‘Making children’s rights real’: lessons from policy networks and Contribution Analysis

ABSTRACT

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is the most ratified human rights convention in the world. There has been considerable progress in incorporating these rights into domestic law, regional and local policies. However, cross-national research continues to show gaps in implementing and realising these rights. This article draws on theoretical developments on policy networks and Contribution Analysis (CA) – a theory-based model used to monitor and evaluate programmes – to evaluate recent developments in children rights advocacy in Scotland. With the official national commitment to ‘making rights real’, Scotland is a fertile test case to examine what strategies are likely – or not likely – to result in embedding children’s rights legally and practically in their lives. The article concludes that successful advocacy needs to consider which key actors are included or excluded from networks, to anticipate disruption and strategise accordingly, and to recognise the key role of ‘network managers’. CA adds attention to how policy is made and the benefits of collectively identifying a theory of change that can be monitored, modified and improved. Collaboration, dialogue and trust can ensure such a theory of change is ultimately successful: these require both attention to relationships as well as evidence.

KEYWORDS:

• Children’s rights
• human rights
• advocacy
• policy networks
• Contribution Analysis

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the generous contributions of children and young people, professionals and policy-makers to discussions that have informed this article. In particular, we are drawing on the collective ideas developed through the seminar series funded by the Scottish Universities Insight Institute. The findings also draw on collaborative projects funded by the Big Lottery Fund, the British Academy, Economic and Social Research Council (R451265206, RES-189-25-0174, RES-451-26-0685) and Knowledge Exchange funds from the University of Edinburgh and the ESRC Impact Acceleration Account, the European Research Council, the Leverhulme Trust, the Royal Society of Edinburgh, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Council of Canada.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Andressa M. Gadda has worked as a researcher in the field of child care and protection for over 10 years. Most recently she was a Research Fellow at the Centre for Child Wellbeing and Protection (CCWP) at the University of Stirling. She is currently the Head of Policy and Research at the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry (SCAI).

Juliet Harris is the Director of Together (Scottish Alliance for Children’s Rights) and leads the organisation in promoting and monitoring the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) across Scotland. This includes working with Together’s membership of over 380 children’s organisations and professionals to produce an annual State of Children’s Rights report, as well as liaising with government and parliamentarians to further children’s rights in legislation, policy and practice. Juliet’s previous experience includes six years tackling the destitution and poverty of refugees and asylum seekers, alongside a number of roles with charities working in the field of health and homelessness.

E. Kay M. Tisdall is Professor of Childhood Policy at the University of Edinburgh. She has a long-standing interest in children and young people’s participation, from her policy and research work.

Elizabeth Millership has held various children’s rights roles in policy, research and consultancy including a long-standing association with Together.

ORCID

Andressa M. Gadda http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9510-8804

E. Kay M. Tisdall http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8967-6426

Notes

1 E.K.M. Tisdall and S. Punch, ‘Not So “New”? Looking Critically at Childhood Studies’, Children’s Geographies 10, no. 3 (2012): 249–64.

2 R. Hinton and K. Bayes, ‘Participation or Transformation’, in Children and Young People’s Participation and Its Transformative Potential: Learning from Across countries, ed. E.K.M. Tisdall, A.M. Gadda, and U.M. Butler (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014).

3 See also J. Ferrie, R. Wallace, and E. Webster, ‘Realising International Human Rights: Scotland on the Global Stage’, The International Journal of Human Rights 22, no.1 (2018): 1–4, doi: 10.1080/13642987.2017.1390297.

4 Scottish Government, A Nation with Ambition: the Government’s Programme for Scotland 2017–2018, 14, http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2017/09/8468

5 E.K.M. Tisdall, ‘Children’s Wellbeing and Children’s Rights in Tension?’, International Journal of Children’s Rights 23, no. 4(2015): 769–89; E.K.M. Tisdall, ‘Children’s Rights and Children’s Wellbeing: Equivalent Policy Concepts?’, Journal of Social Policy 44, no. 4 (2015): 807–23.

6 For further elaboration, see L. Lundy et al., ‘The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: A study of Legal Implementation in 12 Countries’, 2012, https://www.qub.ac.uk/research-centres/CentreforChildrensRights/filestore/Filetoupload,368351,en.pdf; E.K.M. Tisdall and J.M. Davis, ‘Children’s Rights and Wellbeing: Tensions Within the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014’, in Enhancing the Rights and Wellbeing of Children: Connecting Research, Policy and Practice, ed. A. Smith (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015).

7 See consideration of the UK’s State Report During the 72nd Session of the UN Committee, May 17–June 3, 2016, http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/SessionDetails1.aspx?SessionID=987&Lang=en; Together, ‘State of Children’s Rights Report 2016’, 2016, http://www.togetherscotland.org.uk/pdfs/TogetherReport2016.pdf.

8 A.M. Gadda et al., ‘Implementing and Monitoring the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC): Post-Seminar Briefing 4: The UNCRC Going Forwards’, http://www.togetherscotland.org.uk/pdfs/UNCRC_4_FINAL.pdf.

