- Email: [email protected]
Child-friendly city policies in the Republic of Korea
Accepted Manuscript Child-friendly city policies in the Republic of Korea
Hyojin Nam, Seok In Nam PII: DOI: Reference:
S0190-7409(18)30340-2 doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.08.033 CYSR 3964
To appear in:
Children and Youth Services Review
Received date: Revised date: Accepted date:
25 April 2018 27 August 2018 27 August 2018
Please cite this article as: Hyojin Nam, Seok In Nam , Child-friendly city policies in the Republic of Korea. Cysr (2018), doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.08.033
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Child-Friendly City Policies in the Republic of Korea Hyojin Nam1, Seok In Nam2,* [email protected] 1
PhD student, School of Social Welfare, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea
2
Associate Professor, School of Social Welfare, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea
Corresponding Author:
PT
Seok In Nam
RI
School of Social Welfare, Yonsei University, 50 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 03722, South
SC
Korea Email: [email protected]
NU
Phone Number: 82-2-2123-6218 Fax Number: 82-2-2123-8656
MA
Abstract
This study was conducted to investigate the Child-Friendly City policies of seven
D
municipalities certified as such by UNICEF Korea through April 2016. These policies were
TE
analyzed in terms of six elements suggested by Chamber & Bonk: goals, forms of benefits and
EP
services, eligibility rules, administration and delivery, financing, and interaction. From this research, implications were derived, such as the need for focused policies, the guarantee of
AC C
practical participation, active publicity and secure budgets, and construction of organizations and cooperative networks for supporting child-friendly cities; furthermore, this study suggests specific alternatives to compensate for policy limitations. Specifically, the study provides substantive information, ideals, and values, and suggests ideas for institutional improvement of cities that want to join UNICEF’s Child-Friendly Cities Initiative. Key words: Child-friendly city, Policy analysis, Comparative policy, Child’s rights, Participation right
Funding: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1. Introduction The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is the world's fastest and most widely ratified human-rights treaty, which 196 countries have joined since its
PT
adoption in 1989 at the UN General Assembly (UNICEF, 2017). Since then, it has faced a significant turning point in changing a perspective on children. The view requires that children
RI
be recognized as having rights as members of society. However, how should we absorb the
SC
UNCRC's perspective into the real world in which we live in Korea? In order to answer this question, an objective and incisive diagnosis of the current situation in the Republic of
NU
Korea was necessary. According to the 2016 Organization for Economic Co-operation
MA
(OECD) Economic Survey of Korea, the Republic of Korea (ROK) has the 11th largest economy in the world and has achieved remarkable economic growth during the past two
D
decades.
TE
However, on the other side of the exponential economic growth, many social issues have emerged. As of 2015, a large gap remained in the employment rates between men and women of
EP
prime age in Korea; for those of ages 25-54, the gap was 24.2%, compared with average of
AC C
18.3% in OECD countries (OECD, 2016a). Moreover, the labor market segmentation in the ROK has increased the proportion of youth not in employment, education, or training, known as NEETs; in Korea the proportion is 84%, whereas the OECD average in 20131 was 56%. As a result, young people are entering the labor market later, which is increasing the maternal age at first childbirth: The average is 31 years old in ROK compared with the OECD average of 28.7 years (OECD, 2016b). Additionally, Korea recorded the world’s lowest fertility rate which is 1.24 children per woman in 2011 (OECD, 2014). These statistics show that Korea has a difficult environment, where younger people have children.
1
Korea's labor-market fragmentation has been caused by the marked differences in wages, employment stability, and working conditions for full-time versus part-time workers and corporations versus small and medium-sized enterprises. This makes young people delay entry into the labor market and pursue additional training or certification in order to find work. This additional training takes place outside of the formal education system, and thus, labor-market statistics include NEETs who are not looking for jobs (OECD, 2016c).
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT The question then becomes Are the children happy in this nation with the world's lowest fertility rate? Are we ready to accept children as citizens of our society? In 2014, only 2% of 25- to 34-year-olds did not complete high school, compared with the OECD average of 16.4% (OECD, 2016b). However, the average suicide rate among children and youth aged 10-24 declined by 15.6% points in OECD countries from 2000 to 2010, but Korea recorded a sizable
PT
increase, of 46.9% points. In addition, life satisfaction among children under age 15 is 5.8
RI
points on an 11-step ladder from 0-10, ranking 37th among 47 countries, compared with the
SC
OECD average of 6.6 points (OECD, 2016c).
Given these data, what should we worry about and what do we prepare for? Children are
NU
our future and reflect our societies, and thus, building happy societies for the children is the primary task of nations to prepare for the future. In this regard, creating child-friendly cities
MA
(CFCs) is a challenge for both national and local municipalities as well as for communities and
members of societies overall.
D
all society members. CFCs are likely to create both happy children and, ultimately, happy
TE
UNICEF’s Child-Friendly Cities Initiative movements have been spreading around the
EP
world since the 2000s, and already more than 1,300 cities in more than 30 countries have been re-interpreting the concept of child-friendly environments and participating in these movements
AC C
(Kim et al., 2014; UNICEF, 2017). In this context, developing countries tend to focus on health care, nutrition, education, and child-care services as major challenges, whereas developed countries tend to focus primarily on urban planning, safe and child-friendly environments, and children's participation (Nikku & Pokhrel, 2013). In keeping with this global trend, seven municipalities in the Republic of Korea have been certified as child-friendly cities, beginning with Seongbuk-Gu in 2013, and they are rapidly spreading throughout the country (UNICEF Korea, 2017). These efforts are meaningful as realistic responses to the difficult realities of today’s Korean society; they are specific ways to realize children’s happiness and guarantee their rights through active policymaking. Therefore, it is important to investigate how CFC policies are proceeding and what leaders
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT are doing. Currently, there have been various case studies of CFCs in many countries (Corsi, 2002; Gökmen & Gülay Taşçı, 2016; Horelli, 1998; Nikku & Pokhrel, 2013; Osman El Hassan, 2013; Woolcock, Gleeson, & Randolph, 2010), but there aren't enough such case studies in Korea. Current studies in the ROK have included research on developing evaluation indicators and
PT
the recognition survey of child-friendly cities (Hong & Lee, 2011, 2013). Recently, there have
RI
been discussions of the environmental components of CFCs (Choi, 2013; Kim, 2014) and
SC
aspects of the urban planning and management for these cities (Kim, 2010; Lee, 2010). In addition, the National Youth Policy Development Institute is conducting long-term studies
NU
(Kim, Lim, & Kim, 2014). But most of these studies focus on justifying the Child-Friendly Cities Initiative, and there is lack of empirical descriptions or analyses of the policies of
MA
municipalities certified as CFCs.
At this point, it is important to look at the current status of CFCs and analyze the relevant
D
policies, because such analysis will produce practical information and direction for many
TE
municipalities, not only in Korea but also in other countries that are attempting to have child-
EP
friendly cities. In addition, such research will offer significant implications for other countries that are engaging in similar processes, because Korea is in a stage of starting CFCs.
AC C
Therefore, in this study, I describe the policies of the ROK’s child-friendly cities by analyzing six elements about policies of the seven municipalities that have been certified by UNICEF Korea. Through this analysis, this study will present concrete directions and alternatives for developing CFCs in the real world.
2. What is a child-friendly city? The concept of the child-friendly city originated from the UN Habitat II Conference on Human Settlement in 1996. Since then, the concept has spread worldwide, and many countries and cities are participating in building CFCs (UNICEF, 2017). UNICEF explains CFCs as follows:
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT A child friendly city is the embodiment of the Convention on the Rights of the Child at the local level, which in practice means that children’s rights are reflected in policies, laws, programmes and budgets. In a child friendly city, children are active agents; their voices and opinions are taken into consideration and influence decision making processes 2 (UNICEF, 2017).
PT
That is, in child-friendly cities, local communities carry the basic philosophy into action and
RI
guarantee the well-being of all children under 18 (UNICEF Korea, 2017). In ideal CFCs,
SC
children can
influence decisions about their city, express their opinion on the city they want, participate
NU
in family, community and social life, receive basic services such as health care and education, drink safe water and have access to proper sanitation, be protected from
play, have
green
spaces
MA
exploitation, violence and abuse, walk safely in the streets on their own, meet friends and for plants
and
animals,
D
environment, participate in cultural and social events, and
live in
an
unpolluted
be an equal citizen of their
TE
city with access to every service, regardless of ethnic origin, religion, income, gender or
EP
disability3 (UNICEF, 2017).
Building CFCs is synonymous with implementing the Convention on the Rights of the Child
AC C
in local settings (UNICEF, 2017). The UNICEF International suggests nine principles based on international standards: children’s participation, a child-friendly legal framework, a citywide children’s rights strategy, a children’s rights unit or coordinating mechanism, child impact assessment and evaluation, a child budget, a regular State of the City children report, making children’s rights known, and independent advocacy for children4. Along with the
2
The definition has changed slightly since 2018. The recent version is at https://childfriendlycities.org/what-is-achild-friendly-city. 3 In recent, it was revamped as follows: children can be protected from exploitation, violence and abuse, have a good start in life and grow up healthy and cared for, have access to quality social services, experience quality, inclusive and participatory education and skills development, express their opinions and influence decisions that affect them, participate in family, cultural, city/community and social life, live in a safe secure and clean environment with access to green spaces, meet friends and have places to play and enjoy themselves, and have a fair chance in life regardless of their ethnic origin, religion, income, gender or ability. https://childfriendlycities.org/what-is-a-child-friendly-city 4 The revised guiding principles are as in the following: non-discrimination, best interests of the child, the
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT above nine principles, the Korean Committee for UNICEF had added one provision: action for children's safety5 (UNICEF Korea, 2017).
3. Status of child-friendly cities
PT
Municipalities participating in the CFC Initiative are implementing various policies to improve children’s rights and welfare under the principles outlined above and obtain UNICEF
RI
CFC status. Under these principles, municipalities continue to make efforts to expand children's
SC
rights and become better places to live.
Child-Friendly City Initiatives began in Europe in 1996 and have spread to many countries in
NU
worldwide. CFCs which are based on the CRC ratified by 196 countries except USA of UN member states currently records over 30 countries throughout East Europe, East Asia, Central
MA
Asia, Africa, Middle East, Latin America, Pacific and Caribbean areas (UNICEF, 2017). Specifically, CFCs in France began in 2002 through a partnership with the National Committee of
TE
D
UNICEF and the Association of France’s Mayors, and as of August 2016, 208 cities had joined; France is known as one of the oldest and most extensive programs in the UNICEF
EP
initiative (Sedletzki, 2017). Additionally, Finland’s CFCI started as a two-year pilot project in 2012; 13 municipalities are participating, and 18.8% of the population under age 18 has
AC C
benefited (Guerreiro, 2017a). Additionally, Germany established CFCs in 2012 and there are now 12 such cities (Guerreiro, 2017b); Switzerland had 26 participating municipalities beginning in 2009, and nine have been recertified (Lansdown, Wernham, Guerreiro, & Sedletzki, 2017). As mentioned above, UNICEF Korea qualifies each municipality as a child-friendly city based on the 10 principles discussed above. The specific certification procedure is as follows:
First, a local municipal head applies for certification as a CFC to the UNICEF committee, inherent right to life, survival and development, respect for the views of the child, equity and inclusion, accountability and transparency, public participation, effectiveness and responsiveness, adaptability and sustainability. More details at https://childfriendlycities.org/guiding-principals 5 UNICEF Korea’s website is http://www.unicef.or.kr/education/korea/choice_city.asp
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT and the committee gives each head a self-assessment checklist. Next, the Evaluation Committee judges the materials presented by each municipality. Then each certified municipality presents an interim report, and the Evaluation Committee makes the decision whether to reauthorize or not after every two years. (UNICEF Korea, 2017) Seongbuk-Gu in Seoul, was recognized as the first CFC in Korea in 2013, and to date, seven
PT
municipalities nationwide have been certified. In order to assist municipalities with becoming
RI
CFCs, the Korean Committee for UNICEF has been supporting their efforts through the
SC
APCFC. The association was launched in September 2015 with the voluntary participation of 27 municipalities in Korea. It aims to support CFC projects by establishing a CFC certification
NU
network for municipalities to share their best practices and failures. UNICEF Korea explains the major functions of the Association for Promoting Child-
MA
Friendly Cities (APCFC): support CFC initiatives and international solidarity in central and local municipalities; build child-friendly communities by improving environmental elements
D
such as safety, culture, and leisure activities; provide information about implementing the
TE
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; exchange CFC implementation best practices;
EP
promote education for citizens; and encourage participation (UNICEF Korea, 2017). In this context, Korea has hastened to join this movement, and seven municipalities had been certified
AC C
as CFCs as of May 2017. Additionally, 34 municipalities are moving forward with plans to participate through the APCFC.
4. Applying child-friendly cities to real-world contexts: Literature Review In the early CFC related studies, there were conducted mainly on concepts, philosophy, and disputes (Chatterjee, 2005; Chawla, 2001; Godfrey et al., 2012; Hong & Lee, 2013; Kim et al., 2014; Lansdown et al., 2017; UNICEF, 2017; Woolcock & Steele, 2008) and, after then, appeared various case studies based on CFCs experience (Bridgman, 2004; Horelli, 1998; Kingston, et al., 2007; Gökmen & Gülay Taşçı, 2016; Malone, 2013; Nikku & Pokhrel, 2013; Osman El Hassan, 2013; Racelis & Aguirre, 2002). In current, related studies are spreading
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT beyond the field of humanities and sociology to various fields that can be put into practical child's lives in real urban, architectural, ecological environment and health fields, and so on.
4-1. Ideal Child-friendly Cities: Philosophy & Indicators A World Fit for Children, announced in the UN's 27th Special Session, is based on the
PT
UNCRC. It covers basic guarantees for children's rights along with the two principles of non-
RI
discrimination and children's best interests. UNESCO’s Growing Up in Cities discusses how
SC
urban environments are appropriate and ideal for children (Chawla, 2001; Malone, 2006); it is divided into positive and negative dimensions of the social and physical aspects of these
NU
environments. And UNICEF developed Child-friendly Community Assessment Tools to provide comprehensive checklists for the conditions that children need in their living
MA
environments (UNICEF, 2017). The UNICEF checklists are advantageous in that they make concrete and available indicators for most measurable areas related to children's lives.
D
However, these indicators are designed to take into account the universal circumstances of
TE
international organizations, and they are limited in reflecting individual countries’ economic
EP
and social circumstances. Thus, each country has attempted to create indexes of various areas that meet their national contexts (Chatterjee, 2005; Godfrey et al., 2012; Lansdown, Wernham,
AC C
Guerreiro, & Sedletzki, 2017; Villanueva et al., 2016; Woolcock & Steele, 2008). In Korea, the National Youth Policy Institute developed the Youth Happiness Community Index based on the CFC concept (Kim et al., 2014), and Hong and Lee (2013) also developed a measurement tool to evaluate CFC’s level in the children’s lives. Although these indicators differ somewhat in terms of definitions and contents of CFCs according to the development agency, the common point is that they measure whether children's rights are being realized.
4-2. Real Child-friendly Cities: Case Studies The various experiences and projects of CFCs have been published in case studies and are
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT not difficult to find. Currently, CFCs are being implemented in 34 countries around the world (UNICEF, 2017), and case studies of each were published in various experiences and projects according to their unique environment and conditions. Projects in developing countries were focused on programs to improve the basic rights of children (Gökmen & Gülay Taşçı, 2016; Nikku & Pokhrel, 2013; Osman El Hassan, 2013;
PT
Racelis & Aguirre, 2002), whereas the case studies conducted in Australia, Europe, the
RI
Americas, and Canada show examples of practices for ensuring participation rights, public-
SC
private partnerships, success cases, and CFC infrastructure and institutional systems (Bridgman,
NU
2004; Horelli, 1998; Kingston, et al., 2007; Malone, 2013).
4-3. Building the Child-friendly Cities: Environments and Policies
MA
The CFC is an honorary qualification awarded by UNICEF to municipalities that are committed to improving laws, institutional systems, and environment to protect child's basic
D
rights and citizenship. Thus, related studies cover all areas of children’s lives, but one of these
TE
categories is greatly concerned with policies and environments.
EP
In particular, in the fields of urban environment, or architecture, studies provide institutional and policy ideas for assessing the level of child's mobility and environmental rights (Björklid &
AC C
Nordström, 2007; Broberg, Kyttä, & Fagerholm, 2013 ; Kyttä, 2004; Whitzman, Worthington, & Mizrachi, 2010). These fields also point out the effect and level of urbanizing on children (Woolcock, Gleeson, & Randolph, 2010), and present alternatives and experiences that can lead to children's opinions and participation in urban planning and designs (Derr & Tarantini, 2016; Freeman & Tranter, 2012; McAllister, 2008). On the other hand, there are case studies on a single project of CFCs, as mentioned above, but there are not enough studies suggesting characteristics and level of overall policy of CFCs. However, Corsi (2002) examines policies at national and local levels to support CFCs in Italy describes how these policies have been achieved, and thus can offer useful and specific information to CFCs in worldwide.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
5. Methods 5-1. Resources and Process of Analysis The objects of this study are limited to the policies of the seven Korean municipalities that
PT
have been certified as CFCs through April 2017. In order to evaluate the statuses of local CFC policies and projects by municipality, I conducted a literature review using a policy analysis
RI
framework. The materials I reviewed included documentation such as administrative guidelines,
SC
CFC plans, autonomous ordinances, newspaper articles, and budget documents from each municipality, along with academic research.
NU
The laws I reviewed were 17 autonomous ordinances, and the administrative documents were five CFC plan reports, seven budget documents, and 19 policies or budgets posted on
MA
municipal websites. From the research literature I reviewed two child-impact assessments, one children’s rights investigation, one survey on children, and two policy studies of a national
TE
D
institute. In order to analyze the characteristics, progress, and achievements of CFC policies, I also reviewed 32 public documents, including local newsletters. I used recent data,
EP
since 2015, to ensure the accuracy of my analysis findings.
