Local governments are considered closest to children, and typically, child-centred development organizations working with urban children make them the entry points of their work. However, urban governance is not confined to the actions of only local governments in cities but ranges across and involves national, regional, and municipal governments and a host of other stakeholders who are critical to the political economy of the city. This is particularly true in many countries in the majority world, where despite a push for decentralization, urban local bodies continue to be weak entities due to inadequate devolution of powers and functions. Effective urban governance encompasses many factors, including the city-national interface, municipal capacity, the role of the private sector, political systems and institutions, the political agency of the urban poor, opportunities for collective action, service delivery dynamics, the prevalence of conflict and violence, and the experience of vulnerable groups.[i] This article will share insights for engaging with urban governments to improve the lives of children in cities based on the evaluation of UNICEF work for children in cities[ii].
Engagement with national governments and stakeholders for work in cities
UNICEF engages with national governments across all its models and approaches for working in urban settings primarily to shape upstream policies, plans, strategies, and programmes to benefit the most vulnerable children. Among the country cases taken up by the urban evaluation, UNICEF’s strongest degree of engagement with national governments was found in the Child-Friendly Local Governance Audit (CFLGA) model in the Philippines, the Sustainable and Child-Friendly Municipality Initiative (SCFMI) model in Belize, and in the humanitarian response in Syria[iii]. The CFLGA is a country-wide initiative, developed and run by the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) and the Council for the Welfare of Children (CWC), with technical assistance from UNICEF to improve child well-being across a battery of indicators. The Philippines Country Office is also engaging in some exploratory work with the National Anti-Poverty Commission, which is an inter-agency body of informal settlers and the urban poor, for doing future policy-level work to address the drivers of urban poverty and on issues of access to services for the urban poor, new migrants and other marginalized groups. The evaluation observed that in the centralized countries, the ministries responsible for oversight of local governments are critical partners, often playing a more direct role in urban programming than the core ministries serving children and families. In Belize, the Ministry of Labour and Local Government and the Belize Mayors’ Association have been involved in the SCFMI since its inception with the national ministries responsible for child-focused and child-sensitive services (such as health, education, and human development) joining the initiative later. In Syria, UNICEF engages with the Ministry of Local Administration and Environment and the Ministry of Water Resources to plan and implement the WASH response in cities.
However, even in strongly decentralized countries, UNICEF had at least moderately strong engagement with national governments, as most programmes were designed within the framework set by national governments and broader regional and national development priorities. For example, in Spain, the Ministry of Health, Consumption and Social Welfare, which is responsible for the National Plan of Children, is a member of the national steering committee of the Child Friendly Cities Initiative (CFCI), which along with other committee members, contribute to the evaluation of the recognition process, and advocate for the CFCI model with municipalities. The CFCI is included in the Spanish National Strategy of Childhood as an outcome of the national partnership with the Spanish National Committee of UNICEF through a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Ministry. Additionally, the permanent secretariat of the CFCI in Spain at the national level is anchored by the Spanish Federation of Municipalities and Provinces and because of their strong national network, the movement is trusted by municipalities across Spain.
Engagement with regional/state governments for work in cities
UNICEF engagement with state and regional governments varies across urban programming approaches and models. In the more decentralized countries, this is a critical tier of government for results at scale. The strongest degree of engagement with regional and state governments was seen in the models of the Municipal Seal in Brazil and the CFCI in Spain, due to the considerable responsibilities pertaining to welfare vested in the regional governments of both countries. For the Municipal Seal, national ministries and institutions are consulted, and the Seal aligns with national priorities, but the model was created at the regional/state level, in line with extensive decentralization. Even though the entry point for the CFCI is the local government, the Spanish CFCI model is dependent on the support of provincial, regional, and national governments. In Spain, regional governments in particular play an important role. They are responsible for services linked to foundational pillars of the welfare state such as education, health, and key social services. Currently, five regional agreements are in place through a MoU with the Spanish National Committee of UNICEF, and in some regions, the CFCI is institutionalized in regional policies. The agreements have helped with the growth of child friendly cities in these regions. Regional governments proactively promote the CFCI in their town halls and invest in budgets for child council meetings and technical staff meetings to support the CFCI. In some cases, they give technical support for the local plan for children and support poorer municipalities to strengthen the implementation of the plans. Another important regional stakeholder of the CFCI in Spain is the Childhood Observatory, a regional structure, that helps develop cross-cutting policies and advocates for relevant childhood policies.
Engagement with Municipal governments and stakeholders for work in cities
The urban evaluation found within local governments, mayors, and municipal departments are the primary stakeholders in the integrated and CFCI approaches but is supported by intersectoral committees for greater accountability. The inter-sectoral committees tend to be composed of secretaries or technical staff from the child and family serving services, most commonly health, education, social welfare, and youth. In Brazil, the Philippines, Spain, and Belize, mayors, particularly in smaller municipalities, have the primary accountability for oversight of the models, and strong mayoral support is seen as a key determinant of success. In a number of countries, town council members are also part of the oversight structures. Notably, in Brazil, the Philippines (Priority Cities model), and Belize, the models are aligned with municipal election cycles. In the large cities of Spain, there is further decentralization of municipal functions and budgets to the district level. Primary social services are decentralized to districts with budgets to develop these services (for example to distribute family allowances and other social transfers) and to establish the appropriate number of social service facilities based on population size and standards set by the municipal government.
