#

Ending violence against children in custody

All-country meeting Brussels, Friday 24 February 2012 International Juvenile Justice Observatory & Children's Rights Alliance for England

Rue Mercelis n 50, 1050 Brussels

Aims of the meeting

The International Juvenile Justice Observatory had several objectives in mind for the allcountry meeting about violence against children in custody. Not only did the IJJO want to recap on the project goals and its expected impact, but also wished to share the progress and challenges to date in meeting project objectives, with the aim of finding positive steps forward concerning violence against children in custody. An agreement to specify a group schedule and to consider the ethical and practical issues and challenges raised by this aspect of the project, a settlement for the evaluation framework for the project and final amendments to structure the project website before it is transferred onto a content management system were highly desirable. To discuss national, regional and international opportunities to advance the projects goal of ending violence against children was one of the main priorities of this meeting. At last, future goals, objectives, initial outlines and dates of the next all-country meeting were fixed.

Participants
Alexandra Bacescu-Davis, Anda Ivan Carolyne Willow (Chair of meeting) Cedric Foussard (Host of meeting) Christina Hadjisavva Save the Children Romania European Commission (tbc) Childrens Rights Alliance for England International Juvenile Justice Observatory Office of the Commissioner for Childrens Rights in Cyprus Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Human Defence for Children-ECPAT Childrens Rights Alliance for England Defence for Children-ECPAT Independent evaluator (UK)

Helmut Sax Rights Joyce Brummelman Lisa Payn Maartje Berger Mary Robinson

Background documents for the All-country meeting

Grant agreement Guidelines on working with children and young people Revised activity schedule, January 2012 Progress report submitted to EC 06 January 2012 Focus group schedule

Table of contents

Welcoming words Inauguration

Challenges faced by national partners

Evaluation of the framework by Mary Robinson

Engaging children and young people in the project: Review of the questions

10

Review of the website

10

Conclusion

11

Annexes

11

Program

12

Project Description

14

Progress Report

21

Welcoming words Inauguration

Carolyne Willow National Co-ordinator of the Children's Rights Alliance for England presented the overall goal of the project. According to the projects outline, the first year will be dedicated to the analysis of compliance of national law with international standards. Then, in the second stage of the project, it will be necessary to raise young peoples awareness and to provide them with the appropriate support, which is probably the most exciting and the most innovative part of the project. At the moment, project partners are gathering data keeping in mind the final objectives as set up when the project was launched.

Challenges faced by national partners

Overview of the unexpected challenges faced by the projects partners. Christina Hadjisavva - Office of the Commissioner for Childrens Rights in Cyprus pointed out the two main challenges the Commissioner for Childrens Rights in Cyprus is facing at the moment. First, they are having a hard time dealing with the authorities. The latter do not seem to be willing to cooperate and do not help them finding children who used to be detained. The authorities main excuse is the lack of record of such children. There is apparently no central database, which could be shared with other entities or the civil society. The only information provided came from The Department of Social Services which disseminated the program leaflet to probationers and returned to the Office of the Commissioner for Childrens Rights all the completed leaflets. Only 4 of the completed leaflets were from children under 18 who have been into custody, the rest were completed either by people over 18 or by people who were in probation but have not been into custody. Besides, there is a degree of difficulty because children do not seem willing to commit to the project. Also children who are in custody at the present moment may be reluctant to talk freely about their experiences due to fear of retribution within the custody setting.

Helmut Sax Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Human Rights also faces two main challenges. First, he finds it difficult to find children who can be involved in the project. In Austria, there is only one prison dedicated to juveniles and its not the easiest place to access. First, it is located in Gelastoff, nearly sixty kilometres from Vienna, which is not the most convenient place to regularly visit the children, either as an academic conducting surveys, researches, etc. or as parents visiting their child. Despite its remoteness, this particular facility remains a good institution, generally speaking. Nevertheless, it cannot welcome all young Austrian convicts; hence, some of them are detained elsewhere with adults. The latter led to many

abuses, overcrowding premises, and even suicides. A solution would be to build another juvenile prison, in Vienna this time, but as the only court dedicated to juvenile justice was abolished not so long ago, the creation of another prison for juveniles remains a wish. Hence, it was difficult to find children who could take part in the project because: most of them are detained outside of Vienna; others are detained within regular facilities and scattered throughout the country. Moreover, in Gelastoff, on top of the remoteness, it was hard to talk to the children because of the authorities reluctance to let them speak to academics. For a long time, the Ministry of Justice indeed denied Helmut access to the young offenders detained in Gelastoff. Nevertheless, thanks to his perseverance, and notably thanks to a letter he sent to the Minister of Justice asking him to reconsider his decision, Helmut was able to visit the children in Gelastoff for the first time in January. He also had the opportunity to have a conversation with the prison staff and the social workers in charge of the aforementioned children. In the end, five young people complying with the projects objectives showed up interested in knowing more about their rights; they were interviewed and exposed some of their concerns but also talk about their past, which can be rough as only children committing very serious offenses are send to prison in Austria.

