UNICEF_VANUATU_REPORT1

Protect me with love and care • A Baseline Report for Vanuatu • 2008 1
Protectmewith
loveandcare
A Baseline Report for creating
a future free from violence,
abuse and exploitation of girls
and boys in Vanuatu

Protectmewith
loveandcare
A Baseline Report for creating
a future free from violence,
abuse and exploitation of girls
and boys in Vanuatu

II Protect me with love and care • A Baseline Report for Vanuatu • 2008
© 2009
All rights reserved.
This publication may be reproduced, as a whole or in part, provided that
acknowledgement of the source is made. Notification of such would be appreciated.
Published by: UNICEF Pacific
October 2009
Authors: Beverleigh Kanas, Anafia Norton, Bertha Tarileo and Marie Wernham
Editor: Marie Wernham
Design and layout: Pasifika Communications
Printing: Quality Print
For further information and request for copies, contact:
Child Protection Programme, United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) Pacific
3rd and 5th Floor, Fiji Development Bank Building
360 Victoria Parade
Suva, FIJI ISLANDS
Tel: (679) 330 0439
e-mail: fratumaibuca@unicef.org
The project partners are grateful to AusAID for their financial support of this project.

Protect me with love and care • A Baseline Report for Vanuatu • 2008 III
Acknowledgments
This research would not have been possible without the hundreds of girls, boys, women and men throughout Vanuatu, who gave
freely of their time to participate in this project. Our thanks go primarily to the communities and professionals who contributed their
valuable thoughts and experiences.
A large team of people devoted considerable time and effort to the production of this report. Sincere thanks to everyone for their
invaluable contributions and hard work.
National Research Team:
Bertha Tarileo (National Researcher), Joel Jonas (Administrative / Research Assistant), Beverleigh Kanas (National Legal Consultant).
Field Research Team:
Field Supervisors - Wilkins Binihi, Rona Bule and Jimmy Kawiel; Field Counsellors - Jenita Dick, Graziella Mala and Helen Naupa;
Field Researchers - Jerry Anga, Kingsley Bareleo, Yaxley Bob, Olivet Doroney, Terri Firiam, Jack Graham, Vanessa Nango, Harrison Noel,
Brigitte Olul, Adlyn Rantes, Sangita Robson, Rachel Solomon, Jill Tarimbiti and Morris Tinning.
Regional Research Team:
Marie Wernham (Lead Researcher), Penelope Taylor (Legal Specialist) and Anafia Norton (Institutional Stocktaking Researcher).
National Steering Committee:
Chairperson Flora Bani and members of the National Steering Committee.
UNICEF Vanuatu Field Office:
Brenda Nambirye (Child Protection Officer), Linda Kenni (Child Protection Officer), Joemela Simeon (Child Protection Officer), May
Pascual (Chief UNICEF Vanuatu Field Office), Patrick Shing (Monitoring and Evaluation Officer), Katimal Kaun (Programme Assistant)
and Odina Vusi (Administrative Assistant).
UNICEF Pacific Regional Office:
Johanna Eriksson Takyo (Chief of Child Protection), Ravi Cannetta (Officer in Charge), Laisani Petersen (Child Protection Officer),
Salote Kaimacuata (Child Protection Specialist), Filomena Ratumaibuca (Child Protection Programme Assistant), Vika Namuaira (Child
Protection Programme Assistant and Baseline Research Administrative Assistant), Mere Nailatikau (Child Protection Intern), Christine
Calo-oy (Senior Supply Assistant), Joseph Hing (Senior Communication Assistant), Will Parks (Chief of Policy, Advocacy, Planning and
Evaluation), Tim Sutton (Deputy Representative) and Snehal Morris (Child Protection Communications Officer)
Others:
Sameer Thapar (DevInfo Support Team) and Allon Leever (Data Analyst).
The National Researcher would also like to personally thank the following: Mrs Leias Cullwick (former 1st Political Advisor, Ministry of
Justice and Social Welfare) for demonstrating her vision and compassion for the children and young people in Vanuatu in officiating
the initial processes of the Baseline Research with UNICEF Vanuatu; Mr. Joe Ligo (Director General, Ministry of Justice and Social
Welfare) for his leadership and support during the Baseline Research; Mr. Rueben Bakeo (Director Department of Women’s Affairs
(DWA)) and staff of DWA Seman Dalesa, Rotina Noka, Elines Morris, Marie and Judy for hosting the Baseline Research project and for
willingly accommodating and promptly providing assistance for every request, large or small, that was asked of them by the Baseline
Research project staff.

IV Protect me with love and care • A Baseline Report for Vanuatu • 2008
Acknowledgments iii
Acronyms vi
Foreword vii
Statement by the UNICEF Pacific Representative viii

Executive summary 1
1. Background 4
1.1 Government / UNICEF partnership 4
1.2 UNICEF Protective Environment Framework 5
1.3 Country context 6
2. Methodology 7
2.1 Aims of Child Protection Baseline Research 7
2.2 Structure and roles 7
2.3 Stages and timeline 9
2.4 Research tools 10
2.4.1 Outcome 1: Children are increasingly protected by legislation and are better served by
justice systems that protect them as victims, offenders and witnesses 10
2.4.2 Outcome 2: Children are better served by well-informed and coordinated child protection
social services which ensure greater protection against, and responds to violence, abuse,
exploitation and neglect 10
2.4.3 Outcome 3: Children in selected geographical areas grow up in home and community
environments that are increasingly free from violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect 11
a. Overview 11
b. Locations 12
c. Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) 15
d. Completed data log 15
2.5 Child participation 15
2.6 Ethics 16
2.7 Data analysis 16
2.7.1 Outcome 1: Children are increasingly protected by legislation and are better served by
justice systems that protect them as victims, offenders and witnesses 16
2.7.2 Outcome 2: Children are better served by well-informed and coordinated child protection
social services which ensure greater protection against, and responds to violence, abuse,
exploitation and neglect 16
2.7.3 Outcome 3: Children in selected geographical areas grow up in home and community
environments that are increasingly free from violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect 17
2.8 Lessons learned 17
2.8.1 Successes 17
2.8.2 Challenges 18
2.9 Recommendations regarding methodology for future research 20
Table of Contents

Protect me with love and care • A Baseline Report for Vanuatu • 2008 V
3. Findings 21
3.1 Overview 21
3.2 Matrix of findings per output indicator 22
3.3 Respondent information
3.4 Detailed findings per output 40
3.4.1 Detailed findings for Outcome 1 40
4. Recommendations 192
5. Concluding statement 201
Appendices 202
A. Index of tables and charts 203
B. Results and Resources Framework 208
C. Completed data log 211
D. Code of Conduct for field research 212
E. Bibliography 215
F. List of people interviewed or consulted 217
CD-Rom contents
1. Government / UNICEF Child Protection Baseline Research, Vanuatu 2008 National Report (full text)
2. Vanuatu 2008 Child Protection Legislative Review (full text)
3. Vanuatu 2008 Child Protection Institutional Stocktake (full text)
4. Terms of Reference for Government / UNICEF Child Protection Baseline Research, Vanuatu 2008:
a. TOR for CPBR overall
b. TORs for Regional Research Team
5. Methodology
a. Outcomes 1 and 2
b. Outcome 3
6. Analysis frameworks
a. Vanuatu overall analysis framework
b. Vanuatu graphics analysis frameworks
7. Data from field research
a. Databases
b. Processed data (tables, charts and graphs)

VI Protect me with love and care • A Baseline Report for Vanuatu • 2008
Acronyms
AHHQ Adult Household Questionnaire
ARA Administrative / Research Assistant
CHHQ Child Household Questionnaire
CoC Code of Conduct
CPAP Country Programme Action Plan
CPBR Child Protection Baseline Research
CSEC Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children
CSO Civil Society Organisation
DG Director General
DWA Department of Women’s Affairs
FD Field Diary
FR Field Researcher
FRT Field Research Team
GA Group Activity
KII Key Informant Interview
MOE Ministry of Education
MOH Ministry of Health
MOJSW Ministry of Justice and Social Welfare
NCC National Children’s Committee
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NR National Researcher
NSC National Steering Committee
OLON Overall Location Observation Notes
PCP Pacific Children’s Programme
PDA Personal Digital Assistant
RRF Results and Resources Framework
UNCRC United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund

Protect me with love and care • A Baseline Report for Vanuatu • 2008 VII
Foreword
The Vanuatu Government, through the newly established Ministry of Justice and Community Services (MOJCS, is pleased to present the National
Report of the 2008 Baseline Research on Child Protection in Vanuatu which was conducted in a collaborative effort with our key partners to reflect
the strong partnership between UNICEF, the Vanuatu Government and our key NGO stakeholders and civil society in respect of the protection of
children in Vanuatu.
In the light of the Convention on the Rights of Children (UNCRC), which the Vanuatu Government ratified in 1992, this baseline report is a
benchmark on Vanuatu’s standing in terms of respect for the rights of the child and human rights, both nationally and globally. The baseline
research itself marks a historic event for Vanuatu in terms of establishing what is there, what has been done and what can be done further in the
area of child protection and the UNCRC as a whole in Vanuatu. At a national level one cannot over state the importance of the findings of this
research, as outlined in this National Report.
An important determinant indicator of Vanuatu’s standing globally on issues of good governance and transparency includes its respect for human
rights domestically and how it upholds these universal rights within its governance systems.
As Director General (DG) of the Ministry of Justice and Community Services (MOJCS), it is my wish that each individual in Vanuatu, all the partners
within the Vanuatu Government and our key NGO stakeholders, give their commitment to support the recommendations of this Child Protection
Baseline Research National Report. Nothing will happen if we do not commit and it is not dependent on the DG, the police officers, UNICEF, the
leaders or the parents alone but everyone has to be committed to effect positive changes for the protection of children in Vanuatu. As‘everyone is
born with equal rights’, so must everyone bear‘self’responsibility to respect each others’rights and make individual commitments to develop and
maintain this respect for one other.
I would like, on behalf of the Minister for Justice and Community Services and the Vanuatu Government, to thank UNICEF, all the consultants
who were engaged to take part in this important research, all the leaders of communities involved and all other individuals in government, in the
provinces and elsewhere who collaborated to help make this report possible. This report is a historic benchmark for Vanuatu and, I understand, the
first of its kind.
May this report help all rulers of our land to develop policies and rule of law that will continue to recognize and uphold the God-given rights of our
children, our families and humanity as enshrined in our own National Constitution, the UNCRC and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Joe Ligo
Director General Ministry of Justice and Community Services
Government of Vanuatu

