Global level Child Protection Working Group
Best Practice Examples: Child Protection Coordination
November 2014
Pakistan – Engaging national authorities
What is this document about?
This document presents examples of best practices in child protection coordination in emergencies, as
shared by child protection coordination groups in the specified countries. These examples of best practices,
which are arranged in line with the six coordination functions, were compiled during the 2014 CPWG Annual
Retreat for Coordinators of Child Protection. The document is divided as follows:



Page 1: Function 1 - Supporting Service Delivery
Page 2: Function 2 - Informing the Strategic Decision Making of the HC / HCT and Function 3:
Planning and Strategy Development
Page 3: Function 4 - Advocacy, Function 5 - Monitoring and Reporting and Function 6 - Contingency
Planning, Capacity Building and Preparedness

Challenge: There was a lack of interest on the part of the Government counterpart and no involvement or participation on their
behalf in cluster meetings. The Government was not taking ownership of the coordination group or the response.

How we solved it? We held bilateral meetings with the Government, orienting them about the cluster system and specifically
about the child protection coordination group. In addition, we included them in trainings and encouraged them to identify focal
persons who could take the lead in engaging with our group.

Why did it work? The approach was open and inclusive and it addressed the knowledge gaps of Government.

What would we do differently next time? Next time a coordination group is established, we will include the Government from
the very beginning.
Democratic Republic of Congo – Establishing IM systems

Challenge: No harmonized information management system existed for child protection coordination, thus it was not possible to
report on the Strategic Response Plan output indicators. There was also poor flow of information between the child protection
coordination groups at national, provincial and territorial levels.

How we solved it? At the national level, we identified this gap and requested surge support from the global CPWG Rapid
Response Team to strengthen our information management systems. The IM Specialist first carried out an analysis of the existing
information management tools and practices, and then worked with the provincial and national level Coordinators to establish a
data collection and analysis framework.

Why did it work? Bringing in expertise in information management allowed for an external perspective on existing gaps and
allowed for recommendations for improvement to be made. During the mission, the RRT also trained partners and coordination
team members. Moreover, an IM focal point was identified at the national level before the arrival of the IM Specialist who could
learn from the RRT member and take forward IM works thereafter.

What would we do differently next time? Next time we will invite all Coordinators at the beginning of the mission to define the
data collection and analysis framework. This will reduce ongoing revision of the framework while the system is established, and it
will ensure greater buy-in from the provincial level groups.

Challenge: There was a lack of clarity in terms of roles and responsibilities of national authorities and civil society organisations
in responding to people affected by a dam flooding disaster this year. Different civil society organisations began to respond with a
variety of interventions in an uncoordinated manner so there was duplication.

How we solved it? The government through the Civil Protection Unit took the leadership role in coordinating the response and
the Ministry of Public Service (MoPS) was coopted to chair and lead a sub-committee on Child Protection. The MoPS carried out
a needs assessment of the child protection needs at the camp and this was used to select agency partners who could offer
appropriate services and avoid further duplications.

Why did it work? The approach worked further duplication of service provision was avoided and the roles and responsibilities of
responding agencies and national authorities were clarified. There was also a clear coordination structure established that linked
the national level to the camp level with clear communication channels led by the government. There were regular feedback
meetings to review progress in relation to service delivery attached to the agreed roles and responsibilities. In addition, the active
participation of the displaced people themselves through a Committee that was formed and role of the volunteers who are part of
the NCMS.

What would we do differently next time? This process highlighted the need for a permanent structure for CP within the Child
Protection Unit that is equipped and prepared all the time to respond to emergencies. Until such a structure is established, similar
steps to those taken to establish the coordination mechanism for the flooding, will be taken for the next crisis. At the same time, it
was recognized that CP standards and procedures should be embedded within the Civil Protection Units policies and guidelines.
Function 1: Supporting Service Delivery
Chad – Mapping actors in the response

Challenge: No comprehensive mapping of child protection actors existed in Chad for the emergency
response which lead to gaps and duplication in the response effort.

How we solved it? We carried out a mapping exercise, identifying actors, what they were doing and
where they were. We then trained additional local organizations to address gaps in geographic
locations where we did not have coverage in terms of the child protection response.

Why did it work? It worked thanks to the approach of the CP coordination group and the meetings we
held. We set up a working group on child protection that convened every week in order to identify child
protection in emergency issues. Partners were using the mapping of child protection actors to refer
cases to organizations depending on their geographical coverage and their specialties.

What would we do differently next time? We would not necessarily do anything differently because
now we have a comprehensive list of actors which is critical for coordination purposes.
Page1
Zimbabwe – Clarifying roles and responsibilities
Global level Child Protection Working Group
Best Practice Examples: Child Protection Coordination
November 2014
Function 2: Informing the Strategic Decision Making of the HC/
HCT
Function 3: Planning and Strategy Development
South Turkey (North Syria) – Addressing sensitivities in reporting

Challenge: Partners were reluctant to report on the 3W due to the sensitive context of the Syria conflict. Partners based
in South Turkey did not feel comfortable sharing data and information via the 3W format. The need for a mapping of actors
and responses was recognized as critical to framing the response, however.

