Why children’s rights approaches in policy and campaigns are under-utilised and how we can address this
Natalie Williams, Head of Policy and Public Affairs (Child Rights), CRAE, part of Just for Kids Law
The Children’s Rights Alliance for England (CRAE) is part of the charity Just for Kids Law. We work with over 100 organisations and individuals to promote, monitor and implement children’s rights and the UNCRC — making us one of the biggest children’s rights coalitions in the world. We believe that human rights are a powerful tool in making life better for children. We fight for children’s rights by listening to what they say, carrying out research to understand what children are going through and using the law to challenge those who violate children’s rights. We campaign for the people in power to change things for children and we empower children and those who care about children to push for the changes that they want to see.
From 2016–2020 the Children’s Rights Alliance for England (CRAE) undertook a project¹ to build the capacity of organisations in the voluntary sector in England to use children’s rights arguments and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)² in their policy and campaigning work. The project involved interviewing 16 children’s and human rights policy and legal experts from across the UK and Europe to explore the barriers and solutions to using a children’s rights approach to policy. The findings were tested at a roundtable with 22 people.³ The mental health and homelessness sectors were also focused on in greater depth through additional interviews with people within these sectors, and also through research and seminars.⁴
The project explored why organisations do or do not take a children’s rights approach and built the capacity of organisations to do this, in particular to help organisations make better use of the 2016 Concluding Observations (COs) — the conclusions of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child following its examination of the UK of its obligations under the CRC. This article discusses the findings of this project.⁵
‘Children’s rights is a philosophy like early intervention which affects everything.’ — Individual from large children’s charity
How common are children’s rights approaches as a policy and campaigns tool?
Unsurprisingly, research undertaken as part of the project found that only organisations consisting of children’s rights experts and that had children’s rights as part of their core ethos or aims were currently using an explicit children’s rights approach to policy and campaigning. Organisations without these things in place felt they did not always need to take a children’s rights-based approach, particularly in a difficult external context.
Organisations were, however, more likely to use the CRC in legal casework, strategic litigation, or for lobbying on a piece of legislation. A children’s rights-based approach was also seen as being more common in certain charity sectors, for example, the refugee, criminal justice or LGBTQ sectors than the children’s social care or homeless sectors, the reasons for this are discussed below.
Why are children’s rights approaches under-utilised in policy and campaigns?
Rights approach perceived as too technical
The most common barrier described was that the CRC itself, and the concept of children’s rights in general, was viewed as too legalistic and technical. This was partly because the language relating to UN Treaties such as the CRC and therefore by association children’s rights was deemed to be unnecessarily complex and put people off using it, for example, use of words like ‘duty bearer’, ‘Concluding Observations’ etc. Its use was seen as predominately confined to the law and the courts and therefore limited to the domain of legal teams within large organisations, rather than policy teams. This was combined with a lack of understanding of the CRC, its surrounding procedures and also what a children’s rights approach actually entailed.
CRC not incorporated into domestic legislation
The fact that the CRC is not incorporated into UK law in contrast to developments in Scotland, and that England does not have a ministerial duty to have due regard to the CRC, as in Wales, was seen as a key barrier by interviewees to using the CRC as a lobbying tool.⁶ In particular, they felt that this meant the Government and the courts had limited legal, policy or political imperative to act in accordance with the CRC and therefore that they felt less clear how they could make effective use of it in their lobbying.
Toxic anti-human rights and international rhetoric
However, the biggest barrier to taking a children’s rights approach was seen to be the pervasive anti-human rights agenda and discourse common amongst some politicians and media:
‘You don’t want to be labelled a woolly lefty in the current environment.’ — Individual from large children’s charity.
Anti-international rhetoric, particularly in light of Brexit, and a feeling that the public do not want ‘international organisations telling us what to do’ were also key reasons why organisations were reluctant to use child rights arguments and didn’t feel they added value:
‘Internationally rights are ok but domestically it’s not an issue [we talk about].’ — Individual from mental health charity.
‘There is a feeling that if there is another way to talk about the issue that resonates, then why complicate the issue?’ — Individual from mental health charity.
Greater focus on wellbeing, welfare and safeguarding in our domestic legislation
Professionals from the children’s sector told us that they felt the language of safeguarding, wellbeing, needs and welfare were more effective than rights-based arguments, and our domestic legislation concerning children supported this approach.