9 For a discussion of these provisions, including their strengths and weaknesses, see Tisdall, ‘Children’s Wellbeing and Children’s Rights’; Tisdall ‘Children’s Rights and Children’s Wellbeing’.

10 See editorial of this issue.

11 E-H. Klijn and J.F.M. Koppenjan, ‘Public Management and Policy Networks: Foundations of a Network Approach to Governance’, Public Management an International Journal of Research and Theory 2, no. 2 (2000): 135–58; M. Dal Molin and C. Masella, ‘Networks in Policy, Management and Governance: A Comparative Literature Review to Stimulate Future Research Avenues’, Journal of Management & Governance 20, no. 4 (2016): 823–949.

12 K.R. Isset et al., ‘Networks in Public Administration Scholarship: Understanding Where We Are and Where We Need to Go’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21 (2011): 157–73.

13 Ibid.

14 A.D. Henry, ‘Ideology, Power and the Structure of Policy Networks’, Policy Studies Journal 39, no. 3 (2011): 361–83.

15 Ibid.

16 Isset et al., ‘Networks in Public Administration Scholarship’, 164.

17 Henry, ‘Ideology, Power and the Structure of Policy Networks’, 365.

18 Ibid.

19 Ibid.

20 Klijn and Koppenjan, ‘Public Management and Policy Networks’.

21 Ibid.

22 Ibid, 140.

23 Ibid.

24 Dal Molin and Masella, ‘Networks in Policy, Management and Governance’; Klijn and Koppenjan, ‘Public Management and Policy Networks’.

25 Dal Molin and Masella, ‘Networks in Policy, Management and Governance’.

26 Ibid.

27 Klijn and Koppenjan, ‘Public Management and Policy Networks’.

28 E-H. Klijn, B. Steijn, and J. Edelenbos, ‘The impact of network management on outcomes in governance networks’, Public administration 88, no. 4 (2010): 1063–82.

29 Ibid.

30 Klijn and Koppenjan, ‘Public Management and Policy Networks’; Klijn, Steijn, and Edelenbos, ‘The Impact of Network Management’; Dal Molin and Masella, ‘Networks in Policy, Management and Governance’.

31 Klijn andKoppenjan, ‘Public Management and Policy Networks’.

32 Dal Molin and Masella, ‘Networks in Policy, Management and Governance’.

33 Ibid.; Klijn and Koppenjan, ‘Public Management and Policy Networks’; Henry, ‘Ideology, Power and the Structure of Policy Networks’.

34 Isset et al., ‘Networks in Public Administration Scholarship’.

35 Klijn and Koppenjan, ‘Public Management and Policy Networks’.

36 Dal Molin and Masella, ‘Networks in Policy, Management and Governance’; Klijn and Koppenjan, ‘Public Management and Policy Networks’; Henry, ‘Ideology, Power and the Structure of Policy Networks’.

37 Ibid.; Dal Molin and Masella, ‘Networks in Policy, Management and Governance’.

38 Klijn andKoppenjan, ‘Public Management and Policy Networks’; Dal Molin and Masella, ‘Networks in Policy, Management and Governance’.

39 J. Mayne, ‘Addressing Attribution Through Contribution Analysis: Using Performance Measures Sensibly’, The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation 16, no. 1 (2001): 1.

40 J. Mayne, ‘Contribution Analysis: Coming of Age?’, Evaluation 18, no. 3 (2012): 270–80; J. Mayne, ‘Contribution Analysis: An Approach to Exploring Cause and Effect’, 2008, https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/70124/ILAC_Brief16_Contribution_Analysis.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.

41 Ibid.

42 Mayne, ‘Contribution Analysis: Coming of Age?’.

43 Mayne, ‘Contribution Analysis: An Approach’; Mayne, ‘Contribution Analysis: Coming of Age?’; Mayne, ‘Addressing Attribution Through Contribution Analysis’.

44 Mayne, ‘Contribution Analysis: An Approach’; E. Wimbush, S. Montague, and T. Mulherin, ‘Applications of Contribution Analysis to Outcome Planning and Impact Evaluation’, Evaluation 18, no. 3 (2012): 310–29.

45 M.Q. Patton, ‘A Utilization-Focused Approach to Contribution Analysis’, Evaluation 18, no. 3 (2012): 364–77; B.L. Riley et al., ‘Using Contribution Analysis to Evaluate the Impacts of Research on Policy: Getting to “Good Enough”’, Research Evaluation 27, no. 1 (2017): 16–27.

46 K.A. Moreau and K. Eady, ‘Connecting Medical Education to Patient Outcomes: The Promise of Contribution Analysis’, Medical Teacher 37, no. 11 (2015): 1060–2; Wimbush, Montague, and Mulherin, ‘Applications of Contribution Analysis’.

