ࡱ> U@ bjbj /,UTTTp%%%88%&@&V(" ) ) ))+1,D}???????$NBRD?.))..? ) )?N000. ) )}?0.}?0$00=h> )& 1: %@/)>9?D@@9>,E/,E >,E>`u,Z,@0-4C-]u,u,u,??d%P0j% An Overview of Childrens Participation in South Africa Susan Moses University of Cape Town, South Africa  HYPERLINK "mailto:smoses@rmh.uct.ac.za" smoses@rmh.uct.ac.za or  HYPERLINK "mailto:soomo@webmail.co.za" soomo@webmail.co.za Paper prepared for the seminar, Theorising Childrens Participation, University of Edinburgh, 4th 6th September 2006 Table of Contents  TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u   HYPERLINK \l "_Toc143706099" Setting the scene: Background to Children and Participation in South Africa  PAGEREF _Toc143706099 \h 2  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc143706100" Everyday forms of Childrens Participation in South Africa  PAGEREF _Toc143706100 \h 4  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc143706101" The impact of conceptions of childhood on childrens agency and participation  PAGEREF _Toc143706101 \h 5  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc143706102" Childrens participation in community based organisations  PAGEREF _Toc143706102 \h 6  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc143706103" Summary  PAGEREF _Toc143706103 \h 7  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc143706104" Childrens Participation in more formal arena  PAGEREF _Toc143706104 \h 7  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc143706105" The media  PAGEREF _Toc143706105 \h 7  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc143706106" The research community  PAGEREF _Toc143706106 \h 7  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc143706107" Childrens participation in state institutions and processes  PAGEREF _Toc143706107 \h 7  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc143706108" The Education Sector  PAGEREF _Toc143706108 \h 8  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc143706109" The Legal Sector  PAGEREF _Toc143706109 \h 8  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc143706110" Policy reform and budgeting  PAGEREF _Toc143706110 \h 8  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc143706111" Summary  PAGEREF _Toc143706111 \h 11  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc143706112" Key issues for debate  PAGEREF _Toc143706112 \h 11  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc143706113" References  PAGEREF _Toc143706113 \h 14  Acknowledgements I would like to thank Rachel Bray for guidance and critical inputs into this paper. Setting the scene: Background to Children and Participation in South Africa The South African Constitution is one of the most progressive in the world in that it gives full recognition of childrens rights at the very highest level. In this sense, children in theory at least are treated as full participants in society and as legitimate rights-bearers. Although not outlined as a right in Section 28 of the Constitution, the right of children to participate in matters and decisions affecting their lives is clearly articulated in both the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child (CRC), ratified by the South African government in 1995 and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, ratified in 2000. The state is therefore obligated to ensure that children have the opportunity to be heard in matters that affect there lives. Following the elections in 1994, the new South African government adopted a framework for a comprehensive National Plan of Action for Children (NPA). Taking the principles of the CRC and the Constitution as its core, this document spells out the quality of life desired for children and outlines their right to equal access to state resources, implicating both government and civil society as those duty-bearers with specific responsibility for ensuring the realisation of child rights (Jacobs et. al, 2005: 9). The plan however failed to outline how the various rights and improvements in living standards were to be achieved (Bray, 2002: 1). In addition, the pace of the legislative and policy reform that would be required in order to implement the plan has been slow, meaning that it has not been achieved in any comprehensive way (Jacobs et al, 2005: 9). Current analysis shows that sections of the population, differentiated by the apartheid regime according to racial classifications, continue to be divided along class lines. Thus, the vast majority of those who were made poor under the previous regime remain so, with the gap between rich and poor increasing since 1994 (Seekings, 2006: 27), and the proportion of those living in conditions of debilitating poverty having risen (Liebbrandt, 2004 in Wilson, 2006: 29).Child poverty in South Africa remains very high, with two-thirds of children living in households with an income of less than R1200 per month (Jacobs et al, 2005: 54). Other indicators also point to the poor living standards of many South African children. A significant proportion of children do not have access to adequate nutritious food, with 10.3% of children between the ages of one and nine being underweight, and a further 1.4% being severely underweight (Abrahams et al in Jacobs et al, 2005: 58). Forty-three percent of children live in households which rely on distant or unsafe water sources, and 49% in households without access to adequate sanitation (Leatt and Berry in Jacobs et al, 2005: 61). As with the broader population, child indicators also point to continuing inequality along race and class lines. For example 99% of white children live in formal housing, while only 62% of black children do, with 12% being inadequately housed (Hall and Berry in Jacobs et al, 2005: 64). Ninety percent of all children living in overcrowded households are black, whereas less than 1% are white (ibid.). Overcrowding places children at greater risk of sexual abuse and makes it difficult for children to negotiate space for their own activities (ibid.). The demography and socio-economic effects of HIV/AIDS has increased the vulnerability of very poor families and children (Wilson, 2006: 34; Giese and Meintjes, 2005: 18). HIV/AIDS remains the leading cause of death for children under-five years of age, nationally and across all provinces, with other diseases of poverty accounting for 30% of all under-five child deaths (Shung-King et al in Jacobs et al, 2005: 59). It is estimated that a total of 260 000 children under 15 years of age are living with HIV (ibid: 60). Although anti-retroviral roll-out is still in its infancy, and evidence suggests that the number of children accessing treatment is increasing. In 2005 however, there were still far fewer sites providing ARVs to children than to adults (ibid.). A major weakness of the current government has been in spending on and delivering effective social, health and education services at national, provincial and district levels. There is marked spatial variation in access to services and facilities, with rural and informal urban areas being significantly less likely to have basic services. Unemployment has also increased, peaking at 42.5% in 2003 and currently sitting at about 40% (Seekings, 2006: 15). As with access to services, the most recent Labour Force Survey shows that unemployment rates are highest in rural and informal areas, and amongst those population groups disadvantaged under the previous regime. In the light of a lack of alternative income sources for poor families, there is a widespread dependence on state social assistance in these areas. Pensions provide a mainstay for many households, and there is increased uptake of state social security assistance targeted at children namely the Child Support Grant (CSG), Foster Care Grant (FCG) and the Care Dependency Grant (CDG). Yet, access remains a problem and evidence suggests that only 67% percent of children eligible for the CSG are able to access it (Leatt et al in Jacobs et al, 2005: 55). Thus although the