You are here: Wiki-Summaries >> Common Terms & Topics >> Intersectoral Policy-Program Coordination Frameworks
|
|
intersectoral (Inter-Ministry) Policy-Program Coordination Frameworks (IPPFCs)
|
The drop-down menu on the right hand side of page lists many Intersectoral (Inter-Ministry) Policy/Program Coordination Frameworks (IPPCFs) which have been published by UN agencies and global/international organizations and are being used in countries around the world. Multi-Component Approaches (MCAs) involve whole sectors/ministries on several issues/programs while Multi-Intervention Programs (MIPs) are focused on one issue or program.This section also examines how Capacity-Building and Whole of Government (WoG) practices, strategies and structures can align and coordinate these IPPCF frameworks to promote the education and overall development of the whole child for all children.
Intersectoral and multisectoral coordination as well as whole of government policy, structures and practices are required if schools are to respond to the many health, social and economic challenges confronting young people. By acting as the delivery hub for a variety of school-based and school-linked services and programs promoting educational inclusion & equity as well as health, safety, security, social & sustainable education programs can be the backbone to sustainable development. Coordination between or across ministries must be at the heart of this process. Governments need to establish policy, procedures and practices that require that Intersectoral Policy-Program Coordination Frameworks (IPPCFs) be adopted or developed whenever schools are asked to address any health, social issue or barriers to student learning. Further, they need to have plans to build the capacities of these frameworks so that they are sustained beyond project funding and to strengthen whole of government policies, structures and practices. This web site defines IPPCFs which coordinate efforts across sectors on several issues/programs as Multi-Component Approaches (MCAs) and uses the term Multi-Intervention Programs (MIPs) to describe efforts which are focused on a specific theme, issue or population. Many IPPCFs have been developed, evaluated and promoted as evidence-based and experience tested ways to deliver and coordinate multiple interventions, thereby increasing their synergies and impact. Most countries use between 5 and 10 of these frameworks. Each of these frameworks uses interventions organized, coordinated, and delivered within components, domains or pillars such policy, education, student services, physical environment and psycho-social support to address different barriers to educational success, health and well-being. To be effective and sustainable, intersectoral frameworks (IPPCFs) need need to use a number of specific capacity-building practices. These include designated inter-ministry coordinators & committees, long-term and annual action plans, policies requiring coordination, leadership from the education ministry, contributions of staffing or funding from other ministries/ agencies and several others We have also defined effective whole of government (WoG) strategies and approaches in general terms. These web pages are a beginning of our efforts to describe and document the many specific over-arching policies, structures and good practices that institutionalize and sustain WoG approaches that use education systems as their organizing hub.A Whole of Government approach (across and within ministries) using several good practices and structures at the highest levels in government are required to align, coordinate, support and sustain IPPCF frameworks. (Note that these WoG approaches are aimed at the education and development of the whole child and not at at any specific issue, IPPCF framework or program.) These practices include an over-arching policy on child & adolescent development & education, laws and regulations on the mandates of several ministries on working with and within schools, the active support of first ministers, establishing inter-ministry coordination mechanisms, comprehensive agreements between ministries, jointly named inter-ministry coordinators, joint budgeting, joint sector reviews, shared accountability systems and other actions. See the more detailed discussion about IPPCFs and WoG approaches using the school as a hub that includes the rationale, related research and other background information in the "Encyclopedia Entry", "Handbook Section" and Bibliography/Toolbox" tabs (found at the top of above on this page). See our detailed list of good practices in IPPCF capacity-building such as jointly assigned coordinators, inter-ministry committees and joint sector reviews in the "Capacity Building Checklist" tab (also found above on this page). Also see our list of good Whole of Government practices such as inter-ministry coordination mechanisms that can be used to develop, maintain and sustain . |
See our List & Checklist of leading IPPCFs which includes many Multi- Component Approaches (MCAs) & Multi- Intervention Programs (MIPs)
________________________________________ Use the drop-down menu below to access a brief description of each IPPCF, some leading examples of that IPPCF and the good practices they have used to build capacity to implement, scale up and sustain their approach or program.
Multi-Component Approaches (MCAs)
Promoting Educational Success - Inclusive, Equitable, Child-Friendly - Early Childhood Education - Social & Emotional/ Life Skills - Students with Disabilities - Transition to Work or Training Barriers to Inclusion & Equity - Out of School/Dropouts - Gender related Barriers - School Health & Nutrition - Healthy Schools - Discrimination/Racism - Safe Schools (Violence, Bullying) - Safe Schools (Crime, Drugs) - Community Schools (Poverty) - Disaster Risk Reduction - Global Citizenship - Peace Education - Education Sustainable Development - Conflict-Affected Countries - Low resource Countries - Indigenous Schooling - Minority Communities Building Core Components - Macro-Policy & Coordination (FRESH Framework) - Integrated Student Services - Physical Resources (WASH) - Safe School Buildings - Curriculum & Extended Education/ (H&LS/PSH/HWB) Multi-Intervention programs (MIPs)
Student Learning/Success - Literacy - Primary Grades/Foundational Learning - Transitions (Early Childhood to Primary) - Transitions (Primary to Secondary) - Transitions (Secondary to PSE or Work) - Learning Majority Language as 2nd language - IEPs & Alternative Schooling - Girls' education - Boys' education Child Development - Child growth & development - Vision, - Hearing - Child Abuse & Neglect - Family Violence - Child Sexual Abuse - Menstrual health & hygiene Healthy/Risky Behaviours - HIV/STI, Sexual Health - Substance abuse/tobacco use - Physical activity - Accidental injury/safety - Mental health/illness - NCDs - Chronic health conditions - Sun safety - Environmental hazards - Climate crisis health threats (Heat, Floods, Zika virus, Dengue Fever) - Infectious Diseases - Immunization/Vaccinations - Oral/dental health - School Meals - School Feeding - School food & nutrition - Obesity/overweight Child Safety/Security - Child Trafficking/ Exploitation - Refugee students/immigrants - Bullying, Cyber Bullying - Gangs, gang involvement - Isolation, alienation, violent extremism, school shootings |
Intersectoral and multi-sectoral coordination as well as whole of government policy, structures and practices are required if schools are to respond to the many health, social and economic challenges confronting young people. By acting as the delivery hub for a variety of school-based and school-linked services and programs promoting educational inclusion & equity as well as health, safety, security, social & sustainable education programs can be the backbone to sustainable development. Coordination between or across ministries must be at the heart of this process. Governments need to establish policy, procedures and practices that require that Intersectoral Policy-Program Coordination Frameworks (IPPCFs) be adopted or developed whenever schools are asked to address any health, social issue or barriers to student learning. Further, they need to establish or strengthen whole of government policies, structures and practices.
