  Do not want to work or get a on doing anything easily) (G)  Make people around me happy job yet (B)  Patience (G)  Fussy (G)  Access to education and life  Sympathy for others (G)  Tempered (G) skills  Patient (B)  Do not have good manners  Positive activities (e.g. sports  Kind (B)  Speak too fast (G) instead of drugs) (G)  Considerate of others (G)  Not polite with friends  Space for sharing, creativity,  Energetic (G)  Complain (B) and self-expression (B)  Leader (G)  Run away from problems (B)  Willingness to volunteer (B)  Helping  Bad tempered (B)  Connectedness to others (B)  Willing to work (B)  Bully friends (B)  Access to new ways of  Good knowledge on  For people who have victimized

7 knowledge and knowing e.g. I reproductive health and human from human trafficking they do need to know and learn more on trafficking (G) not feel they are visible new technology; I want to have  Listen and respect parents and anymore a place to find answers if I need elders to know about something (B)  Give back to parents (B)  Love others (e.g. family) (B)  Love self (B) Family- “family is a very important foundation for our living” (Male Participant, Pattani) Pattani Chiang Rai What is important to ensure children What are the major challenges? What is important to ensure children What are the major challenges? are safe and supported? are safe and supported?  Care & support from parents (G  Fighting in the home (G & B)  Activities that family can do  Fighting in the home- I do not & B)- if we provide good caring  Disagreements and conflicts together e.g. housework, eating want family members to fight for children it will really make an among parents and siblings (G etc. (G) each other impact for child development & B)  Understanding in family  Parents and siblings have  Encouragement (B)  Negativity (G)  Parents are well educated conflict  Trust amongst family (G)  Head of household makes all  Care and attention from parents  Negativity- complaining all the  Respect (G) decisions (G) (G) time  Love (G & B)  Children are spoiled (G)  No violence  Pressure from parents e.g. job,  Discipline (G)  Limited ownership and  Love- In the past I had a warm make good choices about  Patience (B) responsibility of roles at home loving family (G); love each relationship  Dedication (B) (G) other (B)  Segregation- I want to see  Privacy (G)  Lack of family support and  Parents are a good role model everyone together again just  Understanding (G) encouragement (B) (G) like in the past  Independence and freedom  Limited guidance (B)  Support education (B)  Drinking (e.g. families need to not control  Lack of caring (B)  Being vegetarian (B)  Parents have no time for children too much, and need to  Parents pay more attention to  Speak to each other reasonably children and do not each give children space and time on community than their children (B) children their own) (G) (B)  Fun and happy (B)  Limited discipline in the family  Responsibility (e.g. each family  Few chances to do activities  Siblings and parents help each  Misspending of money member has a role to play in the together with family (B) other- Brothers and sisters are  Children do not listen to parents family) (G) very close and help each other  Do not do activities together  Support (emotional, moral, Sometimes parents think differently.  No physical abuse (G)  Communication physical, financial, advice etc.) They are often right but it is just a  Responsibilities split between  Parents work too hard but not spoiling (e.g. Family different time and generation. We family (G)  Child labour- if family is living needs to understand wants and think differently.  Honesty (G) under poverty, they are likely to needs of children and not spoil  No smoking (G) send their children to work as

8 the child too much; families need  Children allowed to make child labourers to accept and support what choices for themselves (G) children like and are talented in  Provide advice on anything (G)  Value education (G)  Opportunities to express how they feel (B)  Opportunities to actively engage in decision making at home (e.g. opportunities to make decisions together)  Counseling from parents and role models  Pay attention to children (G)  Protection (B)- family is a place that protects us from many bad things