AC C
5-2. Framework of social-welfare policy analysis Chambers and Bonk (2012) suggested a framework including six elements which are goals, forms of benefits and services, eligibility rules, service delivery systems, financing, and interactions. Because this framework is proposed for value-critical appraisal of social policies and programs, in contrast to previous frameworks focused mainly on a problem-centered approach, Chambers and Bonk (2012) presented six criteria which are proper to value-centered policies. The value-centered appraisal is likely to be proper for a policy with strengths perspective. Chapin (1995) remarked that “The strengths perspective is rooted in the belief that people can continue to grow and change and should have equal access to resources.” This view accords with the philosophy of the CFC policies based on the CRC.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Therefore, in this study, we attempted to analyze Korea CFCs’ policies using the six elements of the value-critical appraisal framework suggested by Chambers and Bonk (2012).
5-2-1. Goals When analyzing policies, the first question is: What is an ultimate goal for this policy?
PT
Chambers and Bonk (2012) cited that what is to be achieved by this benefit should correspond
NU
5-2-2. Forms of Benefits and Services
SC
assessing implications and the fit of goals in this analysis.
RI
to the policy’s purpose and goal. So, we focus on describing the specifics of CFCs’ goals and
The analysis of benefits and services is related to what forms the benefit takes. These services
MA
can be divided into personal social services and expert services, and the benefits can be classified as vouchers, subsidies, power over decisions, and hard benefits, such as cash, goods,
D
and commodities (Chambers & Bonk, 2012). In order to analyze benefits and services,
TE
Chambers and Bonk(2012) suggested considering implications and fit, and examining specifics;
EP
stigmatization, target efficiency, cost effectiveness, substitutability, consumer sovereignty, trade-offs, coerciveness, complexity and cost of administration, adaptability across users, and
AC C
political risk. Therefore, we would like to discuss the implications and fits of the benefits and services by examining the overall polices’ characteristics and analyzing the forms of the benefits provided.
5-2-3. Eligibility rules A question about who is entitled to the benefit relates to issues such as stigma, social integration, and cost effectiveness through either selectivism or universalism. Universal policies that provide benefits to all can play an important role in human dignity and social integration, but there is the problem of financial resources. Selectivism has the disadvantage of possible stigmatization, and analyzing the appropriateness and duplication or omission of objects
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT remains important (Chamber & Bonk, 2012; Gabel, 2016; Gilbert & Terrell, 2002; Nam, 2015). CFCs’ policies follow rights-based approaches to uphold the values of the UNCRC, and thus we attempted to analyze the appropriateness of eligibility rules focusing on the child’s participation rights, which is not only featured in CFCs but also core in the CRC as well.
PT
5-2-4. Administration and Service Delivery
RI
Administration and service delivery focuses on outcomes, not the end product itself through
SC
a delivery system of the policy. There are important analysis points such as integrity and continuity, accessibility, and accountability (Chambers & Bonk, 2012). Gilbert and Terrell
NU
(2002) also stated that it is possible to solve problems such as fragmentation, discontinuity, inaccessibility, and unaccountability by means of strategic choices, such as restructuring
MA
authority and control or rearranging task assignments.
Therefore, for this study, we analyzed outcomes and specifics on the CFCs’ administrative
EP
5-2-5. Financing
TE
D
and delivery systems and suggested implications and applicable alternatives.
The analysis of the financing dealt with how to secure budgets and design finance (Chamber
AC C
& Bonk, 2012; Gilbert & Terrell, 2002). Securing sufficient financial resources is a stable basis for realizing policy goals, and the nature of funding channels affects policy continuity, inclusiveness, and professionalism (Gilbert & Terrell, 2002). In addition, Chamber & Bonk (2012) stated that most public policies based on tax revenue are a financial resource for stability and continuity, but may be affected by political processes and issues. For financing, CFCs' policies presented the general account budgets that can secure the autonomy of each municipality’s CFC-related projects. Therefore, we discussed the continuity, inclusiveness, and expertise of related policies in terms of the stability of financial resources.
5-2-6. Interactions
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT In the policy implementation, the above-mentioned five elements are almost never singular or isolated and there are interactions that are either intended or accidental, depending on the situation (Chamber & Bonk, 2012). For example, the interaction between a goal and a form of benefit can be considered to be about conformity between recipient’s spending and intended purpose. Chamber and Bonk (2012) suggested an analysis of the interactions of policy elements.
PT
Therefore, my final analysis presented interactions based on criteria of consistency between
RI
elements.
SC
5-3. Coverage of Analysis
NU
The purpose of this study is to present the problems of developing child-friendly cities in Korea and to suggest reasonable directions for accommodating social demands. Specifically,
MA
my study subjects are the policies and projects of seven municipalities certified by UNICEF Korea as CFCs as of April 2017. The data for the analysis came from 2016 for all but two sites;
D
for Wanju-Gun I used 2015 data, and for Gangdong-Gu I used data from 2017. For this
TE
systematic study, I analyzed five systems according to frameworks suggested by Gilbert and
EP
Terrell and Nam. In addition, I attempted to focus more on the aspect of guaranteeing children’s
AC C
citizenship and participation rights.
6. Results
As of April 2017, seven of the 243 municipalities6 in Korea have been certified as childfriendly cities, many others are accelerating to CFC certification, and 39 have joined the APCFC.
6-1. Goals The vision statements for six of the 7 certified child-friendly cities in Korea (Sungbuk- Gu is 6
There are 17 special cities in the Republic of Korea (teukbyeol-si) or provinces (do): one special city, one metropolitan autonomous city, six metropolitan cities, eight metropolitan provinces, and one special self-governing province. The country also has 75 cities (si), 82 counties (gun), and 69 districts (gu). The number of municipalities nationwide is 243 (KOSIS, 2016)
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT the exception) have in common a reference to the key words “happy child” or “livable.” Of these, Gunsan City and Dobong-Gu focus on children’s participation rights by including the terms “respect for children” and “participation of children” in their vision. Seongbuk-Gu in Seoul City is different, in that it has been certified since 2013 and presents a more specific vision of “Settling in a Child-Friendly City.”
PT
The goals of the child-friendly cities' policies are ensuring the four basic rights of children; in
RI
other words, it is clear that each CFC’s policy is based on children’s rights. Unlike the policy
SC
goals, the detailed projects differ by municipality, from as few as 39 to as many as 200, as shown in Table 1. However, even though the policies have some of the same contents, some
NU
municipalities are grouped together in large units, whereas others are proceeding with many detailed projects in small units. For example, in Seongbuk-Gu, which has the fewest detailed
MA
projects, its participation policy supports three detailed projects, Children and Youth Participation Organizations, Promotion of Child and Youth Participation Projects, and
D
Participation of Children and Youth through Media Education and Utilization. However, in
TE
Gunsan-City, where the participation rights policy is based on that of Seongbuk-Gu, 11 detailed
EP
projects are proposed, including a child and youth council, a policy proposal for a child happiness city, a youth art festival, youth club activity support, and a youth steering committee.
AC C
The common feature of policies’ goals is that the contents are all based on children’s rights despite detailed differences of policy areas by municipalities. Policies' composition includes contents of overall life related with the survival, protection, development, and participation rights of the child. The direction of the goals setting is appropriate as the point that CFCs' policies were based on child rights, but it may be difficult to evaluate concrete performances because of the inclusive and ambiguous goals in broader areas, whereas in Seongbuk-gu, it is featured to focus more on CFC's infrastructure and environment than on overall welfare for children.
6-2. Forms of Benefits and Services
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT In order to analyze the social provision dimension, I first divided each municipality’s detailed projects into the UNCRC’s four children’s rights. After Table 2 describes the features above, it shows how the projects are distributed across the forms of benefits and services. The analyses of the forms of benefits and services of children’s rights showed that six provincial municipalities had many detailed projects dealing with development, protection,
PT
survival, and participation rights (excluding Dobong-Gu), as Table 2 shows. The common
RI
characteristic of all municipalities is that most of their projects were related to children’s
SC
development (minimum, 44.4% of total project volume; maximum, 63%). In the development area, the detailed projects contained support for institutions, such as child care
NU
and child development facilities, schools, and libraries, and for various child specialty programs, human resources development, infrastructure for CFCs, and construction of local
MA
networks. In short, the detailed development projects have a wide range of features that entail direct provisions to children, such as education and child care services, as well as
D
indirect services, such as creating infrastructures that support child-friendly environments.
TE
The primary characteristic of the development rights area is that most of the CFCs target
EP
this area of children’s welfare.
For children’s survival and protection rights, in most municipalities, roughly 10% of
AC C
the total projects were in the area of survival rights, and protection rights projects ranged from 10% to roughly 30% of projects. Detailed survival-rights projects were primarily related to social-security policies, such as projects related to children's vaccination, health and nutrition, and vulnerability. In the children’s protection rights area, however, there were safetyrelated projects, such as closed-circuit television extension, facility maintenance, improvements to local environments, and establishing and extending facilities, such as childcare centers and kindergartens. Thus, detailed projects in the areas of survival and protection rights were often related and were carried out at the national level. Whereas the survival, protection, and development rights areas mainly related to providing direct and indirect benefits for children’s welfare, the detailed participation projects involved more active guarantees of
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT children’s rights beyond solely their welfare. In other words, the participation area policies most reflected the ideas of CFCs. However, the municipalities had the fewest detailed projects in the participation area, ranging from 5% to 8.8%. Fully realizing CFCs requires better developing of participation area projects. Policy analyzers emphasized the relevance and appropriateness of the forms of benefits and
PT
services for policy purposes (Chamber & Bonk, 2012; Gilbert & Terrell, 2002). Therefore, in
RI
order to examine the overall policy salary patterns, the detailed projects from the seven
SC
municipalities were classified by forms of benefits and services, as presented in Figure1. As previously analyzed, CFC policies and projects relate to children both directly and indirectly.
NU
Additionally, many of these detailed projects were provided as either services/subsidies or goods/commodities benefits; these two benefits account for 65% of the total. It can be
MA
interpreted that goods/commodities and services/subsidies are more suitable for the unique characteristics of growing and developing children than are cash benefits or vouchers.
D
However, given that CFC policies are oriented toward rights-based values, it would be desirable
TE
to provide children with benefits such as power over decisions and opportunity that would
EP
guarantee their citizenship rights.
The above analysis suggests that more focused policy designs are needed rather than
AC C
attempts to include all child-related policies extensively. Efforts are also needed to include children’s voices in terms of selection-oriented benefits rather than control-oriented benefits by policymakers. It is also necessary to consider increasing children’s power and opportunity benefits centered on guaranteeing their citizenship.
6-3. Eligibility rules As discussed earlier, these policies comprise extensive scopes and contents, and also many projects were relocated from existing child-related welfare services into CFC policies. In other words, Korea's CFCs appear to be governed by broad, comprehensive policies including the somewhat CFC-specialized projects of each municipality. Therefore, it is virtually impossible
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT to examine the social allocation characteristics of all CFC-related policies. Given that CFCs are rights based, the assignment dimension analysis addressed only the participation rights area, because this area best reflects both children’s rights and CFC traits. Currently, the participation-rights policy contents differ somewhat by detailed municipality projects, but they can be divided into active policies, such as those related to decisionmaking
PT
and expressing opinions, and passive policies regarding participating in programs. Five sites,
RI
(Seongbuk-Gu and Songpa-Gu are exceptions) showed more passive than active participation.
SC
For passive participation, it is important to give children opportunities, but most children receive
making programs or provide their opinions.
NU
programs provided by adults, and there are no systems in which children can participate in
Table 3 shows that all municipalities found participatory mechanisms to reflect children's
MA
voices and guarantee their active participation rights. Primarily, three sites have councils, and seven have committees to support their child-related policies; some sites have reporters or
D
campaigns for children to freely express their voices. However, when we look at the contents in
TE
detail, we see clearly that even in the Child and Youth Congress project, which follows a
EP
representative democratic approach, child representatives are mainly chosen indirectly, such as through open recruitment, rather than directly elected, which takes place at only one site, in
AC C
Gangdong-Gu. Although the members of the congresses vote on their compositions and positions, the congresses are first organized by adults through first-come, first-served policies or lotteries, so their legitimacy and child representation are low. As with the child and youth congresses, the child and youth committees are separate, and in many cases, participants were selected or recommended. In addition, the committees’ terms of office are one year and the members are recruited annually; each committee is composed of approximately 30 members except for those in Songpa-Gu and Gangdong-Gu. These forms of the participatory organizations lower the accessibility to information and lead to the formal participation of some children and youth interested rather than allowing for all children to freely express their opinions democratically. In addition to the
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT traditional hierarchical culture of Korea, the country’s social atmosphere is unfamiliar with the guarantee of children’s and youth’s participation rights, which is a stumbling block against their active expression and decisionmaking. Given that CFCs started as a movement to ensure that child's basic rights, the guarantee of participation must be open to all children, not just some selected children, and more specific
PT
efforts are needed to achieve this. As part of this effort, five sites, Seongbuk-Gu, Gunsan-City,
RI
Geumjeong-Gu, Songpa-Gu, and Gangdong-Gu, added CFC-related pages to their websites.
SC
However, there are problems over whether all children have access to these pages and can
NU
express their opinions freely.
6-4. Administrative and Service Delivery
MA
In order to examine whether the municipalities’ CFC policies are being effectively realized,
accessibility, and accountability.
D
the administrative and service delivery systems were analyzed with a focus on continuity,
TE
First, it is important to continuously and consistently implement policies and detailed projects
EP
in order to bring change in real life. In Korea's CFCs, various attempts have been made to be able to implement policy sustainability. For example, Seongbuk-Gu, Wanju- gun, Gunsan-city,
AC C
and Songpa-Gu released midterm plans or budgets for three or four years7 for continuity and consistency. Two municipalities, Seongbuk-Gu and Gangdong-Gu, developed performance indicators for measuring trends and outcomes, assessing current situations, and deciding on future directions. However, it is difficult to realize the ideals of the CFC, which is the key to improving citizens’ awareness and children’s real participation, through medium-term policies. In a 2016 Geumjeong-Gu survey on children8, only 4.9% of respondents answered that they knew much about CFCs, although 25.9% reported having heard of them before; 69.2% of respondents did not know much about them. This trend also appeared in Seongbuk-Gu’s A 7
In accordance with one of the principles of child-friendly cities, Korea’s CFCs publish annual budgets and project plans. 8 The municipality of Geumjeong-Gu published a child-impact assessment of its status as a child-friendly city that reported on middle- and high-school students’ recognition of CFCs.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Report on Child and Youth’s Right Investigation, and 45.1% and 30.4% of children and youth, respectively, were aware of CFCs (KHRPI, 2016). Given that these surveys were administered in municipalities that had already been certified as CFCs, these results show that the citizens’ recognition of children is far less than the municipalities’ enthusiasm and promotion. In order to lead to true changes, a consistent and long-lasting commitment to CFC policies is
PT
needed, but the present system excessively depends on municipalities’ willingness to
RI
implement these policies. It may be difficult to have long-term, continuous practices. That’s
SC
why i t’ s important to have sufficient professional human resources to promote policies in addition to policymakers’ clear goal setting and willingness implement policies. In Ta bl e 4,
NU
all municipalities have specialty teams or divisions for the CFC, and three to nine public officers in each municipality who work only on CFCs.; however, these numbers count only the
MA
eligible staff members in the CFC specialty departments, whereas the detailed projects are not housed only within the specialty departments but in fact range both directly and indirectly
D
across all departments; that is, there are many more officers involved in detailed projects than
TE
only the dedicated CFC officers. Even so, it is difficult for administrative officials to operate the
EP
present large-scale detailed projects directly with expertise. It is therefore important to build a delivery system that actively cooperates with and uses local networks and resources, such as
AC C
local private agencies or councils. Additionally, in order to secure specialty and accountability and reflect the environmental characteristics and unique traits of each municipality, independent and subjective policymaking is essential, and supporting agencies are needed to assist municipalities’ efforts. The National Youth Policy Institute referred to the need to establish CFC support centers in central and local municipalities (Oh, Kim, & Jeong, 2015). Hubs for professional advisors and partnerships would not only help to ensure professionalism but also provide long-term direction, which is one way to resolve the fragmentation and discontinuity. The problem of lack of access also needs to be addressed. It is a key issue that determines the success or failure of policies for children and youth. because it relates to certain developmental
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT aspects. If physical, psychological, and environmental accessibilities are not guaranteed for children, regardless of how good the policies are, the benefits to children will be more restricted than are those for adults. However, as noted above, Korea’s CFC policies are being implemented with the strong willingness of the municipalities, and children’s voluntary participation in and awareness of CFCs is very low. This suggests that children’s
PT
participation rights have not been established and that their lack of access is an obstacle.
RI
In order to solve these problems, it is necessary actively promote and extend
SC
children’s participation and build systems for hearing children’s opinions. One way to increase access is through public-private partnerships that use community networks and resources (Oh et
NU
al., 2015); possibilities include child-friendly programs and spaces where children are active, such as schools, child-care centers, youth-training facilities, and child-welfare facilities. Although
MA
each municipality uses a private-public partnership to realize policies, its approach is a passively top-down way by subsidizing programs or operations. Encouraging children’s
D
participation and reflecting their opinions in policies require cooperative efforts to change
TE
children’s real-world environments rather than ha ve onl y one-sided policies initiated by
EP
municipalities.