This web site defines IPPCFs which coordinate efforts across sectors on several issues/programs as Multi-Component Approaches (MCAs) and uses the term Multi-Intervention Programs (MIPs) to describe efforts which are focused on a specific theme, issue or population. Many IPPCFs have been developed, evaluated and promoted as evidence-based and experience tested ways to deliver and coordinate multiple interventions, thereby increasing their synergies and impact. Most countries use between 5 and 10 of these frameworks. Each of these frameworks uses interventions organized, coordinated, and delivered within components, domains or pillars such policy, education, student services, physical environment and psycho-social support to address different barriers to educational success, health and well-being. We have also defined effective whole of government (WoG) strategies and approaches in general terms. These web pages are a beginning of our efforts to describe and document the many specific over-arching policies, structures and good practices that institutionalize and sustain WoG approaches that use education systems as their organizing hub. Research reviews, reports, and program evaluations have documented the school level success of IPPCFS that use the school as a hub. Well-known multi-component approaches such as Health Promoting Schools, Social & Emotional Learning and others as well, many topic-specific multi-intervention programs have been found to be effective in improving learning or short-term health, safety, personal, social or development outcomes. However, despite the evidence almost all of the approaches and programs using these frameworks are not scaled up, coordinated, or sustained in the real world, especially after the initial crisis wanes or project funding runs out. Jurisdictions publish lofty statements or guidance documents but often do not adopt policies that require coordination of the interventions or provide financial & human resources. Annual or multi-year action plans are often not established or renewed. Most countries use several frameworks to address different barriers but they are not aligned and may even compete for funding or educator attention. Indeed, some global models are more of an aspirational “wish list” of interventions than a practice, policy or plan that can be or has been implemented by countries. The IPPCFs discussed in this section include those that support inclusion and equity in schooling as well as those that promote safety, health, personal, social and sustainable development. They address barriers to schooling, early childhood development, dropping out of school, transitions to work, disabilities, health behaviours & conditions, inequities & problems, safety from violence, abuse & crime, providing education & security during wars/conflicts, discrimination based on gender, orientation, race or colonization, climate change, natural disasters, and several others. It is challenging to determine how these many multi-component approaches and multi-intervention programs can be sustained and coordinated. However, the many barriers to inclusion & equity do not go away if we ignore the best methods of addressing them. Consequently, this summary suggests that countries carefully select and build the frameworks most relevant to their students needs. External funders and UN agencies can support long term capacity development and whole of government approaches rather than only promoting short-term projects or narrow programs on the latest urgent issue. To apply or implement a IPPCF framework, multiple interventions need to be coordinated across ministries by the jurisdiction (delivering several separate interventions is less effective as is other informal types of cooperation or publishing guidance documents/statements that recommend various interventions but do not provide the needed resources). To be effective, school systems should be used as the hub for program delivery and funds allocated for this purpose. MCAs and MIPs need to have contributions of staffing or funding from other ministries/agencies which have been provided to them to deliver school-based or school-linked services or programs related to their respective mandates. To be sustained, the MCAs and MIPs need to use several several capacity-building practices and strategies so that they are contextualized, implemented, coordinated, scaled up, sustained, integrated within school systems and monitored and improved. These include practices such as reciprocal, strategic and negotiated inter-ministry partnerships, action plans for each ministry and inter-ministry agreements, coordinators and committees. As well, a Whole of Government approach (across and within ministries) using several good practices and structures at the highest levels in government are required to align, coordinate, support and sustain IPPCF frameworks. (Note that these WoG approaches are aimed at the education and development of the whole child and not at at any specific issue, IPPCF framework or program.) These practices include an over-arching policy on child & adolescent development & education, laws and regulations on the mandates of several ministries on working with and within schools, the active support of first ministers, establishing inter-ministry coordination mechanisms, comprehensive agreements between ministries, jointly named inter-ministry coordinators, joint budgeting, joint sector reviews, shared accountability systems and other actions. Several global statements and reports have called for such whole of government approaches. The 2022 UN Transforming Education Summit (TES) and the accompanying vision statement on by the UN Secretary-General for the Summit highlighted such WofG strategies. However, an analysis of country commitment statements from TES found that very few countries were making progress on such WofG approaches. The revised UNESCO "Recommendation" (policy framework), OECD Declaration on Building Equitable Societies Through Education and the Education Commission/Dubai Care Foundation call for transformation based on WoG approaches. Global educator organizations and NGO coalitions such as the FRESH Partnership have also advocated for Whole of Government approaches to strengthen the use of IPPCF frameworks. See the more detailed discussion about IPPCFs and WoG approaches using the school as a hub that includes the rationale, related research and other background information under "Handbook Section" and Bibliography/Toolbox" tabs (found at the top of above on this page). |
Use the drop-down menu below to access a brief description of each IPPCF, some leading examples of that IPPCF and the good practices they have used to build capacity to implement, scale up and sustain their approach or program.
Multi-Component Approaches (MCAs)
Promoting Educational Success - Inclusiion, Equity, Child-Friendly - Early Childhood Education - Social & Emotional Learning/ Life Skills - Students with Disabilities - Transition to Work or Training Barriers to Inclusion & Equity - Out of School/Dropouts - Gender related Barriers - School Health & Nutrition - Healthy Schools - Discrimination/Racism - Safe Schools (Violence, Bullying) - Safe Schools (Crime, Drugs) - Community Schools (Poverty) - Disaster Risk Reduction - Global Citizenship - Peace Education - Education for Sustainable Development - Conflict-Affected Countries - Low resource Countries - Indigenous Schooling - Minority Communities Building Core Components - Macro-Policy & Coordination (FRESH Framework) - Integrated Student Services - Physical Resources (WASH) - Safe School Buildings - Curriculum & Extended Education (H&LS/PSH/HWB) Multi-Intervention Programs MIPs)
Child Development - Child growth & development - Vision, - Hearing - Child Abuse & Neglect - Family Violence - Child Sexual Abuse - Menstrual health & hygiene Healthy/Risky Behaviours - HIV/STI, Sexual Health - Substance abuse/ tobacco - Physical activity - Accidental injury/safety - Mental health/illness - NCDs - Chronic health conditions - Sun safety - Environmental hazards - Climate crisis health threats (Heat, Floods, Zika virus, Dengue Fever) - Infectious Diseases - Immunization/ Vaccinations - Oral/dental health - School Feeding - School Meals - School Food & Nutrition - Obesity/overweight Child Safety/Security - Child Trafficking/ Exploitation - Refugee students/immigrants - Bullying, Cyber Bullying - Gangs, gang involvement - Isolation, alienation, violent extremism, school shootings |
This summary was first posted in November 2023 last updated on 14-12-2023 as a "first edition".
We encourage readers to submit comments or suggested edits by posting a comment below or on the Mini-blog & Discussion Page for this section.
We encourage readers to submit comments or suggested edits by posting a comment below or on the Mini-blog & Discussion Page for this section.
The drop-down menu on the right hand side of page lists several Intersectoral (Inter-Ministry) Policy/Program Coordination Frameworks (IPPCFs) which have been published by UN agencies and global/international organizations and are being used in countries around the world. Multi-Component Approaches (MCAs) involve whole sectors/ministries on several issues/programs while Multi-Intervention Programs (MIPs) are focused on one issue or program.This summary (Handbook Section) section also examines how Capacity-Building and Whole of Government (WoG) practices, strategies and structures can align and coordinate these IPPCF frameworks to promote the education and overall development of the whole child for all children.
Download the Word Version of this summary.
Introduction
Intersectoral and multi-sectoral coordination as well as whole of government policy, structures and practices are required if schools are to respond to the many health, social and economic challenges confronting young people. By acting as the delivery hub for a variety of school-based and school-linked services and programs promoting educational inclusion & equity as well as health, safety, security, social & sustainable education programs can be the backbone to sustainable development. Coordination between or across ministries must be at the heart of this process. Governments need to establish policy, procedures and practices that require that Intersectoral Policy-Program Coordination Frameworks (IPPCFs) be adopted or developed whenever schools are asked to address any health, social issue or barriers to student learning. Further, they need to establish or strengthen whole of government policies, structures and practices.
This web site defines IPPCFs which coordinate efforts across sectors on several issues/programs as Multi-Component Approaches (MCAs) and uses the term Multi-Intervention Programs (MIPs) to describe efforts which are focused on a specific theme, issue or population. Many IPPCFs have been developed, evaluated and promoted as evidence-based and experience tested ways to deliver and coordinate multiple interventions thereby increasing their synergies and impact. Most countries use between 5 and 10 of these frameworks. Each of these frameworks uses interventions organized, coordinated, and delivered within components, domains or pillars such policy, education, student services, physical environment and psycho-social support to address different barriers to educational success, health and well-being.
We have also defined effective whole of government (WoG) strategies and approaches in general terms. These web pages are a beginning of our efforts to describe and document the many specific over-arching policies, structures and good practices that institutionalize and sustain WoG approaches that use education systems as their organizing hub.
Research reviews, reports, and program evaluations have documented the school level success of IPPCFS that use the school as a hub. Well-known multi-component approaches such as Health Promoting Schools, Social & Emotional Learning and others as well, many topic-specific multi-intervention programs have been found to be effective in improving learning or short-term health, safety, personal, social or development outcomes. However, despite the evidence almost all of the approaches and programs using these frameworks are not scaled up, coordinated, or sustained in the real world, especially after the initial crisis wanes or project funding runs out. Jurisdictions publish lofty statements or guidance documents but often do not adopt policies that require coordination of the interventions or provide financial & human resources. Annual or multi-year action plans are often not established or renewed. Most countries use several frameworks to address different barriers but they are not aligned and may even compete for funding or educator attention. Indeed, some global models are more of an aspirational “wish list” of interventions than a practice, policy or plan that can be or has been implemented by countries.