VIII Protect me with love and care • A Baseline Report for Vanuatu • 2008
Statement by the UNICEF Pacific Representative
The geographical scatter of the Pacific Island Countries (covering over 30 million km2 of ocean) and the high cost of doing business in this region
make development programming a major challenge, particularly when reliable data is scarce. This is why generating good data such as the report
“Protect me with Love and Care: A baseline report for creating a future free from violence, abuse and exploitation of girls and boys in Vanuatu”is
necessary to promote evidence-informed programming.
This baseline report answers what is perhaps a more difficult and technical examination, of legal frameworks, formal social service structures,
and the various environments provided by our communities and families; to see how effectively each of these circles of child protection, as duty
bearers can work alone in concert with each other to keep our children safe.
The report provides an in-depth analysis of the findings of the research and includes strategic recommendations for programme design and
direction based on three pillars of the Child Protection Framework, legal and regulatory systems, social welfare systems and social behaviour
change system. This research provides an opportunity to build on and complement the existing studies to arrive at a more comprehensive
situational analysis of child protection in Vanuatu that is both qualitative and quantitatively sound. It serves as a marker in 2008 for measuring
progress and achievement of the child protection interventions by the end of the Government of Vanuatu and UNICEF programme cycle in 2012.
I thank the Government of Vanuatu for it’s commitment to the protection of children of Vanuatu to live in an environment that is free from
violence, abuse and exploitation and soundly protected by family, community and government effectively working in collaboration.
Let us take lead from the title“Protect me with Love and Care”– derived from the findings of the Vanuatu baseline research that highlights the key
response from children stating they wished to be protected with love and care by their parents, teachers and guardians – to work together with
partners and stakeholders to utilise the data from this report to make results-focused programming more efficient and achievable and ultimately
make progress towards the targets of the Millennium Development Goals.
Isiye Ndombi

Executive Summary:
VANUATU CHILD PROTECTION BASELINE REPORT 2008
Background
In addition to vulnerability to violence, abuse and exploitation, children
in Vanuatu also need protection from the consequences of natural
disasters, given that the country is rated the most disaster-prone in the
South Pacific.
The Country Programme Action Plan (CPAP) agreed by the Government
of Vanuatu and UNICEF Pacific, and its Results and Resources Framework
(RRF), provide strategic direction for child protection interventions in
the country. It provides the basis for the joint Government of Vanuatu/
UNICEF Pacific Child Protection Programme, which runs from 2008-
2012.
TheChildProtectionProgrammeisguidedbytheProtectiveEnvironment
Framework, a child-centred, holistic and long-term approach to keeping
childrenfromharmfulsituations,preventingchildabuseandexploitation,
and addressing the social reintegration and recovery of those who have
been abused. The Child Protection Programme articulates the following
outcomes:
1. Children are increasingly protected by legislation and are better
served by justice systems that protect them as victims, offenders and
witnesses.
2. Children are better served by well informed and coordinated child
protection social services which ensure greater protection against
and respond to violence, abuse and exploitation.
3. Families and communities establish home and community
environments for children that are increasingly free from violence,
abuse and exploitation.
The Vanuatu Child Protection Baseline Report was guided by these
outcomes. It reviews the situation in 2008, develops recommendations,
and aims to further promote capacity-building, networking and inter-
agency collaboration.
Methodology
The research consisted of a legislative compliance and desk review,
as well as extensive field research in 30 locations throughout the six
provinces. This included 131 key informant interviews (KII); 248 child
household questionnaires (CHHQ, 16-17 year olds only); 262 adult
household questionnaires (AHHQ); and 272 group activities with
children aged between 7-18, divided by age and segregated by gender.
There were also workshops with children in the justice system, and with
key stakeholders.
Findings
Outcome1:Childrenareincreasinglyprotectedbylegislation
and are better served by justice systems that protect them
as victims, offenders and witnesses
The legislative review component of the research identified the articles
of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) relating to child
protection standards. These articles were then fleshed out to their
full legal ramifications and a list of 227 indicators developed, drawing
heavily on existing UNICEF tools. Domestic law and policy was evaluated
against these indicators.
Output 1.1 Laws and regulations on social protection and justice
for children are amended in accordance with the CRC
Indicators were applied across 13 categories of relevant UNCRC
provisions and international principles. These categories were: Child
welfare/child protection system; Family separation and alternative
care; Violence against children; Sexual abuse and sexual exploitation
of children; Abduction, sale and trafficking; Child labour and children
in street situations; Child-friendly investigative and court processes;
Rehabilitation;Childreninconflictwiththelaw;Refugee/unaccompanied
migrant children; Children in armed conflict; Information access; and
Birth registration. Of the indicators investigated within each category,
53 were fully compliant, 6 were partially compliant, and 168 were non-
compliant with CRC provisions.
The legislative review found:
- There is no legislative provision or policy framework for child
welfare/protection, specifying rights, powers and responsibilities of
government services, the courts, traditional authorities, parents and
children, and which defines the forms of abuse.
- There is no adoption law, and limited regulation of alternative care
and provision for children’s rights in family separation cases, partly
because extended family relations take responsibility.
- Provisions against domestic violence, child sexual assault and abuse
are very comprehensive.
- Someprovisionshavebeenmadeforthefollowing,althoughthey are
not comprehensive: provisions against all forms of violence against
children; regulation of violence between children in educational
and institutional settings; regulation on child labour; information on
legal and human rights to be included in school curricula; and child
friendly investigative and court processes.
The existing provisions could be strengthened through the reform
of existing legislation, the creation of specific legislation for young
offenders, and the development of supporting policies and procedures
for the existing powers and discretions.
Output 1.2 Police officers, prosecutors, lawyers, judges and
magistrates are well trained and follow operational judicial
procedures and practices ensuring immediate and professional
handling of cases involving children
The majority of matters concerning child offenders are addressed
at community level, using traditional mechanisms. Only 11% of key
informants mention referring children in conflict with the law to
the police. The needs of child victims/survivors are also addressed at
community level (mostly with counselling). Police training for handling
victims/survivors is nearly non-existent but child witnesses report a
positive experience with police regardless.
Of the cases that the police do deal with, they divert 95% back to the
community. However, while in custody, children in conflict with the law
report being held in unsanitary conditions and that police use threats
and violence to extract a confession. Also, courts and public prosecutors
lack child-friendly procedures, although some lawyers and the DPP have
received training in children’s rights.

2 Protect me with love and care • A Baseline Report for Vanuatu • 2008
Given the extent of informal diversion back to the community, a greater
programme focus is needed on traditional and non-formal justice
mechanisms, as well as greater inter-agency cooperation.
Outcome 2: Children are better served by well-informed and
coordinated child protection social services which ensure
greater protection against, and responds to violence, abuse,
exploitation and neglect
Output2.1Acontinuumofsupportservicesforchildrenisavailable
with professional social workers within the Ministry of Justice
and Social Welfare (MJSW) with clear criteria and procedures for
making decisions and linking with provincial level support system
At the time of the research, the Social Welfare Division of the MJSW
is in name only. Documents including policies and laws are yet to be
developed for this division. Social welfare assistance does not exist for
families in need of assistance in Vanuatu, and qualified counsellors are
lacking. Faith-based counselling bridges this gap, to some extent, as
does the extended family and land (the wantok system), which provides
much of the security for families.
Output 2.2 Social workers, health workers, NGOs, and teachers in
Sanma, Shefa, Tafea and Penama possess relevant skills to identify
and respond appropriately to child protection problems and
issues
Thefollowingkeyinformantswereinterviewedforthissurvey:healthcare
workers; education representatives; police; religious leaders; youth
leaders; women’s group leaders; and CSO representatives. 82% of these
key informants state they are confident about knowing what to do if a
child is badly hurt in their community; 73% of their responses referred
to informal measures. Similarly, 62% mentioned informal services (such
as traditional and religious leaders and community organisations) as
services to help children if they are hurt.
In all cases, fewer key informants responded they would be able
to recognise sexual abuse and economic exploitation, than would
recognise physical abuse and neglect (which 80% claimed they could
recognise). Very few had received appropriate training. In the absence
of a mandated authority for child protection within the Government,
training for these groups on how to identify and respond to child
protection problems and issues is imperative.
Output 2.3 An effective and efficient birth registration system is in
place, ensuring free registration for all children.
The Government/UNICEF Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey data from
2007 indicates that 25.6% of children under 5 were registered. According
to CPBR field research:
• 31% of AHHQ respondents with children under 5 living in or outside
the household stated that these children had been registered.
• 75% of the key informant respondents think that only half or less
than half of under-5 children in their community had their births
registered
• Of those who reported children registered, 58% were able to show
birth certificates for some or all of those children
• 71% of AHHQ respondents said they had to pay to register children,
and 80% of key informants thought that people had to pay to register
children.
An effective, user-friendly, centralised system of birth registration
is needed at all levels, with mass registration campaigns. Greater
departmental collaboration is required and awareness raising among
government, NGO and CBO stakeholders, maternity units about the
importance of birth registration.
Outcome 3: Children in selected geographical areas grow up
in home and community environments that are increasingly
free from violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect
Output3.1Morefamiliesprovidequality,sufficientandappropriate
supervision and care of their children in selected provinces
81% of AHHQ respondents report being confident or very confident
about knowing what to do if a child in their household were badly
hurt by someone. As with key informants, AHHQ respondents are more
likely to take ‘informal’actions than refer the issue to state actors (these
include: talking to the child, confronting the perpetrator and involving
the chief); likewise, they list more‘informal’than‘formal’services as being
available in the local area. 96% of AHHQ respondents are comfortable
and confident to ask services for help, mostly because the services are
known to and trusted by the community.
78% of AHHQ respondents admit to physically hurting children in
their household and 48% state that a child in their household told
them about being hit by an adult in the household within the past
month. While AHHQ respondents demonstrate a relatively high level of
awareness of positive discipline techniques and proactive ways to show
children that they are loved and cared for, this is undermined in practice
by some degree of inappropriate name-calling and making children feel
unwanted. Nevertheless, respondents still feel that ‘home’ is the safest
place (91%), followed by ‘place of worship’ (90%), ‘school’ (69%), and
finally‘in the community’(60%).
Communities would benefit from awareness-raising on the range of
services available and exactly what they can offer in relation to child
protection. it is crucial that caregivers understand the importance of
always remaining approachable so that children of all ages, including
older children, are encouraged to talk freely to them and, if necessary,
to disclose abuse in the knowledge that they will be listened to and
believed.
Greater awareness raising is needed specifically on the significant
negative impact of verbal and emotional abuse and neglect on children.
Safeguards should be taken to ensure that alternatives to corporal
punishment as a form of discipline do not include verbal or emotional
abuse. Siblings and other members of households need to be involved
in awareness-raising, not just primary caregivers. As children tend to
seek help from male relatives when threatened with violence or bullying,
programmes should explore ways to increase the engagement of male
caregivers in positive, proactive parenting which includes responding to
children’s emotional as well as physical needs.
Output 3.2 Teachers, community and church leaders, chiefs and
youth leaders in selected provinces maintain positive values,
attitudes and practices in relation to children’s protection against
violence, abuse and exploitation
According to both CHHQ and education KII respondents, the role of
teachers is paramount in making children feel safe in schools, but this
is also the area least regulated by formal rules. Bullying, poor physical
environment, lack of effective rules or policies and lack of understanding
about child abuse also feature as things which make children not feel
safe in schools:
• 36% of education key informants admit teachers administer corporal
punishment; 27% of school-going CHHQ respondents stated they
had been physically hurt by a teacher in the past month; and 38%
of AHHQ respondents stated that a child in their household had told
them about being hit by a teacher at school within the past month.
• 31% of school-going CHHQ respondents reported having been
called an inappropriate name by a teacher within the past month,