AC C
6-5. Finance system
The financial system analysis focused on the appropriateness of policy goals by examining budget ratios and funding sources. Funding sources were divided into district, special city, metropolitan, province, or national level; Table 5 presents the ratios of CFC funds in each municipality’s total budget, including subsidies from higher authorities. The municipal self-reliance ratio was the highest at 43.8% in Seongbuk-Gu, and most municipalities had self-reliance ratios of 30%; the lowest proportion, 10%, was in GeumjeongGu. This demonstrates that higher authorities’ policies constitute a large part of CFCs. It is more advantageous to give CFC certifications at local levels, such as in counties or districts, rather than at the national level for reflecting children’s voices and making actual changes in
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT their lives. Therefore, it is desirable to stably secure municipal budgets to allow cities to carry out their unique policies. The CFC budget ratios in each municipality ranged from less than 6% to less than 30% of the general accounts, and most ratios were over 20% of the totals. However, simple comparison does not fully take into account each municipality’s budget situation or regional
PT
background, so we tried to calculate the budget ratio per child for clearer comparison.
RI
Excluding Seongbuk-Gu, which distinguishes itself from other municipalities in terms of CFC
SC
policy composition, the annual expenditure per child is 1 million to 3 million KRW. Wanju-Gun’s CFC budget was only 9% of the general account, but its expenditure per child
NU
was the highest, at 3 million KRW annually. This appears to include not only direct costs to children but also large overhead costs, such as expanding facilities and funding child-care center
MA
operations. In fact, Songpa-Gu9 (2016) presented in Songpa’s 2016 child-friendly city plan that the average direct cost per child in the annual CFC budget was 8,400 KRW. but the annual cost
D
including overhead costs was 760,000 won. Because overhead costs include indirect costs, such
TE
as subsidies to third parties such as welfare or private cooperation organizations, we can infer
EP
that there are considerable differences between the direct cost and the overhead costs. Looking at the budget ratios by area, it can be seen that most municipal budgets are
AC C
concentrated in the development area, because there are more development policies than policies for other areas; however, the common characteristic among them is that the budget share for the participation area does not exceed 1%. Five sites even showed budget shares of less than 0.3% in the participation area. Even though the proportions of detailed projects in the participation area are only 4–8% of the total project proportions, the budget proportions for the participation area are far below this level. In short, there appear to be considerable limits in securing the child’s participation right, which is not only a lack of policy efforts to reflect
9
The budget per child was calculated by simply dividing the total CFC-related budget by the number of children. Because the CFC projects differ widely in category and number across municipalities, it was difficult to simply compare the budgets but I could estimate the approximate proportions of the budgets per child. For Seongbuk-Gu, the project volume in 2016 was much lower than that in other cities, because the policies focused on more specialized CFC projects than did the policies in other municipalities. For example, in Seongbuk-Gu, there were 39 projects in 2016 but 113 in 2015, and the budget per child was 1.593M₩.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT children's voices even in the municipalities certified as CFCs, but also the need for active investment in project developments in this area.
6-6. Interactions
PT
Interactions mean effects or conflicts between the foregoing elements. Chamber and Bonk
RI
(2012) explained the various interaction types: co-entitlement, disentitlement, contrary effects,
SC
and duplication between elements.
The area of children's participation rights in CFCs' policies appears somewhat discordant
NU
between the elements of goals, service delivery, financing, and eligibility rules. The children's participation right is the core difference of CFCs from child-welfare policies, because welfare
MA
policies are focused on selective and essential guarantees, but CFCs are approached from a universal perspective on all children and extended to their participation right as citizens.
D
Therefore, all municipalities dealt with the guarantee of children’s participation. However,
TE
as we have analyzed in the previous sections, the share of participation policies is less than 10%,
EP
and the budget is 1% or thereabouts of the total. In addition, due to because of problems of the policies' system, eligibility rules, and administrative procedures, in there has been took close to
AC C
selective approach, not for all. But the fact that aim of participation right has to be given to all children is the key. Therefore, because it may bring on a dis-entitlement problem, such as discrimination against children and youth who are ruled out of these policies, there needs to be more delicacy in making policy plans and systems. In other words, in order to achieve the policy goals, system reformation and proper investment are needed to help most children to participate.
7.
Discussion
In Korea, CFC certification began with Seongbuk-Gu in 2013, and seven were certified as
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT CFCs by UNICEF as of April 201710. These municipalities have implemented policies and detailed projects based on children’s basic rights to survival, protection, development, and participation. Analysis of six elements of the CFCs policies suggests some implications and suggestions derived from the results, as follows. First, it is necessary to enact policies that focus on child-friendly cities. The most outstanding
PT
feature of Korea's CFCs, excluding Seongbuk-Gu, is that they feature broad, comprehensive,
RI
detailed projects directly or indirectly related to children. Many projects were shifted from
SC
existing child-welfare areas to a CFC focus through various ministries, and special projects were also developed in each municipality.
NU
Of course, given that children’s comprehensive rights should relate to their real lives, detailed CFC policies and projects should reflect children’s overall welfare, but it is doubtful whether
MA
simply expanding project and policy volume better implements the CFC Initiative. In order to establish more viable CFCs, policies and projects in existing welfare areas should be
D
maintained independently and separately; formulating and promoting specific and distinctive
TE
CFC policies will be needed. CFC-specific policies are more advantageous, in that the officers
EP
in charge are able to cooperate and coordinate efficiently, strengthen flexibility, and more accurately reflect children’s and municipalities’ realities considering the limited administrative
AC C
power of each municipality. These efforts would also better reflect the CFC spirit of highlighting the rights of all children. Second, an institutional component is needed to reflect children’s actual voices. The analysis revealed the ongoing issue of whether policies and projects actually reflect the voices of children regarding issues related to them and expand their opportunities for participating in policymaking. I found that the municipalities do not try hard to encourage children’s
10
Along with the seven cities that were the subject of the analysis through April 2017, eight
additional municipalities obtained CFC certification from May to October 2017, so there are now a total of 15 CFCs in Korea.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT participation rights; on average, only 6.6% of the total projects are in this area. In Gangdong-Gu, which has the highest budget in the participation area, the proportion is only 2% of the total budget. Given these results, Korea's CFCs appear to be struggling to find and introduce ways to involve children as active partners. Furthermore, looking at the actual participation rights projects reveals problems not only
PT
with inadequate systems to encourage children’s participation but also with administration. In
RI
all of Korea's CFCs, there are formal systems for supporting children’s participation, such as
SC
the child and youth councils and committees, but closer analysis of project contents shows that adults select or recommend the members from the initial stage. Therefore, there are problems
NU
with the legitimacy of the democratic procedure and the representation of children. Based on previous CFC initiative experiences, Lansdown et al. (2017) concluded that it is not sufficient
MA
merely to establish child and youth committees, but that children's organizations call for proper support and practical systems for their participation in local political structures.
D
For example, in France, the cities of Colomiers and Aubergenville have child and youth
TE
municipal councils in which the children participate in “shadow municipal councils,” holding
EP
meetings every other week and participating in formal events (Sedletzki, 2017). Similarly, in Hanau, Germany, child representatives from all schools work together to discuss appropriate
AC C
issues at the city level, and there are efforts to build up the municipal-level structure (Guerreiro, 2017b). The above cases reflect that it is challenging to create systems that allow for children to participate as active partners in real-world decisions, so success requires long-term investments, communities’ cooperation, and municipalities’ persistent will. Third, it is necessary to establish a mechanism to ensure substantial participation rights. In order to secure children’s participation, it is essential to design plans and encourage local community cooperation. However, it is difficult to truly guarantee children’s participation rights solely with municipalities’ enthusiasm and efforts; the limited administrative manpower is insufficient for engaging in the entire process from planning, organizing, and monitoring to implementing policies, and suggests a lack of professionalism. The most consistent problems
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT were not only poor performance in guaranteeing participation rights, but also inadequate project contents at the formal level. Therefore, in order to truly guarantee participation rights, it is necessary to establish effective mechanisms to support administrations, including increasing manpower, policies, and projects. Above all, it appears to be necessary to provide a system for supporting policies and projects
PT
through specialized facilitators who can compile and organize children's opinions; in
RI
Seongbuk-Gu’s report on its survey on children, the authors suggest such a support system
SC
(KHRPI, 2016). Wolfsburg, Germany, as part of its 2014-2018 CFCI Action Plan, operates one-year training programs to develop moderators for children and youth participation projects to
NU
help children and youth to participate effectively (Guerreiro, 2017b), and this would be a good model to follow.
MA
In addition, it is key to create a structure that children can participate in practically within the boundaries of their lives. Korea has provided free compulsory education through middle
D
school since 2001, and the high-school enrollment rate has reached 92.8% (Ministry of
TE
Education, 2011). Therefore, if it is possible to use existing infrastructures such as autonomous
EP
school organizations or to link information services into school websites, it might be possible to draw a large number of children into the field of participation. It is also necessary to
AC C
establish participation mechanisms in the actual spaces where children spend their lives, such as at community, care, and youth culture centers and welfare facilities. In fact, the National Committee in Poland suggested using existing school councils as mechanisms for child participation, which led to broad consultation with children (Lansdown et al., 2017). Fourth, active publicity, long-term plans, and stable budgets should be achieved. Realizing the value of CFCs in the real world and changing communities requires the support and participation of community members and children. However, as shown in the analysis results for CFC delivery systems, CFCs are gaining little favor in local communities compared with the municipalities’ enthusiasm. There are considerable gaps between local community recognition and municipalities as reflected in the fact that even in the CFC-certified cities, more
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT than half of the citizens were not aware of or did not know much about CFCs (KHRPI, 2016; Park, Ha, Son, & Park, 2016). The project review of "La città dei bambini-Children's City" in Italy reported that awareness-raising was a significant challenge for the future (UNICEF, 2004). Therefore, it is necessary to study issues and policies related to children from children’s perspectives and provide platforms for dissemination of the knowledge gained,
PT
such as through the websites of schools and related institutions, which will actively promote
RI
publicity and voluntary participation.
SC
More, community perceptions do not change in a short time; changes require municipalities’ long-term and sustained efforts and commitment, as well as sustainable plans and stable budget
NU
allocations (Lansdown et al., 2017; Riggio, 2002). Some Korean municipalities have mid-term policies for three or four years, but it is difficult to bring about meaningful changes in
MA
communities in such a short period. The terms of locally elected municipal heads may be a constraint on consistent implementation of policies, but it should be possible to make
D
substantial changes through stable plans and budgets.
TE
Fifth, it is necessary to establish advisory agencies or cooperative networks to support
EP
municipalities. In Korea, the APCFC, a voluntary association established in 2015, is providing forums to share successes and failures. It has also provided places for communication and
AC C
information to municipalities that wish to be CFCs, so that many municipalities can be certified in a short time. However, more than 30 municipalities are preparing for certification, and even the certified CFCs are still encountering problems. As such, to effectively address the challenges, it would be useful to establish hub or advisory agencies that can systematically support municipalities and provide information (Oh et al., 2015). At the same time, it seems necessary to establish civilian-government cooperation systems by using communities’ unique networks and residents’ associations. This will not only reduce the burden on each municipality but will also be a source for substantial changes by sharing the value of being a CFC to communities. Working with local community associations is also an opportunity to develop individual municipalities into distinctive CFCs that reflect
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT unique local color. Through the analysis of Korea’s child-friendly city policies along six elements, this study presented the CFC policy details, structures, and limitations in general. The aim of this study was not to present success stories but rather to identify current policies and provide concrete, realistic alternatives for addressing limitations. The implications derived from this study will be
PT
useful not only in Korea but also in all cities that want to become true CFCs. In addition, the
RI
concrete alternatives and policy directions are expected to have significant implications for
SC
world cities similar to those in Korea that are preparing to become CFCs. This study, however, did not present specific municipality concrete efforts but instead
NU
presented the results of comparing and analyzing the policies and projects of seven Korean municipalities certified by UNICEF as CFCs. Therefore, future studies will be required to
MA
conduct in-depth investigations of Korea's CFC cases and produce sharable results, and it is also necessary to compare Korean case studies with studies of other CFCs around the world.
D
Additionally, I hope that a future longitudinal study will show the development trajectory of
TE
Korea's CFCs and be able to contribute to global efforts to realize the true value of child-
AC C
EP
friendly cities.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT References Björklid, P., & Nordström, M. (2007). Environmental child-friendliness: collaboration and future research. Children Youth and Environments, 17(4), 388-401. Bridgman, R. (2004). Child-friendly cities: Canadian perspectives. Children Youth and Environments, 14(2), 178-200. Broberg, A., Kyttä, M., & Fagerholm, N. (2013). Child-friendly urban structures: Bullerby
PT
revisited. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 35, 110-120. Chawla, L. (2001). Putting young old ideas into action: the relevance of Growing Up in Cities to
RI
Local Agenda 21. Local Environment, 6(1), 13-25.
Chambers, D. E. & Bonk, J. F (2012). Social policy and social programs: A method for the
SC
practical public policy analyst (6th Edition). Pearson.
Chapin, R. K. (1995). Social policy development: The strengths perspective. Social work, 40(4),
NU
506-514.
Chatterjee, S. (2005). Children's friendship with place: a conceptual inquiry. Children Youth
MA
and Environments, 15(1), 1-26.
Choi, M. H. (2013). Child-friendly Design of Community Environment. Review of Architecture and Building Science, 57(9), 8-12.
D
Corsi, M. (2002). The child-friendly cities initiative in Italy. Environment and Urbanization,
TE
14(2), 169-179.
Derr, V., & Tarantini, E. (2016). “Because we are all people”: outcomes and reflections from
EP
young people's participation in the planning and design of child-friendly public spaces. Local Environment, 21(12), 1534-1556.
AC C
Gabel, S. G. (2016). A Rights-based Approach to Social Policy Analysis: Springer. Freeman, C., & Tranter, P. (2012). Children and their urban environment: Changing worlds. Routledge.Gilbert, N., & Terrell, P. (2002). Dimensions of social welfare policy: Allyn & Bacon. Godfrey, E. B., Osher, D., Williams, L. D., Wolf, S., Berg, J. K., Torrente, C., ... & Aber, J. L. (2012). Cross-national measurement of school learning environments: Creating indicators for evaluating UNICEF's Child-friendly Schools Initiative. Children and youth services review, 34(3), 546-557. Gökmen, H., & Gülay Taşçı, B. (2016). Children’s Views about Child-friendly City: A Case Study from Izmir. Megaron, 11(4), 469-482. Guerreiro, A. I. (Ed.) (2017a). The Child-Friendly Initiative in Finland: UNICEF. Guerreiro, A. I. (Ed.) (2017b). The Child-Friendly Initiative in Germany (1-20 ed.): UNICEF. Hong, S. A., & Lee, J. Y. (2011). Children and Adolescents' Assessments of Child-friendly
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Cities. Korean Journal of Child Studies, 32(2), 53-70. Hong, S. A., & Lee, J. Y. (2013). A Study on the Development and Validation of the Assessment Tool for Child-friendly Cities. Korean Journal of Child Studies, 34(4), 83104. Horelli, L. (1998). Creating child-friendly environments: case studies on children's participation in three European countries. Childhood, 5(2), 225-239.
PT
KHRPI, K. H. R. P. I. (2016). A Report of 2016 Child and Youth’s Right Investigation in Seongbuk-Gu Retrieved from
RI
Kim, J. N. (2014). Design for the Creation of Child-friendly Environment. Research Bulletin of Package Culture Design, 38, 57-66.
SC
Kim, W. S., Jeong, G. H., & Hong, M. K. (2015). A Survey on Child & Youth. Wanju-Gun.
City Development Plan. Urban Affairs, 45, 17-21.
NU
Kim, Y. H. (2010). Urban development for women and youth; Child and Youth-friendly
MA
Kim, Y. H., Lim, Y. S., & Kim, M. (2014). A Study of Youth Happiness Community’s Index and Construction Project Ⅱ. National Youth Policy Institute, 14-R15-1, 1-284. Kingston, B., Wridt, P., Chawla, L., Van Vliet, W., & Brink, L. (2007, June). Creating child-
D
friendly cities: the case of Denver, USA. In Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
TE
Engineers-Municipal Engineer (Vol. 160, No. 2, pp. 97-102). Thomas Telford Ltd. Kyttä, M. (2004). The extent of children's independent mobility and the number of actualized
EP
affordances as criteria for child-friendly environments. Journal of environmental psychology, 24(2), 179-198.
AC C
Lansdown, G., Wernham, M., Guerreiro, A. I., & Sedletzki, V. (Eds.). (2017). Toolkit for National Committees: UNICEF. Lee, W. K. (2010). Urban development for women and youth; Woman, Child and Youthfriendly City Management Strategy. Urban Affairs, 45(504), 22-26. Nam, K. M. (2015). Social Welfare Policy: Hakjisa. Nikku, B. R., & Pokhrel, R. (2013). Crafting Child‐friendly Cities: Evidence from Biratnagar Sub‐ metropolitan City, Eastern Nepal. Asian Social Work and Policy Review, 7(2), 135-150. Malone, K. (2006). United Nations: a key player in a global movement for child-friendly cities. In Creating child-friendly cities. Routledge, 25-44. McAllister, C. (2008). Child-friendly cities and land use planning: Implications for children's health. Environments, 35(3), 45. Malone, K. (2013). “The future lies in our hands”: children as researchers and environmental change agents in designing a child-friendly neighbourhood. Local Environment, 18(3),
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 372-395. Oh, H. S., Kim, S. G., & Jeong, Y. M. (2015). A Study of Youth Happiness Community’s Index and Construction Project III. National Youth Policy Institute, 15-R12-1, 1-292. Osman El Hassan, M. N. (2013). Building Child-friendly Cities in the MENA region.International Review of Education, 59(4), 489-504. Park, G. S., Ha, J. H., Son, J. Y., & Park, J. Y. (2016). Research on Child Impact Assessment of
PT
Creating Child-friendly City. Guemjeon-Gu. Racelis, M., & Aguirre, A. D. M. (2002). Child rights for urban poor children in child-friendly
RI
Philippine cities: views from the community. Environment and Urbanization, 14(2), 97113.