School Pattani Chiang Rai What is important to ensure children What are the major challenges? What is important to ensure children What are the major challenges? are safe and supported? are safe and supported?  Place for union/sharing/  Teachers not teaching in field of  Knowledge for all  Access to education friendship (G) study/expertise  Good teachers  Some teachers do not pay  Quality education and  Not student centred (G)  Good friends attention to students (G) knowledge  Limited opportunities for  Confident to express self (b)  Pressurize students (B)  Qualified teachers knowledge acquisition (G & B)  Fun  Teachers not qualified- I do not  Flexible curriculum that reflects  Disconnect between curriculum  Teach morals and values want to study with a teacher children’s needs, values and and religious practices and (citizens) who does not know how to cultural norms (e.g. livelihood views  Opportunities for children to teach (G) skills, some children do not  Distance to school (G) participate (G)  Teacher not committed to have access to school)  Segregation of students (e.g.  Free education students and job (B)  Activities should be fun (B) too much separation between  Support for alternative  Teachers care more about  Schools in close proximity to children who are outstanding in education (G) income than students home school and those who do not do  Experiential based education (B)  Bad role models (teachers and  Opportunities to actively well) (G)  Opportunities for ethnic groups students) participate in decisions at  Lack of trained and qualified  Need appeal mechanisms for  Not able to care for all students

9 school teachers (B) children (G) (B)  Collective decision making (e.g.  Schools do not respond to the  Teach in local language (B)  Competition (B) discipline) (G) needs of children (B)  Holistic approach (B)  Safety travelling to school  Extra-curricular activities (e.g.  No teaching is systematic and  Language inappropriate (not sports) (G) holistic (B) indigenous language, and  Experiential activities (e.g.  Not enough resource people (B) swearing) outside the classroom) (G)  Lack of emphasis on alternative  Opportunities for creativity (G) In one community, there is no education  Teachers provide advice and primary school in the community.  Bullying and discrimination support (G) Children need to travel outside the  Not enough teachers and  Nutrition (B) community to go to school. resources  Community engagement e.g.  Students do not listen to community able to involve in teacher school and education  Fighting (B) curriculum- we need community  Do not respect time (B) involvement to develop our  Lack of respect for school (B) schools  Good friends e.g. If children are surrounded by friends who cause trouble and behave badly they will likely end up being the same (B)

Community Pattani Chiang Rai What is important to ensure children What are the major challenges? What is important to ensure children What are the major challenges? are safe and supported? are safe and supported?  Supportive and adaptive  Conflict  Religious and cultural events in  Community violence e.g. cultural practices  Crime community neighbours fighting with each  Traditions (G)  Gambling (e.g. illegal casinos)  Preserve culture and tradition other  Cultural and religious sites (e.g.  Child and youth arrests (including ethnic) (B)  Conservative culture (G)- We mosques, graveyards, temples)  Drugs (e.g. drug centre in the  Use technology wisely- do not have been taught follow the  Spaces for sharing and forest) get corrupted by technology western way but people around exchanging views (e.g. tea  Youth Suicide  Unity us are conservative. We are cafes)  Early/forced marriage rooted in  Important people- teacher, being judged by them. We do  Sport and play activities religious/cultural norms monk, priest, parents, family, not know what the right way to  Psychosocial understandings- Muslim faith is friends follow is. We might have to pick

10 support/programmes very strict on the relationship  Community members help each up good things from each side  Community trust between boys and girls. If they other (B) to apply to our lives)  Sense of family amongst are too close or if the  Solve problems together (B)  Unexpected pregnancy and community (G) relationship is not appropriate,  Security sexual relationships without  Intergenerational activities and both boy and girl need to get  Caring community protection spaces (e.g. market, mosque, married. Teenagers are not  Community members are good  Limited knowledge of laws and tea cafes, arena for bird ready to take care of family and role models for children child protection issues (G) competition) children. So that’s bringing  Live like a family- community  Intergenerational gaps  Safety and security (e.g. another problem to society. members treat us like their own  Drug addiction community members help keep  Tension between law and children  Few activities for children community secure) (G) culture  Hard-working  Children have no/limited  Positive role models and  Lack of service mind (B)  Listen and respect each other involvement in decision making supportive adults  Dis-trust and lack of unity (B)  Regular meetings (G)  Community members advise  Lack of trust  Respect for other religions  Children don’t respect elders and counsel each other (G)  Corrupt community leaders (G)  Dissemination of information and each other  Forum and space for children to  Gossiping  Stable incomes in families  Gambling and video game participate  Selfishness (G)  Ability to speak all three addictions (B)  Opportunity for children to use  Limited places for girls to play languages  Technology misuse (B) their capacity and share There are only few places that  Organize activities together (B)  Gossiping (B) opinions (B) women could hang out such as  Support groups in community  Do not understand each other  Community budget for children women center, markets and (B) (B)  Bond between adults and their houses. Most of the places  Have a community agreement  Children being sent to work in children (B) are common use by men.  Preservation of environment other provinces (B)  Scholarship schemes (B) Women have no place hanged and local plants  Community leader misuses out. Mostly they just stay home  Social contract (B)  Produce/support local products power (B)  Community management plan and visiting each other at home.  Community conflict (B) focused on quality of life (B)  Segregated activities- Spaces  Place for training (B) are divided for only children.  Public information This lacks the chance to link dissemination (B) children and adults.  Informal learning opportunities  Army now occupies the sports (B) arena  Honest leadership (B)  Limited place for children to  Help for MARPs (B) participate (G)  Communities help each other  Safety- One group of children  Give opportunities for children indicated that they only safe who have made mistakes to space for children in the community is their own homes