Alexandra Bacescu-Davis - Save the Children Romania is also having a hard time finding children. Save the Children Romania contacted the Ministry of Justice but had to face their lack of support and even their lack of interest in the project. Without the help of the national authorities, its hard to find children that could be involved in the project. Hence, at the moment, Save the Children Romania only found four children interested in taking part in the project; three others have just been recommended and could be involved as well. Moreover, on top of the authorities reluctance, there are no statistics dealing with young offenders in detention apart from the ones evaluating peer-to-peer violence. Hence, even the authorities data are useless for the CRAE project. Nevertheless, it could be useful to gain the authorities interest and support in order to reassure the children; with the latter, the children will indeed be more likely to take part in the project, in the campaign and will not be as afraid as they certainly are at the moment.

Carolyne Willow - Childrens Rights Alliance for England expects everyone to use every possible way to find the children needed. If twenty-five seems impossible, ten to 15 children need to be involved to the very least. Considering the difficulties everyone is facing, challenges faced and overcame will be included in the final reports in order to emphasize the hard work undertaken by the different partners.

Maartje Berger, Defence for Children-ECP used two methods to find children: Facebook and Defence for Childrens very own network. Due to past experiences, Defence for Childrens team assumed that they would not have the support of the national authorities. Hence, they immediately started using a social media tool, Facebook. Their tactic was to post messages on pages related to young peoples detention facilities. It turned out to be a brilliant idea as it enabled them to find children and raised the interest, and later on support, of the authorities.

To find children corresponding to the projects objectives, Maartje also called upon her organisations own network. In the end, they were able to involve two boys so far, a third one is interested. Among the two boys that have already been interviewed one was in detention for seven years and visited no less than eleven different facilities. As a result, he never received a proper and followed-up education and lost contact with his parents and relatives. Defence for Children-ECP started to build a programme designed for them and hope to find out about many more in order to help them. So far, according to the interviews results, it appears that children face a lot of abuse of power and also regularly have to deal with peer-to-peer violence. There are around three hundred young people in custody at the moment, which underlines a decrease in child convicts in the last five years.

Anda Ivan - European Commission (tbc) emphasized the importance of the involvement of enough juveniles. To have a major impact and to draw important conclusions, a significant number of youth is needed (at least 10-15 children). She is convinced that all partners are doing their best and can gather the required number of children.

Helmut Sax Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Human Rights explained that another solution could also be taken into consideration. The partners could also include and interview young people aged from 18 to 21. There is no necessity to keep it under 18 because of the CRC. These changes also need to be documented as a part of the challenges and progress of the project process.

Cedric Foussard -International Juvenile Justice Observatory pointed out that custody does not only mean being held in prison. One could also take into consideration children held in custody within police stations, health care facilities, etc. Children held in detention within these premises could also be reckoned with. This might enable partners to gather enough children for their survey.

Carolyne Willow - Childrens Rights Alliance for England reminded everyone that information can also be gathered thanks to other legal ways: resort to the law; ask your local MP to gather information for you and to ask the right questions to the appropriate persons; use the authorities own report and researches, etc. For instance, the Childrens Rights Alliance for England recently took the British government to court in order to force them to go through all the restraints they have implemented in the last few years and realize how unlawful most of them are.

Lisa Payne - Childrens Rights Alliance for England used two methods to find children to involve in the project. First, she contacted other NGOs working with former young offenders. Unfortunately, none of them answered, which may be due to a little sense of competition. Second, the Childrens Rights Alliance for England contacted local youth offending teams.