SC
Riggio, E. (2002). Child-friendly cities: good governance in the best interests of the child. Environment
and Urbanization, 14(2), 45-58.
NU
Sedletzki, V. (Ed.) (2017). The Child-Friendly Initiative in France: UNICEF. Song, G. W., & Kim, T. S. (1995). Social Welfare Policy: Nanam.
MA
SONGPAGU. (2016). 2016 Songpa Child-friendly City Plan, Songpa-Gu. Villanueva, K., Badland, H., Kvalsvig, A., O'Connor, M., Christian, H., Woolcock, G., ... & Goldfeld, S. (2016). Can the neighborhood built environment make a difference in
D
children's development? Building the research agenda to create evidence for place-based
TE
children's policy. Academic pediatrics, 16(1), 10-19. Wilks, J. (2010). Child-friendly cities: A place for active citizenship in geographical and
EP
environmental education. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 19(1), 25-38.
AC C
Whitzman, C., Worthington, M., & Mizrachi, D. (2010). The journey and the destination matter: Child-Friendly Cities and children's right to the City. Built Environment, 36(4), 474-486. Woolcock, G., Gleeson, B., & Randolph, B. (2010). Urban research and child-friendly cities: a new Australian outline. Children's Geographies, 8(2), 177-192. Woolcock, G., & Steele, W. (2008). Child-friendly community indicators–A literature review. Urban Research Program, Griffith University and NSW Commission for Children and Young People. Youn, J. J., Seo, Y. M., & Ko, E. H. (2015). A Study on the Evaluation of Child-Friendly Cities for Development of Child Happiness City in Gunsan City. Gunsan City.
Website DOBONG
website. (2017). Child Friendly City Initiative. Retrieved from
http://www.dobong.go.kr/Contents.asp?code=10006205 ELIS. Enhanced Local laws and regulations Information System. (2017). Retrieved from
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT http://www.elis.go.kr/ KOSIS. (2016). Population Census by Age, City, and Region in 2016. Korean Statistical Information Service. Retrieved from http://kosis.kr/search/search.do GANGDONGGU website. (2017). Child Friendly City. Retrieved from http://welfare.gangdong.go.kr/site/contents/bokji/html01/html00/index1.html?t=15125 79771908 website.
(2017).
Children
in
Geumjeong-Gu. Retrieved
PT
GEUMJEONGGU
from
http://www.geumjeong.go.kr/index.geumj?contentsSid=2736
website. (2017). Dream Hub Gusan Child.
Retrieved from
RI
GUNSANCITY
http://www.gunsan.go.kr/child/index.gunsan
National statistical
offices
SF2.1
SC
OECD. (2014). Eurostat and World Development Indicators. Available from Family
OECD.
(2016a).
NU
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932966295
Database
Employment
outlook
2016.
Retrieved from
Retrieved
from
Retrieved
from
OECD.
(2016b).
MA
http://www.oecd.org/korea/Employment-Outlook-Korea-EN.pdf Economy
Survey
of
Korea.
http://www.oecd.org/eco/surveys/economic-survey-korea.htm
D
OECD. (2016c). Society at Glance 2016.
Retrieved from
SEONGBUKGU
website.
TE
http://www.oecd.org/korea/sag2016- korea.pdf (2017).
Children
Friendly
Soengbuk. Retrieved
from
EP
http://www.seongbuk.go.kr/children/main/main.jsp UNICEF. (2004). Project review: La città dei bambini (Children’s City), Italy. Retrieved from
AC C
http://childfriendlycities.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/04/pdf/italy_cittabambini_fulldocument.pdf UNCEF (2017).
The Child Friendly Cities International Webpage.
Retrieved from
http://www.childfriendlycities.org UNCEF (2018).
The Child Friendly Cities International Webpage.
Retrieved from
https://childfriendlycities.org/what-is-a-child-friendly-city UNICEF
Korea. (2017). The Child Friendly Cities Korea Webpage. Retrieved
from http://www.unicef.or.kr/education/korea/choice_city.asp WANJUGUN
website.
(2017).
Child
Friendly
Wanju.
Retrieved
from
http://www.wanju.go.kr/trans/index.wanju?menuCd=DOM_000001404005001000
Table 1. The Child-Friendly Cities’ Policy Goals Divis ion
Seongbuk-G in Seoul-C (Nov. 2013ⅰ)
Wanju-GN in Jeonla-D (Mar. 2016)
Guemjeong-G in Busan-C (Sep. 2016)
(As of April 2017) Gunsan-S in Jeonla-D (Oct. 2016)
Dobong-G in Seoul-C (Nov. 2016)
Sonpa-G in Seoul-C (Dec. 2016)
Gangdong-G, in Seoul-C (Mar. 2017)
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 2015 The best Wanju, where children can live well
2016 Happy children and respected children
2016 Construction Gunsan, where children are happy
2016 Happy childfriendly city, Dobong, with participation of children
2016 A happy city, Songpa, where children and youth grow their dreams
2017 Kangdong, where all children and families are happy
Promoting and realizing the child’s four basic rights
Pushing forward integrated child policy to protect and promote the child's rights
Establishing a foundation for respecting the child’s rights
1. Developing appropriate policies for the child’s safety, protection, development, and participation 2. UNICEF childfriendly city certification and a city where both children and citizens are happy
Respect for children as citizens with sovereignty and as objects of protection
Ensuring the rights of children and youth to cocreate together
1. Healthy city where children are happy 2. Realizing the child’s rights 3. Realizing child-friendly values
a. fundamental health b. welfare c. residential environment d. facilities & special protection e. education & leisure f. culture & activities g. citizenship
a. educational b. cultural infra. c. participation right d institution & law system e. health care system f. residential environment g. safe food h. support for family i. living environ. j. community environ. k. disease prevention l. environmental infra. m. prohibition of poverty n. prohibition of discrimination o. support for street children p. publicity for UNCRC q. empowerment as world citizens 154 d. prjs.
a. CFC-infra. b. survival c. protection d. development e. participation
a. quality of life b. Residential environ. c. health d. prohibition of abuse neglect e. social protection f. safety g. family environ. h. Educational environ. i. community environ. j. participation system k. empowering participation l. making decisions
a. safety and protection b. health and social services c. education environ. d. play & leisure e. facility & family f. ensuring participation right
39 detailed projects (d. prjs.) 104 promotional indicators
127 d. prjs.
AC C
d e t a i l
EP
TE
D
MA
r e a
a. play & leisure b. participation and citizenship c. safety and protection d. health and social services e. educational environ. f. family & residential environ.
RI
P o l i c y
a. eco-friendly meals b. comprehensive health care c. integrated child care system d. reliable care environment e. CFCsettlements f. innovative education g. CFC-infra. h. decisionA making system
SC
G o a l
PT
2016ⅱSettling into a childfriendly city (CFC)
NU
V i s i o n
200 d. prjs.
137 d. prjs.
104 d. prjs.
160 d. prjs.
i. Certification date. ii. Year of the policy data used in the analysis. * Administration district : Metropolitan or special city; neighborhood: dong
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 2. Child-Friendly Cities’ Detailed Projects* by Child’s Right** WJ N=127
GJ N=154
GS N=200
DB N=137
SP N=104
GD N=160
Survival
5 (12.9)
23 (18.1)
13 (8.4)
31 (15.5)
37 (27.0)
18 (17.3)
29 (18.1)
Child’s Rights N (%)
Protection
11 (28.2)
23 (18.1)
31 (20.1)
51 (25.5)
28 (20.4)
27 (26.0)
52 (32.5)
Development
20 (51.2)
75 (59.1)
97 (63.0)
107 (53.5)
60 (43.8)
53 (51.0)
71 (44.4)
Participation
3
6
13
11
12
(7.7)
(4.7)
(8.4)
(5.5)
PT
SB***, **** N=39
Division
(8.8)
6
(5.8)
8
(5.0)
AC C
EP
TE
D
MA
NU
SC
RI
* Numbers of detailed projects in all four rights provided by each municipality except Seongbuk-Gu. ** Data are from 2016 for all municipalities except two; Wanju-Gun and Gangdong-Gu reported data for 2015 and 2017, respectively. *** SB: Seonbuk-G, WJ: Wanju-GN, GJ: Guemjeong-G, GS: Gunsan-C, DB: Dobong-G, SP: Songpa-G, GD: Gangdong-G **** Seongbuk-Gu reported policies for nine areas, but these were reconstructed into the four children’s rights as follows: Survival: supplying eco-friendly meals for students (2 detailed projects); comprehensive health care for children and adolescents (3) Protection: Integrated child care system (5); creating reliable child care environments (6) Development: Promoting CFC settlements (5); innovative city education pro jects (6); child-friendly infrastructure (5) Participation: Building a decision-making system for children and youth (3)
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 3. Child-Friendly Cities’ Participation Guarantee Policies*
GS (2016)
Youth participation committee (Y: 16; OR)
Support for youth clubs (Y: 86; SR) Local Win-Win Slow Food school (Y: 300; OR + F) Youth culture space creation project (Y: 3000; FR) Children's Day festival (K, C, Y: 2000; FR) Cultural interchange and cooperation project for elementary students (C: 80; OR + L)
SR) -
education (Y: -
Youth participation committee (Y: 20; SR) Youth general assembly (Y60; OR + SR) Child & Youth Council (C23, Y26: 49; OR + SR) Youth municipal policy development conference (Y55; Child’s rights campaign and monitoring (C, Y: -) Global youth citizen leadership workshop (Y: 10; SR)
Child’s rights declaration workshop (C, Y: -) Support for child city hall web service on homepage (K, C, Y: -; FR) Child & youth council (C30, Y30: 60; OR + F) Child Happiness City policy proposal debate forum (C, Y: -) Youth Steering Committee (Y: 33; SR)
Forming and operating a child & youth hope committee (-) Utilizing youth announcers (-)
TE
GD (2017)
International youth interchange camp (Y: 35; SR) School for global youth citizens (C: 24; SR) Photography class for international understanding 25; SR) Global Citizenship Education (C, Y: 500; FR) UNICEF cooperation project (C, Y: - ) UNICEF Street creation (C, Y; FR) Playground program (C, Y; FR)
Support for youth clubs (Y: 13 groups; SS) Support for local children's centers (C, Y: 1,460; AL) Children's Day celebration event (C: - ; FR) School violence prevention program (Y: -; FR) Youth art festival (Y: -; SS) M unicipal library reading festival (K, C, Y: -; FR) Youth volunteer school and hope letter writing program (-) Support for youth Gong-Yu travel group (-) Support for children's choir (-) Korean (Hangul) Festival with Jeong-Hee Princess (-) 8th Annual Dobong Creative Science Festival (-) Youth Dreams project (-) Public institutions for children experience program (-) Visiting a silver hall with the Hyoja Village Daycare Center (-) Winter cleaning program with child volunteers (-) Cho Ansan Hyangiwon maintenance program with youth volunteers (-) Volunteer center program (C, Y, A: -; FR) Youth Council Classroom program (Y: 30 per section; SR) M unicipal visiting program for elementary students (C: 100; OR + F)
Child & youth participation organization - Youth council (C4, Y26: 30; ES + SR) - Child municipal policy participation committee (C8, Y14: 22; OR + SR) - Youth participation committee (C3, Y27: 30; OR + SR) - Youth autonomy committee: School student council delegation (Y: 90; ES) Proclamation of the Children’s Rights Declaration (C, Y: -) Residents’ ombudsman system (-)
Child-friendly integrated system ( -) Creating a child-friendly atmosphere (-) Education on & promotion of children’s rights (C, Y: -; SR) Gangdong Dream Tree class (C: -; OR + F) Children’s law advisory and counseling class (C, Y: -; FR)
EP
Child & youth participation committee (C, Y: 100; OR + SR) Child Youth Promotion Committee (A: 15; SR) Child and Youth Reporters:Publish a children’s newspaper using honorary reporters (C: 37; SR) Youth reporters (Y: 10; SR)
AC C
SP (2016)
PT
Participation of children & youth through media education and utilization (Y: -; OR + F)
D
DB (2016)
Child & youth participation organization Child & youth council (C34***, Y54: 88; OR + L****) Youth municipal political group (Y: 50; OR + L ) Child & youth honorary press (C, Y: 32; SR) Children & youth policy debate forum (C, Y; -*****; OR-L + SR)
RI
GJ (2016)
Participation in Programs
SC
WJ (2015)
Passive Participation
Decision Making Expressing Opinions
NU
SB** (2016)
Active Participation
MA
Division
* Based on the detailed participation policies provided by each municipality ** SB: Seonbuk-Gu, WB: Wanju-Gun, GJ: Guemjeong-Gu, GS: Gunsan-City, DB: Dobong-Gu, SP: Songpa-Gu, GD: Gangdong-Gu *** Object: K = under 8 years, C = elementary students, Y = youth age 13-18 years, A = adults **** M ethod: ES = election system; OR+L or OR+F = open recruitment + lottery or + first come; SR = selection or recommendation system; FR = free participation; AL = all ***** - = information not available or none; ## = base year of policy
Table 4. Child-Friendly Cities’ Administrative and Service Delivery Systems
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT (As of April 2017) Gunsan-S in Jeonla-D (Oct. 2016)
Dobong-G in Seoul-C (Nov. 2016)
Sonpa-G in Seoul-C (Dec. 2016)
Gangdong-G, in Seoul-C (Mar. 2017)
Child-friendly team (6 officers)
Child-friendly team (4 pers.)
Child-friendly team (5 pers.)
Child happiness
Child-friendly team (3 pers.)
Youth policy team (5 pers.)
Child policy team (3 pers.)
6 departments with CFC projects
12 depts.
21 depts.
22 depts.
20 depts.
19 depts.
25 depts.
private-schoolpublic governance
community youth safety-net (CYSnet)
local privatecouncil - toy rental business
community youth safety-net (CYSnet)
local privatecouncil – private security guard
private-public cooperation between CFCs
subsidies to private-welfare facilities; daycare center, welfare center, library, schools, etc.
private-welfare facilities
private-welfare facilities
private-welfare facilities
divisionⅲ (9 pers.),
PT
Guemjeong-G in Busan-C (Sep. 2016)
local privatecouncil harmful environment watchdogs, youth guidance committee
local privatecouncil - school parents monitoring groups
private-welfare facilities
eco-friendly farm - programs for children
RI
Coop eratio n
Wanju-GN in Jeonla-D (Mar. 2016)
SC
Admi nistra tion
Seongbuk-G in Seoul-C (Nov. 2013ⅰ)
NU
Divis ion
volunteer groups
private-welfare facilities
AC C
EP
TE
D
MA
i. Certification date. ii. The child-friendly team is under the education, child & youth officer, who is directly connected to the vice -head. ⅲ.There are seven related teams within the Child Happiness Division: policy, support, child care, welfare, dream-start, local children's center, and performing teams . * Administration district : Metropolitan or special city; neighborhood: dong
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 5. Policy Budgets of Child-Friendly Cities* Seonbuk (2016)
Wanju (2015)
Geumjeong (2016)
Gunsan (2016)
Dobong (2016)
Songpa (2016)
Gangdong (2017)
Popul Children(%) ation /Total*** N
73,049(16.2) /450,335
17,992(18.9) /95,303
34,863(14.3) /244,624
53,955(19.4) /277,551
54,233(15.6) /348,220
114,692(17.4) /657,831
72,920(16.2) /448,953
0.411
3.062
2.466
2.182
2.145
0.760
1.301
30,030 (6.0) /497,841
54,865 (9.4) /584,650
85,984 (29.5) /291,479
117,720 (15.8) /745,000
116,348 (29.1) /399,831
87,121 (15.1) /577,000
94,852 (19.7) /482,477
10,666(35.5) 7,177(23.9) 12,115(40.3) 72 (0.2)
10,559(19.3) 4,272(7.8) 39,898(72.7) 137 (0.2)
24,971(29.0) 10,783(12.5) 50,156(58.3) 74 (0.1)
16,271(13.8) 18,152(15.4) 83,169(70.7) 128 (0.1)
18,207(15.6) 85,261(73.3) 12,556(10.8) 324 (0.3)
26,711(30.7) 13,375(15.3) 46,319(53.2) 716 (0.8)
69,249(73.0) 6,071 (6.4) 18,047(19.0) 1,483 (1.6)
38.7%
9.1%
31.9%
34.7%
26.2%
Budg et Ratio s** M₩* *** (%)
CFC General account Survival Protection Development Participation
Source of Funds
Municipa 43.8% lity
RI
1 person
PT
Division
-
AC C
EP
TE
D
MA
NU
SC
* The figures are based on the child-friendly city budget documents published by each municipality. The data for Wanju and Gangdong are for 2015 and 2017, respectively. ** The budget ratio is based on the general accounts. However, due to the limited access to data on funding sources, the ratios for Songpa include both general and special accounts; Dobong did not disclose total municipal budget data. *** Population data came from the National Statistical Office; children are 0-18 years old; and population is calculated based on budget year. **** M ₩: million KRW (1 USD = 1,129 KRW as of June 15, 2017)
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Figure 1. Benefit Classifications for Child-Friendly Cities 450 350
250
Participation Development
150 50 Opportunities
Services
Goods / Commodities
Vouchers / Credits
Cash benefits
RI
*Power over decisions
Survival
SC
-50
PT
Protection
* Power over decisions: Right to make decisions/ Opportunities: Incentives or sanction employed to achieve desired ends
NU
Services: Skilled, knowledgeable performances, etc. in there, including third-party services provided by subsidies Good & Commodities: Tangible benefits/ Vouchers & Credits: Prepayments or post -payments to purveyors of benefits and (or) services Cash benefits: Negotiable currency, exchangeable without loss in value
AC C
EP
TE
D
MA
Definitions from Chamber & Bonk(2012), and Gilbert & Terrell(2002)
Hyojin Nam, Seok In Nam PII: DOI: Reference:
S0190-7409(18)30340-2 doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.08.033 CYSR 3964
To appear in:
Children and Youth Services Review
Received date: Revised date: Accepted date:
25 April 2018 27 August 2018 27 August 2018
Please cite this article as: Hyojin Nam, Seok In Nam , Child-friendly city policies in the Republic of Korea. Cysr (2018), doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.08.033
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Child-Friendly City Policies in the Republic of Korea Hyojin Nam1, Seok In Nam2,* [email protected] 1
PhD student, School of Social Welfare, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea
2
Associate Professor, School of Social Welfare, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea
Corresponding Author:
PT
Seok In Nam
RI
School of Social Welfare, Yonsei University, 50 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 03722, South
SC
Korea Email: [email protected]
NU
Phone Number: 82-2-2123-6218 Fax Number: 82-2-2123-8656
MA
Abstract
This study was conducted to investigate the Child-Friendly City policies of seven
D
municipalities certified as such by UNICEF Korea through April 2016. These policies were
TE
analyzed in terms of six elements suggested by Chamber & Bonk: goals, forms of benefits and
EP
services, eligibility rules, administration and delivery, financing, and interaction. From this research, implications were derived, such as the need for focused policies, the guarantee of
AC C
practical participation, active publicity and secure budgets, and construction of organizations and cooperative networks for supporting child-friendly cities; furthermore, this study suggests specific alternatives to compensate for policy limitations. Specifically, the study provides substantive information, ideals, and values, and suggests ideas for institutional improvement of cities that want to join UNICEF’s Child-Friendly Cities Initiative. Key words: Child-friendly city, Policy analysis, Comparative policy, Child’s rights, Participation right
Funding: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1. Introduction The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is the world's fastest and most widely ratified human-rights treaty, which 196 countries have joined since its
PT
adoption in 1989 at the UN General Assembly (UNICEF, 2017). Since then, it has faced a significant turning point in changing a perspective on children. The view requires that children
RI
be recognized as having rights as members of society. However, how should we absorb the
SC
UNCRC's perspective into the real world in which we live in Korea? In order to answer this question, an objective and incisive diagnosis of the current situation in the Republic of
NU
Korea was necessary. According to the 2016 Organization for Economic Co-operation
MA
(OECD) Economic Survey of Korea, the Republic of Korea (ROK) has the 11th largest economy in the world and has achieved remarkable economic growth during the past two
D
decades.