To apply or implement a IPPCF framework, multiple interventions need to be coordinated across ministries by the jurisdiction (delivering several separate interventions is less effective as is other informal types of cooperation or publishing guidance documents/statements that recommend various interventions but do not provide the needed resources). To be effective, school systems should be used as the hub for program delivery and funds allocated for this purpose. MCAs and MIPs need to have contributions of staffing or funding from other ministries/agencies which have been provided to them to deliver school-based or school-linked services or programs related to their respective mandates. To be sustained, the MCAs and MIPs need to use several good capacity-building practice and strategies so that they are contextualized, implemented, coordinated, sustained, integrated within school systems, scaled up through incremental systems change. These include reciprocal, strategic and negotiated inter-ministry partnerships, action plans for each ministry and inter-ministry agreements, coordinators and committees.
As well, a Whole of Government approach (across and within ministries) using several good practices and structures at the highest levels in government should be used to align, coordinate, support and sustain IPPCF frameworks. (Note that these WoG approaches are aimed at the education and development of the whole child and not at any specific issue, IPPCF framework or program.) These practices include an over-arching policy on child & adolescent development & education, laws and regulations on the mandates of several ministries on working with and within schools, the active support of first ministers, establishing inter-ministry coordination mechanisms, comprehensive agreements between ministries, jointly named inter-ministry coordinators, joint budgeting, joint sector reviews, shared accountability systems and other actions. Several UN and global organizations now recognize both the centrality of the education sector in the development agenda and the necessity of whole of government (WoG) and systems capacity-building strategies to promote intersectoral collaboration.
Need for Change
The 2023 Global Sustainable Development Report [1] sounded an alarm when it concluded that “Progress on more than 50 per cent of targets of the SDGs is weak and insufficient; on 30 per cent, it has stalled or gone into reverse” The report (p48) stated clearly in its concluding call for action that governments need to be able to work across sectors and contribute, including with budget alignment, to a whole-of-government approach to the Goals. We need to return to the 2016 statement of the UN Secretary General[2] to the International Commission on Financing Global Education, which stated that “education targets are ‘a Springboard’ for attaining other Sustainable Development Goals”
Several UN and Global organizations recognize both the centrality of the education sector in the development agenda and the necessity of whole of government (WoG) and systems capacity-building strategies to promote intersectoral collaboration to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Examples include the follow-up guidance note[3] and vision statement[4] by the UN Secretary-General from the 2022 UN Transforming Education Summit, the revised UNESCO recommended policy framework for education systems[5], the OECD Declaration on Building Equitable Societies through Education[6] and a joint statement[7] from ten global educator organizations.
This goal is clearly articulated by the Education Commission and the Dubai Cares Foundation in their report/paper on Rewiring Education[8]. It states, “Driving and sustaining collaborative action requires new incentive structures. To that end, it recommended that governments, in partnership with international and local actors embed education in all national development plans and other sector strategies, embrace multisectoral, contextually tailored financing strategies, develop delivery-focused implementation approaches, underpinned by strong data systems, to help connect actions within and across line ministries and harness, build on, and bring together existing platforms and frameworks for collaboration, for joint action on transformation in education as well as other SDGs.
Further, the 2023 UNESCO Recommendation on Education for Peace, Human Rights and Sustainable Development[9], calls on Member States and stakeholders to implement policies and strategies through a whole-institution and whole-of-society approach that utilizes the “full potential of interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, transdisciplinary and intersectoral approaches”. Intersectoral collaboration is now recognized as being essential to achieving inclusion and equity within school systems. Education has been recognized as a pillar in the achievement of all 17 of the development goals.
There are many evidence-based and experience-tested intersectoral policy-program coordination frameworks (IPPCFs) describing about 25 sector wide multi-component approaches. Another 40+ topic-specific multi-intervention programs are proven successful in addressing many of the barriers to inclusion and equity at the school level.
SEE APPENDIX ONE for a list of these approaches and programs.
Most countries use about ten of these frameworks simultaneously, but some frameworks are selected because of external pressure, or pilot-project funding, training or technical assistance offered by external donors rather than documented local needs. As well, all jurisdictions struggle to scale up and sustain these approaches and programs. Many realize during their brief life cycle as a funded “innovation”, that they must turn to capacity building/systems change strategies. As they move upward in their respective systems and encounter severe bottlenecks at the inter-ministry level that must be resolved through whole of government (WoG) strategies, many end up “re-inventing the wheel” or not knowing about other “spokes” in that wheel that other frameworks have developed.
There is need to collate, develop and share good practices that build capacities/change systems to scale up the implementation of frameworks selected by countries and that use WoG strategies and structures to coordinate these selected approaches/programs while securing/funding the participation of other ministries in school-based and school-linked programs.
The IPPCFs discussed in this summary include those that support inclusion and equity in schooling as well as those that promote safety, health, personal, social and sustainable development. They address barriers to schooling, early childhood development, dropping out of school, transitions to work, disabilities, health behaviours, conditions, inequities & problems, safety from violence, abuse & crime, providing education & security during wars/conflicts, discrimination based on gender, orientation, race or colonization, climate change, natural disasters, and several others. It is challenging to determine how these many multi-component approaches and multi-intervention programs can be sustained and coordinated in any one jurisdiction.
However, the many barriers to inclusion & equity do not go away if we ignore the best methods of addressing them. Consequently, this summary suggests that countries carefully select and build the frameworks most relevant to their students needs. External funders and UN agencies can support long term capacity development and whole of government approaches rather than only promoting short-term projects or narrow programs on the latest urgent issue.
Research evidence/reviews, data-based reports, and practice-based program evaluations have documented the school level success of IPPCFS that use the school as a hub. Well-known approaches such as Health Promoting Schools[10], Community Schools[11], Social & Emotional Learning[12], school food & nutrition[13] and other used in specific contexts such as education in emergencies[14] or low resource countries[15]are effective at the school level.
However, despite the abundance of research evidence that IPPFs improve student health, well-being, safety and learning, almost all of the approaches and programs using these frameworks are not scaled up, coordinated, or sustained in the real world, especially after the initial or project funding runs out. Jurisdictions publish lofty statements or guidance documents about the framework but often do not adopt policies that require coordination of the interventions or provide financial & human resources. Annual or multi-year action plans are often not established or renewed. Most countries use several frameworks to address different barriers or specific barriers[vi] but they are not aligned and may even compete for funding or educator attention. Indeed, some global models are more of a “wish list” of interventions than a practice, policy or plan that can be or has been implemented by countries.
Approaches & Programs are not Sustained
Based on decades of experience, we must admit that comprehensive approaches & programs are not sustainable in school systems, unless they receive ongoing funding & staffing from other ministries or external sources. Practitioners and researchers have issued warnings about capacity, coordination and competing visions & perspectives for several years[16],[17],[18],[19],. Many case studies on comprehensive approaches have reported failure in scale up and sustainability[20],[21],[22] and challenges even when building only one component of the framework (health & life skills education)[23], [24].
Research, policy, and monitoring activities have focused only on the front lines of systems (school level) in “whole school approaches” and the actions taken by educators alone are often the primary subject of analysis and action. In a detailed study based on complex systems theory and applied to several settings, including schools, Greaux et al[25] suggested that the “conditions that acted regularly as bottlenecks for implementation can possibly be explained by the way structural factors, i.e. the socio-economic and political context, are arranged, and which are operating ‘one level up’ from an intervention”.
The costs and complexities of assessing the effectiveness of a comprehensive approach or program over several years at several levels (classroom/clinic, school/neighbourhood, school district/agency, education/other ministry) are likely to be challenging but not impossible to overcome if the commitment to a systems approach is sustained. Unfortunately, most of the larger, longer-tern studies have been focused on specific problems or topics rather than the whole child and overall health & development.