‘Most people I know in children’s charities believe firmly that children’s rights should be recognised and protected — but don’t often use rights-based language when communicating their campaigns to the public and decision-makers. In part, this could be because they think those audiences won’t as easily grasp anything ‘legal’ as arguments based on more universal notions of childhood vulnerability and their wellbeing– as well as, paradoxically, the fact that if one child has a right under the UNCRC, then all children do. It can seem very demanding to refer to the whole of the UNCRC when campaigning! But that is exactly why we should — because social notions of children’s needs are variable, and rights are not!’ — Individual from children’s charity
We also found a failure on the part of some voluntary sector organisations to look to useful devolved and comparative experience on children’s human rights when considering advocacy strategy in this context.
Human rights perceived as for particular groups
However, we found that the CRC and children’s rights approaches were more commonly used in organisations working on specific issues such as refugees or criminal justice. This was felt by some to perpetuate the myths spread by some sectors of the press that human rights and children’s rights are only for certain groups or “undeserving people”, rather than being unconditional and for everyone. In relation to using children’s rights arguments about homelessness issues, interviewees spoke about overcoming a perception (also documented in research)⁷ that human rights are only civil and political, not economic, social, and cultural and therefore that poverty is not a human rights issue.
Lack of expertise or understanding of children’s rights in the sector
Support for a children’s rights approach to public affairs was also seen to be closely linked to key individuals who were either knowledgeable about children’s rights or an advocate for them as a policy tool. Only if there was buy-in at a senior level and by senior management, was it at the heart of an organisation’s strategy and used as an approach to policy development. This can make embedding such an approach in the organisation’s strategy or ethos unsustainable. Use was also linked to the background of professionals working in each sector. For example, where there were lots of lawyers, they were more comfortable and aware of human rights and the CRC, and therefore willing to use such arguments in policy work. This was seen to be more the case in the criminal justice and refugee sectors.
Knowledge and understanding of children’s rights is generally very low amongst most people which also includes parliamentarians, civil servants and many people within the voluntary sector, including the children’s sector. They are not familiar with the CRC framework, the concept of children’s rights or even human rights and UN human rights mechanisms. This therefore makes it difficult to get buy-in for such an approach at a senior level within organisations, within media or public affairs teams and when influencing civil servants and parliamentarians.
Shifting the balance of power to children
The final barrier identified was that a children’s rights approach shifted the balance of power to children and challenged the traditional perception of children as lesser beings than adults which could cause both discomfort and confusion. Interviewees felt that decision makers and adults or parents were worried that if they prioritised children’s best interests and views, ‘what would this mean they can do?’
This concern is linked to two key myths about children’s rights — that children’s rights are incompatible with the developmental characteristics of childhood and family life⁸ and that they perpetuate a ‘nanny state’ interfering with parental rights. However, the concepts of best interests and evolving capacities as set out in articles 3, 5 and 12 of the CRC should be the basis on which children’s rights and the interrelationship with their parents or carers rights are interpreted.⁹ Article 5 states that children should be able to exercise their rights as they acquire the competence to do so in line with their evolving capacities. This is echoed in Article 12, which states that the views of the child be given due weight in accordance with their age and maturity. Parental guidance should be geared towards supporting children to exercise their rights and make their own decisions, respecting the extent to which a particular child can do this for themselves.
Substantial capacity building and a major cultural shift are therefore needed on children’s rights, so they are regarded as a useful tool in policy making rather than only a tool for lawyers. Although rights and the CRC may be falsely perceived as technical and legalistic, the guiding principles of the CRC are not difficult to understand and should be accessible to everyone.
What is a child rights-based approach?
· It is a human rights-based approach specifically for children
· Children’s best interests are always fundamental to the process
· The child’s voice is at the centre
· Children’s views are taken into account and given due weight
· It takes a holistic approach which looks at the whole child, e.g. not just their status as a homeless child
· It uses a set of binding international standards for all children and enables the state to be held to account on how it treats children, including by children themselves
What are the benefits of using a child rights-based approach in policy and campaigns?
Despite the concerns set out above, the research also identified substantial support for a child rights-based approach to policy and public affairs.
Using human rights to frame children’s rights
Our research found that human rights were useful in framing children’s rights and creating a common language. The long history and tradition of human rights in the UK were also perceived as being popular with some decision makers and the public. Interviewees outlined the importance of human rights as a practical universal framework, which can lend objectivity to policy and advocacy, rather than focusing on an individual’s own moral compass.