TE
However, on the other side of the exponential economic growth, many social issues have emerged. As of 2015, a large gap remained in the employment rates between men and women of
EP
prime age in Korea; for those of ages 25-54, the gap was 24.2%, compared with average of
AC C
18.3% in OECD countries (OECD, 2016a). Moreover, the labor market segmentation in the ROK has increased the proportion of youth not in employment, education, or training, known as NEETs; in Korea the proportion is 84%, whereas the OECD average in 20131 was 56%. As a result, young people are entering the labor market later, which is increasing the maternal age at first childbirth: The average is 31 years old in ROK compared with the OECD average of 28.7 years (OECD, 2016b). Additionally, Korea recorded the world’s lowest fertility rate which is 1.24 children per woman in 2011 (OECD, 2014). These statistics show that Korea has a difficult environment, where younger people have children.
1
Korea's labor-market fragmentation has been caused by the marked differences in wages, employment stability, and working conditions for full-time versus part-time workers and corporations versus small and medium-sized enterprises. This makes young people delay entry into the labor market and pursue additional training or certification in order to find work. This additional training takes place outside of the formal education system, and thus, labor-market statistics include NEETs who are not looking for jobs (OECD, 2016c).
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT The question then becomes Are the children happy in this nation with the world's lowest fertility rate? Are we ready to accept children as citizens of our society? In 2014, only 2% of 25- to 34-year-olds did not complete high school, compared with the OECD average of 16.4% (OECD, 2016b). However, the average suicide rate among children and youth aged 10-24 declined by 15.6% points in OECD countries from 2000 to 2010, but Korea recorded a sizable
PT
increase, of 46.9% points. In addition, life satisfaction among children under age 15 is 5.8
RI
points on an 11-step ladder from 0-10, ranking 37th among 47 countries, compared with the
SC
OECD average of 6.6 points (OECD, 2016c).
Given these data, what should we worry about and what do we prepare for? Children are
NU
our future and reflect our societies, and thus, building happy societies for the children is the primary task of nations to prepare for the future. In this regard, creating child-friendly cities
MA
(CFCs) is a challenge for both national and local municipalities as well as for communities and
members of societies overall.
D
all society members. CFCs are likely to create both happy children and, ultimately, happy
TE
UNICEF’s Child-Friendly Cities Initiative movements have been spreading around the
EP
world since the 2000s, and already more than 1,300 cities in more than 30 countries have been re-interpreting the concept of child-friendly environments and participating in these movements
AC C
(Kim et al., 2014; UNICEF, 2017). In this context, developing countries tend to focus on health care, nutrition, education, and child-care services as major challenges, whereas developed countries tend to focus primarily on urban planning, safe and child-friendly environments, and children's participation (Nikku & Pokhrel, 2013). In keeping with this global trend, seven municipalities in the Republic of Korea have been certified as child-friendly cities, beginning with Seongbuk-Gu in 2013, and they are rapidly spreading throughout the country (UNICEF Korea, 2017). These efforts are meaningful as realistic responses to the difficult realities of today’s Korean society; they are specific ways to realize children’s happiness and guarantee their rights through active policymaking. Therefore, it is important to investigate how CFC policies are proceeding and what leaders
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT are doing. Currently, there have been various case studies of CFCs in many countries (Corsi, 2002; Gökmen & Gülay Taşçı, 2016; Horelli, 1998; Nikku & Pokhrel, 2013; Osman El Hassan, 2013; Woolcock, Gleeson, & Randolph, 2010), but there aren't enough such case studies in Korea. Current studies in the ROK have included research on developing evaluation indicators and
PT
the recognition survey of child-friendly cities (Hong & Lee, 2011, 2013). Recently, there have
RI
been discussions of the environmental components of CFCs (Choi, 2013; Kim, 2014) and
SC
aspects of the urban planning and management for these cities (Kim, 2010; Lee, 2010). In addition, the National Youth Policy Development Institute is conducting long-term studies
NU
(Kim, Lim, & Kim, 2014). But most of these studies focus on justifying the Child-Friendly Cities Initiative, and there is lack of empirical descriptions or analyses of the policies of
MA
municipalities certified as CFCs.
At this point, it is important to look at the current status of CFCs and analyze the relevant
D
policies, because such analysis will produce practical information and direction for many
TE
municipalities, not only in Korea but also in other countries that are attempting to have child-
EP
friendly cities. In addition, such research will offer significant implications for other countries that are engaging in similar processes, because Korea is in a stage of starting CFCs.
AC C
Therefore, in this study, I describe the policies of the ROK’s child-friendly cities by analyzing six elements about policies of the seven municipalities that have been certified by UNICEF Korea. Through this analysis, this study will present concrete directions and alternatives for developing CFCs in the real world.
2. What is a child-friendly city? The concept of the child-friendly city originated from the UN Habitat II Conference on Human Settlement in 1996. Since then, the concept has spread worldwide, and many countries and cities are participating in building CFCs (UNICEF, 2017). UNICEF explains CFCs as follows:
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT A child friendly city is the embodiment of the Convention on the Rights of the Child at the local level, which in practice means that children’s rights are reflected in policies, laws, programmes and budgets. In a child friendly city, children are active agents; their voices and opinions are taken into consideration and influence decision making processes 2 (UNICEF, 2017).
PT
That is, in child-friendly cities, local communities carry the basic philosophy into action and
RI
guarantee the well-being of all children under 18 (UNICEF Korea, 2017). In ideal CFCs,
SC
children can
influence decisions about their city, express their opinion on the city they want, participate
NU
in family, community and social life, receive basic services such as health care and education, drink safe water and have access to proper sanitation, be protected from
play, have
green
spaces
MA
exploitation, violence and abuse, walk safely in the streets on their own, meet friends and for plants
and
animals,
D
environment, participate in cultural and social events, and
live in
an
unpolluted
be an equal citizen of their
TE
city with access to every service, regardless of ethnic origin, religion, income, gender or
EP
disability3 (UNICEF, 2017).
Building CFCs is synonymous with implementing the Convention on the Rights of the Child
AC C
in local settings (UNICEF, 2017). The UNICEF International suggests nine principles based on international standards: children’s participation, a child-friendly legal framework, a citywide children’s rights strategy, a children’s rights unit or coordinating mechanism, child impact assessment and evaluation, a child budget, a regular State of the City children report, making children’s rights known, and independent advocacy for children4. Along with the
2
The definition has changed slightly since 2018. The recent version is at https://childfriendlycities.org/what-is-achild-friendly-city. 3 In recent, it was revamped as follows: children can be protected from exploitation, violence and abuse, have a good start in life and grow up healthy and cared for, have access to quality social services, experience quality, inclusive and participatory education and skills development, express their opinions and influence decisions that affect them, participate in family, cultural, city/community and social life, live in a safe secure and clean environment with access to green spaces, meet friends and have places to play and enjoy themselves, and have a fair chance in life regardless of their ethnic origin, religion, income, gender or ability. https://childfriendlycities.org/what-is-a-child-friendly-city 4 The revised guiding principles are as in the following: non-discrimination, best interests of the child, the
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT above nine principles, the Korean Committee for UNICEF had added one provision: action for children's safety5 (UNICEF Korea, 2017).
3. Status of child-friendly cities
PT
Municipalities participating in the CFC Initiative are implementing various policies to improve children’s rights and welfare under the principles outlined above and obtain UNICEF
RI
CFC status. Under these principles, municipalities continue to make efforts to expand children's
SC
rights and become better places to live.
Child-Friendly City Initiatives began in Europe in 1996 and have spread to many countries in
NU
worldwide. CFCs which are based on the CRC ratified by 196 countries except USA of UN member states currently records over 30 countries throughout East Europe, East Asia, Central
MA
Asia, Africa, Middle East, Latin America, Pacific and Caribbean areas (UNICEF, 2017). Specifically, CFCs in France began in 2002 through a partnership with the National Committee of
TE
D
UNICEF and the Association of France’s Mayors, and as of August 2016, 208 cities had joined; France is known as one of the oldest and most extensive programs in the UNICEF
EP
initiative (Sedletzki, 2017). Additionally, Finland’s CFCI started as a two-year pilot project in 2012; 13 municipalities are participating, and 18.8% of the population under age 18 has
AC C
benefited (Guerreiro, 2017a). Additionally, Germany established CFCs in 2012 and there are now 12 such cities (Guerreiro, 2017b); Switzerland had 26 participating municipalities beginning in 2009, and nine have been recertified (Lansdown, Wernham, Guerreiro, & Sedletzki, 2017). As mentioned above, UNICEF Korea qualifies each municipality as a child-friendly city based on the 10 principles discussed above. The specific certification procedure is as follows:
First, a local municipal head applies for certification as a CFC to the UNICEF committee, inherent right to life, survival and development, respect for the views of the child, equity and inclusion, accountability and transparency, public participation, effectiveness and responsiveness, adaptability and sustainability. More details at https://childfriendlycities.org/guiding-principals 5 UNICEF Korea’s website is http://www.unicef.or.kr/education/korea/choice_city.asp
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT and the committee gives each head a self-assessment checklist. Next, the Evaluation Committee judges the materials presented by each municipality. Then each certified municipality presents an interim report, and the Evaluation Committee makes the decision whether to reauthorize or not after every two years. (UNICEF Korea, 2017) Seongbuk-Gu in Seoul, was recognized as the first CFC in Korea in 2013, and to date, seven
PT
municipalities nationwide have been certified. In order to assist municipalities with becoming
RI
CFCs, the Korean Committee for UNICEF has been supporting their efforts through the
SC
APCFC. The association was launched in September 2015 with the voluntary participation of 27 municipalities in Korea. It aims to support CFC projects by establishing a CFC certification
NU
network for municipalities to share their best practices and failures. UNICEF Korea explains the major functions of the Association for Promoting Child-
MA
Friendly Cities (APCFC): support CFC initiatives and international solidarity in central and local municipalities; build child-friendly communities by improving environmental elements
D
such as safety, culture, and leisure activities; provide information about implementing the
TE
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; exchange CFC implementation best practices;
EP
promote education for citizens; and encourage participation (UNICEF Korea, 2017). In this context, Korea has hastened to join this movement, and seven municipalities had been certified
AC C
as CFCs as of May 2017. Additionally, 34 municipalities are moving forward with plans to participate through the APCFC.
4. Applying child-friendly cities to real-world contexts: Literature Review In the early CFC related studies, there were conducted mainly on concepts, philosophy, and disputes (Chatterjee, 2005; Chawla, 2001; Godfrey et al., 2012; Hong & Lee, 2013; Kim et al., 2014; Lansdown et al., 2017; UNICEF, 2017; Woolcock & Steele, 2008) and, after then, appeared various case studies based on CFCs experience (Bridgman, 2004; Horelli, 1998; Kingston, et al., 2007; Gökmen & Gülay Taşçı, 2016; Malone, 2013; Nikku & Pokhrel, 2013; Osman El Hassan, 2013; Racelis & Aguirre, 2002). In current, related studies are spreading
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT beyond the field of humanities and sociology to various fields that can be put into practical child's lives in real urban, architectural, ecological environment and health fields, and so on.
4-1. Ideal Child-friendly Cities: Philosophy & Indicators A World Fit for Children, announced in the UN's 27th Special Session, is based on the
PT
UNCRC. It covers basic guarantees for children's rights along with the two principles of non-
RI
discrimination and children's best interests. UNESCO’s Growing Up in Cities discusses how
SC
urban environments are appropriate and ideal for children (Chawla, 2001; Malone, 2006); it is divided into positive and negative dimensions of the social and physical aspects of these
NU
environments. And UNICEF developed Child-friendly Community Assessment Tools to provide comprehensive checklists for the conditions that children need in their living
MA
environments (UNICEF, 2017). The UNICEF checklists are advantageous in that they make concrete and available indicators for most measurable areas related to children's lives.
D
However, these indicators are designed to take into account the universal circumstances of
TE
international organizations, and they are limited in reflecting individual countries’ economic
EP
and social circumstances. Thus, each country has attempted to create indexes of various areas that meet their national contexts (Chatterjee, 2005; Godfrey et al., 2012; Lansdown, Wernham,
AC C
Guerreiro, & Sedletzki, 2017; Villanueva et al., 2016; Woolcock & Steele, 2008). In Korea, the National Youth Policy Institute developed the Youth Happiness Community Index based on the CFC concept (Kim et al., 2014), and Hong and Lee (2013) also developed a measurement tool to evaluate CFC’s level in the children’s lives. Although these indicators differ somewhat in terms of definitions and contents of CFCs according to the development agency, the common point is that they measure whether children's rights are being realized.
4-2. Real Child-friendly Cities: Case Studies The various experiences and projects of CFCs have been published in case studies and are
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT not difficult to find. Currently, CFCs are being implemented in 34 countries around the world (UNICEF, 2017), and case studies of each were published in various experiences and projects according to their unique environment and conditions. Projects in developing countries were focused on programs to improve the basic rights of children (Gökmen & Gülay Taşçı, 2016; Nikku & Pokhrel, 2013; Osman El Hassan, 2013;
PT
Racelis & Aguirre, 2002), whereas the case studies conducted in Australia, Europe, the
RI
Americas, and Canada show examples of practices for ensuring participation rights, public-
SC
private partnerships, success cases, and CFC infrastructure and institutional systems (Bridgman,
NU
2004; Horelli, 1998; Kingston, et al., 2007; Malone, 2013).
4-3. Building the Child-friendly Cities: Environments and Policies
MA
The CFC is an honorary qualification awarded by UNICEF to municipalities that are committed to improving laws, institutional systems, and environment to protect child's basic
D
rights and citizenship. Thus, related studies cover all areas of children’s lives, but one of these
TE
categories is greatly concerned with policies and environments.
EP
In particular, in the fields of urban environment, or architecture, studies provide institutional and policy ideas for assessing the level of child's mobility and environmental rights (Björklid &
AC C
Nordström, 2007; Broberg, Kyttä, & Fagerholm, 2013 ; Kyttä, 2004; Whitzman, Worthington, & Mizrachi, 2010). These fields also point out the effect and level of urbanizing on children (Woolcock, Gleeson, & Randolph, 2010), and present alternatives and experiences that can lead to children's opinions and participation in urban planning and designs (Derr & Tarantini, 2016; Freeman & Tranter, 2012; McAllister, 2008). On the other hand, there are case studies on a single project of CFCs, as mentioned above, but there are not enough studies suggesting characteristics and level of overall policy of CFCs. However, Corsi (2002) examines policies at national and local levels to support CFCs in Italy describes how these policies have been achieved, and thus can offer useful and specific information to CFCs in worldwide.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
5. Methods 5-1. Resources and Process of Analysis The objects of this study are limited to the policies of the seven Korean municipalities that
PT
have been certified as CFCs through April 2017. In order to evaluate the statuses of local CFC policies and projects by municipality, I conducted a literature review using a policy analysis
RI
framework. The materials I reviewed included documentation such as administrative guidelines,
SC
CFC plans, autonomous ordinances, newspaper articles, and budget documents from each municipality, along with academic research.
NU
The laws I reviewed were 17 autonomous ordinances, and the administrative documents were five CFC plan reports, seven budget documents, and 19 policies or budgets posted on
MA
municipal websites. From the research literature I reviewed two child-impact assessments, one children’s rights investigation, one survey on children, and two policy studies of a national
TE
D
institute. In order to analyze the characteristics, progress, and achievements of CFC policies, I also reviewed 32 public documents, including local newsletters. I used recent data,
EP
since 2015, to ensure the accuracy of my analysis findings.