11 learn (B)  Children used as scapegoats- We feel like we are being watched. We are innocent people but feel like a ball that has been kicking around. Especially those who has high education in the community. If we found anything wrong we are too scared to report.  Limited access to ICT and media  No budget for activities (G)  Limited sense of community e.g. Community do not try to get to know the children. It will lack of chance to create any body between children and community. Children do not know anyone in the community and do not learn how to create interpersonal skills (B)

Local Government Pattani Chiang Rai What is important to ensure children What are the major challenges? What is important to ensure children What are the major challenges? are safe and supported? are safe and supported?  Strong laws and enforcement to  Ineffective budget location  Source of budget (B)  Not all children can access all protect children- The legal  Law enforcement weak- There  Child protection act (G) services system could help protect the is no law enforcement and  Policies should reflect the needs  Bribery and corruption rights of children such as abuse putting the laws into practice. It of children  Use children to get support (G)- or rape. (the laws) doesn’t mean  Committed to solving problems Some groups of adults take  transparent and accountable anything. (B) advantage of children and officials Mostly government provides  Support children’s activities anything related to child rights  understanding of child and only budget but doesn’t address  Opportunities for child  Policies do not affect children youth issues (G) the problems of children. If not participation  Laws and legislation does not  holistic and sustainable it will mean nothing.  Free education (G) protect MARPs e.g. children programming for children and  In-justice for children  Willingness to help children with no citizenship/identity youth (e.g. microloan projects,  In-effective use of funds  Diversity and openness to  Lack of human resources (G)

12 livelihood support)  Limited child participation include different ethnic groups  Limited budgets  provide psychosocial support  Disjointed programs- lack of (G)  In-effective use of time and and counseling (G) holistic approaches (B)  Communicate in diversity of resources (G)  help and support community  Limited accountability (e.g. languages (G)  Discrimination between rich (G) when local government  Systematic operations and clear and poor (G)  allocation of budgets for implement community projects, plan  Not concern for people, focused children (G) we are not likely able to access  Security is important (G) on self- Focus on power and  regular communication with information and details about  Work as a team position community (e.g. news, it) (G)  Support all children and adults  Organizational conflicts- Lack of activities, updates etc.) (G)  In-effectiveness (G) without exception partnership between  active engagement of children  Corruption (G)  Value quality performance and government and NGOs and youth in the community  Policies are opposite to what corruption  Do not listen to others  Youth councils children want (B)  Source of information and  Limited opportunity for children  Need to be engaged: No matter  Limited communication (G) knowledge  Not addressing root cause of if there are many organizations  Limited coordination (G)  Polite problem (B) providing help and support for  No policy for children (G)  Good role models for children  Fighting amongst each other (B) children, but if the local  Lack of youth opportunity  Support community projects (B) government doesn’t implement,  Create trust among community it will mean nothing anyway and government (B)

Reflections on Carers:  Children need good role models, poor role models set a bad example, encourage children to do bad things  If adults are being dishonest with children, they will not respect adults and will not trust people (B)  If adults are too self-centred and do not listen to children, children will get bored, start to hate adults and not be happy  Without support from adults children will have no trust in adults

13 Observations on sexual abuse and exploitation, including the decision making process for young people at risk, differences between formal and non-formal child protection systems.