child-friendly Constitution provides an excellent platform for progressive policy development and offers the potential for positive change, childrens rights (including to participation) continue to be violated in their everyday environments of family, school, and neighbourhood. Some progress has been made towards including children in policy development and in the planning of interventions intended to improve their lives. These efforts however, are often plagued by non-child-friendly state and organisational structures, and are far from being universally adopted. Only a small minority of interventions, most of which are externally influenced or planned (e.g. Save the Children), adopt an explicitly participatory approach. As such, South Africa seems to lag behind other regions in terms of debating different forms of participation or interpretations of the term, and there is no evidence of discussion around the particular considerations of a participatory approach within the context of historical and contemporary social and economic inequalities. Ironically in South Africa, although childrens roles as public actors in processes of social transformation are widely recognised, their role as stakeholders to consult when developing programmes and policies remains largely unacknowledged. Historically South African children have been important political actors and the pivotal role of the 1976 student uprisings in the struggle against the apartheid state have been widely acknowledged and are publicly celebrated by a national holiday. Despite the failure to consult children, it is encouraging that they still actively claim spaces for their voices to be heard and protest when their grievances are not listened to or addressed by adults. This occurs particularly in relation to corruption within their schools and the education system, with at least two instances of school learners protesting publicly over these issues during the last year. Unfortunately these actions also perpetuate a history of violent protest, fuelling ideas of out-of-control youth. Everyday forms of Childrens Participation in South Africa It is difficult to provide a summary of the current situation in relation to childrens participation in South Africa as it has been implemented in a limited and sporadic way. There has also been no attempt to synthesise current knowledge or practice around the way in which childrens participation is happening in the South African context. Indeed, the lack of research around childrens right to participation, and the need to better understand the various roles that children play in South African society, has been noted by other researchers (see Berry and Guthrie, 2003). Childrens participation and the extent to which their rights are upheld are aspects of child well-being that are often left out of the debate because they are not considered critical to well-being, or because civil rights and social inclusion are concepts that are not thought applicable in childhood (Bray, 2002: 43-44). This paper cannot hope to fill this gap in our knowledge, but rather raises some of the key ways in which children are participating in various social and political arena, highlighting some of the limits and tensions within these processes in order to raise questions for debate. Across the economic spectrum, and particularly amongst poor children, the dominant ways in which children participate in various social arena are in informal and largely unrecognised spheres. These include the domestic arena within their current homes (and those of extended family members both near and far), through caring for young and ill family members, and offering support to peers through neighbourly and friendship networks (Bray and Brandt, 2005; Bray et al, forthcoming; Bray, 2003; Giese et al, 2003; Donald and Clacherty, 2005). Little acknowledgement is made of childrens contributions in these areas within the public domain, and hence little attention paid to the competence displayed therein and the potential to nurture this in ways to improve the lives of children and families. A scattering of research initiatives are now starting to examine the details of childrens participation in particular locales, and to raise questions about factors that constrain or enable childrens abilities to make decisions and act towards their own best interests, and to be involved in shaping decisions made within larger contexts (families, schools, and neighbourhoods) (Bray et al, forthcoming; Ewing, 2004; Swart-Kruger, 2001; Reynolds, 1995). The impact of conceptions of childhood on childrens agency and participation Although it is in these informal arena that we most see children taking on responsibility and decision-making, the extent of their participation is often limited by the nature of adult child relations in South Africa, and local conceptions of childhood as well as of gender. In 2002 Save the Children Sweden commissioned the Childrens Poll: a South African Child Rights Survey to investigate South African childrens own views and experiences of their rights and violations of these rights. The aim of the study was to highlight the importance of listening to childrens views and to assist the state and relevant NGOs and CBOs to focus their work in the child rights arena around the issues raised as being of importance to children (Save the Children, 2002: 3). The right to participation (understood in this context as the right to be heard and taken seriously) was ranked by children as the third most commonly violated right (following the right to a safe environment and the right to protection from abuse) (Save the Children, 2002: 9). In discussing this right children implicated parents and the home environment as the arena in which this violation is experienced most, raising issues of power in relationships between adults and children. This was seen to undermine their ability to be involved in decision-making, as adults make the decisions because they have the power (boy quoted in Save the Children, 2002: 10). They also said that children are unable to make informed decisions (for example around sex) because adults deny them access to the relevant and correct information because of cultural norms. Adults also frequently do not give children the space to express their opinions or points of view when conflict arises (Save the Children, 2002: 10). Cultural diversity within South Africa contributes to a situation where adults hold a variety of different views on the place of childhood and suitable role for children within the home and community. These different models provide for different levels of participation by children in different arena. For example, recent qualitative work with children from three communities, each with different socio-economic and cultural backgrounds, revealed that children in a predominantly middle-class area seldom take on much responsibility in the home, as the expectation of both adults and children is that parents will provide for them. The other side of this coin is that children are afforded little room as independent actors, leading to feelings of despair around the lack of control over their lives (Bray et al, forthcoming). In the neighbouring poor and predominantly coloured and black African townships, children are expected to contribute to the household and are usually fairly independent in scripting their daily lives from a young age (ibid). However, clear lines of authority between adults and children still prevail, and in all three areas children complained that they are often not listened to, respected or taken seriously by adults within the home and beyond (ibid). Ideas of what is possible and desirable in terms of girls and boys behaviour differs, thus providing girls and boys with different opportunities for participation within the domestic and public spheres (see for example, Bray 2003; Swart-Kruger, 2000 and 2001; Salo, 2004; Moses, 2005). Gender roles are differentially informed by