Nevertheless, the latter have to face severe cuts and the bulk of their staff, which may have been so helpful, is gone. Eventually, Lisa was able to find five young people interested in the project but only three seems to be willing to commit. Concerning children in custody, seven were interviewed and five seems willing to carry on; nevertheless, the children in custody at the moment are reluctant to work with the children from the outside. Another challenge faced by the Childrens Rights Alliance for Children is the gathering of parental consents. Parents are often supportive of the project but refuse to sign any official document.

Evaluation framework for the project by Mary Robinson

Mary Robinson - independent evaluator (UK) is a freelance consultant who benefits from an extensive knowledge in evaluating projects as a former Deputy Secretary General of Amnesty International, and a consultant for renowned NGOs such as PLAN, Terre des Hommes, etc. Mary made a PowerPoint presentation about the plans for the project evaluation (see attached at annexe x). The aims of the evaluation are as follows: To evaluate the impact of the End violence against children in custody project on law, policy and practice in the partner countries To evaluate the benefits the project brings to the children and young people participating in it young investigators, young campaigners and focus group participants To learn from the project to inform future applicable work To enable CRAE and partners to promote the achievements of the project. To evaluate a programme, one should ask themselves three questions: has the project done what it was supposed to do? What differences has the project made? Has the project done the right things? Hence, the evaluation will assess the impact of the CRAE project on law, policy and practice; on the participants, especially on the children and young people co-leading the work; and on the future changes that might arise in each partner country following the CRAE project. In the end, the evaluation will deliver four outputs: tools for engaging children and young people in devising outcomes measures; templates for obtaining feedback from children about their involvement in the project; an exhaustive evaluation report; and a shorter summary version of the latter. To assess the CRAE project, there are two options available: to evaluate the whole project based on the project objectives set out in the grant application to the EC;, thus paying close attention to: the situation before the intervention; the interventions made by the project; the tangible results of the project interventions; the changes, which occurred during the project period and those fully delivered by the end of the project; the impact of the CRAE project that is to say the long-term changes it brought. The second option would be an advocacy-based focus, concentrating on the campaigning results and outcomes of the project, This would result in a lesser focus on the effects the project may have had on the young participants or on the different stages the project had to go through. Eventually, Mary asked for the partners opinion.

Open discussion: Anda Ivan - European Commission (tbc) first asked for Marys opinion. Anda was also wondering if the project will have the opportunity to have an impact on the national legal system as partners are still looking for children at the moment. Besides, she asked if a combination of the two options was also a possibility. Helmut Sax Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Human Rights was also in favour of an evaluation that would cover all the areas of the project. Carolyne Willow - Childrens Rights Alliance for England appreciated option 2 but thought number 1 was more appropriate in order to emphasize the work of the partners throughout the entire project. Mary Robinson - independent evaluator (UK) pointed out that the only documents she has received so far were the ones sent to her by Carolyne. Yet, she needs more information to assess the project. Thus, project partners should remember to regularly keep her updated on what they are doing. They could also communicate via e-mails or Skype in order to review everyones work, progress and so on. It would indeed really help if Mary could receive data and information during the project and not wait for the final national reports. Also, Mary is interested in involving the children in the projects evaluation; she may use the brick wall technique, make a timeline of the childrens journey with them or simply asked them series of questions. This is open to discussion. After discussion it was agreed to adopt the first option for the evaluation framework, ie the framework based on the project objectives. The campaigning results would be incorporated into this framework. It was also agreed that Mary would propose indicators (success criteria) for the whole project after looking at all the documentation; a document will be circulated in April in good time for the next project meeting. Violence in custody: country updates and external opportunities Carolyne Willow - Childrens Rights Alliance for England summed up the main problems and challenges faced by the projects partners as well as things that could have helped them if they had existed: data on young offenders; childrens emotionality; the authorities reluctance; the hard navigation in the system, etc.

Cedric Foussard -International Juvenile Justice Observatory reminded project partners that not enabling children to have a proper access to education, legal help or the health care system is a form of violence. Yet, children should live free from all forms of violence. Hence, the aforementioned denials should also be taken into consideration. Moreover, it may be interesting to contact the EU or UN persons in charge of similar projects. For instance, the European Commission is working on indicators assessing the compliance of juvenile justice systems with national, European and International standards. By the same token, other entities, such as the OMCT or Amnesty International are developing reports on correlated topics. Contacting those in charge of these projects could also shed light on the CRAE project.