For each case, the tables identify how young people perceive this scenario, what they feel will be done, the potential challenges, and how they feel things should be differently. Additional questions are also raised where further clarification was necessary. The results from the Chiang Rai case studies with boys are still outstanding.

Case 1: 13 year old girl starts to have a relationship with a 20 year old boy Pattani Chiang Rai Reflections on Case Girls Boys Girls Boys Is this scenario ok?  These days normal- girls want  Girl too young (if 27 and 20 ok,  Not appropriate boyfriends but girl too young, could be  Too young  Boyfriends should be older deceived)  Man will violate girl than girl (e.g. normally taught  Girl should be 18 10 years age difference, so 7  Further probing suggested that yrs fine), but in this case girl is the issue is not the age, but too young rather sex before marriage  Further probing suggested that this situation is common Is this legal?  Against the law  Illegal- if below 18 against the  Girls should be above 17 to be law married  No marriage registration requ’d so difficult to enforce How are relationships  Culturally relationships aren’t  In Muslim culture, if anyone perceived? acceptable and as result are has a relationship they should encouraged marry be married (e.g. sexual  In past Muslim girls married at relationship, living together very young age e.g. 12  Things like talking on phone,  From religious perspective dating etc. are less clear, marriage is good- preventative although hand holding in some system contexts are considered too much) How will the  Arrange marriage  Gossip  Sometimes the community respond?  Look down at the person community will force

14  May force to marry marriage  Laos- parents will not accept and may give $ for abortion (if pregnant)  Society forgive men more What should be  Forced marriage may mean  Report to community leader  If a friend or sister they done?/What would that girl can’t attend school  Everyone should discuss and would talk to the girl to you do?  If these girls were in the identify what is the norm in see if she is ready relationship they would give the community that would  Talk to boyfriend to see details to their family- this may help to reduce the tension how to present to help to avoid forced marriage (e.g. discuss with parents) parents  Forced/arranged marriage is  Identify ways to compromise  Many girls said they common and take resp. would not give the  Girls feel things are changing  Rarely report to police- culture relationship a try, but if and relationships should be takes precedent over the law. they did would allowed Report to police if cannot introduce to parents settle or if child is  If they say they love compromised – No need to each other we need to report to police if can find a teach her to protect compromise herself and provide  Voice of parents is more support important than the children  If gets pregnant be themselves supportive (not suggest abortion)  If the girls themselves got pregnant would consider an abortion

What if boy was 13  Not common  Rare and girl was 20?  This is not good  In culture men take care of women  13 boy isn’t circumcised Is this sexual abuse?  Boy 20, Girl 13- Yes  Boy 20, Girl 13- Yes  Girl 20, Boy 13- Maybe  Girl 20, Boy 13- Yes

15 Case 2 (Pattani): 15 year old girl (sister) walking home from school and is sexually harassed by a soldier Pattani Reflections on Case Girls Boys Is this scenario  Happens often  Not okay but scenario occurs often- In our community this happens often ok/common?  This happens often because there are so many  There are lots of cases of sexual harassment. They do it for fun. If the military men. Mostly come from far away from military rapes a woman they take images and post on the internet. On family, maybe see girls and have thoughts. … It’s Google I saw an image of a girl being raped by 6 men such a bad luck for that girl.

How would you respond?  Tell parents and parents report to police  Ask army to take off uniform in order to arrest him  If not dealt with consider media  If girl violated report to police, or if doesn’t do anything take into our  Some would tell the community, others would own hands (eye for an eye) not out of fear of gossip  Talk with sister- was she provoking them?  Be quiet- nothing will be done  Suggest sister be more careful  Find a good lawyer  If it happened to your sister, would you suggest she report it?  Go outside the law- seal the deal ourselves. If  I wouldn’t want her to tell anyone because it will put her in a difficult the law doesn’t work we have our own law circumstance. People will look down on her and tease her. Family needs  Gather evidence- e.g. go to hospital for a test to provide support though so I would encourage her to tell the family. Others shouldn’t know about this. Family is very important. They will cheer her up and they will want her to be happy. She won’t commit suicide. People will look down on her. It is shameful even if she didn’t do anything wrong.  According to religion would have a meeting with traditional and religious leaders. You wouldn’t report to police, talk with family and find a way of solving e.g. getting the girl to marry the soldier. The Buddhists do things more legal, but Muslims do things more based on religion.