the various cultures in South Africa, and so gendered participation in these spheres varies across communities. Alongside this general trend however, there is evidence that community awareness about childrens rights is increasing (Bray et al, forthcoming), possibly as a result of changes in the school curriculum and the inclusion of learners in school decision-making (see below), as well as discussions of childrens rights in the media. Some parents, teachers and other community adults clearly recognise and value childrens perspectives and actively nurture meaningful communication with the young people in their care (Bray et al, forthcoming). Childrens participation in community based organisations Against a general backdrop of adultchild hierarchy and a devaluing of childrens inputs, children are seldom included by adults in community based structures and decision-making. A few non-governmental organisations (NGOs) providing services to children have begun using participatory methods with their beneficiaries, but again this is not documented and so it is difficult to determine the nature and extent of this trend. Certainly many community-based NGOs fail to consult children or involve them decisions about the nature of the service provided, even those established more recently in a climate of progressive development. Ethnographic evidence suggests that some adults do not think it appropriate to involve children in the planning stages of service delivery, and undervalue their competences (Moses, 2005: 64). The idea and value of children participating in formal decision-making is not widely understood amongst adults within the NGO sector. Lack of buy-in from all staff has been found in certain intervention contexts to completely undermine attempts at implementing participatory models (Moses, 2003). Adult training and revision of organisational structures and processes may be a prerequisite to involving children in decision-making at this level (ibid). Mniki and Rosa note how essential the process of community buy-in is in order to create spaces for childrens meaningful participation (Mniki and Rosa, 2006). Many child-focussed services are underlined by notions of children as innocent and as victims. The non-profit sector in South Africa has a long history of welfarist approaches. The tendency to approach child services from this framework is also partly fuelled by major international development actors and donors who support and fund projects and programmes aimed at categories of children, such as AIDS orphans. This type of labelling may in fact undermine child survival and coping strategies (Meintjes and Giese, 2005). One example of local NGOs adopting participatory methods and facilitating young peoples greater participation within their communities is OIL, based in Cape Towns South Peninsula. OIL's mission is to equip youth to be positive role models and agents of change in their communities. Their specific objectives are to equip young people to educate their peers, to role model positive and healthy behaviour, to identify children and young people in need of help and refer them for assistance, as well as to advocate for resources and services for themselves and their peers (OIL, 2006). This is achieved through training young people as peer educators who are then supported in coordinating community activities, providing peer listening and counselling, as well as in raising awareness of young peoples issues through newsletters and other media. Testimony of the peer educators and other young people and adults from their communities suggests that this process is having a positive impact on the peer educators themselves as well as on their peers (ibid). Observation of important behaviour changes around the use of drugs and alcohol, amongst others, has in turn enabled adults to begin to develop more positive perceptions of the youth population. Summary Children take on a variety of different responsibilities in their home and community contexts, and an increasing awareness within communities about childrens rights is increasing space for childrens voices to be listened to and respected. Cultural scripts governing adult-child relationships, as well as the need and desire to protect children and maintain discipline however, continues to limit spaces for participation within the home and broader community. Childrens Participation in more formal arena The media There have been recent attempts within the media to give children a voice, although this tends to be localised. For example, a Cape Town based NGO, Molo Songololo gives children a voice in three projects, a magazine of the same name, a newspaper MoloWorld and the Molo Show on childrens television (Childrens Rights Centre, 2006: 40). Bush Radio, a community radio station also in Cape Town, has children from different age groups producing programmes, and Children FIRST, a South African journal on issues affecting children and their carers, has a project that includes children being able to publish their own stories and views in the journal (ibid). Children have also been involved through the Media Monitoring Project in developing monitoring indicators, undertaking their own monitoring and participating in advocacy processes with media professionals (Clacherty, 2003b). The research community South Africa has a lot of survey data measuring household level information (see for example Seekings, 2006), from which a fair amount can be learnt about childrens lives. National surveys however, do not attempt to investigate childrens participation in decision-making and the sharing of information (Bray, 2002: 47). Only a few local surveys, such as the Cape Area Panel Study (CAPS), consult young people directly, and within these civic inclusion and participation are not investigated. A small collection of qualitative research projects have adopted an explicitly participatory approach. These tend to be either narrow and short-term studies of particular issues commissioned by outside donor orgs, or longer term consultative ethnographic projects that aim to give children a voice in the sense of conveying the details of their everyday lives (for example Bray et al, forthcoming; Meintjes, 2006; Swart-Kruger and Chawla, 2002). One of these studies, a participatory project which facilitated children in rural KwaZulu Natal to produce a series of radio-documentary programmes about their lives as children growing up in a time of AIDS, has in turn led to ongoing opportunities for increased participation within their local communities as well as increased support for children experiencing difficulties (Meintjes, 2006). Childrens participation in state institutions and processes The state has begun to make provisions for children to participate in institutional processes which impact directly on them, such as school governance and in court proceedings. These provisions however, are underpinned by notions of childrens limited competence, restricting the scope and potential impact of their participation. The Education Sector The South African Schools Act of 1996 has made provisions for childrens involvement in school governing processes by requiring that all schools enrolling children in grade 8 and above have a representative council of learners (RCL). These learners councils are then able to elect two learners to sit on the schools governing body which makes decisions about how the school operates. In order to protect children from liability, however, child members of the governing body do not enjoy the full voting rights of adults. Determining the precise functions of the RCL in each province is also reserved for adult decision-makers in the form of the provincial Member of the Executive Council (MEC) for Education. The Legal Sector Other laws which allow for childrens participation in matters which affect their lives include those governing legal proceedings which involve children, such as custody cases. Research examining the extent to