Helmut Sax Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Human Rights pointed out three remarks. The first two remarks are related to the Youth investigation Teams, the YIT. It could be more helpful to put together smaller teams of approximately 10 people and teams of which some are over 18 years old. Although there remains a strong call for 25 children, flexibility should be allowed. The third remark was linked to the gender issue. Within the teams, if possible, there should be a mix of boys and girls. In Austria, the only two girls held in detention at the moment will certainly take part in the CRAE project.

Anda Ivan - European Commission (tbc) pointed out that changes in the deadlines would not affect the budget. Things could be changed; such changes just had to be listed. Moreover, she advised the partners not to implement too many overlap in order to guarantee the success of the project.

Carolyne Willow - Childrens Rights Alliance for England introduced new deadlines for the project. Since national reports could not be provided by the end of February, they are now expected by the end of June. Nevertheless, partners should have found and involved enough children before the end of April in order to keep the June deadline possible. Having twenty-five children remains the ultimate goal. Yet, for the campaign in itself, partners could work with only five to ten children if they wish to. Besides, national campaigns should all start at the same time in order to facilitate the work of the IJJO, which will coordinate the campaign in other countries. Eventually, partners agreed to meet again in June. At this particular meeting, children will be invited to join the experts in charge of the CRAE project in their respective country in order to involve young people in the projects process.

Engaging children and young people in the project: Review of the questions
Helmut Sax Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Human Rights and Maartje Berger, Defence for Children-ECP agreed that there should be no mention of religion in the questions. All partners then discussed how to assess the children level of education and decided to especially focus on their ability to read and write. Annex B will be used for the evaluation of the YIT members whereas annex C will be used for the young offenders assessment. Besides, the latter annex should be reviewed by each partner and their comments sent to CRAE in order to come up with compromises and with a document that will satisfy the majority.

Review of the website

10

Concerning the website, partners agreed logos of the partners should be embedded at the top of the websites home page. Moreover, each logo should redirect users to the partners website, and, if possible, to the partners website page specifically dedicated to the CRAE project. The top banner including the picture of a teenage girl could also include extracts from young offenders interviews. Mary Robinson - independent evaluator (UK) also suggested the partners to use Google analytics in order to know the number of visits their webpage receives, the most visited pages, and in order to facilitate the assessment of the websites success. Carolyne Willow - Childrens Rights Alliance for England was expecting all comments on the upcoming website for the very end of February.

Conclusion
Eventually, partners agreed to meet again in June. Impossible dates for each partner had to be sent to the project coordinator for the beginning of March.

11

Annexes

Annex 1: Program Annex 2: Project Description

p.12 p. 13 - 18

Annex 3: Progress Report

p. 19 - 22

Annex 4: PowerPoint Presentation Mary Robinson

p. 23 - 28

12

Annex 1 Program
Time 8.45am 9am 9.15am Item Arrival and refreshments Welcome and introductions Recap on project goals, activities and expected impact Progress and challenges discussion Expected outcome

Shared understanding of what has been achieved by the project to date Shared understanding of the challenges and ways of overcoming these Project partners have shared expertise and motivated each other to move forward positively

10.30am 10.45am 12 midday

BREAK Evaluation framework Violence in custody country updates and external opportunities (national, regional and international)

Agreed evaluation framework, including clarity on roles and responsibilities Project partners aware of situation and challenges in each country Provisional list of opportunities we want the project to capitalise on moving forward

1pm 1.45pm

LUNCH Focus group schedule Engaging children and young people in the project: progress and challenges

Agreed focus group schedule Project partners have shared ideas and expertise so we can move forward positively Possibility of informal support network across project staff working directly with children and young people Agreement on way forward, including roles and responsibilities of project partners Shared understanding of greed decisions and actions and next steps.

3.15pm

Review of project website

3.30pm

END

Any other business Review of decisions made and agreed next steps Planning next all-country meeting

4pm

13

Annex 2 Project Description

Daphne project JUST/2009/DAP3/AG/1346 End violence against children in custody Activities from Annex 1 Project Description (Previously updated March 2011; further changes highlighted below)
Months 1-6: February to July 2011
Activity CRAE attends kick off seminar CRAE and IJJO deliver guidance to partners on international and European legal requirements for the protection of children in custody against violence, including the CRC CRAE delivers detailed guidance to partners on carrying out childrens rights investigations and working in partnership with children and young people CRAE delivers templates to partners for focus group project plans and writing up of findings Design, production and dissemination of project flyer to children and young people with experience of custody Timescale Month 2: March 2011 Month 2: March 2011 Delivered Months 4-5: May and June 2011 CRAE comment Completed as agreed Required more work than originally anticipated (framework went beyond UN Violence Study and DCI and Howard League study referred to in funding application) Required more work than originally anticipated because of emerging challenges of making contact with and engaging children with experience of custody Templates part of detailed guidance above

