Situation analySiS

Situation analySiS of Children in uganda 2015more formal structures exist for youth participation, but these tend not to be functional andare not trusted by many young people (ActionAid International Uganda et al., 2012). Weakparticipation infrastructure is another important barrier as children and young peopleoften lack any direct access to structures within government, media or civil society. In caseswhere children have been able to influence decisions, complicated infrastructure has tendedto limit their impact. Even where ‘youth structures’ exist at different levels of government,they have been found to be non-operational and unfunded (ActionAid International Ugandaet al., 2012). Most participatory initiatives are related to specific programmes run byinternational and national NGOs working with children and young people and may not besustainable beyond the project cycle.There is also concern that many participatory initiatives do not reach the most disadvantagedor excluded children and can therefore even contribute to further social exclusion. Forexample, such initiatives tend to reach children who are in school (Skeels, 2012). Poorerchildren tend to be the last to hear about opportunities to participate (if they hear aboutthem at all) and less able to take advantage of the opportunities (ActionAid InternationalUganda et al., 2012). Younger children (6–10-year-olds) were found to be much less awareof opportunities available to them and often identified only their immediate family andneighbourhood as places where they can discuss their concerns (Skeels, 2012).6.4 ENTRy POINTS FOR IMPROVEDPARTICIPATION By CHILDRENThe following have been identified by the literature as possible entry points for improvedparticipation by children in Uganda.At the national level, structures for children’s participation should be considered, e.g. achildren’s parliament, and possibilities for children to participate in key national policyprocesses, such as the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) (Witter and Bukokhe,2004). Visible participation of children in national decision-making could become animportant precedent for more localised participation across the country.At the local level, children could be acknowledged as stakeholders and included indistrict and sub-district planning activities (Witter and Bukokhe, 2004).Children could be involved in school management committees, PTAs and in monitoringthe use of UPE funds, building on the smaller-scale initiatives discussed above (Witterand Bukokhe, 2004.; MoGLSD et al., 2008; Plan UK, 2011).Creating ‘child friendly spaces’ – by setting up specific spaces exclusively for childrenand those who take care of them and using the child friendly space principles in publicspaces – schools, ECD centres, health centres, local government offices, communityspaces, etc. (Skeels, 2012). In addition, safe places for girls could empower them todiscuss and address the issues that affect them specifically.thE rIGht to PartICIPatIoN85