which childrens voices are actually heard in these processes however, describes meaningful participation as rare (Barratt, 2003: 151). Decisions to pay attention to a childs wishes are based on competence, which is seen as all or nothing. Thus the issue of developing autonomy is seldom examined and decision-makers fail to engage with the question of how to respond meaningfully to the expressed wishes of a child who is not yet fully competent (ibid). Ultimately, courts see childrens participation as a means to an end rather than a right and an end in itself, so where the childs preferences are seen as being unlikely to prevail over adults, participation may be severely limited (ibis: 152). Research in this arena also raises the issue of the impact of non-child-friendly institutional cultures, procedures and structures as well as of adult competence on childrens ability to participate meaningfully. Procedural questions concerning how a childs views are solicited are also not adequately addressed, despite evidence that a childs competence to form and express a view may depend on the procedural opportunities provided (e.g. a supportive, empowering environment in which to discuss and consider options) (Barratt, 2003: 153). Children are reported to frequently be afraid of and intimidated by the environment during court procedures (Zaal, 2003: 161). Furthermore, adult decision-makers are described as lacking competence in hearing, understanding and giving due weight to what children are trying to say (Zaal, 2003: 158). Policy reform and budgeting At the level of state (national, provincial and local), children are beginning to be consulted around policy reform and budgetary processes. In some cases this consultation is initiated by the state, but more generally it is driven by institutions of civil society, or international NGOs. Other research notes that although it is government that develops legislation and policies regarding children, it is mainly the NGO sector that implements these policies and programmes and safeguards childrens rights (Berry and Guthrie, 2003: 7). State-initiated consultation of children Government first began to solicit childrens views on child specific law reform towards the end of the 1990s. Children were consulted under the auspices of the Project Committee on Juvenile Justice of the South African Law Commission on various aspects of the draft Child Justice Bill, released for public comment in December 1998 (Community Law Centre, 2001). Similarly the Project Committee appointed to review the Child Care Act of 1983 also consulted children through a series of participatory workshops in order to gain childrens views and opinions on the child care system and what they expect from it (ibid). In 2003 the Department of Labour commissioned research to be conducted as part of a process of formulating a national child labour action programme for South Africa (Clacherty, 2003a: 3). The aim of consulting children was to get their comments and input on a discussion document which analysed the situation of childrens work in South Africa and identified policy implications (ibid: 4). The children consulted were those doing work that may potentially be detrimental to their development. There is no indication in this report or those of the other government led participation processes, that children were involved beyond the consultation phase. Rather the information gathered from children is envisaged as informing the formulation of policy by adults. In some cases provision was made to feedback to children, and the Department of Labour planned to involve children in a second round of consultation around appropriate parts of the proposed policy once that policy was drafted (ibid: 4). It is clear that these processes are initiated by adults and their limits set by adult resources and time (Clacherty, 2003a: 7) and policy-makers ideas of where and in what way it is appropriate to involve children. Children are not given space to voice their opinions to decision-makers, but must rely instead on adult-led processes to ensure that their ideas are actually taken into consideration. This type of limited participation relies heavily on adult decision-makers understanding of the value of childrens input and on their willingness to take childrens views seriously. Although the participatory workshops may have benefits for the children involved, this type of participation runs the risk of being window dressing rather than allowing children to have a meaningful impact on policy development. Voluntary sector and research partnerships Some projects initiated by NGOs to involve children in child specific law reform processes and key advocacy debates, have attempted to address some of these challenges. In 2001 a National Childrens Forum on HIV/AIDS was designed to allow decision-makers to hear from children how HIV/AIDS is impacting on children. Facilitated by the Childrens Institute (University of Cape Town), it was arranged for child representatives from the initial participatory workshops to meet with representatives from national government and parliament to discuss the impact of HIV/AIDS on children and the roles of civil society and government in addressing this (Giese, Meintjes and Proudlock, 2002: 5). Much of the advocacy around the issues raised through the initial consultation and subsequent meeting was carried forward by adults through official and formal channels such as submissions to parliament and commentary on proposed legislation. In some cases however, children chose to co-ordinate meetings at the local level to raise awareness around the issues raised by the children at the forum (ibid: 87). This type of activity, although limited, was child-led and supported by adults. Similarly the participatory processes initiated by the Alliance for Childrens Entitlement to Social Security (ACESS) aimed to give children the opportunity to influence decision-makers on issues related to social security for children during the early stages of the development of a new policy. Children were directly involved through three phases. Firstly, workshops were run with children in which they were given the opportunity to share their experiences of poverty and survival, access information on their rights and responsibilities as well on the obligations of parents/guardians and government in relation to social security, and explore ideas for improving social security provisions and formulate recommendations. Secondly, a platform was created for children to present these recommendations to decision-makers in government, and a report containing their views was compiled. Thirdly, children were to receive ongoing feedback on the outcomes of governments deliberations around social security (Clacherty, 2001: 13). In reflecting on the process, researchers note that the process of meeting with decision-makers raised some of the childrens expectations around the potential for change as a result of the process, especially as some decision-makers made promises to children (ibid: 30). They warn that adults who initiate this type of process have to be prepared to follow-up with decision-makers and should also brief children adequately before hand around having realistic expectations (ibid.). Researches also highlight the fragility of childrens participation where buy-in from decision-makers is needed. Although officials commented that the process had given them a new understanding of how children could participate in decisions that affect them (ibid: 30), government has since given low priority to childrens participation in the further debates and deliberations of the bill (ibid: 9). A more recent (and on-going) project by the Childrens Institute, Dikwankwetla: Children in Action, which aims to involve children in the debates, deliberations and advocacy around the proposed Childrens Bill, likewise raises issues of the importance of adult decision-makers buy-in and understanding of the value of child