47 While not an issue explored in this article, there are advantages and disadvantages of such mutual dependence. For example, it can facilitate an exchange of knowledge and expertise and lead to co-production of sound policy solutions. It can also lead to conflicts of interests and funders constraining implicitly or explicitly advocacy by organisations that they fund. Such issues are explored by E. Bloodgood and J. Tremblay-Boire, ‘Does Government Funding Depoliticize Non-governmental Organizations? Examining Evidence from Europe’, European Political Science Review 9, no. 3 (2017): 401–24, doi:10.1017/S1755773915000430.

48 The Rights of Children and Young Persons (Wales) Measure 2011. See Hoffman’s article in this special journal issue.

49 Scottish Government, Consultation on the Rights of Children and Young People, 2011, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/09/07110058/0.

50 Law Society of Scotland, Scottish Government Rights of Children and Young People, Response, 2011, www.gov.scot/Resource/0038/00386652.pdf.

51 See Tisdall and Davis, ‘Children’s Rights and Wellbeing’.

52 Education and Culture Committee, Scottish Parliament, Official Report 3.9.13 (Edinburgh: Scottish Parliament, 2013); K. McK. Norrie, Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill (Edinburgh: Education and Culture Committee, Scottish Parliament, 2013).

53 See Scottish Parliament, ELLC/S3/10/14/M, 14th Meeting, 2010, http://archive.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/ellc/mop-10/edmop10-0512.htm.

54 For fuller analysis and the details of Professor Norrie’s critique, see Tisdall, ‘Children’s Wellbeing and Children’s Rights’. To note that the Scottish Parliament was established with the explicit aim to welcome civic engagement, to increase transparency and accountability. The presentation of diverse and sometimes conflicting views is legitimately part of the Parliament in particular and policy development and advocacy more generally.

55 For fuller analysis of the arguments for and against CRC incorporation, see Tisdall, ‘Children’s Wellbeing and Children’s Rights’. In summary, pro-incorporation arguments include: the gaps within legal protection of CRC rights due to the incremental approach; evidence from other countries that incorporation does not lead to substantially more legal challenges, but rather practice and social change; and that incorporation will ensure a holistic and consistent framework for children’s rights. Prevailing arguments against incorporation are: practice change will better ensure children’s rights are realised in practice; certain children’s rights should not be subject to legal challenge and decision-making; and children should not be involved in litigating about their rights.

56 D. Dunlop, ‘Children and Young People in Care Until Age 26: A Must for Improved Outcomes’, Scottish Journal of Residential Child Care 12, no. 3 (2013): 1–8.

57 For example, K. Dugdale MSP (column 27920) and N. Bibby MSP (column 27931-2) in Scottish Parliament Official Report 19.2.14, http://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/report.aspx?r=9473&mode=pdf.

58 For discussion, see B. Kisby, ‘Analysing Policy Networks’, Policy Studies 28, no. 1 (2007): 71–90.

59 Lundy et al., ‘The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child’.

60 Education and Culture Committee, Scottish Parliament, Stage 1 Report on the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill (Edinburgh: Scottish Parliament, 2013).

61 Ibid., para 39.

62 For discussion, see HRBA Portal, ‘The Human Rights Based Approach to Development Cooperation: Towards a Common Understanding Among UN Agencies’, http://hrbaportal.org/the-human-rights-based-approach-to-development-cooperation-towards-a-common-understanding-among-un-agencies.

63 See Tisdall, ‘Children’s Wellbeing and Children’s Rights’.

64 Scottish Government, A Nation With Ambition, 22.

65 See Payne’s article in this special issue.

66 Scottish Government, A Nation With Ambition, 31.

67 C. Webster, ‘Scotland to Ban Parents From Smacking Their Children With Landmark Legislation’, Independent, October 19, 2017, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/scotland-smacking-ban-corporal-punishment-parents-children-john-finnie-bill-justifiable-assault-a8009111.html. In October 2017, Scottish Government Ministers said that they will ensure that a Bill brought forward by Green MSP John Finnie would become law. The legislation will remove the defence of ‘justifiable assault’, in Scottish law, which allows parents to use physical punishment to admonish a child.

68 For example, see Scottish Government, Stop and Search of the Person in Scotland: Code of Practice for Constables, 2017, 7.9–7.11, https://beta.gov.scot/publications/code-practice-exercise-constables-power-stop-search-person-scotland/.

69 Scottish Government, ‘Annual Cabinet Event with Children and Young People’, May 9, 2017, http://www.gov.scot/Topics/People/Young-People/families/youth-work-participation.

70 Wimbush, Montague, and Mulherin, ‘Applications of Contribution Analysis’.

71 Ibid.; Patton, ‘A Utilisation-Focussed Approach’.

72 Wimbush, Montague, and Mulherin, ‘Applications of Contribution Analysis’; F.L. Leeuw, ‘Linking Theory-Based Evaluation and Contribution Analysis: Three Problems and a Few Solutions’, Evaluation 18, no. 3 (2012): 348–63.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Scottish Universities Insight Institute seminar series.