Towards More Effective Local

Councils for the Protection of

Children (LCPC) in Child
Rights Responsive
Governance
 KEY ISSUES
• Is the local council for the protection of children
inherently defective OR can it work given the
right conditions?
• If it can work what is missing?
• Why is it that the general view among
agencies concerned with child rights promotion
is that the local councils for the protection of
children (LCPC) have been ineffectual in
improving the situation of Filipino children?
Moreover, initiatives in place to make the
councils work have not yielded satisfactory
results.
 POLICY OPTIONS
• Ignore the LCPCs; seems to be the
current trend
• Reaffirm potential value of councils in
advancing the rights of children,
recognize inadequacy of past initiatives,
and push for a comprehensive and
reinforcing changes to bring about LCPC
functionality
 Quick Facts – LCPC Study
• Study commissioned by CWC
• Undertaken by AlcanzConsult team of governance and
child rights specialists
• Supported by UNICEF
• January to May 2012
• 37 LGUs across LVM, NCR
• Document Review, FGD, Key Informant Interview
• Experts Meeting, Validation Meeting
• Final Report in May 2012
• Part of the SOFCR 2012 - CWC
 KEY FINDINGS
• LCPC are workable
and can produce AND YET
results for children
• already available
best practices are not
yet exploited for
replication
 KEY FINDINGS

AND YET

• There is no effective
organized partnership to
The Local Chief Executive
reach LCEs continuously,
(LCE) is key driver of
excite them to the value of
LCPC and of local
child rights and build
government
team capacity to
programming for child
mainstreaming child
rights. Electoral changes
rights into the RPS
can result in lessened
support for LCPC.
 KEY FINDINGS
• In LCPC context, the AND YET
disincentives to
• the efforts of duty
neglect and the
bearers for
incentives to
mainstreaming child
perform are not in
rights and LCPC
place. Child rights
strengthening are
issues do not
fragmented,
appear as priority.
discontinuous
and lightweight
 KEY FINDINGS
• Child Friendly Awards
attract few LGUs yearly. AND YET
Winners ask “what can
they do next”
• There is no visible drive
to reform the system of
awards to rally more
LGUs to participate and
ensure no fall outs
among the hall of fame
LGUs which are key
assets for replication
 KEY FINDINGS
• Many LGUs unclear
about key LCPC AND YET
issues affecting
functionality. A key
gap in the current • There seems no
information: the apparent urgency to
LCPC end objective: rationalize the 13
to facilitate LGU MCs to make one
generation of unified directive.
results for children
LCPC EFFORTS AGAINST ODDS
 KEY FINDING
The reason why the compliance of
LGUs to the abovementioned laws,
PDs and MCs on LCPC is low and
variable is the insufficiency of
compelling and enabling conditions to
make LGUs establish and manage the
work of the LCPC. The compelling and
enabling conditions were generally
weak, disconnected and spotty, and
not sustained.
 ELEMENTS OF ROADMAP
• 1. Using the CFA Hall of Fame and winners
establish a replication strategy for wider
compliance of MC 2009-170/Mainstreaming
Child Rights in the Rationalized Local
Planning System (RPS). The strategy will
include both the incentive system for
compliance and the system that organizes
the “knowledge hubs and network”. It should
create the demand to learn what and how to
replicate as well the mechanism by which
such knowledge is shared at various
moments and in various forms.
 ELEMENTS OF ROADMAP
2. Unify, Simplify and Make Child Rights
Responsive Governance Award a truly
coveted award
- Redesign the CFA to enable LGUs to
reach through ladder and multi level type
awards
- Inclusion of CFA as component, pre-
qualifying condition to other governance
awards
 ELEMENTS OF ROADMAP
3. Redesign the LCPC monitoring system
for more efficient and better reporting
and feedback to constituent
LCPC/LGUs and use it to mobilize
lagging LGUs and reward the
performing LGUs. The new system will
be included as part of the singular MC
on LCPC.
 ELEMENTS OF ROADMAP
3. Redesign the LCPC monitoring system
for more efficient and better reporting
and feedback to constituent
LCPC/LGUs and use it to mobilize
lagging LGUs and reward the
performing LGUs. The new system will
be included as part of the singular MC
on LCPC.
 ELEMENTS OF ROADMAP
4. Enact a singular coherent reference
government directive/MC – from which
corollary directives for LGUs and
support sectors can be rationalized.
This should incorporate provisions of
various MCs which remain relevant and
should add amendments and new
provisos as needed.
 ELEMENTS OF ROADMAP
5. A purposive advocacy and
mobilization plan that will place child
rights in public debate at national and
local settings, including among LCEs
and their teams, is an integral part of
moving the objectives of MC 2009, and
has to be fully supported by the
government and child focused UN and
non-government agencies.
READY TO GO UNDER SHARED
PARTNERSHIP
• Project mode to drive process
• Constituting Project Team and Lead
Convenor
• Consortium for Shared Responsibility
as duty bearers of Child Rights
• Timeline for project preparation and the
project implementation
• Shared financing
READY TO GO UNDER SHARED
PARTNERSHIP
FULL SUPPORT FOR LCPC FIVE
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM
• EXPERTS MEETING
• VALIDATION MEETING
• LGUS VISITED
• LEAGUE OF PROVINCES, CITIES AND MUNICIPALITIES
• CHILD RIGHTS AGENCIES
• TECHNICAL MANAGEMENT GROUP MEETING