The Health Promoting School approach is likely the most studied among the various frameworks. The latest systematic review of that framework[26] examined only school level implementation on a few topics, over a few years. Other frameworks have less evidence. No multi-level systems application of any framework has been evaluated in a random controlled trial, let alone by a systematic review of such RCTs.
Recent reports on other comprehensive frameworks describing approaches & programs on other aspects of child/youth development also report a lack of scale up and sustainability. A survey of members of the Schools for Health in Europe[27] (24 of 40 member countries responded) found that while most countries implement individual health activities in schools, only one country reported in the survey that most schools use the HPS framework to coordinate those activities. In south-east Asia a desktop review & key informant interviews[28] found that most countries had school health programs. However, these programs suffered from weak leadership and inadequate funding, and they report that intersectoral coordination is often focused on specific topics and was rarely sustained.
The Global Survey on school meals[29] reported while school meal programs were often accompanied by programs on handwashing & clean water, this example of an “entry point” strategy[30] was not truly able to expand to other services such as dental cleaning, eye care or menstrual health in most countries. A 2009 evaluation of Child Friendly Schools[31] in six countries found that CFS principles were well-accepted by educators, but schools and education ministries lacked resources, training and sustained leadership to implement the entire CFS framework. For example, including students with disabilities, likely one of core CFS objectives, was very challenging to many schools in the study. A 2017 survey of Disaster Risk Reduction[32]in 68 higher risk countries reported that fewer than one-half of responding countries had the full range of DRR policies on safe facilities, disaster management and risk/resilience education. A lack of funding and capacity were the two themes identified as barriers to implementation.
A 2020 systematic review[33] of 9677 controlled trials of school-based programs that included sustainability as a major feature was used to determine if they were sustainable after start-up funds end. The review found that none of selected programs maintained all their components after funding ended. “No discernible relationship was found between evidence of effectiveness and sustainability. Key facilitators included commitment/support from senior leaders, staff observing a positive impact on students’ engagement and wellbeing, and staff confidence in delivering health promotion and belief in its value. Important contextual barriers emerged: the norm of prioritising educational outcomes under time and resource constraints, insufficient funding/resources, staff turnover and a lack of ongoing training. Adaptation of the intervention to existing routines and changing contexts appeared to be part of the sustainability process.”
Another review of sustainable school programming[34] used a general theory of implementation to synthesize the findings from the diverse set of studies it reviewed. This theory suggests that contextual as well as system related characteristics will affect program sustainability. This leads to another gap in the research and evaluation done to date on IPPFs.
Other aspects that require much more research, knowledge development and iterative, practice-based development include system and organizational capacities, strategies to integrate programs within the core mandates, concerns and constraints of school systems and the quality/choices made in the implementing, maintaining, scaling up and sustaining processes.
Implementing IPPCFs in the Real World: Incremental Capacity Building
Early findings of a global study[35] and other sources[36] suggest that most education ministries are implementing or promoting about 5-10 of these IPPCFs in their jurisdictions but struggle to achieve scale up and sustainability in almost all of them. Each of these MCAs and MIPs should use the good practices to build capacity which are listed and described on this accompanying page and in Appendix Two. These practices include:
Two IPPCF frameworks illustrate how these practices can be developed and used.
For example, the Country dashboard can be used to track how many countries are implementing and scaling up the INSPIRE framework. For example:
Schools are a key setting for this movement which links several sectors and issues and, as such, benefits from an integrated, comprehensive approach based on the INSPIRE framework. These are fully described in the Programmatic Framework & Benchmarking Tool and include:
Benchmark
National
Sub-National/ District
School
1.3 The roles and responsibilities of the
Ministry of Education in response and
referral to incidents of violence are clearly
set out in the multi-sectoral national child
protection policy framework.
A national policy framework, strategy or
other system that outlines the role of the
Ministry of Education as part of the national
child protection system alongside other
formal actors (Health, Social Welfare,
Justice, Police).
There is district-level coordination of
national policy framework and support for
implementation in schools
School follows national and/or district
policy and coordinates with local
authorities and other duty bearers.
The Ministry of Education has established
a national child protection/safeguarding
policy with the requirement that all subnational authorities and schools under
their purview develop their own localized
policies.6
The district authorities support the
establishment of localized and coordinated
school child protection policies, and has
identified one focal point with overseeing
and responding to concerns
School follows national policy or
independently has established child
safeguarding policies and procedures.
The Collaboration Multiplier Prevention Violence Tool to Prevent Interpersonal Violence was published by the Violence Prevention Alliance, a coalition of WHO member states and several other organizations. The tool promotes the value of multisectoral collaboration and describes how different sectors can engage with each other in ways driven by their respective mandates and concerns. Challenges to collaboration (different values, priorities, structures, management practices, data gathering, accountability systems, partnership buyin, etc. are addressed in general terms through a recommended process of information gathering and joint analysis of needs and priorities across the sectors. Activities, mandates in the justice, education, social services and public health sectors are described. Three local examples of collaboration are described. The approach is to motivate the sectors to work together through joint activities that answer the question what is in it for them. However, there is little discussion of how these sectors can be mandated or supported to coordinate their policies and programs for a specific population such as school-age youth or to use a particular setting such as schools. Perhaps this could be done in a school version of the collaboration tool.
The End Violence Campaign has several elements and will support school-based interventions and components. These include affiliated events organized by partners, a joint statement that can be endorsed by countries, organizations and individuals, a children’s manifesto, and several prominent advocates.
The advocacy campaign proposes six general actions to end violence (which can be linked to schools). These are affiliated events to be organized by partners:
1. Ban all forms of violence against children by 2030. All countries should commit to and start the legislative process to prohibit corporal punishment, sexual violence and child marriage in all settings.
2. Make the internet safe for children. Adopt implement comprehensive child online safety policies. Scale up solutions that keep children safe such as , particularly those that tackle grooming and distribution of child sexual abuse material and sexual abuse. Commit to preventing, detecting and stopping all activities that may harm children online.
3. Protect children from violence in humanitarian settings. Prioritize the inclusion of child protection elements in all humanitarian and refugee response plans.
4. Equip parents and caregivers to keep children safe. Scale-up the use of the evidence-based positive parenting resources. Scale-up parenting support programmes, including home visitation and parent resource centres. Establish policy frameworks and plans to scale-up parenting support programmes.
5. Make schools safe, non-violent, and inclusive. ensure that violence prevention and response measures, including removing violence-related barriers to return to school post COVID-19, are part of school plans. Governments should commit to and allocate investments for policy and programmes to end violence in and through schools. Donors should commit a percentage of education spending to remove violence-related barriers to enable a safe return to school after disease outbreaks and conflicts.
6. More investment better spent. Governments should commit to costing and adequately funding the implementation of their national action plans to end violence against children. donors should ensure and increase funding to address violence against children in all settings. Donors should agree on a standardized methodology to track donor investments. The private sector should make new financial commitments to address violence.
The Global School Meals Coalition is the most prominent proponent of school meals/feeding programs. A group of member states launched the School Meals Coalition at the UN Food Systems Summit in 2021. Ninety-seven countries from North to South have joined the Coalition and 124 partners are supporting governments in achieving their objectives. The Coalition is supported by a Secretariat hosted by the UN World Food Programme.
The examples, guidance and activities of this initiative illustrate or describe several IPPCF capacity-building and Whole of Government (WoG) practices as part of its recommended multi-intervention program on school meals. Success stories, statements of national commitments and the data from the global survey on school meal programs indicate that many countries are scaling up their SM programs. However, their reach is not universal in almost all jurisdictions. As well, the recommended number of multiple interventions beyond the essential elements of a SM program (e.g. oral health, deworming, etc.) is very difficult to achieve and sustain. Further, these interventions may or may not be truly coordinated with the SM program.Consequently, it is likely that SM programs expanding to even a broader School Food & Nutrition program may be challenging for many countries.