mostly names related to school performance;
• 30% of school-going CHHQ respondents stated that they had been
physically hurt by another child in school
• 21% of school-going CHHQ respondents reported experiencing
inappropriate touching at school within the past month, all
perpetrated by other children.
Schools do, however, have the potential to become completely ‘child-
friendly’ environments and stakeholders identified a range of positive,
protective factors already in place. On the whole CHHQ and education
KII respondents agree that teachers praise children for doing good
work, explain things patiently and speak nicely to children although
children are more circumspect with their responses than education key
informants.
83% of CHHQ respondents and 82% of education key informants agree
that existing school rules help to keep children safe but these tend to
be ‘general school and discipline rules’ regulating children’s behaviour
rather than separate or explicit ‘child protection policies’. Children have
had limited involvement in developing the rules.
Key informants have a good understanding of the definition of‘discipline’
but there is substantial overlap between their definitions of‘punishment’
and ‘discipline’. 80% of key community informants show a high level of
support for other child protection issues such as parents listening to
children, children living with trusted adults, the community putting
the best interests of children first and ensuring that children have safe
passage to and from school
Leadersintheirdifferentcapacitiesareknowntotalkaboutandadvocate
for the protection of children from violence; religious leaders are heard
the most. Without knowing the exact content of things which leaders
are saying it is difficult to assess whether their messages are accurate or
of good quality.
Awareness-raising and capacity building with all groups, including
children, could open up important avenues for promoting child
protection in the community: For example, for health representatives
to talk about the negative impact of violence on children’s health and
development; teachers about the negative impact on education and
learning; police and justice representatives to clarify the legal situation
on child protection; community and women’s group leaders to promote
positive discipline etc.
Output 3.3 Children in selected provinces have acquired and
demonstratesufficientlevelsoflifeskillsandknowledgetoprevent
violence, abuse, exploitation and delinquency.
Children appear to speak out more freely in informal spaces (with
friends or at home) compared with more formal spaces (at school or in
the community).
Consistently, across all types of violence, children are experiencing
more violence than they are reporting. Whilst it is reassuring that some
children speak out (35% of CHHQ respondents), it is of great concern
that there are still many incidences of violence, including‘inappropriate
touching’, at home or in the community and at school which are going
unreported by children.
The majority of CHHQ respondents (aged 16-17 years) claim to
understand appropriate and inappropriate touching; in spite of this,
however, it is worth highlighting that some children aged 16-17 years
(let alone younger children) do not fully understand what constitutes
acceptable and unacceptable touching and when they should speak
out, which renders them vulnerable to sexual abuse. Adults were
apparently the perpetrators in 40% of inappropriate touching (with
other children as perpetrators in 60% of incidents).
Overall, as with other respondents, the majority of responses indicate
that children would seek ‘informal’ assistance when badly hurt by
someone (overwhelmingly CHHQ respondents stated they would
talk to their parents. Only 11% of responses included ‘formal’ (state)
services such as the police, a medical practitioner or teacher. In general
the majority of children know who to talk to if they are badly hurt by
someone, although children are only aware of the existence of a small
range of formal services.
Young people aged 18-25 identified the school, church and home as
the top 3 safest places for children in the community. The 3 most unsafe
places were roads, the sea and rivers, streams or creeks. However, 44% of
answers for what makes children feel unsafe in the community relate to
violence in the family. A consultation with 11-17 year-olds highlighted
the lack of essential community services relevant to child protection in
their community and the need to make sure services are accessible to
all children, include disabled children.
Once more, the reliance on informal contacts emphasises the need to
make sure that these key groups, including peers, are empowered to
best help children in need of protection. Given that 15% of responses
consisted of‘hit back’or‘confront the perpetrator’when approached by
a child about a child protection matter there is the need for awareness-
raising on non-violent conflict resolution techniques, particularly
amongst peers. Children also need to be further empowered to know
about the full range of services available in their area.
Conclusions
Children in Vanuatu can rely on strong community to bonds to provide
them with informal protection, rehabilitation and recourse. However, the
strong reliance on traditional rather than‘formal’services emphasises the
need for these traditional and community actors to be fully informed
on child protection, in order to appropriately assist children at risk.
Communities could be assisted to set up their own Child Protection
Committees at community level, with the appropriate training on child
protection procedures.
As well as taking measures to reduce abuse by adults in the community,
the fact that 40% of inappropriate touching and physical abuse was
perpetrated by other children raises importance of directly engaging
with children themselves and further awareness-raising regarding child
protection issues. Children also need to be included in awareness-raising
programmes about child rights and of reporting procedures in schools
and communities. They should also be encouraged to tell someone
they trust and to talk about violence they experience. Related to this, the
lack of understanding and perceived inapproachability of formal service
providers, such as the police needs to be addressed through targeted
awareness-raising and training.
On the part of formal/state service providers, national, formalised
systems need to be put in place. These include a child protection
reporting and response system; a National School Child Protection
Policy (CPP) for all schools; a clearly devised system for reporting child
abuse; and the enactment and operationalisation of child protection
laws and policies. Service providers and officials within the judiciary
system require training in child-friendly procedures, and inter-agency
cooperation needs to be formalised and improved.

1.1 Government / UNICEF partnership
To guide and support the collaboration between UNICEF and the Pacific Island countries working together for the protection of children, a ‘Pacific
Regional Framework’ document was developed in 2006. This document was the result of a consultation process involving partners1
in Vanuatu,
Fiji, Samoa, Kiribati, Solomon Islands, UNICEF and AusAid2
from August to November 2006. The ‘Regional Framework’ emerged as a new strategic
direction for child protection interventions to be implemented by the five Pacific Island Countries and provided the basis for the development of
the Pacific Governments/UNICEF Child Protection Programme, 2008-2012.
The document draws on global and regional (South East Asia and the Pacific region) experience in the area of child protection, including the UNICEF
Child Protection Strategy of May 2008, and offers a programme strategy for building a‘Protective Environment’for children.
The ultimate goal of the Child Protection Programme is to contribute to the reduction of violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation of children
in Pacific Island Countries.
The Pacific Governments/UNICEF Child Protection Programme 2008-2012 has identified three key outcomes expected to be achieved by the end of
2012. These have been further articulated in country-specific Country Programme Action Plans (CPAP) and Results and Resource Frameworks (RRF)
for the period 2008-2012.3
The three outcomes which are expected to be fulfilled by the end of 2012 are:
1. Children are increasingly
protected by legislation and are
better served by justice systems
that protect them as victims,
offenders and witnesses.
2. Children are better served by well
informed and coordinated child
protection social services which
ensure greater protection against
and respond to violence, abuse
and exploitation.
3. Families and communities
establish home and community
environments for children that are
increasingly free from violence,
1
Government Departments / Ministries and NGOs who have a mandate to work on child protection issues and/or work or have activities on the issue.
2
AusAid and UNICEF entered into a Multi-Country Programme Contribution Agreement in March 2005, confirming AusAID’s commitment to provide AUD$7.35 million for a five-year period (2005-2010).
3
`See Appendix B for the Results and Resources Framework for Vanuatu.
4
UNICEF’s Multi-Country Programme Document (CPD) for Pacific Island Countries.
Section 1: Background
Targeting the child’s immediate environment, the Programme will work closely with parents, caregivers and other community members such as
teachers in preventing child abuse and mitigating risks for violence, abuse and exploitation. The Programme will relate to the socio-economic,
political and cultural context by addressing values and norms that have a fundamental impact on children’s protection.4