How we solved it? The 3W template was reviewed in several CP coordination group meetings and anonymized to
accommodate the concerns of all member agencies. The CP coordination group then endorsed a group of standard
activities for the partners which could be reported on. Lastly, the Information Management Officer sat with each agency to
identify their activities among these standard activities and where they were implemented in order to map these
accurately.

Why did it work? The 3W of each partner was reviewed and the CP coordination group developed a harmonized
template that was acceptable to all partners. The approach respected the needs of agencies to ensure that sensitivity of
information was taken into account. Based on data collected, the CP coordination group Coordinator and the Information
Management Officer developed maps and visual representation.

What would we do differently next time? We would do the same next time. The approach increased reporting from
three partners in July 2014 to ten partners in September 2014.
South Sudan – Applying Child Protection Standards

Challenge: The response of child protection agencies was not in line with agreed Minimum Standards for Child Protection.
The PSS intervention, for example, is limited to Child friendly Spaces and the Case Management work is reduced to IDTR
for Unaccompanied and Separated Children, thus not assisting other vulnerable children using a case management
approach.

How we solved it? First, we activated a PSS Task Force, engaging all CP actors and other concern clusters (Education,
Nutrition, CCCM and Mental Health group). We tried to jointly identify different forms of PSS for children and we
encouraged alternative PSS interventions (beyond CFS) with the aim of implementing a community based multi-sector PSS
responses to ensure more effectiveness and sustainability in our approach. In the near future, we will modify our 5W to
measure and collect data / indicators on quality of PSS activities implemented.

Why did it work? It is too early to assess how effective this approach was, however, there is already a clear change in the
direction the PSS response is taking – as was evidenced in the project submissions for the SRP.

What would we do differently next time? We should have included this approach from the very beginning of the CP
emergency response. Considerations of quality, minimum standards and type of intervention should be included and
explored when the response is planned to prevent this from happening again.
Yemen – Assessing needs rapidly
Challenge: For the first phase of a specific emergency we faced in Yemen a really rapid assessment tool
was needed and we realized that the CPRA toolkit and methodology, although more robust, would have
taken us too long to underake.

How we solved it? We contacted the global CPWG for support and received a 4 page rapid assessment
tool that had been used previously in the Philippines. We adapted this tool for our context and invited
Protection Cluster and GBV AoR to join us in the process, resulting in a protection rapid assessment tool.
Together we trained 2 teams of 15 members each on carrying out the rapid assessment.

Why did it work? The tool and methodology were quick to implement so we had a report relatively fast.
This rapid assessment report informed the ERF proposals. The involvement of the Protection Cluster and
GBV AoR helped spread the costs of such an assessment.

What would we do differently next time? We would consider the benefit of pooling Sub Cluster and Cluster
fund to support a Protection assessment earlier in the process.

Challenge: As members of the Child Protection Working Group, we did not have a comprehensive up-todate overview of the humanitarian situation but were faced with lots of small pieces of information.
How we solved it? We carried out a desk review of secondary data to compile all existing knowledge we
had; first preparing a template for the desk review and then we drafted an initial document, requesting inputs
and comments from working group members in the process.
Why did it work? The approach was successful because partners welcomed the document once completed
and found it useful for fundraising.
What would we do differently next time? We would prioritize completing a desk review quicker next time
as it is an extremely useful resource for CPWG members.
State of Palestine – Conducting a desk review



Central African Republic – Coordinating responses with other sectors

Challenge: The Child Protection sub Cluster had established Child-friendly Spaces immediately after the crisis hit, and at a
second stage the Education Cluster set up “Etapes” (Temporary Learning Spaces) but there was a lack of coordination
between the two initiatives as well as a misunderstanding of responsibilities and limits for each of the structures.

How we solved it? We set up a working group to develop joint guidelines for “Etapes” and CFSs, ensuring that protection
is duly considered in the Etapes approach. The joint guidelines includes considerations for setting up structure and
establishing common standards.

Why did it work? It worked because we worked together with the Education Cluster to address the challenges and aimed
to maximize available resources through agreeing on a common approach.

What would we do differently next time? We would commence coordination between the CP sub Cluster and the Education
Cluster before setting up structures.
Page2

Global level Child Protection Working Group
Best Practice Examples: Child Protection Coordination
November 2014
Function 4: Advocacy
Function 5: Monitoring and
Reporting
and Function 6: Contingency Planning,
Capacity Building and Preparedness
Colombia – Advocacy on child protection with the HC

Challenge: There was a need to provide clear advocacy messages on child protection issues to the Resident/Humanitarian
Coordinator in order to raise his awareness and keep him on script.