44 countries have defined their national commitments in support of achieving the overall goal of ensuring that all children have access to healthy and nutritious meals in school by 2030. The Declaration of Commitment has countries promising to work towards the full implementation of SM programs (which are not fully defined as a coordinated set of multiple interventions) by:
• setting out a long-term plan to restore access to school meals for children who lost them during the pandemic and reach those previously left behind.
• Improving their approach in a collaborative way, sharing best practices and lessons learnt tailored to national and local contexts.
• Investing in scaling up progress through the Coalition initiatives; and mobilize the means required to implement this agenda through partnerships.
• Working collaboratively with all stakeholders across the sectors and at regional, national and
subnational levels to realize these goals.
The National Commitments Summary document refers to country actions such. Some countries, but not necessarily all. are committed to the pillars of a multi-intervention program that included policy changes, classroom instruction and extended education activities, delivering and procuring food, changes to the physical environment/resources to cook and prepare food in schools, to support safe food handing and reducing food waster and increasing social support through student, parent and community engagement. Several countries referred to capacity-building, inter-sectoral cooperation, systems change strategies and a national action plan. A more detailed review of country commitments may reveal other insights:
Summaries and copies of the national commitments can be found here: Armenia | Bangladesh | Benin | BurkinaFaso | Burundi | Cambodia | Cameroon |
Organizations that have signed the Declaration of Support are considered Coalition partners.
They are based in Africa | Asia and the Pacific | Europe | Latin America and the Caribbean | North America | Regional The SM Coalition partners are Academia and Think Tanks | Foundation and Networks | Multilateral Organizations, Development Banks and Agencies, International Financial Institutions | NGOs | Cities and City Networks | United Nations
The WFP School Feeding Strategy 2020 - 2030 The WFP strategy positions School Meals as part of an integrated package of interventions which include these interventions suitable for low resource countries vaccinations, healthy lifestyle education, oral health promotion, sexuality education, vision screening & treatment, adolescent health services, mosquito net promotion, nutrition education, deworming, mental health education & counselling, school meals/feeding & fortification, menstrual health management.
However, its funding commitments to countries is solely focused on school meals, The global level activities do support the broader set of topics listed above. (See the data from the school meals survey below) And there is an explicit effort to integrate cross-cutting themes such as climate change and girls education into the school meal activities.
The strategy (p4) explains the new approach to school feeding adopted by WFP, as a pillar of an integrated school health and nutrition response. A key element of this new approach is to transform school feeding into a major driver of a climate change responsive approach to feeding children, for example by reducing the length of supply chains and adopting a zero-tolerance response to waste.
The strategy (p6) states that WFP will implement this through a context-specific approach providing school feeding to 35 million children in 30 of the most fragile and low-income countries and working with national governments of the 30 stable, low- and middle-income countries to reach 38 million children (contexts 2 and 3) by transitioning and scaling up nationally owned programmes. WFP will raise USD 20 million to provide technical assistance and secure transitional funding for operations.
At the global level, WFP will have four work streams;
- Work stream 1 – Sharing knowledge and best practice through a research consortium
- Work stream 2 – Increasing the investment through the new context-driven financing model
- Work stream 3 – partner to advocate for implementation of the integrated package above
- Work stream 4 – Strengthening programmatic approaches in key areas such as nutritional sensitivity,girls education, food systems and value chains, digital innovation and humanitarian-peace nexus programs.
The School Meals Coalition documents success stories and profiles country passed programs in its impact stories.
It also promotes and supports research and publications on a variety of topics related toi school meals. These include the silos in health and education, coordinating deworming and school meal programs and school meals & climate change.
The Global Child Nutrition Foundation publishes the global school feeding survey. The latest survey done in 2021 ands published in 2022 found that:
Whole of Government (WoG) Approaches, Strategies and Practices.
As noted above, despite strong evidence and experience of the effectiveness of the IPPCFs at the school level, case studies, reviews and reports all note that inter-ministry coordination beyond specific short-term projects or a few single interventions is rarely practiced. Several global statements and reports have called for such whole of government approaches.
A Whole of Government approach (across and within ministries) and several systems-based good practices is required to align, coordinate, support and sustain these IPPCF frameworks. These include:
The 2022 UN Transforming Education Summit (TES) and the accompanying vision statement on by the UN Secretary-General for the Summit highlighted such WofG strategies. However, an analysis of country commitment statements from TES found that very few countries were making progress on such WofG approaches. The revised UNESCO "Recommendation" (policy framework), OECD Declaration on Building Equitable Societies Through Education and the Education Commission/Dubai Care Foundation call for transformation based on WoG approaches. Global educator organizations and NGO coalitions such as the FRESH Partnership have also advocated for Whole of Government approaches to strengthen the use of IPPCF frameworks.
A United Nations paper on WofG approaches notes that this harmonization of government efforts requires strong leadership, policy and mandate coordination, the capacity to bring together all departments and key stakeholders, the appointment of a senior officials with authority on inter-ministry boundaries, the establishment of a coordinating body within government, the ability to overcome differences in visions, priorities and terminologies, interoperability of systems, personnel, funding mechanisms and more.
The education reform paper (Rewiring Education) prepared by the Education Commission and the Dubai Cares Foundation (now transferred to EDC) also calls for multi-sector coordination and describes some of its features. It states that "driving and sustaining collaborative action requires new incentive structures. To that end, we recommend that governments, in partnership with international and local actors:
To avoid creating a deluge of specific, issue/topic-focused programs and programs that will overwhelm educators or compete among themselves for their attention, other ministries and sectors should also adopt a whole child approach to their work and programs. This holistic, whole child approach is often articulated using different terms in different sectors. For example, in health promotion, the term “salutogenesis”[37] is used to shift the focus to the origins of health rather than on various diseases. A “holistic approach to social work”[38] considers all major facets of a client’s life to better determine underlying issues that may cause medical problems, emotional distress, or negative changes in behavior. In law enforcement, “positive youth development”[39] can be the central tenet to crime prevention within a community policing approach.
A Whole Child approach is increasingly used in the education and other sector to ensure that each and every child is included and has equitable opportunities. ASCD and global organizations (including several FRESH Partners) have published statements[40],[41],[42], foundation documents[43],[44] research[45],[46],[47] and practical resources on the whole child approach in education. The well-established tenets of the whole child approach have been adapted here to underline the need for action outside of and within schools as well as before and after young people enter and graduate from schools.
A whole child approach seeks to ensure each child, in each school, in each community…
This better practice can be defined as follows: A whole of government (WofG) approach to overall child and adolescent development (meeting the needs of every child and the whole child) requires that education ministries coordinate with other ministries who provide funding, staff, and advice to school-based and school-linked programs. These WofG approaches align and coordinate the many strategies, policies and programs that use the school as a hub within the government and communities. School systems can be part of other, broader W of G strategies on children and youth but any efforts to engage school systems should be aligned and coordinated through a school-system focused WofG approach to avoid competition and duplication of efforts and resources.
There are several good examples of WoG approaches and good practices using the school as a that illustrate how progress can be made. These include:
A Policy on Overall Development & Education of Children/Youth (Whole Child)(WoG Good Practice #1)
Using Dedicated Inter-Ministry Coordination Mechanisms (WoG Good Practice #16)
Joint/Multi Sector Reviews (WoG Good Practice #19)
To fully benefit from the extensive evidence and experience with school-based and school-linked approaches as described in the many IPPCFs now available, we need to
If we pursue these three objectives simultaneously and if we re-allocate some of the many, many resources now expended in scatter-shot efforts, we can make significant progress.