participation, as well as the importance of examining and addressing the barriers posed by the structures and procedures underlying law reform and development which are designed by adults for adults. The mere fact that short notice is given for public hearings once a bill has been tabled makes it almost impossible for children, who are attending school and have to travel from distant provinces, to participate (Meintjes, pers comm). Childrens agency it was found is hindered by structural and attitudinal challenges, making it difficult for child participation in law-making processes to be effective and meaningful (Mniki and Rosa, 2006). Researchers argue that levels of participation may shift as different activities are implemented, and the project moves through different phases (ibid.). Where adults external to the intervention become involved through childrens advocacy efforts, such as community members and politicians, it becomes impossible to guarantee that childrens messages will be heard and not rejected or trivialised as mere entertainment (ibid.). These issues of power and adult perceptions of children need to be engaged with by adult facilitators so that they can prepare children to adjust their expectations and can carefully consider the appropriateness of exposing children to non-child-friendly environments such as Parliament (ibid.). This raises an important dimension of child participation often overlooked: that of awareness-raising amongst adults around childrens agency and rights in general and their right to participation in particular. It also raises questions of whether advocating for more child-friendly state structures needs to accompany efforts to involve children in their processes. Another arena of governance in which organisations have tried to encourage childrens participation is around budgeting. In 2004 Idasas Childrens Budget Unit (CBU) in partnership with four local NGOs began a project entitled Children Participating in Governance: Budget monitoring within a rights based framework (CPG). Young people from the four partner organisations were trained as peer facilitators and budget monitors. These children in turn ran workshops every six months with children from their constituency groups. The project hoped that the peer facilitators would mount budget advocacy campaigns at a local level. In an article reflecting on the project, they note that only one group was really successful in this, being active in local youth unit structures, community meetings, meetings with local government officials and ward councillors (Idasa, no date). They note the importance in this case of having local adults who were willing to help link them to opportunities for voicing their concerns, and generally championing the cause of children (ibid.). This information and support was key in enabling them to plan and mount an advocacy campaign. This raises the importance of adult mediators and gate-keepers for childrens meaningful participation in certain arena. Unfortunately most of the reports on the processes discussed above, do not contain adequate reflection on the impacts of the participatory processes. Instead they tend to report mostly on what the children said. Where reflection is included in reports it is usually around the participatory methods used in training and/or research workshops. There is a lack of documented impact assessment both in terms of benefits to individual children in the forms of enjoyment, learning and personal development, and the resulting impact on the intended processes and outcomes. There is a need to better understand what hinders and facilitates childrens ability to influence adult dominated processes. It is encouraging that publications of this nature are planned for some of the on-going processes being led by the Childrens Institute (Helen Meintjes, pers comm). Summary Some provisions have been provided for childrens participation in decision-making in state schools and courts of law. Perceptions of childrens (in)competence and attempts to ensure childrens adequate protection from being burdened with too great responsibilities, however, limits of their participation in these spheres. Directives from the state as well as initiatives from the research and voluntary sectors have attempted to involve children in child-specific law reform processes. For the most part this has consisted of consultation only. Where attempts have been made to engage children directly in advocating with decision-makers, structural and attitudinal obstacles have emerged. These include adult dominated environments and procedures which exclude children on practical grounds as well as though the traditional power hierarchies they sustain. Furthermore a lack of buy-in from politicians into the concept and value of childrens participation and conservative notions of childrens abilities and rightful place, means adults fail to take childrens views seriously, thus trivialising their contribution. Adult champions within the decision-making domain can play a positive role in creating spaces for participation, and should therefore be cultivated by those initiating these processes. Key issues for debate Research with children has raised the issue of the inter-dependence of childrens rights (Ewing, 2004: 5). Children point to the way in which rights are linked such that they are unable to realise one right without the other. For example, the right to education may be dependent on accessing the right to food and transport (ibid). In the context of poverty described above, the same tension is likely to exist when it comes to the right to participate. Children may be unable to take opportunities to participate in processes that affect them because other basic rights are not met. In order to protect children, many participatory research processes partner with local organisations and therefore include children who are already accessing some kind of service and support (for example Idasas Childrens Participation in Governance Project, the National Childrens Forum on HIV/AIDS and the Childrens Institute Dikwankwetla and radio work projects). While this is important for ensuring on-going support to children in cases of abuse or where the process raises difficult issues for children, as well as in cases where children wish to take on activist and advocacy roles within their communities, it increases barriers to participation for those children who are most excluded generally, and increases the likelihood that it will be those children already exhibiting leadership qualities who will be chosen. Similarly children may be excluded from participation in more formal arenas (such as parliament) if they are not literate. In an educational context where the majority of our children are being schooled in a language other than their mother-tongue (Heugh, 2000), and low levels of literacy result (ibid.), literacy could be a serious barrier to participation. Specific efforts must be made to identify and include children who are excluded because they are poor, illiterate or uninformed about local opportunities. It may also be ethically inappropriate to provide for childrens participation in a context where parents and caregivers are seldom consulted on anything, as is the case in South Africa where civil society participation in law-making is generally the domain of the affluent and organised groups (Mniki and Rosa, 2006). Mniki and Rosa argue that facilitators of child participation thus have a responsibility to raise awareness among the adults with whom the children live (ibid.). Furthermore a tension exists in a developing country context such as South Africa between budgeting for participation (which can be costly) versus addressing the lack of essential services and basic needs. Participation will continue to be sporadic and often tokenistic as long as adult decision-makers do not fully understand the importance and value of including children in decision-making processes. This