1 / 11

Ellen Desmet Ghent University – University of Antwerp

22 November 2012 Workshop UNICEF UK, Wales Observatory on Human Rights of Children and Young People, Save the Children Wales. The child and youth impact report (JoKER) in Flanders. Ellen Desmet Ghent University – University of Antwerp e.desmet@ugent.be. JoKER?

jace
Télécharger la présentation

Ellen Desmet Ghent University – University of Antwerp

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 22 November 2012 Workshop UNICEF UK, Wales Observatory on Human Rights of Children and Young People, Save the Children Wales The child and youth impact report (JoKER) in Flanders Ellen Desmet Ghent University – University of Antwerp e.desmet@ugent.be

  2. JoKER? • Ex ante impact assessment carried out by the Flemish administration • For all legislative proposals based on initiative from the Flemish government (‘draft decrees’) • That have a direct impact on the interest of persons under the age of 25 The child and youth impact report – 22 November 2012

  3. History & focus of evaluation • 1997: child impact report (KER) • 2005: regulatory impact assessment (RIA) • 2008: child and youth impact report (JoKER) -> evaluation of the 19 JoKERs of 2010-2011 (+/- 19% of draft decrees) The child and youth impact report – 22 November 2012

  4. Methodology • Literature review • Document analysis • Electronic survey • Focus groups • Civil servants • Children’s rights and youth actors • Expert consultation The child and youth impact report – 22 November 2012

  5. Results & recommendations Scope Material scope • Extend to regulatory decisions • Extend to decree proposals (initiative from member(s) of Parliament) Personal scope • Both a strength and a weakness The child and youth impact report – 22 November 2012

  6. Results & recommendations Quality Rights-based approach Diversity • Between minors and young adults / between various age groups / in other domains Experts • Internal or external? + Establish ‘JoKER cell’ The child and youth impact report – 22 November 2012

  7. Results & recommendations Process Launch of JoKER process • Mention in regulatory agendas -> trigger Consultation • Feedback Politicalcommitment - Communication strategy + Focus on process The child and youth impact report – 22 November 2012

  8. Results & recommendations Support & quality control JoKER manual Training Focal points for youth and children’s rights policy JoKER opinion The child and youth impact report – 22 November 2012

  9. Results & recommendations Effectiveness Objectives? Impact Impact on the proposed legislation • Earlier launch Impact after approval of draft bill • Importance of ex post evaluation The child and youth impact report – 22 November 2012

  10. Tensions Between ‘mainstreaming’ (integrating JoKER in RIA) and preserving JoKER specificity Between international leadership and novelty of process Between ‘ideal situation’ and pragmatism Between JoKER evaluation and other policy processes The child and youth impact report – 22 November 2012

  11. Thank you www.keki.be www.kekidatabank.be The child and youth impact report – 22 November 2012

More Related