APPENDIX ONE: List of Intersectoral Policy=Program Coordination Frameworks (IPPCFs)
Multi-Component Approaches (Linking Sectors)
Multi-Intervention Programs (Specific Issues)
Promoting Educational Success
- Inclusive, Equitable, Child-Friendly
- Early Childhood Education
- Social & Emotional/ Life Skills
- Students with Disabilities
- Transition to Work or Training
Barriers to Inclusion & Equity/Threats to Health, Safety, Personal, Social & Sustainable Developmenmt
- Out of School/Dropouts
- Gender related Barriers
- School Health & Nutrition
- Healthy Schools
- Discrimination/Racism
- Safe Schools (Violence, Bullying)
- Safe Schools (Crime, Drugs)
- Community Schools (Poverty)
- Disaster Risk Reduction
- Global Citizenship
- Peace Education
- Education Sustainable Development
Contexts & Populations
- Conflict-Affected Countries
- Low resource Countries
- Indigenous Schooling
- Minority Communities
Building Core Components
- Macro-Policy & Coordination (FRESH Framework)
- Integrated Student Services
- Physical Resources (WASH)
- Safe School Buildings
- Curriculum & Extended Education/ (H&LS/PSH/HWB)
Student Learning/Success
- Literacy
- Primary Grades/Foundational Learning
- Transitions (Early Childhood to Primary)
- Transitions (Primary to Secondary)
- Transitions (Secondary to PSE or Work)
- Learning Majority Language as 2nd language
- IEPs & Alternative Schooling
Child & Adolescent Development
- Child growth & development
- Vision,
- Hearing
- Child Abuse & Neglect
- Family Violence
- Child Sexual Abuse
- Menstrual health & hygiene
Healthy/Risky Behaviours
- HIV/STI, Sexual Health
- Substance abuse/tobacco use
- Physical activity
- Accidental injury/safety
- Mental health/illness
- NCDs
- Chronic health conditions
- Sun safety
- Environmental hazards
- Climate crisis threats (Heat, Floods, Zika, Dengue)
- Infectious Diseases
- Immunization/Vaccinations
- Oral/dental health
- School Meals
- School Feeding
- School food & nutrition
- Obesity/overweight
Child Safety/Security
- Child Trafficking/ Exploitation
- Refugee students/immigrants
- Bullying, Cyber Bullying
- Gangs, gang involvement
- Isolation, alienation, violent extremism, school shootings
APPENDIX TWO (Capacity-building and Whole of Government Practices)
Capacity-Building Practices, Strategies & Structures
Whole of Government Practices, Strategies & Structures
b) implementation frameworks,
c) stakeholder consultations,
d) active senior staff involvement,
e) consultations with middle managers,
e) mentoring/training of coordinators,
f) communities of practice
b) policy coordination,
c) knowledge development & exchange,
d) strategic & coordinated issue management,
End Notes
[1] UN (2023) The Sustainable Development Goals Report Special edition, New York, NY
[2] UN Secretary General (2016) Press Release “Secretary-General, in Message to International Commission, Calls Education Target ‘a Springboard’ for Attaining Other Sustainable Development Goals 24 January 2016
[3] High Level Steering Committee (2022) From commitment to action: A guidance note for translating national
commitments into action in follow-up to the Transforming Education Summit, Global Education Coordinating Mechanism, New York, NY, United Nations, p2
[4] UN Secretary-General (2022) Transforming Education: An urgent political imperative for our collective future. Vision Statement of the Secretary-General on Transforming Education, New York, NY, United Nations, p7
[5] UNESCO (2023) Recommendation on Education for Peace, Human Rights and Sustainable Development, Paris, UNESCO, p. 10, Section 10
[6] OECD (2022) Declaration on Building Equitable Societies Through Education, Paris, OECD
[7] American Association of School Administrators (AASA), Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development (ASCD), Canadian Association of School System Administrators (CASSA), International Confederation of Principals (ICP), International School Psychology Association (ISPA), International Association for Counselling (IAC), Public Service International (Education Support and Cultural Workers (PSAI), Global Network of Deans of Education (GNDE) (2023) Rebuilding, Renewing & Transforming School & Other Systems: A Joint Statement, Authors
[8] Education Commission, Dubai Care Foundation (2022) Rewiring Education for People and Planet, Authors and now led by the Educational Development Centre, p6
[9] UNESCO (2023) Recommendation on Education for Peace, Human Rights and Sustainable Development, Paris, UNESCO, p. 10, Section 10
[10] Langford R, Bonell CP, Jones HE, Pouliou T, Murphy SM, Waters E, Komro KA, Gibbs LF, Magnus D, Campbell R. (2014) The WHO Health Promoting School framework for improving the health and well-being of students and their academic achievement. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD008958. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008958.pub2
[11] Blank M, Melaville A, Shah B (2002) Making the Difference: Research & Practice in Community Schools, Coalition for Community Schools, Washington, DC
[12] Durack JA, Weissberg RP, Dymnicki AB, Taylor RD, Schellinger KB (2011) The impact of enhancing students' social and emotional learning: a meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions, Child Dev. 2011 Jan-Feb;82(1):405-32. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564. x.
[13] Meiklejohn S, Ryan L, Palermo C. (2016) A Systematic Review of the Impact of Multi-Strategy Nutrition Education Programs on Health and Nutrition of Adolescents. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2016 Oct;48(9):631-646.e1. doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2016.07.015
[14] Dana Burde, Ozen Guven, Jo Kelcey Heddy Lahmann, Khaled Al-Abbadi (2015) What Works to Promote Children’s Educational Access, Quality of Learning, and Wellbeing in Crisis-Affected Contexts: Education Rigorous Literature Review, Department for International Development.
[15] Bundy DAP (2011) Rethinking school health: a key component of education for all. Washington, DC: World Bank
[16] Marthe Deschesnes, Catherine Martin and Adèle Jomphe Hill (2003) Comprehensive approaches to school health promotion: how to achieve broader implementation? Health Promotion International (2003) 18 (4): 387-396. doi: 10.1093/heapro/dag410
[17] Deschesnes, M., Couturier, Y., Laberge, S. and Campeau, L. (2010), How divergent conceptions among health and education stakeholders influence the dissemination of healthy schools in Quebec, Health Promotion International, Vol. 25, 4, pp. 435-43
[18] Nastaran Keshavarz Mohammadi, Louise Rowling, Don Nutbeam, (2010) Acknowledging educational perspectives on health promoting schools, Health Education, Vol. 110 Iss: 4, pp.240 – 25
[19] Venka Simovska, Lone Lindegaard Nordin and Katrine Dahl Madsen (2015) Health promotion in Danish schools: local priorities, policies and practices, Health Promotion International, (2015) doi: 10.1093/heapro/dav009
[20] Junko Saito, Ngouay Keosada, Sachi Tomokawa, Takeshi Akiyama, Sethavudh Kaewviset, Daisuke Nonaka, Jitra Waikugul, Jun Kobayashi, Mithong Souvanvixay and Masamine Jimba (2015) Factors influencing the National School Health Policy implementation in Lao PDR: a multi-level case study, Health Promotion International (2015) 30 (4): 843-854. doi: 10.1093/heapro/dau016
[21] Michaela Adamowitsch, Lisa Gugglberger and Wolfgang Dür (2014) Implementation practices in school health promotion: findings from an Austrian multiple-case study, Health Promotion International, Advance Access 10.1093/heapro/dau018
[22] Behrouz Fathi, Hamid Allahverdipour, , Abdolreza Shaghaghi, Ahmad Kousha, and Ali Jannati (2014) Challenges in Developing Health Promoting Schools’ Project: Application of Global Traits in Local Realm, Health Promotion Perspectives, 2014; 4(1): 9–17, Published online 2014 Jul 12. doi: 10.5681/hpp.2014.002
[23] Amanda Hargreaves (2012) The perceived value of Health Education in schools: New Zealand secondary teachers’ perceptions, Journal of Curriculum Studies, Volume 45, Issue 4, 2013 pages 560-582
[24] Lisa Gugglberger and Jo Inchley (2014) Phases of health promotion implementation into the Scottish school system, Health Promotion International, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp. 256-266
[25] Grêaux KM, van Assema P, Bessems KMHH, de Vries NK, Harting J. (2023) Patterns in bottlenecks for implementation of health promotion interventions: a cross-sectional observational study on intervention-context interactions in the Netherlands. Arch Public Health. 2023 Oct 17;81(1):183. doi: 10.1186/s13690-023-01196-y. PMID: 37848963; PMCID: PMC10580618.