5
Source: Vanuatu Government National Statistics Office, November 2008.
6
Details of languages spoken in Vanuatu are not available from the Vanuatu
National Statistics Office due to problems with data collection.
7
Source: UNDP Human Development Report data for 2005 as cited in 2007/2008
report.
The Programme promotes a systems-building approach that identifies and meets capacity building needs of institutions providing social, justice
and birth registration services for children. Lessons learnt from work done previously by the Pacific Children’s Programme (PCP) endorse the need
to involve a wide range of relevant stakeholders - including civil society and faith-based organizations, as well as those from other programme
areas within UNICEF - in exploring synergies and collectively developing rights-based and protective national frameworks, policies and programme
interventions.
1.2 UNICEF Protective Environment
Framework
Agencies and development partners working in the area
of child protection developed the ‘Protective Environment
Approach’to child protection programming.The‘Protective
Environment’ was introduced as the key principle in the
‘Pacific Regional Framework’mentioned above.
Programmatically, the Protective Environment Approach
can be categorized into three broad areas of intervention
that build or strengthen systems for protecting children,
recognizing the socio-economic, political and cultural
contexts in which children grow (see the diagram).
These three areas form the basis for the Child Protection
Programme as articulated in the CPAPs and RRFs, and as
reflected in the three outcome areas highlighted above.
Within these three broad areas, the Protective
Environment Framework identifies eight factors that
are instrumental in keeping children safe from harmful
situations. These factors can all be strengthened, and
changes measured, through the targeted support of
national and international actors.
The Protective Environment Approach has two key
features. Firstly, it seeks to comprehensively address
the environment around children and repositions
community members as duty-bearers with primary
responsibility for children’s well-being and protection.
Secondly, the Protective Environment Approach aims to
provide protection for all children over time, rather than
targeting specific responses just for children in need of
special protection, for example children who live on the
streets.TheProtectiveEnvironmentApproachistherefore
a child-centred, holistic and long-term approach to
preventing abuse and exploitation for all children as well
as addressing the social reintegration and recovery of
those who have been abused.
CHILD
Family
Socio-Economic political
and cultural context
Child’s immediate
environment
Prevention and
response systems
Community & Peer
s
Societal behaviour
change system
Socialwelfare
system
Legalandregulatory
system

1.3 Country context
Total population The total population of Vanuatu as projected from the 2000 general census is 239,053
[121,892 male (51%) and 117,161 female (49%)]. 44.8% of the Vanuatu population is below
the age of 18 years.5
Ethnic groups Ni-Vanuatu make up 98.5% of the population, while the remainder comprise smaller ethnic
groups including Part Ni-Vanuatu, Other Melanesian, European / Australian / New Zealander
/ American and others.5
Religions Vanuatu is predominantly a Christian country (82.5%) made up of different denominations
such as Anglican, Presbyterian, Catholic, Seventh Day Adventist, Church of Christ, Assembly
of God, Neil Thomas Ministry and Apostolic. Other religions in Vanuatu include‘Kastom
religion’(5.6%), other religions not stated (10.9%) and‘no religion’(1%).5
Languages spoken The official languages spoken and written in Vanuatu are Bislama, French and English. In
addition there are many local dialects which vary greatly between islands. Even within
an island there can be many dialects such as North Efate, Nduindui on West Ambae or
Tanna.6
Bislama is widely understood throughout most parts of the country and is the most
common form of spoken communication.
GDP per capita (US$) 3,2257
UNDP Human Development Index ranking 120 out of 177 countries with data7
‘Cultural’factors which impact on child
protection
• It is an expected‘norm’in Vanuatu culture that children respect and obey their elders
without question. It is a sign of disrespect if a child questions or speaks out against what
their elders, such as parents or chiefs, say or do.
• Vanuatu exists as an extended family system and has a practice where a family may give
a child away to another family, or families may exchange children in adoption in‘custom’-
style‘adoptions’. This is an accepted cultural practice done to seal family commitments or
to strengthen family ties.
Other factors which impact on child
protection
• Vanuatu society exists as if in two different worlds: the urban developing communities
and the more open, relaxed extended family systems in the rural areas.
• While the urban communities are exposed to the advantages and disadvantages of‘out of
country’influences, the rural extended family communities are complacent, sometimes in
the extreme, in doing things the same way as they have always done. This state of affairs
is accepted by everyone with a mentality of“that is the way it is”.
• Vanuatu is rated as the highest disaster-prone country in the South Pacific. It is vulnerable
to earthquakes, cyclones, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions.

8
Full Terms of Reference can be found on the accompanying CD-Rom to this report.
2.1 Aims of Child Protection Baseline Research
The Baseline Research covered all 3 components of the Protective
Environment Framework:
• Legislative and regulatory framework compliance review.
• Institutional stocktaking of child protection social welfare and
protection systems in theory and in practice, and inter-agency
collaboration.
• Review of societal behaviour regarding child protection, including
positive practices, at family and community level.
Aims of the Baseline Research:
1. To review the current situation in all 3 Protective
Environment Framework areas, including acknowledgement
of existing work and strengths.
2. To develop recommendations to help shape the 5-year
Government / UNICEF Pacific Child Protection Programme:
how best to move towards a more protective environment
for children.
3. To further promote capacity-building, networking and
inter-agency collaboration through the process of the
research, with a focus on broad ownership of data and the
sustainability of any resulting programme interventions.
2.2 Structure and roles8
• National Research Team:
o National Researcher: Overall coordination of the societal
behaviour component of the research, including planning and
managing the field research, inputting and analysing data and
contributing to the report findings.
o Administrative / Research Assistant: Logistical and
administrative support to the National Researcher and Field
Research Team.
o National Legal Consultant: Research and writing up of the
legislative compliance review.
o Field Research Team x 3:
• Field Supervisors: 1 per team; on-site management,
monitoring and coordination.
• Field Counsellors: 1 per team; emotional support to
respondents and team members.
• Field Researchers: 5 per team; data collection.
• National Steering Committee: Advisory group of government and
civil society representatives [specially formed sub-committee of the
Vanuatu National Children’s Committee (NCC)].
• Regional Research Team:
o Lead Researcher: Overall coordination of the 4-country
research project including: technical assistance in planning,
implementation and data analysis; writing up findings for the
societal behaviour component of the report; overall report
editing.
o Legal Specialist: Responsible for devising methodology for the
legislative compliance reviews and analysing the functioning of
justice systems in each country.
o Institutional Researcher: Responsible for researching and
writing up the institutional stocktaking component.
• Regional Reference Group: Advisory group of representatives from
government, UN agencies, regional organisations, CSOs operating at
regional level and universities.
Section 2: Methodology

Regional
Reference Group
National
Steering
Committee:
Government & Civil
Society Organisations
UNICEF
Vanuatu
Field
Office
Regional Research Team
Institutional
Researcher:
Anafia Norton
Lead
Researcher:
Marie
Wernham
Legal
Specialist:
Penelope
Taylor
National
Researcher:
Bertha
Tarileo
National
Research Team
Field Research Teams x 3:
• Field Supervisor
• Field Counselor
• Field Researchers
Administrative /
Research Assistant:
Joel Jonas
Directly contracted by UNICEF,
housed in Ministry of Justice
and Social Welfare
Directly contracted by
Ministry of Justice and Social
Welfare

2.3Stagesandtimeline
Legislative&regulatory
frameworkcomponent
Institutionalstocktaking
component
SocietalbehaviourcomponentNationalSteering
Committeemeetings
Other
Jan08LeadResearcherrecruited:initial
planning&developmentofTORs
Feb08LegalSpecialistrecruited25.2.08-27.2.08:UNICEFCP
retreat,Suva,Fiji-detailedtimeline
planning
Mar08Deskreview&developmentof
indicators
•InstitutionalResearcherrecruited
•Deskreview
20.3.08:Tostudy&adopt
TORSforNR,ARA&NSC&to
selectNSCmembership
Apr08Deskreview&developmentof
indicators
DeskreviewRecruitmentofNR&ARA8.4.08:ToshortlistNR&ARA
applications
May08DeskreviewRecruitmentofFRT
18.5.08-23.5.08:In-countryfieldresearchandkeyinformantinterviews
conducted,PortVila
26.5.08-30.5.08:TrainingofFRT30.5.08:Tofinalisefield
researchsites
June08• 30.6.08:1-dayworkshopwith
childrenwhohaveexperienced
thejusticesystem,PortVila
• Preparationofinitialdraftof
findingsandrecommendations
• 27.6.08–4.7.08:Furtherin-
countryinformationgathering
26.08-6.6.08:Fieldtest
11.6.08:Fieldresearch
commenced
5.6.08:TomeettheFRT&
sendthemoffintothefield
18.6.08-19.6.08:Consultations
withchildrenbySavetheChildren
AustraliaVanuatuinpartnership
withSavetheChildrenFiji
July082.7.08:1-dayworkshopwithrepresentativesfrominstitutions,Port
Vila(stakeholderconsultationsonfindingsandrecommendationsand
furtherinformationgathering)
31.7.08:Fieldresearchcompleted
apartfromreturntoYakelCustom
Village
Aug084.08.08-8.8.08:FRTReview
Meeting
17.8.08-24.8.08:Returnofpartial
FRTtoYakelCustomVillage
8.8.08:ToupdateNSCon
completionoffieldresearch
Sept08Analysisoffieldresearchdata22.9.08-26.9.08:UNICEFregional
CPmeeting,Suva,Fiji:presentation
ofinitialfindings
Oct08Report-writingReport-writing
Nov08
Dec08Report-writing11.12.08:Topresentkey
findingsandobtaininput
andagreementondraft
recommendations
Jan09
Feb-May09• ConsultationondraftreportbyNCC
June-July09• NationalReportfinalised