Challenges with response  Response is slow  Need a lot of evidence  If anything is done by the police they will only  Child feels victimized move the person away. He will come back again.  Police can’t do anything They have more power. They will come back  No one can do anything there is no justice here again and will do it again.  Want military to leave and move out  No justice  Some adults say it is best to avoid police

What does it mean to be  If people think was provocative would be sad-  Girls visit them provocative? family cannot accept this  Dress sexy 16  How can girls protect self?  Going without invitation o Stay away  Flirting o Don’t go out late  Entering space alone o Take care of self Similar situ with boys?  Very rare (or maybe don’t know)  Abused but not sexually abused- physically abused, black listed, arrested etc. Case 3 (Chiang Rai): A Girl is being raped by stepfather and doesn’t tell her mother

Chiang Rai Reflections on Case Girls Boys Is this scenario  Girl not safe and not protected ok/common?  Case of 2 Burmese girls being raped by employer How would you respond?  Speak with her- gain trust and see what happened.  Offer a place to stay / Take her out of house  Seek for advice from a trustful adult.  Report to police  Go to hospital  Prioritization- Which way would you help first? Take her out of that house first. Seek for trustful adult to help. Then find way to report to police  Nothing compares with a girl the same age speaking to her. We could speak to her informally and record on tape. There is no need to bring her to the police  Give support (e.g. psychosocial support, alternative education)  Never mention what happened again. Challenges with response  Report to police can spread news quickly  Nothing can be worse than getting investigated and questioned by police  Community will gossip, judge child  Child re-victimized

17 Case 4 (Chiang Rai): Trafficking

Girls: A group of people come to village trying to recruit waitresses for the city (especially young girls) but instead they intend to force the girls to be sex workers

Boys:

Chiang Rai Reflections on Case Girls Boys Is this scenario  Common ok/common?  Many ways of trafficking  In Laos many of women are uni. students  May occur because parents don’t have time for children How would you respond?  Not go/do not trust (self)  If our friend- encourage not to go  Provide helpline information  Know how to protect self

Challenges with response  Had to seek help because people bribe along the way  Agency is often people that community already knows and trusts How does it affect  When people come back and are building big community? How do girls houses people want to join agency perceive it?  Think it is better than working and gaining low income  For those who are success and gain a lot of money, they are likely to come back. But we do not know what happened to the rest of the girls who never come back.

18 2. How can children and adolescents' experience better inform child-centred child rights and child protection systems that are accountable to children, their families and communities?

Active engagement in key decision making Young people in both Chiang Rai and Pattani highlighted the importance of active engagement in key decisions that affect their lives. Many of the young people who participated in the activities have not had opportunities to express their opinions, nor to hold the systems responsible for children accountable. Children and young people want to be involved and feel they have a voice:

o Adults do not think it (child participation) is a priority. They still do not realize the capacity of children. o Adults always underestimate the capacity of children. Adults do not have trust in children and do not think children can do anything. So there is no support for children to do anything. o Youth have no chance to share their voices on what they need. o We cannot make any change in society if we do not give any opportunity for youth and children.

It is interesting to note the gender disparities for involving male and female children in decision making processes. For example boys are given more opportunity to participate in decision making at home, yet girls are given more opportunities at school. The spidergram tool was extremely effective to identify these differences and the attached workshop reports highlight these.