[26] Langford R, Bonell CP, Jones HE, Pouliou T, Murphy SM, Waters E, Komro KA, Gibbs LF, Magnus D, Campbell R. (2014) The WHO Health Promoting School framework for improving the health and well-being of students and their academic achievement. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD008958. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008958.pub2
[27] Bartelink N, Bessems K & Prevo L (2020) SHE monitoring report 2020: Overall report of the SHE member countries, Schools for Health in Europe Network Foundation, Haderslev, Denmark, p 3
[28] World Health Organization, Regional Office for South-East Asia (2021) Rapid assessment of national school health programmes in countries of the WHO South-East Asia Region: A summary. New Delhi, Author, p 17, p6, pp 17-23
[29] The Global Child Nutrition Foundation (2021) School Meal Programs Around the World: Report Based on the Global Survey of School Meal Programs, Seattle, Author, p 51
[30] The “entry point” strategy is often used as an argument for investing in one program with a plan to expand to other areas once that initial program has become established. The school meals program is one example where it is suggested that school meal programs can be expanded to include food/nutrition interventions and then expanded further to include other health interventions. such as vaccination, oral health promotion, vision screening and treatment, malaria control, deworming, sexual and reproductive health services, and menstrual hygiene management. The 2022 report on the Global School Meals program (p46) reported that countries did connect school meal programs with nutrition education, food fortification, clean water but did not connect meals with other health interventions.
[31] David Osher Dana L. Kelly, Nitika Tolani-Brown, Luke Shors & Chen-Su Chen (2009) UNICEF Child Friendly Schools Programming: Global Evaluation Final Report, Washington, DC, American Institutes for Research
[32] Rebekah Paci-Green, Adriana Varchetta, Kate McFarlane, Padmini Iyer, Marcel Goyenech (2020) Comprehensive school safety policy: A global baseline survey, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, Volume 44, April 2020, 101399, doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101399
[33] Herlitz, L., MacIntyre, H., Osborn, T. et al. (2020) The sustainability of public health interventions in schools: a systematic review. Implementation Sci 15, 4 (2020). doi.org/10.1186/s13012-019-0961-8
[34] May C. (2913) Towards a general theory of implementation. Implement Sci. 2013;8. doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-18.
[35] Laitsch D, McCall D (2022) Preliminary findings of a global survey and policy/curriculum document analysis from all countries, states and provinces, Faculty of Education, Simon Fraser University, in cooperation with UNICEF, UNESCO, International School Health Network, (In Progress)
[36] A review of SH programs in Africa (Schultz ey al, 2021) and four subsequent country case studies in Senegal, Malawi, Uganda and Kenya have documented the use of multiple multi-component approaches and multi-intervention programs in Afirican countries and called for effective, intersectoral coordination mechanisms.
[37] Mittelmark M.B., Bauer G.F. (2017) The Meanings of Salutogenesis. In: Mittelmark M. et al. (eds) The Handbook of Salutogenesis. Springer, Cham. doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04600-6_2
[38] Mendel, R (2003) Youth, Crime and Community Development: A Guide for Collaborative Action, Columbia, MD, Enterprise Foundation
[39] Campbellsville University (2019) A Holistic View of Social Work, Author, Campbellsville, KY
[40] ASCD (2021) The Learning Compact Renewed: Whole Child for the Whole World, Alexandria, VA , ASCD
[41] ASCD (nd) The ASCD Whole Child Approach, these web pages include several resources and a global network of schools
[42] ASCD, Education International (2017) The 2030 Sustainable Development Goals and the Pursuit of Quality Education for All: A Statement of Support from Education International and ASCD, Alexandria, VA, ASCD
[43] Allensworth DD, Lewallen TC, Stevenson B, Katz S. (2011) Addressing the needs of the whole child: what public health can do to answer the education sector’s call for a stronger partnership. Prev Chronic Dis. 2011;8(2):1-6.
[44] FRESH Partners (2017) The Whole Child: The Need for All Systems & Agencies to Address the Overall Development and Education of Young People, FRESH Partners
[45] Carol A. Kochhar-Bryant, Angela Heishman (2010) Effective Collaboration for Educating the Whole Child, Sage Publishing
[46] American Institutes for Research (2014) Teaching the Whole Child: Instructional Practices That Support Social-Emotional Learning in Three Teacher Evaluation Frameworks, Washington, DC
[47] Linda Darling-Hammond and Channa M. Cook-Harvey (2018) Educating the Whole Child:Improving School Climate to Support Student Success, Learning Policy Institute, Washington, DC, Author
[48] National Planning Commission (2014) National Development Plan 2030: Our Future-make it work, Department of the Presidency, Republic of South Africa
[49] Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality (2017) Child and Youth Development Strategy 2017 – 2021, Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality, South Africa
[50] Department of Basic Education (2014) Handbook for the provision of an Integrated Package of Care and Support for Learners in South African Schools. DBE, Pretoria
[51] Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality (2017) Child and Youth Development Strategy 2017 – 2021, Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality, South Africa
[52] Lao People’s Democratic Republic (2011) National Strategy and Plan of Action on Inclusive Education 2011-2015, Author
[53] Global Partnership for Education (2017) Effective Joint Sector Reviews as (Mutual) Accountability Platforms, Washington, DC, Author
[54] Global Partnership for Education (2017) Effective Joint Sector Reviews as (Mutual) Accountability Platforms: Working Paper #1, Washington, DC, Author
[55] Global Partnership for Education (2018) Joint Sector Reviews in the Education Sector, Washington, DC, Author
[56] UNICEF (2020) Review of the WASH Bottleneck Analysis Tool (BAT): Improving the WASH BAT as a tool
for planning and partnering for sustainability. New York
Intersectoral and multi-sectoral coordination as well as whole of government policy, structures and practices are required if schools are to respond to the many health, social and economic challenges confronting young people. By acting as the delivery hub for a variety of school-based and school-linked services and programs promoting educational inclusion & equity as well as health, safety, security, social & sustainable education programs can be the backbone to sustainable development. Coordination between or across ministries must be at the heart of this process. Governments need to establish policy, procedures and practices that require that Intersectoral Policy-Program Coordination Frameworks (IPPCFs) be adopted or developed whenever schools are asked to address any health, social issue or barriers to student learning. Further, they need to establish or strengthen whole of government policies, structures and practices.
This web site defines IPPCFs which coordinate efforts across sectors on several issues/programs as Multi-Component Approaches (MCAs) and uses the term Multi-Intervention Programs (MIPs) to describe efforts which are focused on a specific theme, issue or population. Many IPPCFs have been developed, evaluated and promoted as evidence-based and experience tested ways to deliver and coordinate multiple interventions thereby increasing their synergies and impact. Most countries use between 5 and 10 of these frameworks. Each of these frameworks uses interventions organized, coordinated, and delivered within components, domains or pillars such policy, education, student services, physical environment and psycho-social support to address different barriers to educational success, health and well-being.
We have also defined effective whole of government (WoG) strategies and approaches in general terms. These web pages are a beginning of our efforts to describe and document the many specific over-arching policies, structures and good practices that institutionalize and sustain WoG approaches that use education systems as their organizing hub.
Research reviews, reports, and program evaluations have documented the school level success of IPPCFS that use the school as a hub. Well-known multi-component approaches such as Health Promoting Schools, Social & Emotional Learning and others as well, many topic-specific multi-intervention programs have been found to be effective in improving learning or short-term health, safety, personal, social or development outcomes. However, despite the evidence almost all of the approaches and programs using these frameworks are not scaled up, coordinated, or sustained in the real world, especially after the initial crisis wanes or project funding runs out. Jurisdictions publish lofty statements or guidance documents but often do not adopt policies that require coordination of the interventions or provide financial & human resources. Annual or multi-year action plans are often not established or renewed. Most countries use several frameworks to address different barriers but they are not aligned and may even compete for funding or educator attention. Indeed, some global models are more of an aspirational “wish list” of interventions than a practice, policy or plan that can be or has been implemented by countries.
