1. Speaking for Myself 2009 Child Participation Call – Investing in People

2. Critical Elements in the Call Objective: ‘To empower children in playing a leading role in their own development and the development of their communities while creating a strong base for their meaningful participation at local, national and regional levels’ Specific Objective: ‘To support children to effectively network, participate and be directly represented in local, national and regional decision-making and follow-up processes impacting upon their lives and the fulfillment of their rights enshrined in the UNCRC’ Priorities  Linked to addressing challenges impacting the fulfillment of children’s rights  Inclusive participation of children  Genuine child leadership  Communication, including media  Sustainability & rights based approach  Support network and representation of children in formal constituencies  Led by local non-state actors – children’s involvement rooted in relevant civil society actions Local Partners  Strong role  Good capacity/high level of competency

3. Call - Results  Total funding available: €11 million  Concept notes submitted: 866  No. of projects funded: 15  Success rate CN – Proposal: 1.7%  Project range EC contribution: €250,000 – €1,000,000  Mission East requested: €540,891.

4. Why this project? Weaknesses  Not much knowledge on ‘rights based approach’  No formal expertise on ‘child programming’ in general or child rights in particular  Elements of child participation as part of the project cycle mentioned, but not necessarily explicit in terms of good practice. External Factors  Global Call (less reliance on local delegations) Strengths  Disability Programming: inclusive education, child assessment and health provision – good reputation for this in Armenia (but not EU Funded)  Strong local partner (participated in EU-CORD regional training)  Access to strong, specialised local partners (media NGO)  Country Office  Integrated into existing networks (disability)  Potential for linkages with existing programmes Challenge  Getting the design of the action right  Project Title was key for establishing the project concept  Giving the sense of a ‘programme’ rather than a one-off project (capacity, sustainability)

5. Final Evaluation Relevance and Quality of Design  Very relevant to legal and policy context in Armenia  Relevant to present social development in the country Effectiveness (achievement of objectives/results)  Objectives 1-2, Results 1,2  Objective 2, Result 3 – partially achieved  Objective 3, Result 4 – partially achieved Result areas 3 & 4 too ambitious given the scope of the project Impact For many of the stakeholders, the project has been an eye-opener regarding the capabilities of children to voice their concerns and participate in decision making. In particular at the level of the participating schools, the project has clearly contributed to enabling children – both with and without disabilities – to realize their rights. Main achievement of the project  the change in attitudes with regard to children’s capabilities and child participation among various stakeholders (including children, parents, teachers, school principals, government officials);government officials  the change in perception of children with disabilities among various stakeholders;  the (re-)establishment of Student Committees in 31 participating schools as meaningful and functional bodies of child representation at local level;  the creation of spaces for children to discuss and voice concerns identified by them (media and debate clubs at 31 participating schools and five Bridge of Hope centers, school websites and blogs etc.);mediaschool websites and blogs  the first-time involvement of children into a major national social research project, leading to the publication of an alternative report on children’s rights in Armenia;  the creation of networks among children from different places in Armenia, in particular by bringing them together in two summer camps.