Navigating complexity and change Young people also have given considerable thought to the complex challenges that exist in their communities, and have tried to identify relevant strategies. In particular young people highlighted the need to change and adapt some cultural and traditional norms to reflect the current context that exists in communities. Young people do not want to ignore culture, nor disrespect elders (conversely they feel intergenerational engagement is important for a healthy community- e.g. Spaces are divided for only children. This lacks the chance to link children and adults. ) yet feel there is a need for change.

o Sometimes parents think differently. They are often right but it is just a different time and generation. We think differently. o We have been taught follow the western way and the cultural way but people around us are conservative. We are being judged by them. We do not know what the right way to follow is. We might have to pick up good things from each side to apply to our lives)

Focus on the lived realities of children and youth (particularly MARPs) In both of these case studies, children and youth who are marginalized and at greatest risk have few opportunities for engagement and do not feel their needs are met and justice is being served. This has created mistrust.

o For people who have victimized from human trafficking they do not feel they are visible anymore o We feel like we are being watched. We are innocent people but feel like a ball that has been kicking around. Especially those who has high education in 19 the community. If we found anything wrong we are too scared to report. o One youth talked about an experience where he was invited to a training (government supported) and once he arrived he was accused of being addicted to drugs. He was put into a detention centre and was tortured and abused. Circumstances such as these seem to be on the rise particularly with children and youth from rural communities how have limited access to information (Pattani).

Transparent and accountable systems (community and government) Efforts at the hand of local governments and communities are required to foster more transparent and accountable systems and programs that reflect the needs of children and help to re-establish trust and a sense of community.

o Young people indicated that policies and practices do not support the needs of children, and on several occasions children and youth indicated that justice and accountability to children is limited. o Related to violence, young people indicated: the legal system could help protect the rights of children such as abuse or rape. o No matter if there are many organizations providing help and support for children, but if the local government doesn’t implement, it will mean nothing anyway

3. Within the context of this country case study, how do we effectively promote learning about child-centred M&E of child protection systems?

o Verification and follow-up leading to action- Efforts are required to ensure that information gathered from children and youth is verified with them and also presented to community and local government to support greater accountability for children and youth. The DLA project provides a unique entry point to use the information gathered from young people to inform local government practices and strengthen their capacity for child and youth engagement. One off engagements with children and youth who have experienced much mistrust at the hands of adults is not acceptable.

o Ensure voices of children have reach and influence to a larger population- Communities and the general public are often unaware of the issues affecting children and youth and do not know how they perceive child protection from their perspectives. Efforts should be made to ensure voice is given to young people to articulate their views and opinions through publications, communication materials, and community events etc.

o Continue to work through our partners- Partners play a critical role in ensuring the work is sustained and will benefit children and youth in the short and longer term. Young people are extremely valuable partners and this partnership should also be nurtured. Strategic partnerships should also be identified to help maximize the impact of findings.

o Knowledge sharing across the case studies- It would be worthwhile to consider how we can share knowledge from each of the country case studies with young people across the CAPE project .

20 Facilitator Observations and Reflections: a) Country case study data – interesting/unexpected findings, reflections on indicators within the context of child protection monitoring and evaluation, situating the data in regards to scale, quality and engagement (Philip to explain) b) Process reflections – learnings on facilitating the piloting process including working with partners, developing questions, developing and facilitating the tools, etc.

Country case study data: o Interesting/unexpected findings: o Young people are navigating a diverse array of pressures in their lives, particularly struggling with the tension between culture, tradition, and modernity o Young people want more opportunities to engage with elders in the community o Young people feel justice is not being served, and the formal child protection mechanisms have little/no impact on the lives of children and in some cases may in fact do more harm

o Indicators: o Individual well-being indicator maps were not an intended tool for the case study in Thailand , yet will be extremely valuable in the development of child protection monitoring and evaluation indicators for greater accountability for children o Serendipitously the category of local government was added to the individual well-being indicator maps – a “perfect mistake”

Process Reflections: o Working in the Deep South (and similarly with other MARPs) requires additional time to select and build trust with participants. While we had asked our partner organization to identify youth they had been working with this did not happen in reality. The local government assisted in identifying youth, and while this was fine (or so we hope), there is mistrust amongst the government and youth and this needs to be carefully considered o Additional information should be provided to partners to help in the planning process for event and to ensure everyone understands the process we are embarking on o To help build trust we suggest activities occur over a period of time (e.g. once a week/every few weeks) o Work with young people to pilot tools in their community Next Steps:

September/October 2011 o Follow up workshops will be conducted with children and youth who participated in the community workshops to validate the information gathered and also explore how young people can more involved in the work with the DLA. o Meetings with local governments to strengthen community action plans for children and youth o Develop and pilot Poi mapping tools using indicators at the level of child, family, school, community, and local government o Engage with young people to develop youth-friendly deliverables

November/December 2011 o Present findings at the International course on child protection/social protection

21 Child-Centred Accountability and Protection Evaluation (CAPE) Case Study: Thailand (July 2011)

CAPE Guiding Questions Overarching Question: What is the role of meaningful child, adolescent and youth participation in the development of more effective child rights and protection monitoring systems? 1. What are the protective and risk factors that children/youth, their families and communities identify in each of the pilot sites, and how do these articulate with what children/youth, families and communities define as constituting their wellbeing? 2. How can children and adolescents' experience better inform child-centred child rights and child protection systems that are accountable to children, their families and communities? 3. How do we effectively promote learning about child-centred M&E of child protection systems?

Thai Project Context In 1999, the Government of Thailand passed the Decentralization Act of Thailand to provide greater opportunity for people to participate in local administration and give more responsibility and budget allocation to local government administration. With this new responsibility local governments are required to take full responsibility to ensure children’s rights are fulfilled, and require further capacity building initiatives to implement, monitor, and evaluate action plans for all children and youth in their community.

In response, UNICEF Thailand, the Department of Local Administration (DLA), and the Ministry of Interior (MOI), have been working together since 2007 to strengthen the local capacity of multi- sectoral teams in 25 priority provinces. These multi-sectoral teams are expected to be catalysts in the local planning process (planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the results for children) of each local authority. They must have a high commitment to work for children and the necessary knowledge and understanding in a range of topics including children’s rights, rights-based planning, budgeting, monitoring and evaluation of actions for children. They also need a basic knowledge of programming approaches to address key children’s issues including education, child protection and HIV/AIDS.

22 Pattani and Chiang Rai, where child protection challenges are widespread and deemed to be of primary importance.

CAPE Project Entry Points: The CAPE project enables IICRD to build from existing partnerships to explore the child protection context and their engagement in local government processes (planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation) with children, youth, and their communities, in the provinces of Chiang Rai and Pattani. Partnership through the Child Protection Partnership (CPP) also provides an entry point to explore how information, communication and technology (ICT) can be actively used in planning, monitoring, and evaluating the rights and protection situation for children and youth.

Thai Project Partners: Through the project, IICRD is working across the child protection system from the national to the provincial and community levels.

National Partners Provincial and Community Partners  UNICEF Thailand, Local Governance Within each province (Chiang Rai and Pattani), and Capacity Building Section IICRD is working in collaboration with the  Department of Local Administration, following types of partners: Ministry of Interior  Local government authorities  Faculty of Education, Chulalongkorn  Child protection NGOs University  Child and youth led organizations  Plan International Thailand  Local university partner

Chiang Rai Chiang Rai is a mountainous province in Northern Thailand boarding on Myanmar and Laos. Approximately 12.5% of the population belong to various hilltribe groups including Dara-ang, Akha, Lua, H’mong, Lisu, Lahu, Kachin, Mien, Mlabri, Mon, Kamu, Saek, Tai Kheun, Hme Su, U- Rak La-Wol, Mogan and Moglan. These are modern-day descendants of nomadic peoples from Tibet and southern China, driven by warfare and oppression into northern Myanmar, Thailand and Laos.

Child protection concerns: Partnerships: Statelessness (birth registration) Child Protection NGO: Plan International Local Child & Youth Organization: Mekong Youth Net Local University Partner: Rajabhat University

Partnership Context:  IICRD has been working in Chiang Rai for nearly 3 years in partnership with Plan International and Mekong Youth Net through the DEPDC.  Plan International is engaged in community child protection work in Chiang Rai and has a strong relationship with the Department of Local Administration

23  The Mekong Youth Net (MYN) is a youth development and empowerment organization in the Mekong region. The initiative seeks to create a group of youth leaders to network against human trafficking in the Mekong Sub-region. It also seeks to educate potential leaders on how to start prevention programmes at the community level in their own countries, and form linkages between individuals, NGOs and government organizations for future collaboration and support.  IICRD has worked with MYN through the SEARCH initiative and CPP.

