Facilitating Transitions For Children And Youth - Lessons From Four Post-Conflict Fund Projects

Children and youth living in conflict settings face an array of complex and urgent needs. Today, over 300 million young people below the age of 25 live in countries affected by armed conflict, representing nearly a fifth of the world's total population of children and youth. Indeed, people under the age of 25 are consistently the majority group in populations afflicted with the world's bloodiest wars. Furthermore, the gender dimension of armed conflict's impact on youth and children is also often overlooked, despite the forced recruitment of over 120,000 girls to become front-line fighters, or otherwise suffer exploitation by armed groups. The impetus behind this paper was to begin a sustained inquiry into programming for children and youth living in these conflict-affected environments. It selects four case studies from projects that have focused specifically on children and youth, and its goal is to draw lessons about the specific issues pertaining to the needs of this critical demographic, as well as examine the unique challenges of implementing projects in such complex and volatile settings. Young ex-combatants consistently express a desire to resume formal education, but they also face economic responsibilities, and therefore require education programs suited to their needs. Traditional vocational training programs have had an inconsistent record; other programs, such as second-chance education opportunities for overage and working youth, the rehabilitation of family-based small enterprises and apprenticeship programs, have shown more promise. General recommendations include distinguishing between children and youth, who have differing needs; creating linkages among sectors; being wary of expectations; involving youth and children from the outset; building flexibility and adaptability into the project design; accounting for geographic remoteness; and, fostering understanding, not entrenchment, by ensuring multicultural and multilingual programs do not unintentionally solidify conflict fault lines.