gap in understanding is about both the rights of children and pure economics. As yet, there does not seem to be recognition of the fact that consultation with children at the design stage is likely to produce a more effective service, and therefore a more efficient use of funds. Childrens right to protection and their right to participation (for example as activists or workers) are often treated as oppositional and thus mutually exclusive in terms of implementation. There appears to be a lack of knowledge, experience and debate around how to afford children both protection and participation. A starting point is perhaps to acknowledge the way in which children make decisions to protect areas of their selves that they did not wish to be made available to others (Bray and Gooskens, 2006). Reflecting on teenagers involvement in conducting research, Bray and Gooskens call for recognising children as active moral agents who have an acute sense of how to negotiate relationships, to frame experience, and to manage difficulties that arise in relationships (ibid). Likewise, Mniki and Rosa argue for respecting childrens agency and the competence they demonstrate in dealing with the various challenges of their lives, suggesting that cultivating a critical awareness among children of the potential obstacles they will face in their advocacy journey coupled with awareness raising with key adults about childrens agency could be a way forward (Mniki and Rosa, 2006). Rosa and Mniki also note that acknowledging the ways in which children negotiate their existence in everyday situations and are thus involved in meaning-making within their local social context, means recognising that children do not need external facilitation by adults to participate, as living requires full participation on the part of those doing the living (Mniki and Rosa, 2006). It is where certain information or processes are not readily accessible to children that adults should take the initiative to create opportunities for sharing information and for participation (ibid.). The following key questions and ideas are highlighted for debate: How do we mainstream childrens participation within more formal social processes in local institutions and wider state or voluntary sector decision-making, in the context of: South Africas historically influenced current dynamics of economic, political and social inequality which mean that the issue is not only about the redistribution of resources but about working in a context where previously legitimised (and now discredited) notions of hierarchy continue to play a role in peoples sense of us and other. These attitudes influence the design of interventions at a local level, tending to re-enforce welfare-oriented initiatives that do not allow space for more consultative or empowering approaches. Broad structural and attitudinal barriers which undermine childrens legitimate involvement in formal decision-making and advocacy. The difficulties imposed by a situation where already marginalised children are further excluded through language policies and practices in schools (for example through learning in English rather than mother tongue at primary school) The current political environment, including policies such as Black Economic Empowerment, which continue to shape attitudes towards young people and their future, as well as shaping young peoples own aspirations and sense of what is possible for them in South Africa today, with a racial dimension. How do we take existing research and NGO attempts to engage children a step further in the sense of developing approaches that are participatory from the outset and continue to engage children through analysis and implementation. The possibility of advocating for greater recognition and legitimisation of childrens participation in everyday spheres of home, community and school as a pre-requisite platform for extending and enhancing child participation in more formal arena. In other words, starting with arenas where some progress has been made or there is the potential to progress and be broadly inclusive of all children (school, local youth initiatives including church). Gender dimensions to child participation: we need to account for strongly gendered roles and socialisation process as a context in which one aims to enhance child participation. References Barratt, A. (2003). The Best Interest of the Child: Where is the childs voice? in S. Burman (ed.) The Fate of the Child: Legal Decisions on Children in the New South Africa. Cape Town: Juta. Berry, L. and Guthrie, T. (2003). Rapid Assessment: The situation of children in South Africa. Cape Town: The Childrens Institute, University of Cape Town Bray, R. (2003). Who does the housework? An examination of South African Childrens working roles. CSSR Working Paper No 45. Centre for Social Science Research, University of Cape Town. Bray, R. (2002). Missing Links? An examination of contributions made by social surveys to our understanding of child well-being in South Africa. CSSR Working Paper No 23. Centre for Social Science Research, University of Cape Town. Bray, R. and Brandt, R. (2005). What is childcare really about? AN ethnographic analysis of care relationships in a resource-poor community. CSSR Working Paper No. . Centre for Social Science Research, University of Cape Town. Bray, R. and Gooskens, I. (2006). Ethics and the Everyday: Reconsidering approaches to research involving children and young people. Anthropology Southern Africa, 29(1&2): 45-57. Bray, R.; Gooskens, I,; Moses, S. and Seekings, J (forthcoming). Growing Up in the New South Africa: Perspectives from children and adolescents in Cape Town. Childrens Rights Centre (2006). Practical Ethical Guidelines on the Participation of Children. Durban: Childrens Rights Centre Clacherty, G. (2003a). Report on Childrens Participation Process Towards a South African Child Labour Programme. Pretoria: Department of Labour Clacherty, G. (2003b). Media Monitoring Project Children's Participation Workshops: Interim Report on Workshop 1. Johannesburg: Media Monitoring Project. [Available online: http://www.mediamonitoring.org.za/special_children.php] Clacherty, G. (2001). Children Speak Out on Poverty. Report on the ACESS Child Participation Process. Cape Town: Alliance for Children's Entitlement to Social Security. Community Law Centre. (2002). Report on Children's Rights. Cape Town: Community Law Centre, University of the Western Cape. Donald, D. and Clacherty, G. (2005). Developmental vulnerabilities and strengths of children living in child headed households: A comparison with adult headed household in equivalent impoverished communities. African Journal of AIDS Research, 4(1): 21-28. Ewing, D. (2004). Report on the Childrens Participation Component of Monitoring Child Socio-Economic Rights in South Africa: Achievements and Challenges. Report prepared for Idasas Childrens Budget Unit of the Budget Information Service. Cape Town: Idasa. Giese, S. and Meintjes, H. (2005). Orphans and Other Children Made Vulnerable by HIV/Aids in South Africa: A fact sheet. Child and Youth Care, 23(1): 18-20. Giese, S., Meintjes, H., Croke, R. and Chamberlain, R. (2003). Health and social services to address the needs of orphans and other vulnerable children in the context of HIV/AIDS: Research report and Recommendations. Report submitted to the National Departments of Health and Social Development by the Childrens Institute, University of Cape Town, January 2003. Giese, S., Meintjes, H., & Proudlock, P. (2002). National Children's Forum on HIV/AIDS, 22-24 August 2001: Workshop Report. Cape Town: Children's Institute, University of Cape Town. Heugh, K. (2000). Multilingual voices isolation and the crumbling of bridges. Agenda, 46: 21-33. Idasa, Childrens Budget Unit (no date). Children should be seen and not heardespecially on budget issues [article available online: www.idasa.org.za] Jacobs M, Shung-King M & Smith C (eds) (2005) South African Child