AC C
5-2. Framework of social-welfare policy analysis Chambers and Bonk (2012) suggested a framework including six elements which are goals, forms of benefits and services, eligibility rules, service delivery systems, financing, and interactions. Because this framework is proposed for value-critical appraisal of social policies and programs, in contrast to previous frameworks focused mainly on a problem-centered approach, Chambers and Bonk (2012) presented six criteria which are proper to value-centered policies. The value-centered appraisal is likely to be proper for a policy with strengths perspective. Chapin (1995) remarked that “The strengths perspective is rooted in the belief that people can continue to grow and change and should have equal access to resources.” This view accords with the philosophy of the CFC policies based on the CRC.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Therefore, in this study, we attempted to analyze Korea CFCs’ policies using the six elements of the value-critical appraisal framework suggested by Chambers and Bonk (2012).
5-2-1. Goals When analyzing policies, the first question is: What is an ultimate goal for this policy?
PT
Chambers and Bonk (2012) cited that what is to be achieved by this benefit should correspond
NU
5-2-2. Forms of Benefits and Services
SC
assessing implications and the fit of goals in this analysis.
RI
to the policy’s purpose and goal. So, we focus on describing the specifics of CFCs’ goals and
The analysis of benefits and services is related to what forms the benefit takes. These services
MA
can be divided into personal social services and expert services, and the benefits can be classified as vouchers, subsidies, power over decisions, and hard benefits, such as cash, goods,
D
and commodities (Chambers & Bonk, 2012). In order to analyze benefits and services,
TE
Chambers and Bonk(2012) suggested considering implications and fit, and examining specifics;
EP
stigmatization, target efficiency, cost effectiveness, substitutability, consumer sovereignty, trade-offs, coerciveness, complexity and cost of administration, adaptability across users, and
AC C
political risk. Therefore, we would like to discuss the implications and fits of the benefits and services by examining the overall polices’ characteristics and analyzing the forms of the benefits provided.
5-2-3. Eligibility rules A question about who is entitled to the benefit relates to issues such as stigma, social integration, and cost effectiveness through either selectivism or universalism. Universal policies that provide benefits to all can play an important role in human dignity and social integration, but there is the problem of financial resources. Selectivism has the disadvantage of possible stigmatization, and analyzing the appropriateness and duplication or omission of objects
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT remains important (Chamber & Bonk, 2012; Gabel, 2016; Gilbert & Terrell, 2002; Nam, 2015). CFCs’ policies follow rights-based approaches to uphold the values of the UNCRC, and thus we attempted to analyze the appropriateness of eligibility rules focusing on the child’s participation rights, which is not only featured in CFCs but also core in the CRC as well.
PT
5-2-4. Administration and Service Delivery
RI
Administration and service delivery focuses on outcomes, not the end product itself through
SC
a delivery system of the policy. There are important analysis points such as integrity and continuity, accessibility, and accountability (Chambers & Bonk, 2012). Gilbert and Terrell
NU
(2002) also stated that it is possible to solve problems such as fragmentation, discontinuity, inaccessibility, and unaccountability by means of strategic choices, such as restructuring
MA
authority and control or rearranging task assignments.
Therefore, for this study, we analyzed outcomes and specifics on the CFCs’ administrative
EP
5-2-5. Financing
TE
D
and delivery systems and suggested implications and applicable alternatives.
The analysis of the financing dealt with how to secure budgets and design finance (Chamber
AC C
& Bonk, 2012; Gilbert & Terrell, 2002). Securing sufficient financial resources is a stable basis for realizing policy goals, and the nature of funding channels affects policy continuity, inclusiveness, and professionalism (Gilbert & Terrell, 2002). In addition, Chamber & Bonk (2012) stated that most public policies based on tax revenue are a financial resource for stability and continuity, but may be affected by political processes and issues. For financing, CFCs' policies presented the general account budgets that can secure the autonomy of each municipality’s CFC-related projects. Therefore, we discussed the continuity, inclusiveness, and expertise of related policies in terms of the stability of financial resources.
5-2-6. Interactions
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT In the policy implementation, the above-mentioned five elements are almost never singular or isolated and there are interactions that are either intended or accidental, depending on the situation (Chamber & Bonk, 2012). For example, the interaction between a goal and a form of benefit can be considered to be about conformity between recipient’s spending and intended purpose. Chamber and Bonk (2012) suggested an analysis of the interactions of policy elements.
PT
Therefore, my final analysis presented interactions based on criteria of consistency between
RI
elements.
SC
5-3. Coverage of Analysis
NU
The purpose of this study is to present the problems of developing child-friendly cities in Korea and to suggest reasonable directions for accommodating social demands. Specifically,
MA
my study subjects are the policies and projects of seven municipalities certified by UNICEF Korea as CFCs as of April 2017. The data for the analysis came from 2016 for all but two sites;
D
for Wanju-Gun I used 2015 data, and for Gangdong-Gu I used data from 2017. For this
TE
systematic study, I analyzed five systems according to frameworks suggested by Gilbert and
EP
Terrell and Nam. In addition, I attempted to focus more on the aspect of guaranteeing children’s
AC C
citizenship and participation rights.
6. Results
As of April 2017, seven of the 243 municipalities6 in Korea have been certified as childfriendly cities, many others are accelerating to CFC certification, and 39 have joined the APCFC.
6-1. Goals The vision statements for six of the 7 certified child-friendly cities in Korea (Sungbuk- Gu is 6
There are 17 special cities in the Republic of Korea (teukbyeol-si) or provinces (do): one special city, one metropolitan autonomous city, six metropolitan cities, eight metropolitan provinces, and one special self-governing province. The country also has 75 cities (si), 82 counties (gun), and 69 districts (gu). The number of municipalities nationwide is 243 (KOSIS, 2016)
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT the exception) have in common a reference to the key words “happy child” or “livable.” Of these, Gunsan City and Dobong-Gu focus on children’s participation rights by including the terms “respect for children” and “participation of children” in their vision. Seongbuk-Gu in Seoul City is different, in that it has been certified since 2013 and presents a more specific vision of “Settling in a Child-Friendly City.”
PT
The goals of the child-friendly cities' policies are ensuring the four basic rights of children; in
RI
other words, it is clear that each CFC’s policy is based on children’s rights. Unlike the policy
SC
goals, the detailed projects differ by municipality, from as few as 39 to as many as 200, as shown in Table 1. However, even though the policies have some of the same contents, some
NU
municipalities are grouped together in large units, whereas others are proceeding with many detailed projects in small units. For example, in Seongbuk-Gu, which has the fewest detailed
MA
projects, its participation policy supports three detailed projects, Children and Youth Participation Organizations, Promotion of Child and Youth Participation Projects, and
D
Participation of Children and Youth through Media Education and Utilization. However, in
TE
Gunsan-City, where the participation rights policy is based on that of Seongbuk-Gu, 11 detailed
EP
projects are proposed, including a child and youth council, a policy proposal for a child happiness city, a youth art festival, youth club activity support, and a youth steering committee.
AC C
The common feature of policies’ goals is that the contents are all based on children’s rights despite detailed differences of policy areas by municipalities. Policies' composition includes contents of overall life related with the survival, protection, development, and participation rights of the child. The direction of the goals setting is appropriate as the point that CFCs' policies were based on child rights, but it may be difficult to evaluate concrete performances because of the inclusive and ambiguous goals in broader areas, whereas in Seongbuk-gu, it is featured to focus more on CFC's infrastructure and environment than on overall welfare for children.
6-2. Forms of Benefits and Services
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT In order to analyze the social provision dimension, I first divided each municipality’s detailed projects into the UNCRC’s four children’s rights. After Table 2 describes the features above, it shows how the projects are distributed across the forms of benefits and services. The analyses of the forms of benefits and services of children’s rights showed that six provincial municipalities had many detailed projects dealing with development, protection,
PT
survival, and participation rights (excluding Dobong-Gu), as Table 2 shows. The common
RI
characteristic of all municipalities is that most of their projects were related to children’s
SC
development (minimum, 44.4% of total project volume; maximum, 63%). In the development area, the detailed projects contained support for institutions, such as child care
NU
and child development facilities, schools, and libraries, and for various child specialty programs, human resources development, infrastructure for CFCs, and construction of local
MA
networks. In short, the detailed development projects have a wide range of features that entail direct provisions to children, such as education and child care services, as well as
D
indirect services, such as creating infrastructures that support child-friendly environments.
TE
The primary characteristic of the development rights area is that most of the CFCs target
EP
this area of children’s welfare.
For children’s survival and protection rights, in most municipalities, roughly 10% of
AC C
the total projects were in the area of survival rights, and protection rights projects ranged from 10% to roughly 30% of projects. Detailed survival-rights projects were primarily related to social-security policies, such as projects related to children's vaccination, health and nutrition, and vulnerability. In the children’s protection rights area, however, there were safetyrelated projects, such as closed-circuit television extension, facility maintenance, improvements to local environments, and establishing and extending facilities, such as childcare centers and kindergartens. Thus, detailed projects in the areas of survival and protection rights were often related and were carried out at the national level. Whereas the survival, protection, and development rights areas mainly related to providing direct and indirect benefits for children’s welfare, the detailed participation projects involved more active guarantees of
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT children’s rights beyond solely their welfare. In other words, the participation area policies most reflected the ideas of CFCs. However, the municipalities had the fewest detailed projects in the participation area, ranging from 5% to 8.8%. Fully realizing CFCs requires better developing of participation area projects. Policy analyzers emphasized the relevance and appropriateness of the forms of benefits and
PT
services for policy purposes (Chamber & Bonk, 2012; Gilbert & Terrell, 2002). Therefore, in
RI
order to examine the overall policy salary patterns, the detailed projects from the seven
SC
municipalities were classified by forms of benefits and services, as presented in Figure1. As previously analyzed, CFC policies and projects relate to children both directly and indirectly.
NU
Additionally, many of these detailed projects were provided as either services/subsidies or goods/commodities benefits; these two benefits account for 65% of the total. It can be
MA
interpreted that goods/commodities and services/subsidies are more suitable for the unique characteristics of growing and developing children than are cash benefits or vouchers.
D
However, given that CFC policies are oriented toward rights-based values, it would be desirable
TE
to provide children with benefits such as power over decisions and opportunity that would
EP
guarantee their citizenship rights.
The above analysis suggests that more focused policy designs are needed rather than
AC C
attempts to include all child-related policies extensively. Efforts are also needed to include children’s voices in terms of selection-oriented benefits rather than control-oriented benefits by policymakers. It is also necessary to consider increasing children’s power and opportunity benefits centered on guaranteeing their citizenship.
6-3. Eligibility rules As discussed earlier, these policies comprise extensive scopes and contents, and also many projects were relocated from existing child-related welfare services into CFC policies. In other words, Korea's CFCs appear to be governed by broad, comprehensive policies including the somewhat CFC-specialized projects of each municipality. Therefore, it is virtually impossible
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT to examine the social allocation characteristics of all CFC-related policies. Given that CFCs are rights based, the assignment dimension analysis addressed only the participation rights area, because this area best reflects both children’s rights and CFC traits. Currently, the participation-rights policy contents differ somewhat by detailed municipality projects, but they can be divided into active policies, such as those related to decisionmaking
PT
and expressing opinions, and passive policies regarding participating in programs. Five sites,
RI
(Seongbuk-Gu and Songpa-Gu are exceptions) showed more passive than active participation.
SC
For passive participation, it is important to give children opportunities, but most children receive
making programs or provide their opinions.
NU
programs provided by adults, and there are no systems in which children can participate in
Table 3 shows that all municipalities found participatory mechanisms to reflect children's
MA
voices and guarantee their active participation rights. Primarily, three sites have councils, and seven have committees to support their child-related policies; some sites have reporters or
D
campaigns for children to freely express their voices. However, when we look at the contents in
TE
detail, we see clearly that even in the Child and Youth Congress project, which follows a
EP
representative democratic approach, child representatives are mainly chosen indirectly, such as through open recruitment, rather than directly elected, which takes place at only one site, in
AC C
Gangdong-Gu. Although the members of the congresses vote on their compositions and positions, the congresses are first organized by adults through first-come, first-served policies or lotteries, so their legitimacy and child representation are low. As with the child and youth congresses, the child and youth committees are separate, and in many cases, participants were selected or recommended. In addition, the committees’ terms of office are one year and the members are recruited annually; each committee is composed of approximately 30 members except for those in Songpa-Gu and Gangdong-Gu. These forms of the participatory organizations lower the accessibility to information and lead to the formal participation of some children and youth interested rather than allowing for all children to freely express their opinions democratically. In addition to the
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT traditional hierarchical culture of Korea, the country’s social atmosphere is unfamiliar with the guarantee of children’s and youth’s participation rights, which is a stumbling block against their active expression and decisionmaking. Given that CFCs started as a movement to ensure that child's basic rights, the guarantee of participation must be open to all children, not just some selected children, and more specific
PT
efforts are needed to achieve this. As part of this effort, five sites, Seongbuk-Gu, Gunsan-City,
RI
Geumjeong-Gu, Songpa-Gu, and Gangdong-Gu, added CFC-related pages to their websites.
SC
However, there are problems over whether all children have access to these pages and can
NU
express their opinions freely.
6-4. Administrative and Service Delivery
MA
In order to examine whether the municipalities’ CFC policies are being effectively realized,
accessibility, and accountability.
D
the administrative and service delivery systems were analyzed with a focus on continuity,
TE
First, it is important to continuously and consistently implement policies and detailed projects
EP
in order to bring change in real life. In Korea's CFCs, various attempts have been made to be able to implement policy sustainability. For example, Seongbuk-Gu, Wanju- gun, Gunsan-city,
AC C
and Songpa-Gu released midterm plans or budgets for three or four years7 for continuity and consistency. Two municipalities, Seongbuk-Gu and Gangdong-Gu, developed performance indicators for measuring trends and outcomes, assessing current situations, and deciding on future directions. However, it is difficult to realize the ideals of the CFC, which is the key to improving citizens’ awareness and children’s real participation, through medium-term policies. In a 2016 Geumjeong-Gu survey on children8, only 4.9% of respondents answered that they knew much about CFCs, although 25.9% reported having heard of them before; 69.2% of respondents did not know much about them. This trend also appeared in Seongbuk-Gu’s A 7
In accordance with one of the principles of child-friendly cities, Korea’s CFCs publish annual budgets and project plans. 8 The municipality of Geumjeong-Gu published a child-impact assessment of its status as a child-friendly city that reported on middle- and high-school students’ recognition of CFCs.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Report on Child and Youth’s Right Investigation, and 45.1% and 30.4% of children and youth, respectively, were aware of CFCs (KHRPI, 2016). Given that these surveys were administered in municipalities that had already been certified as CFCs, these results show that the citizens’ recognition of children is far less than the municipalities’ enthusiasm and promotion. In order to lead to true changes, a consistent and long-lasting commitment to CFC policies is
PT
needed, but the present system excessively depends on municipalities’ willingness to
RI
implement these policies. It may be difficult to have long-term, continuous practices. That’s
SC
why i t’ s important to have sufficient professional human resources to promote policies in addition to policymakers’ clear goal setting and willingness implement policies. In Ta bl e 4,
NU
all municipalities have specialty teams or divisions for the CFC, and three to nine public officers in each municipality who work only on CFCs.; however, these numbers count only the
MA
eligible staff members in the CFC specialty departments, whereas the detailed projects are not housed only within the specialty departments but in fact range both directly and indirectly
D
across all departments; that is, there are many more officers involved in detailed projects than
TE
only the dedicated CFC officers. Even so, it is difficult for administrative officials to operate the
EP
present large-scale detailed projects directly with expertise. It is therefore important to build a delivery system that actively cooperates with and uses local networks and resources, such as
AC C
local private agencies or councils. Additionally, in order to secure specialty and accountability and reflect the environmental characteristics and unique traits of each municipality, independent and subjective policymaking is essential, and supporting agencies are needed to assist municipalities’ efforts. The National Youth Policy Institute referred to the need to establish CFC support centers in central and local municipalities (Oh, Kim, & Jeong, 2015). Hubs for professional advisors and partnerships would not only help to ensure professionalism but also provide long-term direction, which is one way to resolve the fragmentation and discontinuity. The problem of lack of access also needs to be addressed. It is a key issue that determines the success or failure of policies for children and youth. because it relates to certain developmental
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT aspects. If physical, psychological, and environmental accessibilities are not guaranteed for children, regardless of how good the policies are, the benefits to children will be more restricted than are those for adults. However, as noted above, Korea’s CFC policies are being implemented with the strong willingness of the municipalities, and children’s voluntary participation in and awareness of CFCs is very low. This suggests that children’s
PT
participation rights have not been established and that their lack of access is an obstacle.
RI
In order to solve these problems, it is necessary actively promote and extend
SC
children’s participation and build systems for hearing children’s opinions. One way to increase access is through public-private partnerships that use community networks and resources (Oh et
NU
al., 2015); possibilities include child-friendly programs and spaces where children are active, such as schools, child-care centers, youth-training facilities, and child-welfare facilities. Although
MA
each municipality uses a private-public partnership to realize policies, its approach is a passively top-down way by subsidizing programs or operations. Encouraging children’s
D
participation and reflecting their opinions in policies require cooperative efforts to change
TE
children’s real-world environments rather than ha ve onl y one-sided policies initiated by
EP
municipalities.