Pattani Pattani province in located in the Deep South of Thailand. The Deep South is 80% Muslim (most of Thailand’s 4% Muslim minority) has been affected by political violence since 2004.

Child protection concerns: Partnerships: Armed conflict Local Child and Youth Organization: We Peace Rape, sexual exploitation Local University Partner: Prince of Songkhla University

Partnership Context:  IICRD has worked with We Peace since 2007. We Peace is a network of young women committed to providing assistance to communities in the Deep South who are affected by conflict, specifically playing an active role in protecting and strengthening children and women’s organizations. They also conduct legal training with community women, hold training sessions with community women on issues related to family matters, domestic violence, sexual offences and marriage laws, and are involved in action oriented research focusing on the children of detainees in three provinces in the Deep South. We Peace also coordinates with state agencies to ensure clear plans are laid out, competent officials are deployed and adequate budgets are allocated to protect the rights of these members of the population and to promote the overall quality of life of women and children in the three southern provinces of Pattani, Yala and Narathiwat.

Target Population: Thai local authorities are responsible for creating child and youth plans for people aged 0-25, categorically organized to address birth – five years, 6-12 years, 13-17 years, 18-25 years, and vulnerable populations. Planning, implementing, monitoring and evaluation tools for the DLA have been developed for each of these respective populations, yet the work of CAPE focuses predominately on children and youth aged 13-25 and vulnerable populations.

Timeframe & Tools:

February 2011 To help establish a national university network to strengthen the capacity of local authorities in planning, monitoring, and evaluation, a workshop was held with all university partners (Chulalongkorn University, Rhajabat University, and Prince of Songkla University) to introduce them to the DLA and CAPE projects. Field visits to Pattani and Chiang Rai were also held to help build relationships between local child and youth organizations and university partners.

24 March 2011 To support the development and implementation of community action plans for children and youth, a ToT was held in late March with local authorities and universities from the 10 pilot provinces to specifically focus on child and youth engagement and M&E. Youth from Pattani and Chiang Rai were also invited to participate.

April-June 2011 Provincial workshops focused on child and youth engagement and M&E in the community action plan process were held with local authorities, child protection organizations, and child and youth led organizations in each of the 10 pilot provinces. The focus of these workshops was to specifically orient partners to child and youth engagement and M&E tools, and were led in conjunction with partner universities. June/July 2011 In collaboration with local partners (child and youth led organizations, local authorities, local universities, and local child protection agencies) community workshops were held with children and youth to better understand their protection context. Specific tools included:

Community Child Protection Rainbow: children and youth groups are asked to identify the protective factors and risks affecting their lives focusing on a spectrum of child protection elements including: laws and legislation; religious and cultural norms and practices; people; activities for carers; places, spaces and activities; behaviours and values; and child and youth engagement.

Social Mapping: through the use of drawing, this activity provides young people to work in groups to identify and describe their relationship with their social and physical environments and explore the strengths and problems/challenges in their community. The activity is primarily focused on people, places, spaces, and activities.

Child engagement spidergram: this activity helps young people to numerically and graphically represent how their engaged in various aspects in their lives including at home, school, community, local government etc. Questions also consider elements of access to technology, involvement in planning, monitoring, and evaluation of services, and overall safety and security.

Individual strengths and challenges: through this activity young people individually rank the risks and protective factors in their lives at the level of self, home, school, community, and government. Children and youth are asked to identify the top five for each and this information can then be quantitatively organized to create a community profile.

Child protection case studies: young people are given child protection scenarios and asked to identify what they would do or how they would respond. This activity seeks to understand how young people navigate child protection situations and determine what they consider to be acceptable or unacceptable in relation to child protection violations. Perspectives are sought from boys and girls separately.

25 September 2011 Follow up workshops will be conducted with children and youth who participated in the community workshops to validate the information gathered and also explore how young people can more involved in the work with the DLA.