2.4 Research tools
All research tools were designed to specifically measure the output indicators agreed upon by the government and UNICEF in the country
RRF. See Appendix B in page 208 for the full RRF.
2.4.1 Outcome 1: Children are increasingly protected by legislation and are better served by justice systems that protect them as victims,
offenders and witnesses
The information collected for Outcome 1 was sourced via:
Research tool Quantity
1. Desk review Primary sources:
4 sets of institutional records;
1 policy document from 1 department
Secondary sources:
14 reports
2. Legislative compliance review 31 laws in place
6 international instruments
3. Key informant interviews 34 KIIs with 30 people (19 male / 10 female) from 14 different departments / institutions /
organisations; 2 other people provided feedback by email
4. Workshops with children in the justice system 1x 1-day workshop with 8 boys (approximate age range 15 - 24)
5. Questionnaires to magistrates 1 questionnaire to 5 magistrates of which 4 were completed
Young ex-offenders tell their stories9
A judge sits at the bench ready to pass judgment on the trial
unfolding before him. An ivory white wig sits on his head and his
black magistrate’s gown reaches to the floor. The plaintiff and
defendant sit quietly. The scene seems typical of any courtroom, but
in fact this is not a real trial but a role play and this make-believe
courtroom is made up entirely of young ex-offenders, as young as
15 years old, who took part in a workshop to contribute ideas to
the Baseline Research. The ex-offenders, who were all boys, were
contacted through local community groups. They discussed how
they were treated by police officers, lawyers and magistrates through
role plays and other group exercises.“The children were happy for the
chance to tell their stories, to have someone listen without judgment
and treat their experiences as important and relevant,”says Penelope
Taylor, a member of the UNICEF team.
The boys found the workshops to be a welcome outlet for their
stories about their experiences as young offenders. They also had
the opportunity to see themselves in a different light by donning
costumes in role plays and learning about their rights under their
country’s laws and the UNCRC. According to Penelope, “At the
very end of the workshop, the boys took turns to dress up in the
full magistrate’s wig and gown and have their photo taken. They
absolutely loved it and I printed all the photos and passed them to
each boy so they would have a picture of themselves as a magistrate,
instead of as the offender. A lot of these young offenders just wanted
the police to talk to them and ask them questions instead of using
accusations and insults.”Hopefully, the young ex-offenders workshop
has encouraged these young people to demand fair treatment from
the legal system.“At the end of the workshop the boys indicated they
wanted to know their rights, so I gave them a quick workshop, and
then sent them information I later collected on the boys’rights under
Vanuatu law and police policy,”says Penelope. With more awareness
and understanding of children’s rights and how to apply them when
dealing with children as offenders, this could help police and legal
officers foster more positive relations with young offenders as a
method of crime prevention.
9
Adapted from a CPBR Human Interest Story, researched and documented by Mere Nailatikau.

2.4.2 Outcome 2: Children are better served by well-informed and coordinated child protection social services which ensure greater
protection against, and responds to violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect
Research tool Quantity
1. Desk review Primary sources:
4 x reports; 2 x sets of records;
1 x Census;
1 x set of questionnaires;
1 x TV Drama (DVD);
1 x strategic plan
Secondary sources:
16 articles / documents
2. Key informant interviews 18 KIIs with 20 people (11 male / 9 female) from 15 different institutions; 5 other people provided
feedback by email
3. Workshops with key stakeholders 1 day workshop with 18 people (7 male / 11 female) from 13 different departments / institutions /
organisations
1x 1-day workshop with 8 boys (approximate age range 15 - 24) who have experienced the justice
system (7 as offenders)
2.4.3 Outcome 3: Children in selected geographical areas grow up in home and community environments that are increasingly free from
violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect
Note on translation of tools for field research:
All tools were originally developed in English. The decision was made by the National Research Team not to develop written translations of
the tools into Bislama or French for the following reasons: the wordiness of the Bislama language; English is an easier language than French
for all Field Researchers to refer to; the likelihood that many different local languages would be used out in the provinces. Researchers
preferred to verbally translate into local languages using the clarity of the English written version as the constant reference point. During
the training and pilot test, researchers clarified and systematised specific phrases in order to ensure consistency in the language used in
the field.
a. Overview
• Adult household questionnaires (AHHQs): 10 per location; randomly selected primary caregiver in a household where children are
present.
• Child household questionnaires (CHHQs): 10 per location; randomly selected 16 and 17 year-olds in households where children of this
age are present. Due to the length, format and content of the CHHQ, it was deemed appropriate as a research tool only for older children.
• Group activities (GAs): 10 per location; 8-10 people per group.
Outline of activity
1 7-11 year-old girls Drawing or writing“Words and actions we like or don’t like at home and at school”and discussion
2 7-11 year-old boys
3 12-15 year-old girls Drawing or writing“Who do you go to when…?”and discussion
4 12-15 year-old boys
5 16-18 year-old girls Writing and discussion“What did your caregiver do when…?” [range of situations] comparison between
when they were in primary school and now. Individual or group exercise6 16-18 year-old boys
7 19-25 year-old young women Drawing a map of the community and marking safe and unsafe places for children followed by discussion
on how safe places can be kept safe and how unsafe places can be made safer (pair work)8 19-25 year-old young men
9 +25 year-old women Writing and discussion“What did your caregiver do when you were a child when….?”And“What do you
as a caregiver do now when…?”[range of situations] comparing possible changes in behaviour. Individual
or group exercise
10 +25 year-old men

• Key informant interviews (KIIs): Up to 9 per location.
1. ‘Community leader’(administrative and/or traditional)
2. Religious leader
3. Youth leader
4. Women’s group leader
5. Representative from the health sector
6. Representative from the education sector
7. Representative from the police
8. Representative from the judiciary
9. Representative from a civil society organisation
• Overall location observation notes (OLONs): 1 per location,
completed by the field research team to record general observations
of the location and any factors affecting data collection and / or data
analysis.
• Field diaries (FDs): 1 per field researcher to record professional
and personal observations in relation to use of the tools and the
location.
• Polaroid photo display: 10 Polaroid (instant) photos per location
to represent“how we keep children safe in this community”, chosen
by community members, displayed on plastic-covered card by
children within the community and left as a gift / positive reminder
for the community of the field research team’s visit. Where possible,
this display was photographed digitally as a record for the national
report.
• Photographs:Visualrecordofgroupactivitiesandresearchlocations
as a whole where possible.
b. Locations
• 30 locations were identified throughout the 6 provinces of
Vanuatu, distributed according to population weighting, and
chosen through purposive sampling based on the following
criteria:
Cross-section of the population:
• Type of location:
o Urban (wealthy / middle class / poor / slum)
o Peri-urban (wealthy / middle class / poor / slum)
o Rural (interior / coastal) (wealthy / middle class / poor)
o Central island
o Remote island
o Stable population (low migration / flux)
o Unstable population (high migration / flux)
Specific focus communities
• UNICEF programme focus areas. These are geographic
areaswhereUNICEF’sfivesupportedprogrammes–Health,
Water and Sanitation; Education; Child Protection; HIV/
AIDS; and the Policy, Advocacy, Planning and Evaluation
(PAPE) Programme will converge.
• Non-UNICEF programme focus areas (control group)
• Particularly low socio-economic development or isolation
from mainstream development and government
processes
• Identified high-risk in relation to specific issues (e.g. CSEC)
Previous research
• Areas experiencing‘research-fatigue’
• Areas flagged for further research

List of research locations
PROVINCE ISLAND LOCATION JUSTIFICATION
TORBA [2] Gaua Lembot Torba Province is the most remote and it is challenging to travel to the scattered
islands which are often divided by very rough seas. The research looked at
other ways to try and involve people from the more remote islands by selecting
communities which are more easily accessible, but which are nonetheless known
to include natives of more remote islands. Lembot in Gaua comprises other Banks
Islanders - particularly from Meralava, (not visited by research team). Sola is the
Torba Provincial Government seat and the main centre for Torba, thus comprising
different island communities from throughout the province. There is free mobility
of Torba people coming to and from Sola for provincial business.
Vanualava Sola
SANMA [7] Santo Urban Luganville:
• Mango Station
• Pump Station
• BP Bon
Research locations in Sanma were selected to have a mix of rural and urban
communities. Mango Station includes mainly Anglican communities from Torres
(most northern part of Torba and Vanuatu as a whole) not visited by the FRT.
Pump Station and BP Bon also include island communities from Malampa and
Penama provinces. Malo and Tutuba are separate little islands off the coast of
Santo mainland are likened to peri-urban areas with daily access / mobility of
people to Luganville town. Also Ginaura and Ebeneza community schools were
participants in the UNICEF-SCA previous Pacific Children’s Programme.
Rural Communities:
• Fanafo
• Ebeneza
Malo Ginaura (Jinaure on map)
Tutuba Church of Christ Landing
PENAMA [3] Ambae Lolovenue Lolovenue is quite a closed community, rarely reached by outside programmes
and Asanvari is isolated and remote, in a difficult location with constantly rough
seas, compared to Nazareth which is a main centre in the north of Pentecost.
Maewo Asanvari
Pentecost Nazareth
MALAMPA
[3]
Malekula Tautu Tautu is a provincial peri-urban community located close to the Malampa
provincial Headquarters in Lakatoro, compared to Liro and Craig Cove which are
very remote rural communities.
Ambrym Craig Cove
Paama Liro
SHEFA [9] Efate Urban Port Vila:
• Man Ples (Mango)
• Ohlen Mataso
• Futuna Seaside
Locations were selected to obtain a mix of urban, peri-urban and rural
communities. Etas and Club Hippique are fast growing peri-urban communities
with settlers coming from other islands. Whereas Club Hippique is made up of
agricultural farming land with expats hiring locals to work on their farms, Etas
is more of a slum with settlers around the area of the rubbish dump and next
to the Teouma fast-growing land development area. Futuna Seaside, Man Ples
and Ohlen Mataso are urban settlements which are very poor and considered
to be ‘population explosion’ areas. Ifira island in Port Vila has easy daily access to
all the exposures in Port Vila but it is a peri-urban community living a village life.
Erakor on Efate mainland is similar to Ifira. Ebau, even though further than Ifira
and Erakor, also has easy access to Port Vila town. Lamen Bay, although a rural
area on Epi island, is a tourist boat destination – a change agent in the lives of
rural people shifting the community focus and mentality towards making money
from the tourists.
Peri-urban:
• Club Hippique
• Ifira Island
• Etas
Rural Communities:
• Erakor
• Ebau (Epao on map)
Epi Lamen Bay
TAFEA [6] Tanna • Loanatom
• Waisisi
• Vetukai
• Sulphur bay
• Yakel
Tanna is the ‘convergence area’ for the UNICEF Vanuatu Programme as a
whole, hence the deliberately increased number of research locations in this
area. Loanatom School was a participant in the UNICEF-SCA previous PCP
programme. Tanna has many communities that are un-reached by outside
programmes e.g. Yakel Custom Village. Aneityum is the most southern island of
the Vanuatu group and is also growing in the tourist industry. It is a destination for
tourist boats visiting Vanuatu.
Aneityum Analcauhat
(Anelgowhat on map)