The partnership-based programming models that are specifically designed for large cities such as the Plataforma dos Centros Urbanos (PCU) in Brazil and the Priority City model in the Philippines involve a larger number and type of stakeholders. These reflect good practices of well-designed partnerships between local governments, the urban poor, civil society, and NGOs engaged in collaborative processes. In some contexts, political concerns also shape engagement with local governments such as in Syria. Recently adopted laws give local administrative bodies (governorates) more autonomy in the management of local development projects. However, in practice, this autonomy is extremely limited; although the response is planned at the local level, most approvals are given at the national level. Local governments also lack resources, which is considered an impediment. The strongest approaches recognize that municipal policy and resources, in cities large and small, are dependent on national and regional policy frameworks and transfers, and it is not possible to achieve results at scale working solely on bottom-up approaches with cities. This is particularly true in humanitarian crises, in which municipal resources can be easily overwhelmed.
Concluding thoughts
Even in highly decentralized systems, national and mid-level governments set policy frameworks and standards, allocate and redistribute resources, and facilitate results at scale. In countries where the devolution of powers and functions is incomplete, some of the mandated functions of urban local bodies are performed by other agencies and parastatals at the state level and private sector service providers. For example, in many countries in South Asia, creating infrastructure for water supply and drainage in cities is the responsibility of national or state/provincial-level bodies, but once built, these are handed over to local authorities for operation and maintenance. Typically, parastatals and public-sector companies are responsible for electricity in these countries. Local authorities usually have the exclusive responsibility of solid waste management, but they may have to work within the parameters set by national and state/provincial-level governments for them[iv]. Although NGOs are typically seen as ‘cheap governance in out-of-the-way locations, including slums’ (p. 826)[v] by the State, they are crucial partners along with the private sector to bring efficiency in service provisioning, a critical factor along with accountability for international donors and funding agencies, especially in countries with corruption and transparency issues[vi]. In South Africa, the government–non-profit organization (NPO) partnership is a crucial strategy for delivering social services,[vii] and in Bangladesh, non-State actors like BRAC also deliver services like maternal and neonatal health, primary education, micro-finance, and ultra-poor programmes, especially in the slum settlements[viii].
Higher levels of government and the wider set of actors critical to the city’s political economy are essential for creating enabling environments in reducing urban disparities and meeting child rights commitments. Strong programming approaches for urban children by UNICEF foster coordination between different levels of government, noting that as cities grow larger and better resourced, the focus of engagement will shift from vertical to horizontal coordination. Some of the successful urban programming models of UNICEF such as the integrated models in Brazil and the Philippines and the CFCI model in Spain have involved a broad range of stakeholders outside of government at the national, regional, and municipal levels. These include NGOs, universities, and research institutes. At the national and regional levels, these stakeholders contribute to the design and oversight of the initiatives in larger cities, often providing expertise that does not exist within UNICEF. At the local level, in smaller municipalities and neighbourhoods, non-government stakeholders help to implement local plans for children. Key lessons from the urban evaluation for child-centred organizations include building staff capacity to engage with complex urban governance systems (and not just municipal governments), including with the civil society and private sector, to better plan, finance, and manage urban settings for results at scale for children.
The opinions expressed on the UNICEF Blog are those of the author(s) and don't necessarily reflect UNICEF's official position
I Avis, W. R. (2016). Urban Governance (Topic Guide). GSDRC, University of Birmingham. https://gsdrc.org/topic-guides/urban-governance/
[ii] Chatterjee, S., Cocco-Klein, S., Oranga, B., Sera, D. and Jobin, D. (2020). Evaluation of UNICEF work for children in urban settings. New York: UNICEF. https://www.unicef.org/evaluation/reports#/detail/16555/evaluation-of-unicef-work-on-children-in-urban-settings
[iii] ibid
[iv] Tayler, K. (2005). An institutional approach to service-provision partnerships in South Asia. Development in Practice. 15(3-4), 337-348.
[v] Craig, D. & Porter, D. (2006). Development Beyond Neoliberalism? Governance, Poverty Reduction and Political Economy. London: Routledge cited by Dhanju, R. &O’Reilly, K. (2015). Reaching the unreached? Good governance and welfare reform politics in Delhi, India. Development in Practice. 25(6), 826.
[vi] Dhanju, R. & O'Reilly, K. (2015). Reaching the unreached? Good governance and welfare reform politics in Delhi, India. Development in Practice. 25(6), 815-831.
[vii] Nwauche, S. (2021): An evaluation of the effectiveness of government–non-profit organizations partnership in the delivery of social services. Development in Practice. 1-11.
[viii] Chowdhury, M.R., Jahan, F. & Rahman, R. (2017). Developing urban space: the changing role of NGOs in Bangladesh. Development in Practice, 27(2), 260-271.
