In conjunction with our Portfolio in Practice Brief: Protection is possible, we are featuring aspects of the GEC’s safeguarding approach that were particularly successful for GEC projects. This blog looks at aspects that were effective for smaller implementing partners.
These organisations are dedicated and highly committed to girls’ learning but often needed additional advice and guidance to fully systematise the rigorous GEC Safeguarding Operating Model into programme delivery. For these partners, The Fund Manager (FM) supported capacity building to ensure responsive and adaptive safeguarding approaches were mainstreamed across the programme. This included developing and strengthening policies, systems and structures. Full details of the safeguarding approach can be found here.
Cheshire Services Uganda (CSU)
CSU’s GEC project aimed to support 2,560 children with disabilities over seven years. The organisation is also involved in broader advocacy work to raise the profile of disability rights for vulnerable children. Despite legal provisions in Uganda that are designed to provide greater inclusion, there are still barriers to formal education for children with disabilities. These include a lack of adapted learning materials, policy implementation, teachers trained in inclusive education and accessible facilities. These challenges result in low enrolment, poor attendance, weak learning outcomes and high dropout rates. This is worsened by high poverty levels and parents who often lack awareness of the rights of children with disabilities to access education and the potential opportunities and benefits a formal education will bring.
Over the course of the programme, the project went through a major transformation in its safeguarding systems and approaches. It conducted an in-depth context analysis, refining and remodeling the risk management approach and capacity needs assessment, and a dynamic review and gap analysis of its entire suite of safeguarding procedures benchmarked against the 14 GEC Safeguarding Minimum Standards.
The project also considered the specific needs of their learners and integrated the ethos of inclusion within this process. The FM provided technical support that included conducting joint risk assessments and bespoke training for project staff and senior leadership, including the Board of Trustees. The FM undertook regular diagnostic field and school support visits and helped with the re-design of safeguarding tools such as child welfare tracking forms, boarding school safety checklists and institutional risk assessment templates.
Through collaboration and intentional support, smaller national organisations can meet demanding international standards in safe programming.
Evidence of positive transformation
Policy and systems improvement. The project was moved from 65% compliance rate in 2013 to 100% compliance in 2021.
• The project broadened their definition of Child Protection to wider issues of protection to include children in schools, community and at home. This was in recognition of the additional level of vulnerability for these learners.
• The project worked with relevant stakeholders such as the Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development and Ministry of Education to ensure the needs of these learners were met
• The project revised reporting templates to obtain a more holistic view of safety and wellbeing of learners.
Ethical documentation, beneficiary tracking and accountability
Due to the substantial number of learners, there were challenges reaching individuals and this contact was further restricted throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. This made tracking and follow up difficult. As a result, the project was sometimes unaware of school dropout, early marriages and general protection concerns until it was too late to intervene. However, the project made improvements in their systems to address this.
The project now has comprehensive monitoring tools with strong components of safeguarding. It conducts regular tracking, with regular school welfare checks. Issues such as child-on-child bullying, verbal insults by instructors and unsafe access to learning centres are tackled more quickly in collaboration with the schools. Corrective actions are integrated into their safeguarding awareness raising and prevention activities.
During COVID-19, the project developed procedures for keeping in contact and interacting safely with girls. Later in 2022, the project developed tools to gather data, track and keep an up-to-date database with beneficiary information including welfare and any potential risks at school. Individual holiday spot checks for most at-risk children and school welfare assessments were done as a strategy to exercise the Duty of Care when children were on break. These monitoring activities also improved relationships between the schools, learners and the project team and consequently increased reporting of safeguarding and other protection concerns.
Safeguarding awareness and advocacy
The project raised awareness on safeguarding and advocated for Do No Harm and risk reduction in schools and wider community through improved documentation and monitoring. This effort has seen many institutions embrace inclusive education e.g., constructing ramps, investing in inclusive education training, introducing safeguarding structures and safe reporting systems.
Safeguarding capacity and structures
The project conducted a capacity assessment that included teams' trainings on safeguarding, case management, survivor-centered support, GESI and duty of care. CSU introduced a comprehensive case management tracking system that has since transformed the project’s work with survivors, especially around response including timeliness, referrals, follow up and case closures. CSU now has additional safeguarding focal persons: trained staff who act as first line responders to safeguarding concerns. Additionally, there is evidence of training for teachers and establishment of safeguarding focal persons within schools. Some schools have adopted suggestion boxes.
What worked?
There are many benefits to working with smaller organisations on this issue. They often come with greater contextual knowledge and influence, flexibility – and openness to learning and growing. National NGOs may not have advanced safeguarding systems or resources to support it, but patience, trust, transparency, mutual respect and meaningful coordinated technical support has demonstrated that they are capable of meeting international standards for safe programme delivery.
CSU notes that the GEC approach has significantly supported their growth and transformation. Support included consistent and regular communication; availability for technical advice and guidance, working with the organisation directly rather than through another INGO and regular ongoing constructive dialogue. In-person visits and monitoring enabled evidence-based feedback. The FM also provided reference tools which the project was able to adapt for their transformative work.
The Fund Manager perspective
The ability to dedicate extra resource to this project was vital as it provided an opportunity to reach out to the most marginalised girls in Uganda. Through these resources, the project was able to enhance their capacities in key areas such as GESI as well as benefit from the FM in person support visits from a member of the FM Safeguarding Team who was based in country and therefore understood the country context and cultural considerations.
The ability to aggregate data across safeguarding, GESI, finance and learning meant that there was cross-portfolio data to interrogate and decision making was informed by evidence on gaps and the most useful interventions.
It is important to be prepared for more safeguarding reports! As systems improve, safeguarding incidents can and should be expected to rise as a sign that things are working and there is a high level of confidence in reporting mechanisms
What next?
CSU’s project has been a transformative journey with improvements in learning and growth and, most importantly, more children with disabilities enrolling and transitioning through school at different levels. Schools have evolved their safeguarding protections, with school-based safeguarding focal persons, instructors speaking protection and safeguarding language, constructing ramps and gender-designated washrooms. There has been high level advocacy: CSU have been involved in conversations on inclusive education at the national level, including input into National Inclusive Education Policy (NIEP) draft.
Most significantly, the project is committed to focusing on safeguarding - acknowledging that it does not stop because the GEC is closing. As part of the closure and exit plan, the project is working on individual transition plans to support the learners post project, additional service mapping to create awareness on available services after the project closes, and stakeholder transition and exit meetings.
External challenges still exist. There is need for more community awareness on educating children with disabilities, high-level advocacy with Government ministries, negotiations with learning institutions to adopt inclusive education and attitude change for learning institutions to build safer learning environments. However, CSU’s progress on its safeguarding journey can be used as a model for other organisations. There is a multiplier impact: CSU will continue this journey and advocate for further disability mainstreaming in education, service delivery and sustainability.
"The GEC has given us a benchmark for assessing safeguarding issues on other projects implemented by the organisation and has increased the credibility of our organisation.”
Safeguarding Lead, CSU