Map of Vanuatu research locations

c. Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs)
An important feature of the CPBR was the pioneering use of PDAs for
electronic data capture. PDAs are hand-held computers. AHHQs and
CHHQs were programmed as ‘templates’ and corresponding ‘PDA
questionnaires’ using DevInfo software.10
The ‘PDA questionnaires’
were then copied as many as times necessary, each with a unique file
name, loaded onto PDAs, and programmed with basic information
such as location, time period and a unique identity code. In order to
avoid duplication of data, each individual PDA contained only the
questionnaires relevant for the researchers who would be using that
PDA.
Researchers worked in pairs to conduct AHHQs and CHHQs with one
researcher asking the questions from a paper copy of the questionnaire
and the other recording the answers in the PDA. On completion
the questionnaires were downloaded onto a computer via a USB
connection and then imported directly into the ‘template’ / database
ready for data analysis. In theory some of the benefits of using PDAs for
data collection are as follows: no need for copying and carrying large
numbers of paper questionnaires in the field;‘skips’in the questionnaire
can be programmed to jump automatically between questions (e.g. ‘if
no, go to question 10’) and this helps to reduce data collection error;
a huge amount of time is saved by eliminating the need to manually
enter data from paper questionnaires into a database.
The use of PDAs in this research was innovative in that the types of
questionnaires being used were much longer and more complex
than those which have previously been used internationally with
this technology and software. The CPBR was deliberately testing the
appropriateness of this technology for qualitative as well as quantitative
data collection.
See Section 2.8 for lessons learned.
d. Completed data log
The following research tools were completed as part of the field
research:
• 248 CHHQs
• 262 AHHQs
• 272 GAs (56 with 7-11 year-olds; 58 with 12-15 year-olds; 54
with 16-18 year-olds; 50 with 19-25 year-olds; 54 with +25 year-
olds)
• 131 KIIs (22 with traditional or administrative community
leaders; 21 with religious leaders; 19 with youth leaders; 18.5
with women’s group leaders; 14 with education representatives;
14 with health representatives; 13 with police; 1.5 with justice
representatives; 8 with CSO representatives)
• 30 OLONs
• 23 digital photos
See Appendix C for a detailed breakdown of tools per location.
10
“DevInfo is a database system for monitoring human development. It is a tool for organizing, storing and presenting data in a uniform way to facilitate data sharing at the country level across government departments,
UN agencies and development partners. DevInfo has features that produce tables, graphs and maps for inclusion in reports, presentations and advocacy materials.” www.devinfo.org
2.5 Child participation
There were two types of child participation in relation to the CPBR.
Type A: Children as‘respondents’in the baseline research
• As part of the field research for the CPBR component on societal
behaviour: 16-17 year-olds were involved in CHHQs; 7-11 year-
olds, 12-15 year-olds and 17-18 year-olds were involved in group
activities (segregated by age and sex). Young people aged 19-
25 also took part in specific group activities.
• All Field Researchers were over the age of 18, but Field Research
Teams included some young people under the age of 25.
Type B: Children as‘participants’in the baseline research process
• This type of participation, not to be confused with Type A, refers
to involvement in the project cycle management of the CPBR.
The diagram below represents the difference stages of project
cycle management.
• For the purposes of the CPBR, it was decided – due to ethical
and time constraints – not to involve under-18s in actual data
collection (‘implementation’). However, under-18s who were
part of existing, well-supported groups were intended to be
involved in the‘planning’stage (commenting on methodology)
and the ‘evaluation’ stage (analysis of results and inputting into
recommendations).
• In Vanuatu, from 18-19 June 2008, 9 out-of-school children (5
boys and 4 girls) aged 11-17 participated in a 2-day consultation
workshop facilitated by Save the Children Fiji in association with
Save the Children Australia Vanuatu. The intention was to invite
children to input into the CPBR field research methodology and
the original workshop was scheduled for earlier in the process.
However, due to organisational and logistical constraints, the
workshop had to be delayed until June by which time the
field research had already started. The workshop instead took
the opportunity to introduce the CPBR to the children and to
conduct a series of activities to promote open discussions about
violence against children in Vanuatu in order to contribute
to the research findings and recommendations. Activities
included: discussions on the UNCRC; role plays on discipline
scenarios; recall about ‘unfair treatment’; ‘partial photo’ activity
monitor
assess/
identify
needs
implement
evaluate plan

about hidden violence; community mapping of safe spaces;
and analysis of gaps in child protection services. A discussion
was also held with 28 school children aged 9-13 to introduce
them to the CPBR and the UNCRC.
• The intention was that Save the Children Australia Vanuatu
would continue to work with these same children throughout
the CPBR process to keep them up to date with the research
and encourage comment on the research findings and input
into the recommendations. Unfortunately, due to logistical
constraints, this did not happen.
2.6 Ethics
Code of Conduct
• A Code of Conduct (CoC) was developed for the research in Vanuatu
, covering the following three areas:
1. Behaviour guidelines: between researchers and children,
between researchers and respondents, between researchers
and the community and between the researchers themselves.
2. Guidelines for photographs: both official and personal.
3. Communicationguidelines:concerningimagesandnarratives
about children involved in the study.
• The CoC was developed in consultation with researchers who signed
a statement of commitment to the CoC prior to embarking on the
pilot phase of the research.
Informed consent of respondents
• Informedconsentwasrequiredfromrespondentsforallresearch
activities. For every AHHQ, CHHQ, GA and KII researchers
were required to sign a consent sheet proving that they had
read out the required information to the participant(s) and
obtained informed consent for their participation in the activity.
Participants were informed that they had the right to stop the
interview / activity at any point and they had the right to refuse
to answer any or all questions.
• It is important to acknowledge at the outset the reality of
obtaining informant consent particularly in rural communities.
Given the communal nature of society in the villages, the
research teams at the completion of their entry protocol would
be granted ‘communal consent’. This gave the researchers
permission to consult any individual for the purpose of the
research and reminded members of the community of their
responsibility to cooperate with the researchers. However, all
were nevertheless still required to give individual informed
consent.
• Childparticipantsintheresearchwererecruitedfromhouseholds
and schools. For children from households participating in
either the CHHQ or any of the group activities, consent was first
sought from a parent or caregiver. In cases where children were
recruited in schools, consent was initially sought from the head
teachers and principals concerned. In both settings the children
were explained the nature of the research and asked to give
informed consent indicating their willingness to participate.
2.7 Data analysis
2.7.1 Outcome 1: Children are increasingly protected by legislation
and are better served by justice systems that protect them as
victims, offenders and witnesses
Legislative review:
• The legislative review component was undertaken by
identifying the articles of the UNCRC relating to child protection
standards. These articles were then fleshed out to their full legal
ramifications and a list of 227 indicators developed, drawing
heavily on existing UNICEF tools for legislative analysis. The
indicatorswerecategorisedintospecificareasofchildprotection,
e.g. child labour, violence against children, treatment of young
offenders and so on.
• A local legal consultant then measured the existing law and
policyagainsttheseindicatorsandacompliancetabledisplaying
the strengths and weaknesses in the regulatory framework was
created.
• A Legal Taskforce was established to review the findings. The
findings were summarised and recommendations drafted for
the national report.
Justice system review:
• The analysis of the justice system was undertaken through the
development of both comprehensive ‘ideal’ system indicators
and indicators that were directly responsive to the RRF Output
Indicators.
• Existing reports and compiled data were reviewed,
representatives of the key institutions interviewed, workshops
run with children who had experienced the system as offenders,
and questionnaires distributed to magistrates.
• A list of findings and recommendations were then made
in relation to each legal institution (Police, Courts, ODPP
and People’s Lawyer) and stakeholders were consulted as
to the accuracy and efficacy of those findings in a day-long
workshop.
• The final report was then prepared incorporating feedback from
the workshop.
2.7.2 Outcome 2: Childrenarebetterservedbywell-informedand
coordinated child protection social services which ensure greater
protection against, and responds to violence, abuse, exploitation
and neglect
The process for data analysis for the Institutional Stocktake was based
on the following steps:
• An ‘ideal system’ matrix for child protection institutions was
developed based on international experience and including
elementsofaChildProtectionSocialWelfarechecklistdeveloped
by UNICEF East Asia Pacific Regional Office (EAPRO).
• Desktop research information was converted into table format.
• Initial interviews with UNICEF Child Protection Officers and
other key informants were conducted.
• Questionnaires distributed

