In Flanders, a child and youth impact report (JoKER) must accompany all legislative proposals based on an initiative of the Flemish government, that have a direct impact on the interests of persons under the age of 25. This article presents the results of the first in-depth evaluation carried out of this impact assessment instrument. Based on multiple data collection techniques (including an electronic survey and focus groups), JoKER was critically evaluated as to its scope, quality, process, support and control, effectiveness and impact. The evaluation required maintaining a balance between various perspectives and tensions. A major challenge concerns the tension between mainstreaming JoKER in the more general regulatory impact assessment (ria), on the one hand, and preserving the specificity of a youth and children’s rights perspective, on the other.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
Billiet J., and Carton A., , “Dataverzameling: gestandaardiseerde interviews en zelf-in-te-vullen vragenlijsten” in Een samenleving onderzocht: methoden van sociaal-wetenschappelijk onderzoek. ed. Billiet J., and Waege H. (Antwerp: De Boeck, 2003) 285–314.
Corrigan C., “Child impact statements: protecting children’s interests in policy and provision?”Journal of Children’s Services 2(4) (2007): 30–43.
de Beco G., “Human Rights Impact Assessments”, Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 27(2) (2009): 139–166.
Desmet E., “Implementing the Convention on the Rights of the Child for ‘youth’: who and how?”, International Journal of Children’s Rights 20 (2012): 3–23.
Desmet E., and Op de Beeck H., “Strategic decisions in setting up child rights impact assessments”, Revue générale de Droit 44 (2014): 125—151.
Desmet E., , Op de Beeck H., , and Vandenhole W., Evaluatie van de kind- en jongereneffectrapportage (JoKER) (unpublished report, 2012), available at: http://www.kekidatabank.be/opac/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=546.
Commission European, Impact Assessment Guidelines, sec (2009) 92.
Flemish Government, Regulatory Management Unit, Guidelines for the creation of a Regulatory Impact Analysis (Brussels: Government Flemish, 2006).
Gezinsbond, Focus op Kindnorm. Uitdagingen voor een betere levenskwaliteit (Gezinsbond, 2010).
Goethals J., Inleiding tot het criminologisch onderzoek (Leuven: Acco, 2001).
Hanna K., , Hassall L., and Davies I. I., “Child Impact Reporting”, Social Policy Journal of New Zealand 29 (2006): 32–42.
Hanna K., and Mason N., Putting Children at the Center of Policy Development (2010), available at: http://firstfocus.org/resources/report/putting-children-at-the-center-of-policy-development/.
Invernizzi A., and Williams J., The Human Rights of Children. From Visions to Implementation (London: Ashgate, 2011).
Jeugdonderzoeksplatform, “Technisch verslag jop-monitor” (unpublished report, 2007), ku Leuven, UGent, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, available at: http://www.jeugdonderzoeksplatform.be/files/TechnischverslagDEFINITIEF.pdf.
Jeugdonderzoeksplatform, “Technisch verslag jop-monitor 2” (unpublished report, 2009), KU Leuven, UGent, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, available at: http://www.jeugdonderzoeksplatform.be/files/Technischverslag_JOP-monitor_2.pdf.
Kenniscentrum Kinderrechten, Evaluatie van de kind- en jongereneffectrapportage. Beleidsadvies van het Kenniscentrum Kinderrechten aan de Vlaamse Overheid (Ghent: Kinderrechten Kenniscentrum, 2012), available at: www.keki.be.
Kinderrechtencommissariaat, Kindeffectrapportage, advies 2001–2002/3 (Brussels: Kinderrechtencommissariaat, 2001).
Kinderrechtencommissariaat, Voorstel van decreet Vlaams jeugd- en kinderrechtenbeleid, advies nr. 2007–2008/4 (Brussels: Kinderrechtencommissariaat, 2008).
Krieger Y.P., and Ribar E., Child Rights Impact Assessment of Economic Policies: A Case Study from Bosnia and Herzegovina (2008), available at: http://www.childimpact.unicef-irc.org/documents/view/id/113/ lang/en.
Lundy L., , Kilkelly U., , Byrne B., and Kang J., The un Convention on the Rights of the Child: a study of legal implementation in 12 countries (London: UNICEF UK and Queen’s University Belfast, 2012).
Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, Strategy to strengthen the rights of the child in Sweden (Västerås: Edita Västra Aros, 2011).
