Actors engagement Violence Against Children (VAC)

• Actors in general include but are not limited to community leaders, teachers/educational staff, social workers, psychologists, and local civil society organisations/partner organisations, etc.

• Disaggregated by type:

  • Formal actors include all professional actors working with children and youth, from the social services workforce, justice social services, law professionals, education and health sectors professionals; local and national migration policy makers, cross-border networks, and border workers.

  • Non-formal actors include community members and leaders, child protection committees, child led, and youth led committees, CP volunteers, parents, guardians, caregivers, diaspora communities and organisations and paraprofessionals,

  • Other actors include private sector companies’ staff and sports federations.

• Disaggregated by age: Categorizes actors into age groups (e.g., children under 18, youth aged 18-24, adults aged 25-59, and older adults 60+).

• Disaggregated by gender: Disaggregation by gender (male, female, non-binary/other) ensures the identification of gender-based trends or gaps in participation.

• Actively Engaged: indicates direct involvement or participation in actions, programs, or initiatives that promote positive norms and practices against violence. Engagement can take various forms, such as: 1) Advocacy: Actors raising awareness or advocating for the prevention of violence against children in their communities or organizations. 2) Implementation: Those directly implementing programs, policies, or practices that reduce or prevent violence. 3) Training/Capacity Building: Individuals or groups involved in training others to promote non-violent behaviours and practices. 3) Leadership Roles: Taking leadership in promoting and enforcing positive norms and anti-VAC initiatives (e.g., community leaders organizing campaigns).

• Promoting Positive Norms and Practices: it refers to efforts aimed at shifting societal attitudes and behaviours away from practices that tolerate or enable violence against children. Examples include promoting non-violent discipline, advocating for children's rights, supporting safe and protective environments, and encouraging reporting and prevention of VAC.

• Violence against children (VAC):  refers to all forms of physical, emotional, sexual abuse, neglect, and exploitation that children (persons under the age of 18) may experience. This violence can occur in various settings, such as in the home, school, community, online, or within institutional environments. It can be perpetrated by parents, caregivers, peers, teachers, law enforcement, or others in positions of authority or trust (WHO).

Limitations :

• Disaggregation by age, gender, and type may not always be available or accurately reported.

• Difficulty in capturing the “change” of behaviours that would be sustainable.

• Difficulty in tracking non-formal actors: community leaders, parents, or youth advocates who are not formally associated with organizations may be difficult to track. Many individuals promoting anti-VAC practices do so informally, and these contributions may not be systematically recorded.

• Disaggregation Challenges:  Obtaining accurate disaggregated data (by age, gender, type) can be difficult, particularly in communities where such data might be sensitive or where systems for disaggregation are not well established.

• Overlapping Roles: Some actors may play multiple roles (e.g., a youth advocate may also be an educator), making it challenging to assign a single type to each actor. This can complicate analysis and reporting.

• Cultural Sensitivity: In some cultures, openly promoting positive norms against violence may be viewed with suspicion or resistance, making it difficult to track genuine participation or engagement.

• Time and Resource Intensity: Collecting data on a large and diverse group of actors (especially with disaggregation) requires significant time and resources, potentially limiting the frequency of data collection or the comprehensiveness of the data.

• Exclusion of Indirect Actors: The indicator focuses on direct, active engagement, but indirect actors (e.g., those supporting VAC initiatives behind the scenes) may be left out of the measurement, which could provide an incomplete picture of efforts against VAC.

• Change Over Time: Engagement levels may fluctuate over time, depending on external factors like funding, political will, or the prominence of VAC in public discourse. The indicator might not capture these fluctuations unless measured regularly.

Precaution:

• Engagement of Local Stakeholders: work closely with local stakeholders (community leaders, NGOs, etc.) to gather data on informal actors and ensure no key groups are left out of the measurement.

• Ensure Confidentiality and Consent: Especially for disaggregated data (age, gender), ensure that data collection processes respect confidentiality and obtain informed consent from participants. In some settings, collecting data on gender or age might be sensitive and require special care.

• Flexibility in Categorizing Actors: Be flexible with actor categorization (e.g., allowing for multiple roles) to reflect the realities of engagement. This flexibility will help prevent under-reporting or misclassification of actors who fulfill more than one role.

• Address Cultural and Social Contexts: Take into account cultural and social norms that might influence participation and reporting. In some contexts, discussing or reporting engagement in anti-VAC efforts might be stigmatized or dangerous, requiring special precautions in data collection.

• Establish Data Quality Controls: Put quality controls in place, such as reviewing the data for consistency, running pilot tests on data collection tools, and training data collectors thoroughly. This will help reduce errors and ensure that disaggregated data is collected accurately.

• Timely and Context-Specific Reporting: Ensure that data collection and reporting align with program timelines and are relevant to the context. This helps in making the data actionable and meaningful for stakeholders involved in the interventions.

• Disaggregate where feasible: while disaggregation by type, age, and gender is important, it may not always be feasible or culturally appropriate. In such cases, ensure transparency in reporting the limitations and adjust data collection processes accordingly.

• Factors influencing their positive engagement and factors that hinder the engagement process.

• Trends over time in the number of actors engaged in promoting positive norms and practices to prevent violence against children.

• Distribution of engaged actors across different types, age groups, and genders to understand whether the engagement is inclusive across different demographic groups.

• Geographic distribution of engaged actors and identification of areas needing more focus.

• Inform the development and adjustment of strategies and interventions, ensuring they are effectively engaging a broad range of stakeholders and addressing the needs of different demographic groups.

• https://childhub.org/en/child-protection-online-library/shifting-norms-around-violence-schools-guide-trainers-and-facilitators-working-children-and-young-people

• Curricula CARING project - GBV prevention by addressing the existing social end gender norms_EN_uploaded.pdf (childhub.org)