The CRC is also used by the courts to interpret the ECHR, incorporated through the Human Rights Act 1998, in cases concerning children. The duty on public authorities to comply with the ECHR has also led to positive changes to children’s rights protection without the need to go to court.¹⁰
A global binding rights-based framework for children
The CRC was also seen as a uniquely powerful tool in advancing children’s rights. It is a common global framework which provides a basis for international accountability. It sets out a binding, universal minimum standard for how children should be protected and treated. Its status as an international convention which all but two countries across the world have ratified was seen as a clear strength.
By contrast, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and other human rights treaties were not developed with children specifically in mind. As a result, they do not contain a number of key principles and protections which are of crucial importance for children. For example, there is no best interests principle for children in the ECHR (as is included in article 3 of the CRC) and no child participation rights. The inclusion of economic, social and cultural rights in the CRC was also felt to be particularly relevant for children — again rights which are largely absent from the ECHR.¹¹
Experts outlined the importance of the CRC as ‘a whole continuum of rights for children’ that looks at the child holistically along their developmental journey to adulthood. Interviewees also told us that children’s rights were perceived as “safer” than broader human rights and capture the imagination more, which is particularly beneficial in the current political climate.
A well-being/welfare/needs-based framework is a more common approach for children’s policy and more explicitly linked to our legislation (The Children Act 1989) and is sometimes seen as more acceptable to policy makers possibly because a rights-based framework puts the child on an equal footing to adults and provides a clearer accountability mechanism. However, welfare is ‘an interpretative principle’, whereas the concept of rights is ‘an objective legal entitlement’.¹² Further, while the Children Act 1989 is a limited piece of legislation in relation to children, the breadth of the CRC means governments are accountable on a raft of wider obligations for under-18s, for example, their right to play or to an adequate standard of living. The formal UN reporting process also provides additional public affairs and media hooks. This can help put pressure on the Government in the run up to the UK examination and afterwards to implement the COs.
Finally, the benefits of the evolving and changing nature of the CRC itself as it is continually interpreted through General Comments, the COs and jurisprudence from Optional Protocol 3 (OP3) were highlighted as a positive.¹³ Jurisprudence from the UN Committee from such cases are a hugely powerful tool in interpreting the CRC, making it constantly adaptable and relevant for lobbying purposes.
How can we ensure children’s rights are embedded in policy making?
Learning from the project highlighted a number of key recommendations to help organisations ensure that children’s rights can be better embedded in their policy and campaigning work. Firstly, engaging voluntary sector organisations in each step of the CRC reporting process is very effective because it helps build understanding of the CRC and is a high-profile media and public affairs hook with clear results and outcomes.
Taking a tailored and tactical approach to using rights language in their policy work, appropriate for the audience they are engaging with, was found to be the best approach. Using strategic communications and framing to change the narrative and attitudes amongst the public and press around children’s rights was also seen to be effective¹⁴ by organisations we worked with, as well as using inclusive and unifying language that evokes emotions. Highlighting the value of human rights such as dignity and freedom and talking about the tradition and heritage of human rights can also help reach those who are uninterested in, or opposed to, rights.¹⁵
Research by Equally Ours has also found that using fact checking/myth busting around human rights is not useful as people are rarely persuaded by purely fact-based arguments. Often, people ignore facts and evidence that does not fit with their existing thinking and this actually makes them remember the myth more.¹⁶ Emphasising the importance and value of children’s rights to all children was another effective strategy identified.
In addition, taking people across the whole organisation (media, fundraising, senior management) on a journey to increase their confidence in using children’s rights arguments was found to be crucial. This can be done through sustained investment, capacity and knowledge building across all levels of the organisation, including through involvement in the reporting process as mentioned above. Only through these activities can a children’s rights approach be truly embedded across an organisation and help ensure that the approach is not dependent on individuals.
Simplifying the language of children’s rights whilst still being true to its meaning was also found to be important. Clearly articulating the added value of the CRC to decision-makers and how it can help Government be more effective was another key tactic identified.
Some participants were also clear that it was crucial to be unapologetic — children have rights that we must champion and Governments have obligations to promote, protect and prioritise children’s rights.
‘You have to keep using human rights arguments otherwise you don’t advance it.’ Human rights expert
Finally, at the heart of the CRC is article 12 — respecting the views of the child. Organisations should endeavour to consult with children on any policy development they undertake to ensure that the voices of children are reflected in their work and that children are viewed as active partners to achieve policy change.
In conclusion, there are many different strands of work that need to be taken forward to truly embed a children’s rights approach to policy and campaigning within the children’s sector. But despite this challenge, the children’s sector should not be afraid to take a rights-based approach, which can still be tailored depending on the target audience.