Months 1 and 2: February and March 2011 Delivered Month 7: August 2011 Month 2: March 2011 Delivered Month 7: August 2011 Months 1 and 2: February and March 2011 CRAE delivered Months 1 to 4: February to May 2011 Partners delivered Months 4 onwards: April 2011 onwards Months 2 and 3: March and April 2011 CRAE delivered Months 9 and 10: October and November 2011 (4 briefings in four different parts of England) DCI undertook awareness raising Months 10 and 11: November and December 2011 The Commissioner for Children's Rights in Cyprus, Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Human Rights (Austria) and Save the Children Romania to deliver briefings to children Months 12 and 13 (January and February 2012) In addition:

Slightly more time required by CRAE to complete competitive tendering process (February 2011); share design concepts with partners (March 2011); then proceed to print and dissemination (April and May 2011) CRAE and partners needed more time because of difficulties accessing children with experience of custody. In hindsight, it would have been preferable to have built in a 6month awareness raising process with the authorities and professionals to have them engaged and ready to support the project before directly briefing children.

In-country project briefings carried out by all national partners with 20 children with experience of custody with invitation to form Young Investigation Team (YIT)

14

CRAE met and briefed Ministry of Justice officials (Head of Youth Justice Policy Unit and Head of Secure Estate Policy) in Month 1 (February 2011); then sought formal support from the MoJ and Youth Justice Board in Month 3 (April 2011) to be cited in letters to 150+ youth offending teams in England; direct endorsement was not agreed so we disseminated letters in Month 4 (May 2011) with the following text: We have briefed the Ministry of Justice and the Youth Justice Board about the project, and hope to develop positive working relationships to help achieve maximum impact. From Month 4 onwards, we briefed relevant professional associations, including the Association of Youth Offending Team Managers; Children's Rights Officers and Advocates; Participation Works Network for England; the Secure Accommodation Network; the National Association for Youth Justice; and the Standing Committee for Youth Justice. DCI-the Netherlands has used social media and engagement with lawyers working with children to raise awareness of the project. The Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Human Rights (Austria) has conducted briefing sessions with prison managers, staff and trade unions in Austria's main juvenile prison and in Austria's main prison for females. Like CRAE, it has faced difficulties in obtaining support from the authorities, though these are now resolved. In Month 8 (September 2011) the project manager was notified that the Ministry of Justice would not support the project: following extensive dialogue, including a letter to the responsible Government Minister, the Austrian authorities are now fully cooperating Months 2 to 5: March to June 2011 Delivered Months 7 to 11 (August to December 2011)

In-country and European level desk-based studies of law, policy and practice regarding violence against children in custody

Information difficult to access in some partner countries. Framework prepared by CRAE went beyond UN Violence Study and DCI and Howard League study referred to in funding application (i.e. more detailed and therefore more time-consuming to

15

complete)

16

All national partners hold 1st YIT meeting to deliver training to YIT members and support them to produce focus group plans

Months 3 to 4: April to May 2011 CRAE delivered Month 10 (November 2011) The Commissioner for Children's Rights in Cyprus planned for Month 12 (January 2012) it has received 18 applications from children and young people to date The Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Human Rights (Austria) planned for Month 12 (January 2012) DCI-the Netherlands planned for Month 13 (February 2012) it has received 9 applications from children and young people to date Save the Children Romania to complete by end Month 13 (February 2012) In addition: CRAE is planning a residential training weekend in Month 12 (January 2012) in view of the support needs of YIT members (the full extent of which only became evident during the briefing sesisons and the first YIT meeting). Officials from the Youth Justice Board have been invited to attend and observe this training weekend: this will provide an important opportunity for children and young people to begin dialogue with key decision-makers Month 3: April 2011 CRAE to deliver by end Month 13 (February 2011) Month 4: May 2011 Delivered Months 2 (March 2011) onwards, as follows: Tender document circulated in Month 1 (February 2011) Interviews with shortlisted organisation in Month 2 (March 2011) URL obtained in Month 2 (March 2011): www.violencefreecustody.org.uk