AC C
6-5. Finance system
The financial system analysis focused on the appropriateness of policy goals by examining budget ratios and funding sources. Funding sources were divided into district, special city, metropolitan, province, or national level; Table 5 presents the ratios of CFC funds in each municipality’s total budget, including subsidies from higher authorities. The municipal self-reliance ratio was the highest at 43.8% in Seongbuk-Gu, and most municipalities had self-reliance ratios of 30%; the lowest proportion, 10%, was in GeumjeongGu. This demonstrates that higher authorities’ policies constitute a large part of CFCs. It is more advantageous to give CFC certifications at local levels, such as in counties or districts, rather than at the national level for reflecting children’s voices and making actual changes in
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT their lives. Therefore, it is desirable to stably secure municipal budgets to allow cities to carry out their unique policies. The CFC budget ratios in each municipality ranged from less than 6% to less than 30% of the general accounts, and most ratios were over 20% of the totals. However, simple comparison does not fully take into account each municipality’s budget situation or regional
PT
background, so we tried to calculate the budget ratio per child for clearer comparison.
RI
Excluding Seongbuk-Gu, which distinguishes itself from other municipalities in terms of CFC
SC
policy composition, the annual expenditure per child is 1 million to 3 million KRW. Wanju-Gun’s CFC budget was only 9% of the general account, but its expenditure per child
NU
was the highest, at 3 million KRW annually. This appears to include not only direct costs to children but also large overhead costs, such as expanding facilities and funding child-care center
MA
operations. In fact, Songpa-Gu9 (2016) presented in Songpa’s 2016 child-friendly city plan that the average direct cost per child in the annual CFC budget was 8,400 KRW. but the annual cost
D
including overhead costs was 760,000 won. Because overhead costs include indirect costs, such
TE
as subsidies to third parties such as welfare or private cooperation organizations, we can infer
EP
that there are considerable differences between the direct cost and the overhead costs. Looking at the budget ratios by area, it can be seen that most municipal budgets are
AC C
concentrated in the development area, because there are more development policies than policies for other areas; however, the common characteristic among them is that the budget share for the participation area does not exceed 1%. Five sites even showed budget shares of less than 0.3% in the participation area. Even though the proportions of detailed projects in the participation area are only 4–8% of the total project proportions, the budget proportions for the participation area are far below this level. In short, there appear to be considerable limits in securing the child’s participation right, which is not only a lack of policy efforts to reflect
9
The budget per child was calculated by simply dividing the total CFC-related budget by the number of children. Because the CFC projects differ widely in category and number across municipalities, it was difficult to simply compare the budgets but I could estimate the approximate proportions of the budgets per child. For Seongbuk-Gu, the project volume in 2016 was much lower than that in other cities, because the policies focused on more specialized CFC projects than did the policies in other municipalities. For example, in Seongbuk-Gu, there were 39 projects in 2016 but 113 in 2015, and the budget per child was 1.593M₩.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT children's voices even in the municipalities certified as CFCs, but also the need for active investment in project developments in this area.
6-6. Interactions
PT
Interactions mean effects or conflicts between the foregoing elements. Chamber and Bonk
RI
(2012) explained the various interaction types: co-entitlement, disentitlement, contrary effects,
SC
and duplication between elements.
The area of children's participation rights in CFCs' policies appears somewhat discordant
NU
between the elements of goals, service delivery, financing, and eligibility rules. The children's participation right is the core difference of CFCs from child-welfare policies, because welfare
MA
policies are focused on selective and essential guarantees, but CFCs are approached from a universal perspective on all children and extended to their participation right as citizens.
D
Therefore, all municipalities dealt with the guarantee of children’s participation. However,
TE
as we have analyzed in the previous sections, the share of participation policies is less than 10%,
EP
and the budget is 1% or thereabouts of the total. In addition, due to because of problems of the policies' system, eligibility rules, and administrative procedures, in there has been took close to
AC C
selective approach, not for all. But the fact that aim of participation right has to be given to all children is the key. Therefore, because it may bring on a dis-entitlement problem, such as discrimination against children and youth who are ruled out of these policies, there needs to be more delicacy in making policy plans and systems. In other words, in order to achieve the policy goals, system reformation and proper investment are needed to help most children to participate.
7.
Discussion
In Korea, CFC certification began with Seongbuk-Gu in 2013, and seven were certified as
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT CFCs by UNICEF as of April 201710. These municipalities have implemented policies and detailed projects based on children’s basic rights to survival, protection, development, and participation. Analysis of six elements of the CFCs policies suggests some implications and suggestions derived from the results, as follows. First, it is necessary to enact policies that focus on child-friendly cities. The most outstanding
PT
feature of Korea's CFCs, excluding Seongbuk-Gu, is that they feature broad, comprehensive,
RI
detailed projects directly or indirectly related to children. Many projects were shifted from
SC
existing child-welfare areas to a CFC focus through various ministries, and special projects were also developed in each municipality.
NU
Of course, given that children’s comprehensive rights should relate to their real lives, detailed CFC policies and projects should reflect children’s overall welfare, but it is doubtful whether
MA
simply expanding project and policy volume better implements the CFC Initiative. In order to establish more viable CFCs, policies and projects in existing welfare areas should be
D
maintained independently and separately; formulating and promoting specific and distinctive
TE
CFC policies will be needed. CFC-specific policies are more advantageous, in that the officers
EP
in charge are able to cooperate and coordinate efficiently, strengthen flexibility, and more accurately reflect children’s and municipalities’ realities considering the limited administrative
AC C
power of each municipality. These efforts would also better reflect the CFC spirit of highlighting the rights of all children. Second, an institutional component is needed to reflect children’s actual voices. The analysis revealed the ongoing issue of whether policies and projects actually reflect the voices of children regarding issues related to them and expand their opportunities for participating in policymaking. I found that the municipalities do not try hard to encourage children’s
10
Along with the seven cities that were the subject of the analysis through April 2017, eight
additional municipalities obtained CFC certification from May to October 2017, so there are now a total of 15 CFCs in Korea.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT participation rights; on average, only 6.6% of the total projects are in this area. In Gangdong-Gu, which has the highest budget in the participation area, the proportion is only 2% of the total budget. Given these results, Korea's CFCs appear to be struggling to find and introduce ways to involve children as active partners. Furthermore, looking at the actual participation rights projects reveals problems not only
PT
with inadequate systems to encourage children’s participation but also with administration. In
RI
all of Korea's CFCs, there are formal systems for supporting children’s participation, such as
SC
the child and youth councils and committees, but closer analysis of project contents shows that adults select or recommend the members from the initial stage. Therefore, there are problems
NU
with the legitimacy of the democratic procedure and the representation of children. Based on previous CFC initiative experiences, Lansdown et al. (2017) concluded that it is not sufficient
MA
merely to establish child and youth committees, but that children's organizations call for proper support and practical systems for their participation in local political structures.
D
For example, in France, the cities of Colomiers and Aubergenville have child and youth
TE
municipal councils in which the children participate in “shadow municipal councils,” holding
EP
meetings every other week and participating in formal events (Sedletzki, 2017). Similarly, in Hanau, Germany, child representatives from all schools work together to discuss appropriate
AC C
issues at the city level, and there are efforts to build up the municipal-level structure (Guerreiro, 2017b). The above cases reflect that it is challenging to create systems that allow for children to participate as active partners in real-world decisions, so success requires long-term investments, communities’ cooperation, and municipalities’ persistent will. Third, it is necessary to establish a mechanism to ensure substantial participation rights. In order to secure children’s participation, it is essential to design plans and encourage local community cooperation. However, it is difficult to truly guarantee children’s participation rights solely with municipalities’ enthusiasm and efforts; the limited administrative manpower is insufficient for engaging in the entire process from planning, organizing, and monitoring to implementing policies, and suggests a lack of professionalism. The most consistent problems
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT were not only poor performance in guaranteeing participation rights, but also inadequate project contents at the formal level. Therefore, in order to truly guarantee participation rights, it is necessary to establish effective mechanisms to support administrations, including increasing manpower, policies, and projects. Above all, it appears to be necessary to provide a system for supporting policies and projects
PT
through specialized facilitators who can compile and organize children's opinions; in
RI
Seongbuk-Gu’s report on its survey on children, the authors suggest such a support system
SC
(KHRPI, 2016). Wolfsburg, Germany, as part of its 2014-2018 CFCI Action Plan, operates one-year training programs to develop moderators for children and youth participation projects to
NU
help children and youth to participate effectively (Guerreiro, 2017b), and this would be a good model to follow.
MA
In addition, it is key to create a structure that children can participate in practically within the boundaries of their lives. Korea has provided free compulsory education through middle
D
school since 2001, and the high-school enrollment rate has reached 92.8% (Ministry of
TE
Education, 2011). Therefore, if it is possible to use existing infrastructures such as autonomous
EP
school organizations or to link information services into school websites, it might be possible to draw a large number of children into the field of participation. It is also necessary to
AC C
establish participation mechanisms in the actual spaces where children spend their lives, such as at community, care, and youth culture centers and welfare facilities. In fact, the National Committee in Poland suggested using existing school councils as mechanisms for child participation, which led to broad consultation with children (Lansdown et al., 2017). Fourth, active publicity, long-term plans, and stable budgets should be achieved. Realizing the value of CFCs in the real world and changing communities requires the support and participation of community members and children. However, as shown in the analysis results for CFC delivery systems, CFCs are gaining little favor in local communities compared with the municipalities’ enthusiasm. There are considerable gaps between local community recognition and municipalities as reflected in the fact that even in the CFC-certified cities, more
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT than half of the citizens were not aware of or did not know much about CFCs (KHRPI, 2016; Park, Ha, Son, & Park, 2016). The project review of "La città dei bambini-Children's City" in Italy reported that awareness-raising was a significant challenge for the future (UNICEF, 2004). Therefore, it is necessary to study issues and policies related to children from children’s perspectives and provide platforms for dissemination of the knowledge gained,
PT
such as through the websites of schools and related institutions, which will actively promote
RI
publicity and voluntary participation.
SC
More, community perceptions do not change in a short time; changes require municipalities’ long-term and sustained efforts and commitment, as well as sustainable plans and stable budget
NU
allocations (Lansdown et al., 2017; Riggio, 2002). Some Korean municipalities have mid-term policies for three or four years, but it is difficult to bring about meaningful changes in
MA
communities in such a short period. The terms of locally elected municipal heads may be a constraint on consistent implementation of policies, but it should be possible to make
D
substantial changes through stable plans and budgets.
TE
Fifth, it is necessary to establish advisory agencies or cooperative networks to support
EP
municipalities. In Korea, the APCFC, a voluntary association established in 2015, is providing forums to share successes and failures. It has also provided places for communication and
AC C
information to municipalities that wish to be CFCs, so that many municipalities can be certified in a short time. However, more than 30 municipalities are preparing for certification, and even the certified CFCs are still encountering problems. As such, to effectively address the challenges, it would be useful to establish hub or advisory agencies that can systematically support municipalities and provide information (Oh et al., 2015). At the same time, it seems necessary to establish civilian-government cooperation systems by using communities’ unique networks and residents’ associations. This will not only reduce the burden on each municipality but will also be a source for substantial changes by sharing the value of being a CFC to communities. Working with local community associations is also an opportunity to develop individual municipalities into distinctive CFCs that reflect
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT unique local color. Through the analysis of Korea’s child-friendly city policies along six elements, this study presented the CFC policy details, structures, and limitations in general. The aim of this study was not to present success stories but rather to identify current policies and provide concrete, realistic alternatives for addressing limitations. The implications derived from this study will be
PT
useful not only in Korea but also in all cities that want to become true CFCs. In addition, the
RI
concrete alternatives and policy directions are expected to have significant implications for
SC
world cities similar to those in Korea that are preparing to become CFCs. This study, however, did not present specific municipality concrete efforts but instead
NU
presented the results of comparing and analyzing the policies and projects of seven Korean municipalities certified by UNICEF as CFCs. Therefore, future studies will be required to
MA
conduct in-depth investigations of Korea's CFC cases and produce sharable results, and it is also necessary to compare Korean case studies with studies of other CFCs around the world.
D
Additionally, I hope that a future longitudinal study will show the development trajectory of
TE
Korea's CFCs and be able to contribute to global efforts to realize the true value of child-
AC C
EP
friendly cities.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT References Björklid, P., & Nordström, M. (2007). Environmental child-friendliness: collaboration and future research. Children Youth and Environments, 17(4), 388-401. Bridgman, R. (2004). Child-friendly cities: Canadian perspectives. Children Youth and Environments, 14(2), 178-200. Broberg, A., Kyttä, M., & Fagerholm, N. (2013). Child-friendly urban structures: Bullerby
PT
revisited. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 35, 110-120. Chawla, L. (2001). Putting young old ideas into action: the relevance of Growing Up in Cities to
RI
Local Agenda 21. Local Environment, 6(1), 13-25.
Chambers, D. E. & Bonk, J. F (2012). Social policy and social programs: A method for the
SC
practical public policy analyst (6th Edition). Pearson.
Chapin, R. K. (1995). Social policy development: The strengths perspective. Social work, 40(4),
NU
506-514.
Chatterjee, S. (2005). Children's friendship with place: a conceptual inquiry. Children Youth
MA
and Environments, 15(1), 1-26.
Choi, M. H. (2013). Child-friendly Design of Community Environment. Review of Architecture and Building Science, 57(9), 8-12.
D
Corsi, M. (2002). The child-friendly cities initiative in Italy. Environment and Urbanization,
TE
14(2), 169-179.
Derr, V., & Tarantini, E. (2016). “Because we are all people”: outcomes and reflections from
EP
young people's participation in the planning and design of child-friendly public spaces. Local Environment, 21(12), 1534-1556.
AC C
Gabel, S. G. (2016). A Rights-based Approach to Social Policy Analysis: Springer. Freeman, C., & Tranter, P. (2012). Children and their urban environment: Changing worlds. Routledge.Gilbert, N., & Terrell, P. (2002). Dimensions of social welfare policy: Allyn & Bacon. Godfrey, E. B., Osher, D., Williams, L. D., Wolf, S., Berg, J. K., Torrente, C., ... & Aber, J. L. (2012). Cross-national measurement of school learning environments: Creating indicators for evaluating UNICEF's Child-friendly Schools Initiative. Children and youth services review, 34(3), 546-557. Gökmen, H., & Gülay Taşçı, B. (2016). Children’s Views about Child-friendly City: A Case Study from Izmir. Megaron, 11(4), 469-482. Guerreiro, A. I. (Ed.) (2017a). The Child-Friendly Initiative in Finland: UNICEF. Guerreiro, A. I. (Ed.) (2017b). The Child-Friendly Initiative in Germany (1-20 ed.): UNICEF. Hong, S. A., & Lee, J. Y. (2011). Children and Adolescents' Assessments of Child-friendly
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Cities. Korean Journal of Child Studies, 32(2), 53-70. Hong, S. A., & Lee, J. Y. (2013). A Study on the Development and Validation of the Assessment Tool for Child-friendly Cities. Korean Journal of Child Studies, 34(4), 83104. Horelli, L. (1998). Creating child-friendly environments: case studies on children's participation in three European countries. Childhood, 5(2), 225-239.
PT
KHRPI, K. H. R. P. I. (2016). A Report of 2016 Child and Youth’s Right Investigation in Seongbuk-Gu Retrieved from
RI
Kim, J. N. (2014). Design for the Creation of Child-friendly Environment. Research Bulletin of Package Culture Design, 38, 57-66.
SC
Kim, W. S., Jeong, G. H., & Hong, M. K. (2015). A Survey on Child & Youth. Wanju-Gun.
City Development Plan. Urban Affairs, 45, 17-21.
NU
Kim, Y. H. (2010). Urban development for women and youth; Child and Youth-friendly
MA
Kim, Y. H., Lim, Y. S., & Kim, M. (2014). A Study of Youth Happiness Community’s Index and Construction Project Ⅱ. National Youth Policy Institute, 14-R15-1, 1-284. Kingston, B., Wridt, P., Chawla, L., Van Vliet, W., & Brink, L. (2007, June). Creating child-
D
friendly cities: the case of Denver, USA. In Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
TE
Engineers-Municipal Engineer (Vol. 160, No. 2, pp. 97-102). Thomas Telford Ltd. Kyttä, M. (2004). The extent of children's independent mobility and the number of actualized
EP
affordances as criteria for child-friendly environments. Journal of environmental psychology, 24(2), 179-198.
AC C
Lansdown, G., Wernham, M., Guerreiro, A. I., & Sedletzki, V. (Eds.). (2017). Toolkit for National Committees: UNICEF. Lee, W. K. (2010). Urban development for women and youth; Woman, Child and Youthfriendly City Management Strategy. Urban Affairs, 45(504), 22-26. Nam, K. M. (2015). Social Welfare Policy: Hakjisa. Nikku, B. R., & Pokhrel, R. (2013). Crafting Child‐friendly Cities: Evidence from Biratnagar Sub‐ metropolitan City, Eastern Nepal. Asian Social Work and Policy Review, 7(2), 135-150. Malone, K. (2006). United Nations: a key player in a global movement for child-friendly cities. In Creating child-friendly cities. Routledge, 25-44. McAllister, C. (2008). Child-friendly cities and land use planning: Implications for children's health. Environments, 35(3), 45. Malone, K. (2013). “The future lies in our hands”: children as researchers and environmental change agents in designing a child-friendly neighbourhood. Local Environment, 18(3),
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 372-395. Oh, H. S., Kim, S. G., & Jeong, Y. M. (2015). A Study of Youth Happiness Community’s Index and Construction Project III. National Youth Policy Institute, 15-R12-1, 1-292. Osman El Hassan, M. N. (2013). Building Child-friendly Cities in the MENA region.International Review of Education, 59(4), 489-504. Park, G. S., Ha, J. H., Son, J. Y., & Park, J. Y. (2016). Research on Child Impact Assessment of
PT
Creating Child-friendly City. Guemjeon-Gu. Racelis, M., & Aguirre, A. D. M. (2002). Child rights for urban poor children in child-friendly
RI
Philippine cities: views from the community. Environment and Urbanization, 14(2), 97113.