Gauge 2005. Cape Town: Childrens Institute, University of Cape Town. Media Monitoring Project (2003). Childrens Participation Workshops: Interim report on workshop 1. Media Monitoring Project, February 2003. Meintjes, H. (2006). Growing Up in a Time of AIDS: A childrens radio-documentary project, in Child Rights in Focus: Newsletter of the Childrens Institute. (5) Meintjes, H. and Giese, S. (2005). Spinning the epidemic: The making of mythologies of orphanhood in the context of AIDS. Paper presented at the International Conference on Children and Youth in Emerging and Transforming Societies, Oslo, 29 June-3 July 2005. Mniki, N. and Rosa, S (2006). Heroes in Action: A case study of child advocates in South Africa. Children, Youth and Environments, 16. Moses, S. (2005). How do Space and Place Matter? The role of neighbourhood level factors on the everyday lives of children and young people living in a Cape Town community established under Apartheid. Masters dissertation, Department of Sociology, University of Cape Town Moses, S. (2003). Participatory Approaches in Development Interventions with Street Children in Cape Town: A Case Study of the Need for, Barriers to and Opportunities for Childrens Participation at Street Universe. Honours research paper, Department of Sociology, University of Cape Town. OIL (2006). Peer Education Speaks Out: what people in the Fish Hoek Valley schools and communities are saying about peer education. [Available online: http://www.oil.org.za/Peer-Education-Speaks-Out.pdf] Republic of South Africa. (1996). South African Schools Act, Act 84 of 1996. Reynolds, P. (1995). The Ground of All Making: State violence, the family and political activists. Report HG/MF 24. Cape Town: Human Sciences Research Council Salo, E. (2004). Respectable Mothers, Tough Men and Good Daughters: Producing Persons in Manenberg Township, South Africa. Doctoral thesis, Department of Anthropology, Emory University. Save the Children (Sweden). (2002). Children's Poll South African Child Rights Survey: Summary report: Save the Children (Sweden). Seekings, J. (2006). Facts, Myths, and Controversies: The Measurement and Analysis of Poverty and Inequality after Apartheid. Paper prepared for the After Apartheid Conference, Cape Town, 11th-12th August, 2006. Swart-Kruger, J. (2000). Growing Up In Canaansland: Childrens recommendations on improving a squatter camp environment. Pretoria: HSRC Swart-Kruger, J. (2001). Isikhati Sokulala: How Boys and Girls in a South African Urban Squatter Camp Experience Bedtime, International Journal of Anthropology, 16 (2-3): 99-111. Swart-Kruger, J. and Chawla, L. (2002). We know something someone doesnt know: children speak out on local conditions in Johannesburg. Environment and Urbanization 14(2): 85-96. Wilson, F. (2006). On being a father and poor in southern Africa today in L. Richter and R. Morrell (eds.) Baba: Men and Fatherhood in South Africa. Cape Town: HSRC Press. pp. 26 37. Zaal, N. (2003). Hearing the Voices of Children in Court: A field study and evaluation in S. Burman (ed) The Fate of the Child: Legal decisions on children in the New South Africa. Cape Town: Juta  Section 28 of the Constitution lists the rights pertaining specifically to children. These include the right to a name and nationality; family or alternative care; basic nutrition, shelter, health and social services; protection from maltreatment, neglect, abuse, degradation and exploitative labour; to be detained only as a last resort and then with special rights; and to legal representation. In addition, the childs best interests are to prevail in every matter concerning the child.  These unemployment figures use the broad definition of unemployment. Using the narrow definition, unemployment was at 31.2% in 2003 and at about 28% in 2005 (Seekings, 2006: 15).  The CSG is a cash grant to the value of R180 per child per month. Children are eligible if their primary caregiver and his/her spouse have an income of less than R800 in an urban area and formal house, or less than R1 100 if living in a rural area or informal housing in an urban area. Currently the CSG is available only to children up to fourteen-years of age, although there have been calls from those within the child rights sector to increase this to eighteen. The FCG is available to foster parents who have a child placed in their care by a court order. Although initially intended as financial support for children who had been removed from their families to provide them with protection against abuse or neglect, it is being increasingly used to provide financial support to children who have lost parents because of the HIV/AIDS epidemic or other causes (Leatt et al in Jacobs et al, 2005: 56). Most orphaned children however are not receiving this grant, although uptake increased 26% between 2004 and 2005 (ibid). The CDG is a grant of R760 per month per child provided to caregivers of children who require permanent home-care because of severe disability. In the context of AIDS, this grant can assist caregivers caring for very sick children (ibid.).  Once this legislation is passed as the Childrens Act, it will replace the existing Child Care Act of 1983.     Moses Overview of Childrens Participation in South Africa PAGE  PAGE 16 Draft Please do not cite without permission of the author 9;GmnV X \ ^ ǰǖǰhZZII!jhY] hycOJQJU^JhY] hycH*OJQJ^J2jhY] hyc6CJOJQJU^JaJ'hY] hyc0J6CJOJQJ^JaJ2jhY] hyc6CJOJQJU^JaJ,jhY] hyc6CJOJQJU^JaJ#hY] hyc6CJOJQJ^JaJhY] hycOJQJ^JhY] hycOJQJhY] hyc5OJQJ^J9:;o&I$EƀUa$gdycFEƀUgdycGC$EƀUgdycUY;GmgN&d EƀUP gdycI$EƀUa$gdyc< n o p dI$EƀUa$gdycQ$&d EƀUP a$gdycp q + 8 n  <> ! gdyc ! gdyc ! gdycFEƀUgdyc % & ' ( ) * + , - I J ҾҾ~f~Lf;fҾ hycOJQJ^JmHnHu2j'hY] hycOJQJU^JmHnHu/jhY] hycOJQJU^JmHnHu&hY] hycOJQJ^JmHnHu2jhY] hycOJQJU^JmHnHu#hY] hycOJQJ^JmHnHu'hY] hyc0JOJQJ^JmHnHu0jhY] hyc0JOJQJU^JmHnHu'hY] hycOJQJ^JmHnHsH uJ K L ͹sbN͹<#hY] hycOJQJ^JmHnHu'hY] hycOJQJ^JmHnHsH u hycOJQJ^JmHnHu2j!hY] hycOJQJU^JmHnHu/jhY] hycOJQJU^JmHnHu&hY] hycOJQJ^JmHnHu'hY] hyc0JOJQJ^JmHnHu0jhY] hyc0JOJQJU^JmHnHu2jhY] hycOJQJU^JmHnHu    2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : V W dzm\Hdz6#hY] hycOJQJ^JmHnHu'hY] hycOJQJ^JmHnHsH u hycOJQJ^JmHnHu2jhY] hycOJQJU^JmHnHu/jhY] hycOJQJU^JmHnHu&hY] hycOJQJ^JmHnHu'hY] hyc0JOJQJ^JmHnHu0jhY] hyc0JOJQJU^JmHnHu>jhY] hyc>*B*OJQJU^JmHnHphuW X Y dzm\Hdz6#hY] hycOJQJ^JmHnHu'hY] hycOJQJ^JmHnHsH u hycOJQJ^JmHnHu2jhY] hycOJQJU^JmHnHu/jhY] hycOJQJU^JmHnHu&hY] hycOJQJ^JmHnHu'hY] hyc0JOJQJ^JmHnHu0jhY] hyc0JOJQJU^JmHnHu>jhY] hyc>*B*OJQJU^JmHnHphu   dzm\Hdz6#hY] hycOJQJ^JmHnHu'hY] hycOJQJ^JmHnHsH u hycOJQJ^JmHnHu2jhY] hycOJQJU^JmHnHu/jhY] hycOJQJU^JmHnHu&hY] hycOJQJ^JmHnHu'hY] hyc0JOJQJ^JmHnHu0jhY] hyc0JOJQJU^JmHnHu>jhY] hyc>*B*OJQJU^JmHnHphu   L M N h i j k l m n o p dzm\Hdz6#hY] hycOJQJ^JmHnHu'hY] hycOJQJ^JmHnHsH u hycOJQJ^JmHnHu2j hY] hycOJQJU^JmHnHu/jhY] hycOJQJU^JmHnHu&hY] hycOJQJ^JmHnHu'hY] hyc0JOJQJ^JmHnHu0jhY] hyc0JOJQJU^JmHnHu>jhY] hyc>*B*OJQJU^JmHnHphu dzm\Hdz6#hY] hycOJQJ^JmHnHu'hY] hycOJQJ^JmHnHsH u hycOJQJ^JmHnHu2jhY] hycOJQJU^JmHnHu/jhY] hycOJQJU^JmHnHu&hY] hycOJQJ^JmHnHu'hY] hyc0JOJQJ^JmHnHu0jhY] hyc0JOJQJU^JmHnHu>jhY] hyc>*B*OJQJU^JmHnHphu         1 2 dzm\Hdz6#hY] hycOJQJ^JmHnHu'hY] hycOJQJ^JmHnHsH u hycOJQJ^JmHnHu2jhY] hycOJQJU^JmHnHu/jhY] hycOJQJU^JmHnHu&hY] hycOJQJ^JmHnHu'hY] hyc0JOJQJ^JmHnHu0jhY] hyc0JOJQJU^JmHnHu>jhY] hyc>*B*OJQJU^JmHnHphu2 3 4 p q r ͹sbN͹<#hY] hycOJQJ^JmHnHu'hY] hycOJQJ^JmHnHsH u hycOJQJ^JmHnHu2j hY] hycOJQJU^JmHnHu/jhY] hycOJQJU^JmHnHu&hY] hycOJQJ^JmHnHu'hY] hyc0JOJQJ^JmHnHu0jhY] hyc0JOJQJU^JmHnHu2jz hY] hycOJQJU^JmHnHu dzm\Hdz6#hY] hycOJQJ^JmHnHu'hY] hycOJQJ^JmHnHsH u hycOJQJ^JmHnHu2j hY] hycOJQJU^JmHnHu/jhY] hycOJQJU^JmHnHu&hY] hycOJQJ^JmHnHu'hY] hyc0JOJQJ^JmHnHu0jhY] hyc0JOJQJU^JmHnHu>jt hY] hyc>*B*OJQJU^JmHnHphu  6789:;<=>Z[dzm\Hdz6#hY] hycOJQJ^JmHnHu'hY] hycOJQJ^JmHnHsH u hycOJQJ^JmHnHu2j hY] hycOJQJU^JmHnHu/jhY] hycOJQJU^JmHnHu&hY] hycOJQJ^JmHnHu'hY] hyc0JOJQJ^JmHnHu0jhY] hyc0JOJQJU^JmHnHu>jn hY] hyc>*B*OJQJU^JmHnHphu[\]xyzdzm\Hdz6#hY] hycOJQJ^JmHnHu'hY] hycOJQJ^JmHnHsH u hycOJQJ^JmHnHu2j hY] hycOJQJU^JmHnHu/jhY] hycOJQJU^JmHnHu&hY] hycOJQJ^JmHnHu'hY] hyc0JOJQJ^JmHnHu0jhY] hyc0JOJQJU^JmHnHu>jh hY] hyc>*B*OJQJU^JmHnHphudzm\Hdz6#hY] hycOJQJ^JmHnHu'hY] hycOJQJ^JmHnHsH u hycOJQJ^JmHnHu2j hY] hycOJQJU^JmHnHu/jhY] hycOJQJU^JmHnHu&hY] hycOJQJ^JmHnHu'hY] hyc0JOJQJ^JmHnHu0jhY] hyc0JOJQJU^JmHnHu>jb hY] hyc>*B*OJQJU^JmHnHphu789;<=>?