Making contact with children with experience of custody has proven more difficult than we anticipated. We are reliant on the co-operation and support of the authorities (national government and municipalities) and the focus of the project (ending violence in state-run institutions) has attracted concern from public officials as well as trade unions representing staff working in these institutions. Furthermore, children with experience of custody are among the most vulnerable and disadvantaged and their participation in the project will, to a large degree, be dependent upon supportive adults who they already have relationships with

CRAE consolidates all focus group plans and produces overall uniform plan for use by all partners Project Website development and launch

CRAE unable to complete this activity until all YITs have been assembled, trained and are ready to start their focus groups In hindsight, this time frame four months was far too optimistic for the development and launch of a website requiring input from five European partners (one of whom came late to the partnership), in addition to a competitive tendering process for the selection of a website design company. Nevertheless, we believe we have made very good progress (still) within a relatively short time period

17

Holding site went live Month 3 (April 2011) Full content delivered to web design company Month 2 (March 2011), with further updates and corrections (from CRAE and partners) Months 3 to 10 (April to November 2011) Month 6: July 2011 CRAE to deliver by end of Month 12 (January 2012)

In-country and European level desk-based studies of law, policy and practice regarding violence against children in custody are completed and consolidated into one Interim Report which is posted on the Project Website Children and young peoples versions of the Interim Report are produced and posted on the Project Website Focus groups conducted in partnership with YITs

Last desk-based study (Romania) received Month 11 (15 December 2011) due to computer problems within Save the Children Romania

Month 6: July 2011 CRAE to deliver by end of Month 12 (January 2012) Months 4 to 8: May to September 2011 CRAE and partners to deliver Months 12 to 15 (January to April 2012)

Last desk-based study (Romania) received Month 11 (15 December 2011) due to computer problems within Save the Children Romania The difficulties in accessing children with experience of custody, leading to delay in forming the YITs, has inevtiably affected the project's ability to deliver the focus groups. We have had to invest more time and energy than anticipated into engaging supportive professionals within the community and in institutional settings to both access children and to support their ongoing engagement (given their high levels of vulnerability and disadvantage) The difficulties in accessing children with experience of custody, leading to delay in forming the YITs, has inevtiably affected the project's ability to deliver the focus groups. We have had to invest more time and energy than anticipated into engaging supportive professionals within the community to both access children and to support their ongoing engagement (given their high levels of vulnerability and disadvantage) Rescheduled so that all focus groups completed by the time YIT meets to review and write up its findings

Months 7-12: August to January 2012

Focus groups conducted in partnership with YITs Months 4 to 8: May to September 2011 CRAE and partners (except IJJO) to deliver Months 12 to 15 (January to April 2012)

2nd in-country YIT meeting to review and write up focus group findings

Month 9: October 2011 CRAE and partners (except IJJO) to deliver Month 15 (April 2012)

18

Focus group findings and Interim Report are compiled into a single Investigation Report which is launched on the Website, with hard copies disseminated in-country and at European level to decision makers and professionals working with children and young people in custody Children and young peoples versions of the Investigation Report are produced, launched online together with the main report, and hard copies disseminated in-country and at European level to children and young people with experience of custody All-country Campaign Meeting in Brussels for representatives of the YITs to present their findings to each other, receive training on conducting campaigns, and start to plan their own Year Two campaigns, becoming Young Campaign Teams Children and young peoples campaigns 4 working meeting days held throughout the campaign period; activities will vary according to individual campaign plans produced by children and young people but may include further targeted research, meeting with decision makers, awareness raising; all activities supported by staff from partner organisations Children and young peoples campaigns conclude

Months 11-12: December to January 2012 CRAE to deliver Month 17 (June 2012)

Following rescheduled timings for delivery of focus group findings to CRAE

Months 11-12: December to January 2012 CRAE to deliver Month 17 (June 2012)

Following rescheduled timings for delivery of focus group findings to CRAE

Months 13-18: February to July 2012

Month 13: February 2012 Project meeting planned Month 13: February 2012 Additional campaign meeting planned Month 16 (May 2012) Two meetings will allow project partners to share learning and strategies for overcoming project challenges; as well as undertake planned campaign meeting once focus group findings are known

Months 13 to 20: February to November 2012 Planned for Months 15 to 22 (April to January 2013)

Rescheduled to begin once focus groups completed, or near to completion: still 10-month period