• Resulting data was converted into a consultation document
containing findings and recommendations.
• After consultation this document was converted into the
Baseline Research Institutional Stocktake Report (available
separately)andinformationfromthisfullreportwassummarised
for inclusion in this National Report against the RRF indicators.
2.7.3 Outcome 3: Children in selected geographical areas grow up
in home and community environments that are increasingly free
from violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect
Field Research Team Review Meeting:
• FRTs gathered together for five days after completion of the
field research in order to tidy up completed research tools,
reflect on their experiences, make recommendations for any
future similar research, and to generally provide ‘closure’for the
FRTs which was deemed necessary due to the sensitive nature
of the research.
• The FRTs took this opportunity to share their experiences to the
National Steering Committee.
Child and adult household questionnaires:
• Completed questionnaires were downloaded onto a computer
by the National Researcher and imported into the pre-prepared
DevInfo template / database by the Lead Researcher. Errors were
corrected (e.g. mistakes in file names or accidental mapping of
questionnaires to the wrong location).
• A comprehensive set of charts and graphs was produced
according to the detailed ‘graphics analysis frameworks’ (Excel
spreadsheets setting out what information is needed in order
to measure each of the RRF indicators). The ‘graphics analysis
frameworks’are based, in turn on the‘overall analysis framework’
which sets out which research tools and questions measure
each indicator. All analysis frameworks and the full set of charts
and graphs for the CHHQs and AHHQs are available on the
accompanying CD-Rom, grouped per RRF indicator.
• The completed charts and graphs were sent to the National
Researcher and key data was presented to the National Steering
Committee (NSC) for discussion and the formulation of initial
recommendations.
• The Lead Researcher wrote up the detailed findings, building on
contributions from the National Researcher and incorporating
input from the National Steering Committee, into the societal
behaviour component of the National Report which was then
circulated to the NSC for comment before being finalised.
Group activities:
• Hard copies of flipcharts and researchers’ notes were collected
by the National Researcher and the data entered into pre-
prepared, ‘coded’ Excel spreadsheets which were then sent to
the Lead Researcher for analysis.
• Tables, charts and graphs were produced, based on the ‘overall
analysis framework’, which were then used to inform the writing
up of the societal behaviour component of the National Report
(circulated for comment, as above).
• Copies of the ‘raw data’ and accompanying charts and graphs
are available on the accompanying CD-Rom.
Key informant interviews:
• HardcopiesoftheKIIswerecollectedbytheNationalResearcher,
and the results for each type of key informant interview (e.g.
police)werecompiledintooneamalgamated,‘master’electronic
version (mixture of Excel & Word) which was then forwarded to
the Lead Researcher.
• The Lead Researcher produced tables, graphs and charts, based
on the ‘overall analysis framework’, which were then used to
inform the writing up of all three components of the National
Report (circulated for comment, as above).
• Copies of the ‘raw data’ and accompanying charts and graphs
are available on the accompanying CD-Rom.
2.8 Lessons learned
2.8.1 Successes (what went well)
Outcome 1:
• The children in conflict with the law workshops were a great
success. Much information about the way children experience the
justice system was gleaned. Greater numbers of children would
have further enriched this process. The positive impact on the
children themselves was tangible and the importance and relevance
of directly consulting children for research about children was
apparent.
• The availability of key people in the different institutions
greatly facilitated the research. Throughout the legal institutions,
there were key people who made themselves available, not only for
an interview, but also for multiple visits and followed up requests
for further information. This high level of engagement with the
process greatly supported the information collection that had to be
managed within two short country visits.
Outcome 2:
• Researchdesignandimplementation:Thisprocesswassuccessful-
i.e. desktop review followed by interviews and then workshops. The
process supported itself and gave those who were committed to the
process a chance to participate meaningfully.
• Consultation workshops: They provided a mechanism for
networking and participants were able to learn about the work
of other institutions and make connections that will help protect
children in the future. New ideas were generated at the workshops
through the interaction of participants.
• Workshop consultation paper: The consultation paper prepared
in advance of the workshop worked well in terms of guiding the
discussion. In some ways the information in the consultation paper
was too detailed. However, it was made clear at the beginning of
the consultations that the researchers did not expect participants
to fully read the paper but that during the course of the workshop
the content would be thoroughly interrogated and time would be
allocated to review each section before talking about it in detail.
Outcome 3:
• Impact of research on the FRT: FRs recruited were mostly young
people hired from both urban and rural islands. According to FRs,
participation in the CPBR helped them to gain new knowledge and
learn new skills, e.g. “learned to work as a team and team organization

and work allocations among team members; acquired confidence to
work with respondents; gained experience in dealing with both positive
experiencesandnegativeissueswithinateam,althoughverychallenging;
gained more experiences to work in the community especially in rural
areas e.g. we get to know the real things happening in communities
in the remote areas; gained confidence to work in communities such
as negotiating with the community and awareness-raising skills such
as the courage to stand in front of people or a crowd”. 13
Individually,
some FRs reflected personally on childrearing in relation to child
protection. Some individuals stated that perhaps some of the ways
in which their parents brought them up were not so good, e.g. “some
of the ways in which we’re living now must be the result of how we were
brought up/treated”. Another area of professional development for
the FRs is learning new technology such as mastering the skills in
using the PDA as a tool for the household interviews.
• Team dynamics: The 20 FRs were divided into 3 teams, comprising
two teams with 7 members each and one team with 6 members.
Generally the teams worked well and members were supportive
of one another throughout the research. In terms of any personal
or professional conduct issues, this was dealt with in a consultative
manner and managed by consensus within the team with all team
members contributing to resolving the issue successfully in order to
proceed and complete the fieldwork.
• Logistics: The ARA made prior arrangements with contact points
in the locations that he was able to reach. In situations where the
ARA was not able to do this within the time constraints faced, the
teams managed to successfully do their own logistical arrangements
on arrival at actual research locations. Generally communities were
able to come to an agreement with the teams and were able to
accommodate the research team to carry out fieldwork with the
community.
• Research tools: The range of research tools and the detail of the
questions provided an unprecedented amount of qualitative
and quantitative information on child protection in Vanuatu. The
group activities were reported as being the most enjoyable of all
the research tools by both the FRs and those who participated –
especially the children.
2.8.2 Challenges (what didn’t work so well)
Outcome 1:
• The findings and recommendations paper used as the basis for
consultation during the institutional stocktaking workshop was
generally a success, but would have been far more effective if it
had included more detailed recommendations for the institutions
drawing more widely on input from the research team rather than
just those gleaned directly from the interviews and desk reviews. As
a result, the full range of recommendations were not reviewed prior
to the first draft of the national report, and those that were, were
disjointed and piecemeal.
• The lack of time spent in country compromised the researchers’
ability to form relationships with stakeholders and to fully explore
issues and information and to follow up leads.
• The use of a local consultant to attend to aspects of the legislative
compliance review added further complications to an already tight
timeframe, precluding any review by the Legal Specialist, for quality
13
Selected feedback from Field Researchers during the FRT Review Meeting and evaluation.
control purposes, of the local consultant’s findings which were
heavily relied on in the legislative findings of this report.
Outcome 2:
• The late distribution of invitations may have compromised
attendance and participation in the consultation workshops.
• The institutional stocktake component was completed in some
isolation from the other components of the baseline research
because of resource constraints.
• Although it was found to be very useful as a reference tool, the‘ideal
systems matrix’ approach was not utilised fully. The Legal Specialist
followed a data collection approach for the justice institutions based
“After being part of this
research with UNICEF, my fellow
researchers and I started talking.
When we look back and see how
we were treated by our parents,
we wish that something like this
could have been done earlier.”
(Field Researcher)

on the RRF indicators, this approach should also have been taken by
the institutional researcher to ensure consistency. The‘ideal systems
matrix’ was not utilised in the justice section of the Institutional
Stocktake.
• The volume of information available about each institution and the
length of the report was time and resource intensive. It is suggested
that future research be limited to a smaller number of institutions
or a more confined information gathering exercise. This would also
make it possible for the stocktake to be undertaken by one person
rather than two.
Outcome 3:
• Recruitment and training: Due to timeframe constraints, the
recruitment of FRs had to be finalized in a rush and this particularly
had implications in the difficult task of recognizing and selecting the
best Field Supervisor for each group.
• Team dynamics and logistics of NR supervision: Field Supervisors
reported at times feeling unsupported by team members due to
individual members not feeling confident enough to do some
things delegated to them by the Field Supervisor. Generally, there
was a lack of leadership capability within all 3 teams, requiring a lot
of support input from NR and ARA, which was extremely challenging
in terms of the wide geographic distribution of locations, some of
which were very remote and which therefore required a lot of travel
time, e.g. waiting for the next plane servicing the island location. Site
monitoring visits by the NR and ARA to each of the 3 teams were
supplemented by daily telephone communications when face-to-
face site support was not possible.
• Logistics and preparation of locations: In cases where proper
advance logistics or community preparation for field work was
constrained by time, teams had to manage some aspects of this
themselves on arrival. One site, a ‘custom village’, refused entry to
the team working on the location, so a special ‘research team’ had
to return some weeks later, requiring extra resources made possible
through savings made in other areas of the research budget.
• Research Tools
o PDAs: Problems included:
• Difficulty in accessing power to recharge PDAs, especially
in the absence of spare batteries (the supply of which from
Suva was delayed).
• PDAs very slow to recharge or failed to recharge completely
possibly due to recharge cables not connected properly,
faulty cables, faulty adaptors or unstable current from
generators.
• In spite of the benefits of using the PDAs from the
perspective of the research overall, researchers found
them time-consuming when moving between questions
due to the size of the questionnaire and the inability of the
technology to allow researchers to skip the‘if other, please
specify’ option which applied to many questions. This led
to some respondents getting impatient and losing interest
in the interview.
• In many cases researchers used paper questionnaires and
entered answers into the PDAs at the end of the day. Whilst
this was convenient as a means to re-check responses, it