@\]dzm\Hdz6#hY] hycOJQJ^JmHnHu'hY] hycOJQJ^JmHnHsH u hycOJQJ^JmHnHu2jhY] hycOJQJU^JmHnHu/jhY] hycOJQJU^JmHnHu&hY] hycOJQJ^JmHnHu'hY] hyc0JOJQJ^JmHnHu0jhY] hyc0JOJQJU^JmHnHu>j\hY] hyc>*B*OJQJU^JmHnHphu]^_ijkDZkZF5(hY] hycOJQJ^J!jhY] hycOJQJU^J'hY] hycOJQJ^JmHnHsH u hycOJQJ^JmHnHu2jhY] hycOJQJU^JmHnHu/jhY] hycOJQJU^JmHnHu&hY] hycOJQJ^JmHnHu+hY] hyc0JOJQJ^JmHnHsH u0jhY] hyc0JOJQJU^JmHnHu>jVhY] hyc>*B*OJQJU^JmHnHphu>kc$a$gdycI$EƀUa$gdycFEƀUgdycgdyc G_`O$./mn     7 W j l !!!!_"s"$$.%/%A%D%%ӼӧӄӄrӄӄӄӄrrӼ`ӄӼӄ#hY] hyc6CJOJQJ^JaJ# *hY] hycCJOJQJ^JaJhjWjCJOJQJ^JaJ(hY] hycCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH (hY] hycCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH -jhY] hyc0JCJOJQJU^JaJ hY] hycCJOJQJ^JaJhY] hycOJQJ^JhY] hyc5OJQJ^J%FGNOmnk l 2%3%k)l)f-g--J$C$Eƀka$gdyc $7$8$H$a$gdyc$a$gdyc$a$gdyc%%%%%%%%%%!&&&&&&'l)v))))))))))))))?*^*Y++++#,0,f,,,,,,,e-f-g--j.±៑hY] hycOJQJ^JhY] hyc5OJQJ^J#hY] hyc5CJOJQJ^JaJ hY] htOCJOJQJ^JaJhtOCJOJQJ^JaJ hY] hjWjCJOJQJ^JaJ hY] hycCJOJQJ^JaJhjWjCJOJQJ^JaJ3--C2D2*7+7y7f>g>&E'EDGEGGMM/O0OTTTgdyc$a$gdycj..C2D2)7+7y788EGGTTUUV&V=X>XYYZZ[[\\\\^%___q``b bܺܝܯܯ܋}ܯ}}}}ܺ}ܯohL:CJOJQJ^JaJhzCJOJQJ^JaJ#hY] hyc5CJOJQJ^JaJ#hY] hyc6CJOJQJ^JaJhY] hycOJQJhY] hycOJQJ^J(hY] hycCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH  hY] hycCJOJQJ^JaJ#hY] hycCJOJQJ]^JaJ$TUUVV&VYYY[[^^$_%_p`q``Ncgdyc$a$gdyc$a$gdycI$Eƀa$gdyc b3b=b>b?bpbbOc`c?j[jtlulvllvHvv!www{{}}F~H~Â23T6зХХГЅwwwwГ`Г-jhY] hyc0JCJOJQJU^JaJhVCJOJQJ^JaJhSCJOJQJ^JaJ#hY] hyc6CJOJQJ^JaJ#hY] hyc>*CJOJQJ^JaJhycCJOJQJ^JaJhY] hycOJQJ hY] hycCJOJQJ^JaJhL:CJOJQJ^JaJ hY] hL:CJOJQJ^JaJ#NcOc`cff>j?j[jtlulvllrrvvIvzz`J$C$Eƀa$gdycgdyc$a$gdyc`apqxyՒ֒ޒ$a$gdycgdyc$a$gdyc6?uy֒ޒKLœ.\3 >I{gV hY] hycOJQJ^JmH sH &hY] hych6]iCJOJQJ^JaJ#hY] hycCJOJQJ\^JaJhFCJOJQJ^JaJh.CJOJQJ^JaJ#hY] hyc6CJOJQJ^JaJhycCJOJQJ^JaJhY] hycOJQJ^JhY] hycOJQJ hY] hycCJOJQJ^JaJh8eZCJOJQJ^JaJ1223uaJ$C$Eƀa$gdyc$a$gdycJ$C$Eƀla$gdyc u'AŮݰްűƱ<=>IJ 7$8$H$^`gdyc 7$8$H$gdycgdycgdyc$a$gdyc $h^ha$gdyc $8^8a$gdyc $ & Fa$gdyc $ & Fa$gdycIJ/j'ܸ&ouOj½J/E+֯rrr.hY] hyc6CJOJQJ]^JaJmH sH %hyc6CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH #hY] hyc6CJOJQJ^JaJ hY] hycCJOJQJ^JaJ+hY] hyc6CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH (hY] hycCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH (hY] hycCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH $fgQR78017$8$H$^`gdyc ^`gdyc$^`a$gdycSTvwwx45:; ^`gdyc 7$8$H$gdyc7$8$H$^`gdyc:.34Z |ӾӾsaӾ#hY] hycCJOJQJ\^JaJ"hycCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH #hY] hyc6CJOJQJ^JaJ hY] hycCJOJQJ^JaJ+hY] hyc6CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH (hY] hycCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH .hY] hyc6CJOJQJ]^JaJmH sH (hY] hycCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH |}bcTUAgdyc 7$8$H$gdyc07$8$H$^`0gdyc ^`gdyc7$8$H$^`gdycQb'>fBTUV@ABñԛñԛԛÈ{j{{_UQhjh0JUh_hmH sH  hY] hOJQJ^JmH sH hY] hOJQJ^J%jhY] h0JOJQJU^J+hY] hyc6CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH #hY] hyc6CJOJQJ^JaJ hY] hycCJOJQJ^JaJ(hY] hycCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH +hY] hycCJH*OJQJ^JaJmH sH AXY[\^_abdegdych]hgdyc &`#$gdycWXYZ\]_`bcejl̻̱̱̘| hY] hycCJOJQJ^JaJh z%hmH sH hmH sH h0JmHnHu h0Jjh0JU hY] hCJOJQJ^JaJh h+?hCJOJQJ^JaJjhUhhYhmH sH hmH sH  - 0&P1h:pyc/ =!"#$%DyK smoses@rmh.uct.ac.zayK 8mailto:smoses@rmh.uct.ac.zaDyK soomo@webmail.co.zayK 6mailto:soomo@webmail.co.za}DyK _Toc143706099}DyK _Toc143706099}DyK _Toc143706100}DyK _Toc143706100}DyK _Toc143706101}DyK _Toc143706101}DyK _Toc143706102}DyK _Toc143706102}DyK _Toc143706103}DyK _Toc143706103}DyK _Toc143706104}DyK _Toc143706104}DyK _Toc143706105}DyK _Toc143706105}DyK _Toc143706106}DyK _Toc143706106}DyK _Toc143706107}DyK _Toc143706107}DyK _Toc143706108}DyK _Toc143706108}DyK _Toc143706109}DyK _Toc143706109}DyK _Toc143706110}DyK _Toc143706110}DyK _Toc143706111}DyK _Toc143706111}DyK _Toc143706112}DyK _Toc143706112}DyK _Toc143706113}DyK _Toc143706113@@@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH `@` } Heading 1$$<@&a$5CJ(KH \^JaJ mH sH @@@ } Heading 2 $x@&5CJX@X } Heading 3$$xx@&a$5\^JaJmH sH DA@D Default Paragraph FontViV  Table Normal :V 44 la (k(No List 8>8 }Title$a$ 5CJ$aJ>@> {CR Footnote TextCJaJ@&@@ {CRFootnote ReferenceH*H"H h= Balloon TextCJOJQJ^JaJ6U@16 k< Hyperlink >*B*phB'AB e Comment ReferenceCJaJ<R< e Comment TextCJaJ@jQR@ e Comment Subject5\4 @r4 /Footer  !.)@. / Page Number&@& lTOC 1.@. TOC 2  ! .@. lTOC 3 ^4@4 +?Header  !_ .2{,9:;Gm<nopq+8n<>FGN O mnkl23k!l!f%g%%%C*D**/+/y/f6g6&='=D?E??EE/G0GLLLMMNN&NQQQSSVV$W%WpXqXXN[O[`[^^>b?b[btdudvddjjnnInrr`zazpqxyՊ֊ފ1223u'AŦݨިũƩ<=>IJ fgQR7801STvwܹݹwx45:;Žƽؾپ|}bcTUAXY[^ad0000000000000000000000000000000q00q00q00q00q00q00q00q00q00q00q00q00q00q00q00q00q00q00q00q00q00q00q00q00q00q00p0p0p0p0p0p00p00p00p00p00p0p0g%p0g%p0g%p0g%p0g%p(0g%p0+/p0+/p0+/p0+/p0+/p0+/p(0g%p0E?p0E?p0E?p0E?p0E?p0E?p(0g%p0Lp0Lp0p0Mp(0Mp0NH0Np(0Mp0QP0Qp0QP0Qp0p0Vp0VP0Vp(0Vp0qX0qXp(0Vp0O[p0O[p0O[p0O[p(0Vp0?bp0?bp0?bp0?bp0?bp0?bp0?bp0?bp0?bp0?bh0?bp0?b0?bp0?bp0?bp0?bp0?bp0?bp0?bp0?b0?bp(0Vp0֊0֊p0p0p00p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p00p0p 0p 0up 0up 0up 0up0p 0p0p 0p0p 0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0pRh@0p@0p@0p@0p0@0@0@0@0@0@0H@0H@0H@H@0@0pp@0@0z00h 00 ITb J W  2 []%j. b6Ilrstuvwxyz{|}~;p >-TNc`uAmopqnm &()+K3568XMikln3q 79:<\y8;<>^jXX X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%̕IPT[^!!8@0(  B S  ? _Toc143706098 _Toc143706099 _Toc143706100 _Toc143706101 _Toc143706102 _Toc143706103 _Toc143706104 _Toc143706105 _Toc143706106 _Toc143706107 _Toc143706108 _Toc143706109 _Toc143706110 _Toc143706111 _Toc143706112 _Toc143706113g%+/E?LMNQVqXO[?b֊> 8E%x/~?LN%NQ#WX_[Zb݊HJS<KSLSMSVNSOS|z!z!OOss!!OO#s#sh*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity0http://www.5iamas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags_*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-regionhttp://www.5iantlavalamp.com/V*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplacehttp://www.5iantlavalamp.com/  UXYY[[\\^_abder}UXYY[[\\^_abde3ފ"TYY[[\\^_abdeUYY[[\\^_abdeSuektisdall6LZV XqZp7iyoJ >C5~t^`o() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`o() tt^t`hH. DLD^D`LhH.   ^ `hH.   ^ `hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. TT^T`hH. $L$^$`LhH.^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(opp^p`CJOJQJo(@ @ ^@ `CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(PP^P`CJOJQJo(^`OJPJQJ^Jo(-tt^t`OJQJ^Jo(hHoDD^D`OJQJo(hH  ^ `OJQJo(hH  ^ `OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHTT^T`OJQJ^Jo(hHo$$^$`OJQJo(hH^`o() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.C5~yo7i6 XqZ         Ֆn        `                 FD! z%BwCtO8eZ|:[ycjWjL:.zVSƽUA UAA UVsH@P@UnknownrbrayktisdallSuektisdallktisdall20061013T110624766jktisdallCNktisdallSz Times New RomanArial5SymbolI& z Arial Helvetica5& zaTahoma?5 : Courier New;Wingdings"1hkkeiei!4dw2qHP ?p&(Children s Participation in South Africa ktisdall      Oh+'0  , H T `lt|)Childrens Participation in South Africa Wohil ilililNormaln ktisdalls P2isMicrosoft Word 10.0@@C@C՜.+,D՜.+,h$ hp  University of Cape Townie{ )Childrens Participation in South Africa Title 8@ _PID_HLINKSAf3\_Toc1437061133V_Toc1437061123P_Toc1437061113J_Toc1437061103D_Toc1437061093>_Toc14370610838_Toc14370610732_Toc1437061063,_Toc1437061053&_Toc1437061043 _Toc1437061033_Toc1437061023_Toc1437061013_Toc1437061002_Toc143706099R%mailto:soomo@webmail.co.zasLmailto:smoses@rmh.uct.ac.za  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry F^ Data P1TableLEWordDocument/,SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjj  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q