Months 19-24: August to January 2013

Month 20: November 2012 Planned for Month 22: January 2013 Slightly rescheduled to allow for same amount of campaign time as in funding application and to support children and young people's active engagement right to the end of the project No change planned

All YCTs produce campaign reports setting out their activities, achievements, learning and recommended next steps. These are

Months 21 and 22: December and January 2013 No change planned

19

consolidated into a single Campaign Report Children and young peoples versions of the Investigation Report are produced Campaign Report and children and young peoples versions are launched on the Website. Hard copies of the Campaign Report are disseminated in-country and at European level to decision makers and professionals working with children and young people in custody; hard copies of the children and young peoples versions are disseminated incountry and at European level to children and young people with experience of custody

Months 21 and 22: December and January 2013 No change planned Months 23 and 24: January and February 2013 No change planned

No change planned

No change planned

Carolyne Willow National co-ordinator Children's Rights Alliance for England (CRAE) 6 January 2012 cwillow@crae.org.uk

20

Annex 3 Progress Report

PROJECT INFORMATION

1. Reference number of the project:

JLS/2009/DAP3/AG/1346

2. Title of the project:

Ending violence against children in custody 01/02/2011 31/01/2013

3. Start date and end date of the project

4. Co-ordinating Organisation's name:

Children's Rights Alliance for England (CRAE) Name: Carolyne Willow Address: CRAE, 94 White Lion Street Postal code: N1 9PF City: London Email: cwillow@crae.org.uk Phone: 00 44 (0) 207 278 8222 ext. 22 Fax: 00 44 (0) 207 278 9552

5. Contact person:

6. Partner(s) involved in the action during the lifetime of the project.

1.International Juvenile Justice Observatory 2.DCI-the Netherlands 3.Commisisoner for Children's Rights, Cyprus 4.Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Human Rights, Austria 5.Save the Children Romania

21

1. Implementation of the project Please provide general description of the project implementation so far. Describe your activities in the first 6 or 9 months of the project and the concrete outputs. Amongst the planned activities in the project financed by the European Commission, please outline those that were implemented. Please also outline those that were not implemented and provide explanation (1 page text) The following planned activities were undertaken in the first 9 months of the project: Awareness-raising in five European countries; dialogue with authorities in five European countries; and dissemination of project leaflets in five European countries Competitive tendering process for project website (including interview selection); drafting of all website content (with input from all project partners); and holding site launched Competitive tendering process for independent evaluation (including interview selection); and scoping meeting with selected evaluator Completion of three desk-based country studies and one European study (all five completed by end month 11) Drafting of Interim Report Delivery of detailed guidance to project partners on international and European legal obligations relating to ending violence in child custody Delivery of detailed guidance to project partners on undertaking children's rights investigations and working with children and young people who have direct experience of custody Delivery of four briefings with children and young people with experience of custody in applicant country (in four different parts of the country) and plans in place for three other countries First meeting of Young Investigation Team (applicant country) and plans in place for first YIT meetings in four other countries (for example, the Commissioner for Children's Rights in Cyprus is currently assessing 18 applications from interested children and young people; and DCIthe Netherlands has received 9 applications) Provisional arrangements in place for four focus group sessions in applicant country (two in custodial settings; two in community settings). In addition to the above, CRAE has established financial systems to ensure all project income and expenditure is recorded and monitored. We have also established positive working relationships with partners, some of whom we have not previously worked with. There are some planned activities that we have, unfortunately, not undertaken within the first 9 months. Most significantly, three partners (The Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Human Rights, Austria; the Commissioner for Children's Rights in Cyprus; and Save the Children Romania) have not yet completed their four briefing sessions with children and young people with experience of custody. CRAE delivered these sessions later than originally scheduled because of difficulties accessing children and young people with experience of custody. Project partners have also faced challenges see section 4 below. Indeed, one partner The Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Human Rights, Austria has delivered two briefing sessions to professionals working in prisons holding children and young people in order to build up trust and co-operation with the project. This was an unplanned project activity necessary to secure assistance from the authorities in making contact with children and young people.

22

For these same reasons, the applicant and partners have not yet commenced the focus group research.