Taking a child rights approach will ultimately improve the work the children’s sector undertakes to improve children’s lives because it will ensure that their policy work values and respects children’s views and experiences and takes a holistic perspective. Ultimately, and most importantly, it will help to raise the status of children up the political agenda and ensure they have access to the rights they are entitled to under international and domestic law.
[1] This project was funded by the Baring Foundation.
[2] The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) is an international treaty (agreement) which nearly every country in the world has signed up to. The UK Government ratified the CRC in 1991 which means it and all areas of government and the state (including local government, schools and health services) must do all they can to uphold these rights. Roughly every five years, a group of 18 independent experts from the UN — the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC Committee) — scrutinise all States Parties (countries that have ratified the CRC) on how well they are respecting children’s rights and issues its final recommendations (Concluding Observations). The UK was last examined in 2016. Each right is set out in the 54 articles of the CRC. It also has four guiding principles (General Principles) which are rights in themselves but also the framework through which all the rights in the CRC should be interpreted. They are: non-discrimination (article 2); the best interests of the child (article 3); survival and development (article 6); and respect for the views of the child (article 12). General Comments published by the UN Committee provide a more detailed interpretation of an article or issue relating to the CRC, and provide guidance on the actions required by governments to ensure its implementation.
[3] We interviewed 16 people to explore the barriers and solutions to using a children’s rights approach to policy. These people were a mixture of children’s and human rights policy and legal experts from across the UK and Europe, policy experts from large children’s charities and the homelessness and mental health sectors. We then tested our findings at a roundtable event with 22 individuals from the same sectors, most of whom had not been interviewed as well. These findings are discussed in N. Williams (2017) Barriers and solutions to using children’s rights in policy CRAE http://www.crae.org.uk/media/123572/Barriers-and-solutions-to-using-childrens-rights-in-policy-E.pdf
[4] We also focused on the homelessness and mental health sectors after these areas received strong Concluding Observations from the CRC Committee in 2016 stating that they took less of a children’s rights approach in their policy work compared to other sectors. See N. Williams (2017) Using Children’s Rights in Homeless Policy CRAE for more detail: http://www.crae.org.uk/media/124142/CRAE_CO-HOMELESSNESS-E.pdf and G. Rosa (2018) Using children’s rights in mental health policy and practice CRAE http://www.crae.org.uk/media/125976/mentalhealth-briefing-final-digital-version-.pdf
[5] For a full overview of the project see: N. Williams (2020) Using children’s rights approaches in policy and public affairs CRAE http://www.crae.org.uk/media/128097/CRAE_BEST-PRACTICE-D.pdf
[6] United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill 2021. The Rights of Children and Young Persons (Wales) Measure 2011 requires Welsh Minsters to have ‘due regard’ to the UNCRC when exercising any of their functions.
[7] Donald, A. and Mottershaw, E. (2009) How other countries have used human rights to tackle poverty and how this could be applied in the UK Joseph Rowntree Foundation
[8] Fortin, J. (2005) Children’s Rights and the Developing Law, Second Edition Cambridge University Press
[9] Alistair MacDonald QC (2011) The Rights of the Child: Law and Practice Jordan Publishing Ltd and General comment №14 (2013) on the right of the child to have his or her best interests taken as a primary consideration (art. 3, para. 1 UN Committee on the Rights of the Child)
[10] For example, it has enabled a disabled girl to access transport to get to school, prevented a new born baby and her mum from being made homeless and enabled a young person to have a voice in order to be rehoused following abuse. BIHR (2017) Why the Human Rights Act matters: Children and young people https://www.bihr.org.uk/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=de30559f-8df0-4917-86bf-b5c3e7462a1a
[11] Fortin, J. (2005) Children’s Rights and the Developing Law, Second Edition Cambridge University Press
[12] Alistair MacDonald QC (2011) The Rights of the Child: Law and Practice Jordan Publishing Ltd
[13] The UK hasn’t ratified OP3, which establishes a complaints mechanism for individuals to the UN Committee regarding a breach of their CRC rights.
[14] For more on strategic communications and framing and human rights, see: Equally Ours (2014) How to Talk about Human Rights Equality and Diversity Forum
[15] Equally Ours (2014) How to Talk about Human Rights Equality and Diversity Forum
[16] Equally Ours (2014) How to Talk about Human Rights Equality and Diversity Forum
