The governance question: who owns the plan?
Governance is one of the determinants of a plan's success. Where the coordinator sits, what the working groups are mandated to do, and how much cross-sectoral ownership is built from the outset decide who contributes to the analysis, whose commitments make it into the plan, and whether the plan survives a change of government.
"The primary conditions for replication are organisational and political: clear mandate, adequate resourcing, and sufficient planning horizon, rather than technical prerequisites that would limit transferability to more capacitated settings."
Start with the conflict you recognise
Governance models differ, but two structural conflicts can be found in many different countries, whichever model they choose. Choose the one you recognise from your own context. The models that follow will be framed around it, and you can switch at any point.
Four countries, four institutional choices
Open the four country models in any order and read each against the conflict you chose.
What it is
A two-level coordination system: a high-level inter-institutional working group tasked with overall coordination, and a technical working group with representatives of responsible institutions, civil society organisations and academia.
Why the country chose it
To give the coordinator both the authority to convene ministries and the operational continuity to sustain the work across the planning cycle.
What it asks of you
Sustained engagement at two levels, and a functioning technical secretariat to keep momentum between political moments.
How it bears on the silo trap
The political tier holds ministries to cross-sectoral commitments while the technical tier keeps the work moving.
How it bears on the participation illusion
The structure itself does not embed participation; Bulgaria addressed that separately, through child-led research.
What it is
The coordinator role assigned to an independent public-law entity (EKKA) outside any line ministry, with the Child Guarantee Recommendation transposed into national law.
Why the country chose it
To secure political neutrality across ministries and continuity across political cycles.
What it asks of you
A suitable existing independent body, and a legislative window to anchor the mandate in law.
How it bears on the silo trap
Because no single ministry owns the plan, none can sideline it. The legal anchor protects it from a change of government.
How it bears on the participation illusion
Participation was designed into the governance itself. A standing nationwide network of stakeholders fed the situation analysis and was deliberately kept in place to anchor implementation and monitoring. Children were consulted directly through two structured processes, and stakeholder findings were validated through structured consultation before drafting.
What it is
Coordination running from ministerial level down to Local Child Guarantee Units embedded in existing Local Councils for Social Action at municipal level, each mandated to repeat the barrier diagnosis locally.
Why the country chose it
To ensure evidence-based management with bottom-up updates of the plan and its implementation, without building new institutions.
What it asks of you
Municipal capacity, and a working mechanism to connect the local units back to the national level.
How it bears on the silo trap
Coordination is vertical, national to local; horizontal cross-ministry ownership still has to be built at all levels.
How it bears on the participation illusion
Local units embed community and service-user reality into the planning cycle continuously, rather than as a one-off consultation.
What it is
Coordination led from within a line ministry (Social Security and Labour), with an already-functioning inter-institutional body, the Child Welfare Council, rather than a newly created structure.
Why the country chose it
To ensure sustainability without depending on new funding or political will to maintain a distinct institution.
What it asks of you
An existing body with genuine intersectoral reach and mandate.
How it bears on the silo trap
The existing-body model keeps set-up low, but the coordinator sits inside a line ministry. It needs the mandate to convene every sector with real authority.
How it bears on the participation illusion
The Child Welfare Council brings NGOs, local authorities, the Children's Rights Ombudsperson and representatives of children into oversight. Even so, Lithuania's own lesson is that participation must be planned from the outset.
Apply this to your context
- Which of the two conflicts is closer to your reality right now, and of the four institutional choices, which would move you furthest from it?
- What is the one governance decision you could make early, before drafting begins, that your current arrangement is missing?
"Governance choices are policy choices. The countries that got this right did not have more resources; they made different decisions about institutional design, early in the process."
Take this to your team: a governance self-check
Two structural conflicts recur, and the institutional-design answer determines whether the plan holds. Use this with your team to describe your context and the decision you may be missing. Tick the signs you see in your country; you may recognise one or both.
The silo trap: child poverty is treated as one sector's problem, not the whole government's
- Other ministries treat the plan as the social-affairs or labour ministry's file.
- Depth is uneven across the five policy areas; some are thin.
- The coordinator lacks the authority to convene every relevant ministry as an equal.
The participation illusion: children and civil society validate the plan rather than shape it
- Children or civil society were consulted after the key decisions were taken.
- There is limited record of how their input actually changed the plan.
- Participation was a single event, without preparation time or a safe, child-friendly process.
The decisions that answer them
- Where does the coordinator sit?
- What is the coordinator's authority?
- Cross-sectoral ownership from day one.
- Participation built in early, and documented.
- A mechanism in place ensuring territorial reach.
Then ask: what is the one governance decision we could make early that our current arrangement is missing?