Total time required 4 – 4,5 hours
A. Introduction – 20 minutes
Introduction to session agenda, objectives and expectations along with the presentation of the session assumptions related to the vulnerability concept using as background material the information included in the Chapter 2.b of the IMPACT Report 2013.
B. Brainstorming – 30 minutes
The facilitator invites the participants to take into consideration the position of the child involved in the case story selected (see Session 1) and try to look at the situation in which he/she is involved from the perspective of the child. The facilitator poses the following question to the group of participants: What are the elements making our Child more vulnerable?
On a flip-chart previously prepared, the facilitator notes the answers provided by the participants during this fare of ideas and reiterates that the purpose of the session is to identify structural factors impacting negatively on the vulnerability of the child. The elements identified by the participants might not be structural at first sight. In this case the facilitator should further support the discussion in order to identify the underlying structural factors.
C. Short lecture – 30/40 minutes
Using the information provided in the IMPACT Report 2013, the reading material suggested as support to this session here below and the facilitator’s own knowledge of the situation in the country, the facilitator should present a brief interactive lecture on the ‘contextual and ecological understanding of ‘vulnerability’’ and the principles behind it. The content of the lecture should be tailored to the level of knowledge that participants have on the topic. Ideally this short lecture should cover:
The facilitator could introduce the ecological understanding of ‘vulnerability’ as this is defined in the IMPACT project, eventually using the following graphic representations (see figure below).
IMPACT Report 2013 Risk and resilience influencing child vulnerability at all levels of the ecological model
The facilitator should make reference to the situation at the local level in the context in which the training is taking place as well as presenting good practices from other places or countries. These external national positive experiences could be identified in the IMPACT national Reports 2013 and in the facilitator’s own knowledge. In case the facilitator is not aware of positive practices at the local or national level, selected participants could be invited to present experiences from other contexts or countries. If the facilitator decide to use this latter option he/she needs to verify the profile of the participants, identify those who could present a national experience and contact them in due time before the session to organise their intervention.
D. Discussion – 30 minutes
The facilitator opens the discussion on the aspects presented. Once gathered the comments of the participants and their reactions the facilitator further underlines that many of these causes of the vulnerability of a child are rooted in underlying structural factors that contribute to creating vulnerability to exploitation and trafficking. As the children who are exploited have often previously been denied their rights, child trafficking is considered not only a result of criminal activities; it is essentially indicating the weak capability of national governments to effectively safeguard children’s rights to a safe and healthy development. The facilitator makes some practical examples.
E. Small group activity – 60-90 minutes
The facilitator splits the plenary into small groups of 4-5 participants and asks each group to work on the case story selected during Session 1 and on the basis of the elements making our Child more vulnerable as identified during the previous brainstorming. Each group should then discuss in what ways our Child could become less vulnerable or stronger while facing possible risks of trafficking and exploitation.
F. Partnership learning moment -30 minutes
Each team is asked to present to the plenary their list of ways which could make our Child less vulnerable or stronger while facing possible risks of trafficking and exploitation. Each Rapporteur of the small group is asked to present the reasoning justifying the ways selected and their connection with the effectiveness of the intervention and how the system could deal with that.
Following all the presentations, the facilitator notes on a flip chart the ideas raised and leads a group discussion asking the participants to comment on the ideas presented by the different groups. In order to ensure that critique is offered in a constructive way, it must be closely monitored by the facilitator to ensure that the comments are are targeted to the analysis of the suggestions by the whole group of participants and that these do not slip into negative criticism.
Once the participants have shared and discussed their comments, the facilitator can ask the group if they have any further comments and what are the key lessons learnt from the role play that can be applied to real-life situations.
G. Lessons application – 30 minutes
Once all the groups have presented the outcomes of their work and all the flip charts have been reviewed, the facilitator and the participants work together to identify: (1) key lessons that could be extracted from this experience; (2) considerations to be kept in mind when operating to setting up strategies, interventions, services; (3) what steps could be taken to increase more effective use of this approach.
H. Closing 10 minutes
The facilitator reviews the list of insights developed in the course of the session as main outcomes and briefly present once more the IMPACT methodological assumptions related to the centrality of the human beings by using a PPT with the following list:
The facilitator should thank the participants and time should be allowed for any final questions or observations.
® 2012-2013 IMPACT
Improving and Monitoring Protection Systems
Against Child Trafficking and Exploitation