23

2. Timetable of the project Please describe the implementation of the project in terms of timing. Were you able to timely start the project? Did you finish activities that were supposed to be implemented in the first 6 or 9 months of the project? Have you made or you anticipate any changes in the timetable of the project implementation so far? (1/2 page text) We were able to start the project in a timely fashion and made good progress in the early stages, including the production and dissemination of the project leaflet, beginning dialogue with the authorities and tendering for, and selecting, a website designer and independent evaluator. We completed a large number of activities within the 9 months but many of these took longer than anticipated. For example, the desk-based country studies took longer to complete than planned because the framework CRAE developed with partners was far more detailed than the UN Violence Study and the DCI and Howard League report cited in the funding application. This inevitably had a knock-on effect on the drafting of the Interim Report. The direct work with children and young people with experience of custody did not start as early in the project as we planned. This means the focus groups will be conducted later than scheduled and the timing of the publication of the Investigation Report will also change. Crucially, we do not foresee any impact on the length of time children and young people will have for campaigning for change; and this should have no significant impact on the project's outcomes. A summary of the changes in the project's timetable is attached, together with a revised Annex I.

3. Changes to the scope of the project Do you implement your activities exactly according to the description in the application form? Did you have to change the any part of your project or anticipate such changes in the future? If yes, please describe the changes and provide the explanation of the reasons for those changes. (1/2 page text) We have required a much longer and more time-consuming period to inform and seek the cooperation of the authorities. This has been necessary to access and engage children and young people. In hindsight, it would have been preferable to have built this into the project timetable from the start. Clearly, in addition to being pivotal to engaging children and young people in the project, the co-operation of the authorities is essential if we are to bring about change in law, policy and practice. The other significant change to the scope of the project is the engagement of young adults who have experience of custody. It is likely that a minority of the Young Investigation Team members and the young campaigners will be aged over 18. Children and young people with experience of custody who are aged under 18 are likely to still be extremely vulnerable and unsettled and, even just a few years, can make all the difference in their ability to engage positively in a project like this. Furthermore, we do not want to turn away young adults with relevant experience, passion and expertise to share. Nevertheless, to retain the integrity of the project, this older age group (certainly not extending beyond teenage years) will be a minority.

24

4. Overall assessment and difficulties encountered Overall assessment of the project to date. To what extent has the project achieved its aims so far? Did you experience any major problems with implementation of your project? What were the main problems/difficulties encountered during the implementation of the project activities? How were these solved? (1 page text) Although we are making steady progress, the project is proving to be more challenging than we anticipated. These challenges, however, simply confirm what we already knew that children and young people in custody are among the most voiceless and excluded and their active participation in the development of law, policy and practice is rare. We are having to find new ways of accessing children and young people, using channels that NGOs would not normally use for mainstream participation projects. For example, DCI-the Netherlands has sought assistance from lawyers working with children and young people and CRAE has invited officials from the Youth Justice Board (the statutory body governing placements in custody and advising Ministers on juvenile justice law and policy) to attend a young people's residential training weekend to try and engage their co-operation in the project. Children and young people with experience of custody rarely belong to representative groups or organisations, so there are few existing networks to tap into that are not also connected to the authorities. The scope of the project to end violence in child custody has attracted criticism and fear from the authorities. The other aspect of the project which was perhaps not fully considered whilst it was being developed is the need for highly skilled and competent staff to work directly with children and young people. The constituency of children and young people we are seeking to engage, and support in research and campaigning, are among the most vulnerable and will generally have very poor educational experiences and difficulties in completing tasks and working with others. Many will have low selfesteem and be lacking in confidence about their abilities. Few will have ongoing positive support from families or stable home lives. The use of experts, including those who have existing relationships with children and young people, is proving to be vital; and the ratio of staff to child / young person has been increased for group sessions. Given the extremely innovative nature of this project, we now realise that an all-country project meeting would have been helpful in the first few months of the project. In light of this, we are now proposing to hold two all-country meetings (within the same budget) one in February 2012 as originally planned and another in May 2012 after the focus groups have been completed. Positively, the timescale of the two meetings will allow YIT members to participate and have more influence on the development of the project. This is, of course, preferable to project staff making all the crucial decisions; and it will bring together different expertise and hopefully lead to more creative solutions. Despite the challenges, we remain convinced that this project will be ground-breaking and will lead to tangible changes in the fulfilment of children's rights in custody. Even at this early stage, we are beginning to bring information (through the Interim Report) into the public domain that has hitherto remained hidden and underpinning all our actions is the strong message that the voices and experiences of child prisoners must be central to improvements in their protection, care and treatment.

25

Annex 4 PowerPoint Presentation: Mary Robinson

26

27

28

29

30

31

32