SC
Riggio, E. (2002). Child-friendly cities: good governance in the best interests of the child. Environment
and Urbanization, 14(2), 45-58.
NU
Sedletzki, V. (Ed.) (2017). The Child-Friendly Initiative in France: UNICEF. Song, G. W., & Kim, T. S. (1995). Social Welfare Policy: Nanam.
MA
SONGPAGU. (2016). 2016 Songpa Child-friendly City Plan, Songpa-Gu. Villanueva, K., Badland, H., Kvalsvig, A., O'Connor, M., Christian, H., Woolcock, G., ... & Goldfeld, S. (2016). Can the neighborhood built environment make a difference in
D
children's development? Building the research agenda to create evidence for place-based
TE
children's policy. Academic pediatrics, 16(1), 10-19. Wilks, J. (2010). Child-friendly cities: A place for active citizenship in geographical and
EP
environmental education. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 19(1), 25-38.
AC C
Whitzman, C., Worthington, M., & Mizrachi, D. (2010). The journey and the destination matter: Child-Friendly Cities and children's right to the City. Built Environment, 36(4), 474-486. Woolcock, G., Gleeson, B., & Randolph, B. (2010). Urban research and child-friendly cities: a new Australian outline. Children's Geographies, 8(2), 177-192. Woolcock, G., & Steele, W. (2008). Child-friendly community indicators–A literature review. Urban Research Program, Griffith University and NSW Commission for Children and Young People. Youn, J. J., Seo, Y. M., & Ko, E. H. (2015). A Study on the Evaluation of Child-Friendly Cities for Development of Child Happiness City in Gunsan City. Gunsan City.
Website DOBONG
website. (2017). Child Friendly City Initiative. Retrieved from
http://www.dobong.go.kr/Contents.asp?code=10006205 ELIS. Enhanced Local laws and regulations Information System. (2017). Retrieved from
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT http://www.elis.go.kr/ KOSIS. (2016). Population Census by Age, City, and Region in 2016. Korean Statistical Information Service. Retrieved from http://kosis.kr/search/search.do GANGDONGGU website. (2017). Child Friendly City. Retrieved from http://welfare.gangdong.go.kr/site/contents/bokji/html01/html00/index1.html?t=15125 79771908 website.
(2017).
Children
in
Geumjeong-Gu. Retrieved
PT
GEUMJEONGGU
from
http://www.geumjeong.go.kr/index.geumj?contentsSid=2736
website. (2017). Dream Hub Gusan Child.
Retrieved from
RI
GUNSANCITY
http://www.gunsan.go.kr/child/index.gunsan
National statistical
offices
SF2.1
SC
OECD. (2014). Eurostat and World Development Indicators. Available from Family
OECD.
(2016a).
NU
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932966295
Database
Employment
outlook
2016.
Retrieved from
Retrieved
from
Retrieved
from
OECD.
(2016b).
MA
http://www.oecd.org/korea/Employment-Outlook-Korea-EN.pdf Economy
Survey
of
Korea.
http://www.oecd.org/eco/surveys/economic-survey-korea.htm
D
OECD. (2016c). Society at Glance 2016.
Retrieved from
SEONGBUKGU
website.
TE
http://www.oecd.org/korea/sag2016- korea.pdf (2017).
Children
Friendly
Soengbuk. Retrieved
from
EP
http://www.seongbuk.go.kr/children/main/main.jsp UNICEF. (2004). Project review: La città dei bambini (Children’s City), Italy. Retrieved from
AC C
http://childfriendlycities.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/04/pdf/italy_cittabambini_fulldocument.pdf UNCEF (2017).
The Child Friendly Cities International Webpage.
Retrieved from
http://www.childfriendlycities.org UNCEF (2018).
The Child Friendly Cities International Webpage.
Retrieved from
https://childfriendlycities.org/what-is-a-child-friendly-city UNICEF
Korea. (2017). The Child Friendly Cities Korea Webpage. Retrieved
from http://www.unicef.or.kr/education/korea/choice_city.asp WANJUGUN
website.
(2017).
Child
Friendly
Wanju.
Retrieved
from
http://www.wanju.go.kr/trans/index.wanju?menuCd=DOM_000001404005001000
Table 1. The Child-Friendly Cities’ Policy Goals Divis ion
Seongbuk-G in Seoul-C (Nov. 2013ⅰ)
Wanju-GN in Jeonla-D (Mar. 2016)
Guemjeong-G in Busan-C (Sep. 2016)
(As of April 2017) Gunsan-S in Jeonla-D (Oct. 2016)
Dobong-G in Seoul-C (Nov. 2016)
Sonpa-G in Seoul-C (Dec. 2016)
Gangdong-G, in Seoul-C (Mar. 2017)
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 2015 The best Wanju, where children can live well
2016 Happy children and respected children
2016 Construction Gunsan, where children are happy
2016 Happy childfriendly city, Dobong, with participation of children
2016 A happy city, Songpa, where children and youth grow their dreams
2017 Kangdong, where all children and families are happy
Promoting and realizing the child’s four basic rights
Pushing forward integrated child policy to protect and promote the child's rights
Establishing a foundation for respecting the child’s rights
1. Developing appropriate policies for the child’s safety, protection, development, and participation 2. UNICEF childfriendly city certification and a city where both children and citizens are happy
Respect for children as citizens with sovereignty and as objects of protection
Ensuring the rights of children and youth to cocreate together
1. Healthy city where children are happy 2. Realizing the child’s rights 3. Realizing child-friendly values
a. fundamental health b. welfare c. residential environment d. facilities & special protection e. education & leisure f. culture & activities g. citizenship
a. educational b. cultural infra. c. participation right d institution & law system e. health care system f. residential environment g. safe food h. support for family i. living environ. j. community environ. k. disease prevention l. environmental infra. m. prohibition of poverty n. prohibition of discrimination o. support for street children p. publicity for UNCRC q. empowerment as world citizens 154 d. prjs.
a. CFC-infra. b. survival c. protection d. development e. participation
a. quality of life b. Residential environ. c. health d. prohibition of abuse neglect e. social protection f. safety g. family environ. h. Educational environ. i. community environ. j. participation system k. empowering participation l. making decisions
a. safety and protection b. health and social services c. education environ. d. play & leisure e. facility & family f. ensuring participation right
39 detailed projects (d. prjs.) 104 promotional indicators
127 d. prjs.
AC C
d e t a i l
EP
TE
D
MA
r e a
a. play & leisure b. participation and citizenship c. safety and protection d. health and social services e. educational environ. f. family & residential environ.
RI
P o l i c y
a. eco-friendly meals b. comprehensive health care c. integrated child care system d. reliable care environment e. CFCsettlements f. innovative education g. CFC-infra. h. decisionA making system
SC
G o a l
PT
2016ⅱSettling into a childfriendly city (CFC)
NU
V i s i o n
200 d. prjs.
137 d. prjs.
104 d. prjs.
160 d. prjs.
i. Certification date. ii. Year of the policy data used in the analysis. * Administration district : Metropolitan or special city; neighborhood: dong
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 2. Child-Friendly Cities’ Detailed Projects* by Child’s Right** WJ N=127
GJ N=154
GS N=200
DB N=137
SP N=104
GD N=160
Survival
5 (12.9)
23 (18.1)
13 (8.4)
31 (15.5)
37 (27.0)
18 (17.3)
29 (18.1)
Child’s Rights N (%)
Protection
11 (28.2)
23 (18.1)
31 (20.1)
51 (25.5)
28 (20.4)
27 (26.0)
52 (32.5)
Development
20 (51.2)
75 (59.1)
97 (63.0)
107 (53.5)
60 (43.8)
53 (51.0)
71 (44.4)
Participation
3
6
13
11
12
(7.7)
(4.7)
(8.4)
(5.5)
PT
SB***, **** N=39
Division
(8.8)
6
(5.8)
8
(5.0)
AC C
EP
TE
D
MA
NU
SC
RI
* Numbers of detailed projects in all four rights provided by each municipality except Seongbuk-Gu. ** Data are from 2016 for all municipalities except two; Wanju-Gun and Gangdong-Gu reported data for 2015 and 2017, respectively. *** SB: Seonbuk-G, WJ: Wanju-GN, GJ: Guemjeong-G, GS: Gunsan-C, DB: Dobong-G, SP: Songpa-G, GD: Gangdong-G **** Seongbuk-Gu reported policies for nine areas, but these were reconstructed into the four children’s rights as follows: Survival: supplying eco-friendly meals for students (2 detailed projects); comprehensive health care for children and adolescents (3) Protection: Integrated child care system (5); creating reliable child care environments (6) Development: Promoting CFC settlements (5); innovative city education pro jects (6); child-friendly infrastructure (5) Participation: Building a decision-making system for children and youth (3)
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 3. Child-Friendly Cities’ Participation Guarantee Policies*
GS (2016)
Youth participation committee (Y: 16; OR)
Support for youth clubs (Y: 86; SR) Local Win-Win Slow Food school (Y: 300; OR + F) Youth culture space creation project (Y: 3000; FR) Children's Day festival (K, C, Y: 2000; FR) Cultural interchange and cooperation project for elementary students (C: 80; OR + L)
SR) -
education (Y: -
Youth participation committee (Y: 20; SR) Youth general assembly (Y60; OR + SR) Child & Youth Council (C23, Y26: 49; OR + SR) Youth municipal policy development conference (Y55; Child’s rights campaign and monitoring (C, Y: -) Global youth citizen leadership workshop (Y: 10; SR)
Child’s rights declaration workshop (C, Y: -) Support for child city hall web service on homepage (K, C, Y: -; FR) Child & youth council (C30, Y30: 60; OR + F) Child Happiness City policy proposal debate forum (C, Y: -) Youth Steering Committee (Y: 33; SR)
Forming and operating a child & youth hope committee (-) Utilizing youth announcers (-)
TE
GD (2017)
International youth interchange camp (Y: 35; SR) School for global youth citizens (C: 24; SR) Photography class for international understanding 25; SR) Global Citizenship Education (C, Y: 500; FR) UNICEF cooperation project (C, Y: - ) UNICEF Street creation (C, Y; FR) Playground program (C, Y; FR)
Support for youth clubs (Y: 13 groups; SS) Support for local children's centers (C, Y: 1,460; AL) Children's Day celebration event (C: - ; FR) School violence prevention program (Y: -; FR) Youth art festival (Y: -; SS) M unicipal library reading festival (K, C, Y: -; FR) Youth volunteer school and hope letter writing program (-) Support for youth Gong-Yu travel group (-) Support for children's choir (-) Korean (Hangul) Festival with Jeong-Hee Princess (-) 8th Annual Dobong Creative Science Festival (-) Youth Dreams project (-) Public institutions for children experience program (-) Visiting a silver hall with the Hyoja Village Daycare Center (-) Winter cleaning program with child volunteers (-) Cho Ansan Hyangiwon maintenance program with youth volunteers (-) Volunteer center program (C, Y, A: -; FR) Youth Council Classroom program (Y: 30 per section; SR) M unicipal visiting program for elementary students (C: 100; OR + F)
Child & youth participation organization - Youth council (C4, Y26: 30; ES + SR) - Child municipal policy participation committee (C8, Y14: 22; OR + SR) - Youth participation committee (C3, Y27: 30; OR + SR) - Youth autonomy committee: School student council delegation (Y: 90; ES) Proclamation of the Children’s Rights Declaration (C, Y: -) Residents’ ombudsman system (-)
Child-friendly integrated system ( -) Creating a child-friendly atmosphere (-) Education on & promotion of children’s rights (C, Y: -; SR) Gangdong Dream Tree class (C: -; OR + F) Children’s law advisory and counseling class (C, Y: -; FR)
EP
Child & youth participation committee (C, Y: 100; OR + SR) Child Youth Promotion Committee (A: 15; SR) Child and Youth Reporters:Publish a children’s newspaper using honorary reporters (C: 37; SR) Youth reporters (Y: 10; SR)
AC C
SP (2016)
PT
Participation of children & youth through media education and utilization (Y: -; OR + F)
D
DB (2016)
Child & youth participation organization Child & youth council (C34***, Y54: 88; OR + L****) Youth municipal political group (Y: 50; OR + L ) Child & youth honorary press (C, Y: 32; SR) Children & youth policy debate forum (C, Y; -*****; OR-L + SR)
RI
GJ (2016)
Participation in Programs
SC
WJ (2015)
Passive Participation
Decision Making Expressing Opinions
NU
SB** (2016)
Active Participation
MA
Division
* Based on the detailed participation policies provided by each municipality ** SB: Seonbuk-Gu, WB: Wanju-Gun, GJ: Guemjeong-Gu, GS: Gunsan-City, DB: Dobong-Gu, SP: Songpa-Gu, GD: Gangdong-Gu *** Object: K = under 8 years, C = elementary students, Y = youth age 13-18 years, A = adults **** M ethod: ES = election system; OR+L or OR+F = open recruitment + lottery or + first come; SR = selection or recommendation system; FR = free participation; AL = all ***** - = information not available or none; ## = base year of policy
Table 4. Child-Friendly Cities’ Administrative and Service Delivery Systems
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT (As of April 2017) Gunsan-S in Jeonla-D (Oct. 2016)
Dobong-G in Seoul-C (Nov. 2016)
Sonpa-G in Seoul-C (Dec. 2016)
Gangdong-G, in Seoul-C (Mar. 2017)
Child-friendly team (6 officers)
Child-friendly team (4 pers.)
Child-friendly team (5 pers.)
Child happiness
Child-friendly team (3 pers.)
Youth policy team (5 pers.)
Child policy team (3 pers.)
6 departments with CFC projects
12 depts.
21 depts.
22 depts.
20 depts.
19 depts.
25 depts.
private-schoolpublic governance
community youth safety-net (CYSnet)
local privatecouncil - toy rental business
community youth safety-net (CYSnet)
local privatecouncil – private security guard
private-public cooperation between CFCs
subsidies to private-welfare facilities; daycare center, welfare center, library, schools, etc.
private-welfare facilities
private-welfare facilities
private-welfare facilities
divisionⅲ (9 pers.),
PT
Guemjeong-G in Busan-C (Sep. 2016)
local privatecouncil harmful environment watchdogs, youth guidance committee
local privatecouncil - school parents monitoring groups
private-welfare facilities
eco-friendly farm - programs for children
RI
Coop eratio n
Wanju-GN in Jeonla-D (Mar. 2016)
SC
Admi nistra tion
Seongbuk-G in Seoul-C (Nov. 2013ⅰ)
NU
Divis ion
volunteer groups
private-welfare facilities
AC C
EP
TE
D
MA
i. Certification date. ii. The child-friendly team is under the education, child & youth officer, who is directly connected to the vice -head. ⅲ.There are seven related teams within the Child Happiness Division: policy, support, child care, welfare, dream-start, local children's center, and performing teams . * Administration district : Metropolitan or special city; neighborhood: dong
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 5. Policy Budgets of Child-Friendly Cities* Seonbuk (2016)
Wanju (2015)
Geumjeong (2016)
Gunsan (2016)
Dobong (2016)
Songpa (2016)
Gangdong (2017)
Popul Children(%) ation /Total*** N
73,049(16.2) /450,335
17,992(18.9) /95,303
34,863(14.3) /244,624
53,955(19.4) /277,551
54,233(15.6) /348,220
114,692(17.4) /657,831
72,920(16.2) /448,953
0.411
3.062
2.466
2.182
2.145
0.760
1.301
30,030 (6.0) /497,841
54,865 (9.4) /584,650
85,984 (29.5) /291,479
117,720 (15.8) /745,000
116,348 (29.1) /399,831
87,121 (15.1) /577,000
94,852 (19.7) /482,477
10,666(35.5) 7,177(23.9) 12,115(40.3) 72 (0.2)
10,559(19.3) 4,272(7.8) 39,898(72.7) 137 (0.2)
24,971(29.0) 10,783(12.5) 50,156(58.3) 74 (0.1)
16,271(13.8) 18,152(15.4) 83,169(70.7) 128 (0.1)
18,207(15.6) 85,261(73.3) 12,556(10.8) 324 (0.3)
26,711(30.7) 13,375(15.3) 46,319(53.2) 716 (0.8)
69,249(73.0) 6,071 (6.4) 18,047(19.0) 1,483 (1.6)
38.7%
9.1%
31.9%
34.7%
26.2%
Budg et Ratio s** M₩* *** (%)
CFC General account Survival Protection Development Participation
Source of Funds
Municipa 43.8% lity
RI
1 person
PT
Division
-
AC C
EP
TE
D
MA
NU
SC
* The figures are based on the child-friendly city budget documents published by each municipality. The data for Wanju and Gangdong are for 2015 and 2017, respectively. ** The budget ratio is based on the general accounts. However, due to the limited access to data on funding sources, the ratios for Songpa include both general and special accounts; Dobong did not disclose total municipal budget data. *** Population data came from the National Statistical Office; children are 0-18 years old; and population is calculated based on budget year. **** M ₩: million KRW (1 USD = 1,129 KRW as of June 15, 2017)
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Figure 1. Benefit Classifications for Child-Friendly Cities 450 350
250
Participation Development
150 50 Opportunities
Services
Goods / Commodities
Vouchers / Credits
Cash benefits
RI
*Power over decisions
Survival
SC
-50
PT
Protection
* Power over decisions: Right to make decisions/ Opportunities: Incentives or sanction employed to achieve desired ends
NU
Services: Skilled, knowledgeable performances, etc. in there, including third-party services provided by subsidies Good & Commodities: Tangible benefits/ Vouchers & Credits: Prepayments or post -payments to purveyors of benefits and (or) services Cash benefits: Negotiable currency, exchangeable without loss in value
AC C
EP
TE
D
MA
Definitions from Chamber & Bonk(2012), and Gilbert & Terrell(2002)