National Audit Office, Delivering High Quality Impact Assessments (London: The Stationery Office, 2009).
National Audit Office, Assessing the Impact of Proposed New Policies (London: The Stationery Office, 2010).
oecd, Better Regulation in Europe: Belgium 2010 (Paris: oecd, 2010).
Regulatory Management Unit (Public Governance Department), Strategic Policy Framework “High-quality regulations and administrative simplification 2009–2014” (Brussels: Public Governance Department, 2011).
Reynaert D., , Desmet E., , Lembrechts S., and Vandenhole W., , “Introduction: A critical approach to children’s rights”, in Routledge International Handbook of Children’s Rights Studies. ed. Vandenhole W., , Desmet E., , Reynaert D., and Lembrechts S. (Routledge, forthcoming).
Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People, Children’s Rights Impact Assessment: The sccyp Model (Edinburgh: sccyp, 2006).
Swanborn P.G., Evalueren (Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Boom, 1999).
Sylwander L., Child Impact Assessments. Swedish Experience of Child Impact Analyses as a tool for implementing the un Convention on the Rights of the Child (Sweden: Ministry of Health and Social Affairs & Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2001).
un Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No 5: General measures of implementation for the Convention on the Rights of the Child, 27 November 2003, crc/gc/2003/5, 11 ihrr 10 (2004).
un Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding Observations regarding Belgium, 18 June 2010, crc/c/bel/co/3–4.
unicef, eu-unicef Child Rights Toolkit: Integrating Child Rights in Development Cooperation. Module 5: Child Impact Assessment (New York: unicef, 2014).
Van Humbeeck P., “Best Practices in Regulatory Impact Analysis: A Review of the Flemish Region in Belgium” (Working Paper Social Economic Council of Flanders (serv), 2007).
Van Humbeeck P., “Regulatory Impact Analysis in Flanders and Belgium: An Update on the Experiences and Challenges” (Working Paper Social Economic Council of Flanders (serv), 2009).
Vandenhole W., , “Het kind en het badwater: de kruisbestuiving van kinderrechten en mensenrechten” in Kinderrechten als mensenrechten: een multidisciplinaire verkenning. ed. Vandenhole W. (Antwerp: Intersentia, 2007), 25–50.
Vlaamse Jeugdraad, Decreet Vlaams Jeugdbeleid, advies 07/11 (Brussels: Jeugdraad Vlaamse, 2007).
Corrigan, C., (2007): 30; (2008) 15, available at: http://www.childimpact.unicef-irc.org/documents/view/id/113/ lang/en; L. Sylwander, (2001) 15.
Article 7, 2008 Decree, supra n. 9 and Article 5, § 1, 2012 Decree, supra n. 12.
Swanborn, (1999).
Article 4, 2012 Decree, supra n. 12.
Kinderrechtencommissariaat, (2001); Kinderrechtencommissariaat, (2008) 7.
Gezinsbond, (2010) 3.
Van Humbeeck, (2007) at 38.
European Commission, (2009) 92.
Humbeeck, (2009) 37.
Sylwander, supra n. 4 at 17.
Hodgkin (1998) cited in Hanna, Hassall and Davies, supra, n. 4 at 36.
Sylwander, supra, n. 4 at 17.
Beco, (2009) 139–199.
National Audit Office, (2009).
Sylwander, supra, n. 4 at 32.
Van Humbeeck, supra, n. 28 at 38.
Kenniscentrum Kinderrechten, (2012).
Invernizzi A. and J. Williams, (2011); W. Vandenhole, (2007), 25.
All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 1928 | 35 | 2 |
Full Text Views | 209 | 5 | 1 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 116 | 13 | 1 |
In Flanders, a child and youth impact report (JoKER) must accompany all legislative proposals based on an initiative of the Flemish government, that have a direct impact on the interests of persons under the age of 25. This article presents the results of the first in-depth evaluation carried out of this impact assessment instrument. Based on multiple data collection techniques (including an electronic survey and focus groups), JoKER was critically evaluated as to its scope, quality, process, support and control, effectiveness and impact. The evaluation required maintaining a balance between various perspectives and tensions. A major challenge concerns the tension between mainstreaming JoKER in the more general regulatory impact assessment (ria), on the one hand, and preserving the specificity of a youth and children’s rights perspective, on the other.
All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 1928 | 35 | 2 |
Full Text Views | 209 | 5 | 1 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 116 | 13 | 1 |