How we solved it? We held a consultation with key actors, including UNHCR, WFP, NRC, FAO, and UNDP to compare experiences
in this sector, as they are also engaged with child protection work. Next we drafted an initial version of the advocacy messages in
standard format and circulated for comments. Lastly we submitted it to the RC / HCT on behalf of all the humanitarian actors.

Why did it work? The messages were well received as they did not come from one agency or one cluster or AOR. We had broad
buy-in from colleagues in other clusters and other agencies.

What would we do differently next time? We would have consulted government counterpart agencies and more directly involved
them in drafting of messages.
Iran – Advocating on sensitive child protection issues


Sudan – Monitoring cluster performance to highlight gaps
Myanmar – Advocacy with humanitarian actors

Challenge: In conflict affected areas of Myanmar, the child protection coordination group identified
that the wider humanitarian response was inappropriately supporting boarding schools as part of
ongoing interventions. Even though camps were set up for displaced persons, boarding schools
were supported for children. Since the support provided in the boarding schools was greater than
that in the camps, a pull factor was created for families to send their children to the boarding
schools, unnecessarily separating them from their caregivers. Due to the ongoing conflict, this
separation meant that some children did not see their families for months or years. In addition, it
became apparent that there was no civil military separation as the boarding schools were used by
the military to protect certain areas from bombing. Even though the use of boarding schools is
common practice in the Myanmar context, the way it was being used in conflict is problematic.
How we solved it? We carried out an analysis of the boarding schools in consultation with
national NGOs and presented the findings in an inter-sectoral forum. Other sectors were alerted to
the protection risks that their interventions brought with them. As a result, a common position was
sought with the Education sector, and three inter-agency inter-sectoral assessments were carried
out in ‘problematic’ boarding schools.

Why did it work? The child protection sub-sector played a critical role in reconciling different
views on whether or not agencies should intervene in boarding schools. As a result of the
advocacy efforts, a ‘Short Guidance Note’ was adopted at the Inter-cluster level and other sectors
recognized the need to take forward practical guidance developed by the child protection subsector. In addition, the non-state entities drafted a letter of commitment to prevent the use of
boarding schools being used for military purposes, thus reaffirming their civilian nature.

What would we do differently next time? We would start with advocacy with the non-state
entities and government instead of having this as a last step. Another thing we would do differently
next time is allow for more time to validate the practical guidance developed, with national NGOs
and communities living in the specific area.

Challenge: We needed to identify a way to identify and highlight gaps in coordination that existed at the state level, given the weak
communication and overall poor coordination that existed on child protection issues between the state and national levels.

How we solved it? We initiated the Cluster Coordination Performance Monitoring (CCPM) process with national and state level
coordination groups. Since the CCPM process requires a survey to be shared with partners, it clearly identified gaps in coordination in
terms of staffing, the availability of basic tools such as contact lists and 3W, and agreed roles and responsibilities for coordination.

Why did it work? Since the CCPM is a standardized process which highlights gaps and results in a neutral manner, it is easier for
actors including Government to accept the results.

What would we do differently next time? Although this approach worked to highlight gaps, the Cluster Coordination Performance
Monitoring (CCPM) tool and process can be used for wider purposes.
Philippines – Building capacity as preparedness

Challenge: The Sub-Regional CP response during Typhon Haiyan highlighted the need for strengthen capacities for CP coordination
and programmatic response. Resources are centralized in the Philippines so the main challenge is how to build capacity at the regional
level and amongst frontline workers.

How we solved it? The National Child Protection Working Group, through its secretariat Council for the Welfare of Children have
initiated a process of strengthening the 17 Sub-Regional Council for the Welfare of Children bodies to establish Sub-committees
(within existing structures) to convene as Child Protection Working Groups. In the event of an emergency these Regional Child
Protection Working Groups could activate as Sub-clusters for Child Protection. This is particularly important as the entire Philippines is
vulnerable to disasters and emergencies. A terms of reference has been established and capacity building exercises are in process.

Why did it work? This approach was based on existing structures, so it increased national ownership and buy-in. The Directive was
sent from the national CPWG via a local executive order. A percentage of the national budget was invested so there is an increase
sustainability.

What would we do differently next time? It is too early to tell but the ability to respond to future emergency will be show whether the
capacity investment was successful.
Page3

Challenge: How to advocate on child protection issues that are considered sensitive by government, for example on sexual and
gender based violence. The challenge was how to address this sensitivity in order to create a suitable atmosphere for programming /
planning responses on these issues.
How we solved it? We incorporated targeted advocacy messages within our regular programme; mainly in the form of capacity
building activities, technical dialogues, and meetings.
Why did it work? The advocacy and capacity building initiatives took place consistently over a period of years, thus allowing
sufficient time for government actors to become familiar with sensitive topics. As their awareness / knowledge on the issue increased,
so did their engagement in addressing it. Now several of the government organisations as well as religious leaders / institutions are
advocating on these issues and are initiating capacity development activities.