defeated the purpose of using the PDAs in the first place to
immediately capture the information.
o CHHQs: FRs reported that in most sites it was difficult for them
to find a sufficient number of 16-17 year-olds to interview,
because children of this age group are either away at schools or
they refused to be interviewed. Although this issue was raised
during the planning stage and locations were selected to take
this into account, the FRTs experienced problems nonetheless.
o Group activities: As with the CHHQs in most sites it was difficult
to find a sufficient number of 16-17 year-olds for the relevant
GA.
o Key informants and KII logistics: It was time consuming
and required much effort to actually locate key informants to
interview, especially in community settings where households
are scattered. To add to this constraint, the KII is very long and
respondents became impatient and started to lose interest in
the interview in many cases. The Team Leaders reported feeling
‘overloaded’ at times, particularly in sites where more of their
time was needed to arrange logistics. In these circumstances it
was very challenging for them to find adequate time and extra
effort to fit in completing the KIIs within the given timeframe for
the site.
o Field diaries: FRs reported being too tired at the end of a
working day to fill in their diaries. Also, in some locations there
was no light supply beyond hurricane lamps.The circumstances
were therefore not very conducive to completing their diaries.
o Photo project: The Polaroid cameras arrived too late inVanuatu
due to supply problems in Suva and so teams were able to use
cameras only in the last sites.
• Child participation in the project cycle process of the CPBR:
Although child participation as respondents to the research tools
was extremely successful, the research was not able to overcome
challenges to involving children in the project cycle process. Due
to organisational and logistical difficulties the first consultation
with children had to be delayed and so children were not able to
comment on the field research methodology in time. Furthermore,
it was unfortunately not possible to consult with children on the final
results and recommendations. Child participation in the research
process therefore remains a challenging area which merits much
greater attention in any future research.
2.9 Recommendations regarding methodology
for future research
Outcome 1:
1.1 Greater time to be spent in country by the Legal Specialist.
1.2 Legislative compliance review and report to be handled by one
consultant rather than half by one and half by the other.
1.3 More time and resources to be spent on children as informants in
the institutional and legislative review components.
1.4 Baseline research team recommendations not to be separated
out from stakeholder recommendations for the purposes of
consultation.
Outcome 2:
2.1 Refine the ‘ideal systems matrix’ for use next time in consultation
with national partners and the EAPRO toolkit authors.
2.2 Ensure the methods for gathering data under RRF indicators are
consistent with the broader institutional stocktake.
2.3 Depending on resources available, consider confining the research
to a smaller number of institutions.
2.4 Do not limit the reporting to the RRF indicators in the National
Research as these categories leave out some major components
of a child protection system.
2.5 To ensure the integrity of information, another step in the
methodology must be to have a process of feedback on the
consultation report specifically from interviewees before the
report is circulated more widely for consultation. This will help
clear issues of misunderstanding and other language / culture
barriers.
2.6 An opportunity for capacity building would be to empower a Ni-
Vanuatu national to conduct some of the key informant interviews
(with or without the Institutional Researcher) and take ownership
of some of the information gathering.
Outcome 3:
3.1: Team dynamics and team leadership: Improve training for
Field Supervisors in decision-making and principles of financial
accountability in the management of research team funds
according to the agreed budget.
3.2: Increased on-site support to teams by the NR and ARA being
physically on-site as much as possible, particularly where team
leadership is identified to be weak or lacking.
3.3 Project planning: rather than expecting NRs to pick up sufficient
information alongside FRTs during FRT training, allow more time
for adequate ‘big picture’ briefing including: briefing about the
FR training, research methodology, PDA techniques/use and the
processes of data analysis. More time is needed for research of this
scale in terms of community preparations, actual conduct of field
research and data analysis.
3.4 Timing: Never plan to carry out community research during the
month of Vanuatu’s Independence celebrations (i.e. July) or during
months leading up to Vanuatu’s general elections.
3.5: Community preparation: Logistical arrangements to be done
in person rather than relying on messages passed through the
telephone to people in rural areas. Planning should therefore
allow sufficient timeframe for these arrangements to be made
in advance so that research teams are free to get on with field
work research on arrival. Alternatively, recruit Field Supervisors in
advance of FRs and send them ahead of team members to help
ARA and NR visit selected sites and make logistical arrangements.
Choose and maintain clear communications with only one contact
person on site to prevent confusion and conflict within selected
communities.
3.6 Research tools: CHHQ and KIIs to be made shorter or extend
the time spent at each location to complete required number of
questionnaires. Alternatively, increase the number of researchers
to carry out the research within the set timeframe.
3.7 Equipment: Provide solar chargers for PDAs. Have all research
equipment (e.g. Polaroid cameras, bags, T-shirts and ID cards)
available FRTs before commencing research.

3.1 Overview
Findings reflect the situation in 2008 and may not include
reference to more recent developments.
Findings are grouped according to the three RRF‘Outcome’areas:
1. Children are increasingly protected by legislation and are better
served by justice systems that protect them as victims, offenders
and witnesses.
2. Children are better served by well informed and coordinated child
protection social services which ensure greater protection against
and respond to violence, abuse and exploitation.
3. Families and communities establish home and community
environments for children that are increasingly free from violence,
Within the RRF, as agreed between the government and UNICEF, each of
these high level ‘Outcomes’is broken down into a series of ‘Outputs’.
For example, in Vanuatu Outcome 1 has two Outputs which are
numbered Output 1.1 and Output 1.2. Each of these mid-level‘Outputs’
is then further broken down into a series of ‘Indicators’. There may be
one or more Indicators per Output. For example,Vanuatu Output 1.1 has
only one Indicator, labelled Indicator 1.1.1. However, Vanuatu Output
1.2 has two Indicators numbered 1.2.1 and 1.2.2. These Indicators may
or may not have ‘targets’ attached to them. For example, Vanuatu
Indicator 1.1.1 has the target ‘By 2010, all laws relating to protection of
children will be fully aligned’.
There is an assumption that working on the more ‘manageable’
Indicators will contribute to achieving the Outputs, which will in turn
result in progress towards achieving the over-arching Outcomes.
The Baseline Research measured the current status of the RRF Indicators.
However, in some cases, ‘Additional Indicators’ were also measured
as a means to gather further information relating to the Outputs or
Outcomes more broadly, above and beyond the child protection
‘picture’ painted by the more specific RRF Indicators. An example of
an Additional Indicator is ‘Indicator 2.2 Additional 1’ which is related to
Output 2.2. There is also an ‘Additional General Indicator’ at the end of
Outcome 3. It is important to note that these ‘additional indicators’ do
not form part of the official Government / UNICEF RRF. They are merely
intended to contribute additional information which it is hoped may be
of use in partners’ efforts to create protective environment frameworks
for children in Vanuatu.
The summary matrix in Section 3.2 pulls out key findings and statistics
per indicator. This matrix can be used as a stand-alone summary.
However, important additional analysis and comment, as well as
recommendations, are included in the detailed findings in Section 3.4.
Further supporting information can be found on the accompanying
CD-Rom, including: full legislative compliance review; full institutional
stocktaking report; raw data and comprehensive charts for CHHQs,
AHHQs, KIIs and GAs from the field research. Section 3.3 summarises the
profile of CHHQ, AHHQ and KII respondents who participated in the field
research.
Section 3: Findings

3.2Matrixoffindingsperoutputindicator
Pleasenote:Thefindingsherehavebeensummarisedforeaseofreference.Forfurtherinformationonhoweachindicatorwasinterpretedandhowthefindingswerecalculated,seeSection3.4below.
Outcome1:Childrenareincreasinglyprotectedbylegislationandarebetterservedbyjusticesystemsthatprotectthemasvictims,offendersandwitnesses
OutputIndicatorTargetBaselinefindings2008
1.1Lawsand
regulationson
socialprotection
andjusticefor
childrenare
amendedin
accordance
withtheCRC
(Nationallevel)
1.1.1Degreeof
alignment
between
nationallaws
andtheCRC
anditsOptional
Protocols
By2010,all
lawsrelatingto
protectionof
childrenwillbe
fullyaligned
Numbershererefertohowmanyaspectsofthelawandpolicycomplywithadetailedbreakdownofinternational
principleswithineachsubjectarea–seeSection3.4ofthisreportformoredetails:
1. Childwelfare/childprotectionsystem:Fullcompliance1;Partialcompliance0;Non-compliance19[Total20]
2. Familyseparationandalternativecare:Fullcompliance8;Partialcompliance0;Non-compliance30[Total38]
3. Violenceagainstchildren:Fullcompliance4Partialcompliance1Non-compliance7[Total12]
4. Sexualabuseandsexualexploitationofchildren:Fullcompliance8Partialcompliance3Non-compliance4
[Total15]
5. Abduction,saleandtrafficking:Fullcompliance1Partialcompliance0Non-compliance18[Total19]
6. Childlabour/streetchildren:Fullcompliance2Partialcompliance0Non-compliance15[Total17]
7. Child-friendlyinvestigativeandcourtprocesses:Fullcompliance4Partialcompliance1Non-compliance19
[Total24]
8. Rehabilitation:Fullcompliance1Partialcompliance0Non-compliance7[Total8]
9. Childreninconflictwiththelaw:Fullcompliance20Partialcompliance1Non-compliance33[Total54]
10. Refugee/unaccompaniedmigrantchildren:Fullcompliance1Partialcompliance0Non-compliance10[Total
11]
11. Childreninarmedconflict:Fullcompliance0Partialcompliance0Non-compliance3[Total3]
12. InformationaccessFullcompliance1Partialcompliance0Non-compliance3[Total4]
13. BirthregistrationFullcompliance2Partialcompliance0Non-compliance0[Total2]
1.2Policeofficers,
prosecutors,
lawyers,judges
andmagistrates
arewelltrained
andfollow
operational
judicial
procedures
andpractices
ensuring
immediateand
professional
handlingof
casesinvolving
children
(Nationallevel)
1.2.1Increased
proportionof
childoffenders
(male/female)
divertedand
givenalternative
sentencing
100%ofchild
victims,witnesses
andoffenders
• Formaldiversion:0%14
• Informaldiversion:highlevel15
• Numberofchildoffenderswhocamebeforethecourtin2006:1216
• Thevastmajorityofchildjusticemattersarebeingdealtwithatthecommunitylevelthroughfamilyortraditional
justicemechanisms,oftenwithoutgoingviathepoliceatall.63%ofchiefsanddeputychiefsinterviewedduring
thefieldresearchreportreceivingbetween1and10referralsofchildreninconflictwiththelawperweekdirectly
fromthecommunity.
• Whenaskedabouthowthecommunityhandleschildreninconflictwiththelaw,only11%ofkeyinformants’
responsesmentionreferringthemattertothepolice.41%ofresponsesindicatethatthechildisreferred
toatraditional,religiousoradministrativecommunityleader.Theuseoffinesandothermeasures(notably
‘counselling’)accountsfor44%ofresponses.Physicalpunishmentaccountsfor3%ofresponses.Noreliabledatais
availableonhowmanycasesthesemeasuresmightinvolvepermonth.
• 13policeofficersthroughoutthecountrywereaskedwhattheydowhenachildhascommittedacrime.In95%
ofthecasesencounteredcollectivelypermonth[N=223]thepolicereportpractisinginformaldiversion(referring
thechildtothepastor,familyorchieforlettingthemgowithawarning).Theyreportadministeringcorporal
punishmentin2%ofcasespermonth[N=4]andpressingformalchargesinonly3%ofcasespermonth[N=6]

UNICEF_VANUATU_REPORT1

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (8)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (11)

Similar to UNICEF_VANUATU_REPORT1

Similar to UNICEF_VANUATU_REPORT1 (20)

UNICEF_VANUATU_REPORT1