To apply or implement a IPPCF framework, multiple interventions need to be coordinated across ministries by the jurisdiction (delivering several separate interventions is less effective as is other informal types of cooperation or publishing guidance documents/statements that recommend various interventions but do not provide the needed resources). To be effective, school systems should be used as the hub for program delivery and funds allocated for this purpose. MCAs and MIPs need to have contributions of staffing or funding from other ministries/agencies which have been provided to them to deliver school-based or school-linked services or programs related to their respective mandates. To be sustained, the MCAs and MIPs need to use several good capacity-building practice and strategies so that they are contextualized, implemented, coordinated, sustained, integrated within school systems, scaled up through incremental systems change. These include reciprocal, strategic and negotiated inter-ministry partnerships, action plans for each ministry and inter-ministry agreements, coordinators and committees.
As well, a Whole of Government approach (across and within ministries) using several good practices and structures at the highest levels in government should be used to align, coordinate, support and sustain IPPCF frameworks. (Note that these WoG approaches are aimed at the education and development of the whole child and not at any specific issue, IPPCF framework or program.) These practices include an over-arching policy on child & adolescent development & education, laws and regulations on the mandates of several ministries on working with and within schools, the active support of first ministers, establishing inter-ministry coordination mechanisms, comprehensive agreements between ministries, jointly named inter-ministry coordinators, joint budgeting, joint sector reviews, shared accountability systems and other actions. Several UN and global organizations now recognize both the centrality of the education sector in the development agenda and the necessity of whole of government (WoG) and systems capacity-building strategies to promote intersectoral collaboration.
Need for Change
The 2023 Global Sustainable Development Report [1] sounded an alarm when it concluded that “Progress on more than 50 per cent of targets of the SDGs is weak and insufficient; on 30 per cent, it has stalled or gone into reverse” The report (p48) stated clearly in its concluding call for action that governments need to be able to work across sectors and contribute, including with budget alignment, to a whole-of-government approach to the Goals. We need to return to the 2016 statement of the UN Secretary General[2] to the International Commission on Financing Global Education, which stated that “education targets are ‘a Springboard’ for attaining other Sustainable Development Goals”
Several UN and Global organizations recognize both the centrality of the education sector in the development agenda and the necessity of whole of government (WoG) and systems capacity-building strategies to promote intersectoral collaboration to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Examples include the follow-up guidance note[3] and vision statement[4] by the UN Secretary-General from the 2022 UN Transforming Education Summit, the revised UNESCO recommended policy framework for education systems[5], the OECD Declaration on Building Equitable Societies through Education[6] and a joint statement[7] from ten global educator organizations.
This goal is clearly articulated by the Education Commission and the Dubai Cares Foundation in their report/paper on Rewiring Education[8]. It states, “Driving and sustaining collaborative action requires new incentive structures. To that end, it recommended that governments, in partnership with international and local actors embed education in all national development plans and other sector strategies, embrace multisectoral, contextually tailored financing strategies, develop delivery-focused implementation approaches, underpinned by strong data systems, to help connect actions within and across line ministries and harness, build on, and bring together existing platforms and frameworks for collaboration, for joint action on transformation in education as well as other SDGs.
Further, the 2023 UNESCO Recommendation on Education for Peace, Human Rights and Sustainable Development[9], calls on Member States and stakeholders to implement policies and strategies through a whole-institution and whole-of-society approach that utilizes the “full potential of interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, transdisciplinary and intersectoral approaches”. Intersectoral collaboration is now recognized as being essential to achieving inclusion and equity within school systems. Education has been recognized as a pillar in the achievement of all 17 of the development goals.
There are many evidence-based and experience-tested intersectoral policy-program coordination frameworks (IPPCFs) describing about 25 sector wide multi-component approaches. Another 40+ topic-specific multi-intervention programs are proven successful in addressing many of the barriers to inclusion and equity at the school level.
SEE APPENDIX ONE for a list of these approaches and programs.
Most countries use about ten of these frameworks simultaneously, but some frameworks are selected because of external pressure, or pilot-project funding, training or technical assistance offered by external donors rather than documented local needs. As well, all jurisdictions struggle to scale up and sustain these approaches and programs. Many realize during their brief life cycle as a funded “innovation”, that they must turn to capacity building/systems change strategies. As they move upward in their respective systems and encounter severe bottlenecks at the inter-ministry level that must be resolved through whole of government (WoG) strategies, many end up “re-inventing the wheel” or not knowing about other “spokes” in that wheel that other frameworks have developed.
There is need to collate, develop and share good practices that build capacities/change systems to scale up the implementation of frameworks selected by countries and that use WoG strategies and structures to coordinate these selected approaches/programs while securing/funding the participation of other ministries in school-based and school-linked programs.
The IPPCFs discussed in this summary include those that support inclusion and equity in schooling as well as those that promote safety, health, personal, social and sustainable development. They address barriers to schooling, early childhood development, dropping out of school, transitions to work, disabilities, health behaviours, conditions, inequities & problems, safety from violence, abuse & crime, providing education & security during wars/conflicts, discrimination based on gender, orientation, race or colonization, climate change, natural disasters, and several others. It is challenging to determine how these many multi-component approaches and multi-intervention programs can be sustained and coordinated in any one jurisdiction.
However, the many barriers to inclusion & equity do not go away if we ignore the best methods of addressing them. Consequently, this summary suggests that countries carefully select and build the frameworks most relevant to their students needs. External funders and UN agencies can support long term capacity development and whole of government approaches rather than only promoting short-term projects or narrow programs on the latest urgent issue.
Research evidence/reviews, data-based reports, and practice-based program evaluations have documented the school level success of IPPCFS that use the school as a hub. Well-known approaches such as Health Promoting Schools[10], Community Schools[11], Social & Emotional Learning[12], school food & nutrition[13] and other used in specific contexts such as education in emergencies[14] or low resource countries[15]are effective at the school level.
However, despite the abundance of research evidence that IPPFs improve student health, well-being, safety and learning, almost all of the approaches and programs using these frameworks are not scaled up, coordinated, or sustained in the real world, especially after the initial or project funding runs out. Jurisdictions publish lofty statements or guidance documents about the framework but often do not adopt policies that require coordination of the interventions or provide financial & human resources. Annual or multi-year action plans are often not established or renewed. Most countries use several frameworks to address different barriers or specific barriers[vi] but they are not aligned and may even compete for funding or educator attention. Indeed, some global models are more of a “wish list” of interventions than a practice, policy or plan that can be or has been implemented by countries.
Approaches & Programs are not Sustained
Based on decades of experience, we must admit that comprehensive approaches & programs are not sustainable in school systems, unless they receive ongoing funding & staffing from other ministries or external sources. Practitioners and researchers have issued warnings about capacity, coordination and competing visions & perspectives for several years[16],[17],[18],[19],. Many case studies on comprehensive approaches have reported failure in scale up and sustainability[20],[21],[22] and challenges even when building only one component of the framework (health & life skills education)[23], [24].
Research, policy, and monitoring activities have focused only on the front lines of systems (school level) in “whole school approaches” and the actions taken by educators alone are often the primary subject of analysis and action. In a detailed study based on complex systems theory and applied to several settings, including schools, Greaux et al[25] suggested that the “conditions that acted regularly as bottlenecks for implementation can possibly be explained by the way structural factors, i.e. the socio-economic and political context, are arranged, and which are operating ‘one level up’ from an intervention”.
The costs and complexities of assessing the effectiveness of a comprehensive approach or program over several years at several levels (classroom/clinic, school/neighbourhood, school district/agency, education/other ministry) are likely to be challenging but not impossible to overcome if the commitment to a systems approach is sustained. Unfortunately, most of the larger, longer-tern studies have been focused on specific problems or topics rather than the whole child and overall health & development.
The Health Promoting School approach is likely the most studied among the various frameworks. The latest systematic review of that framework[26] examined only school level implementation on a few topics, over a few years. Other frameworks have less evidence. No multi-level systems application of any framework has been evaluated in a random controlled trial, let alone by a systematic review of such RCTs.
Recent reports on other comprehensive frameworks describing approaches & programs on other aspects of child/youth development also report a lack of scale up and sustainability. A survey of members of the Schools for Health in Europe[27] (24 of 40 member countries responded) found that while most countries implement individual health activities in schools, only one country reported in the survey that most schools use the HPS framework to coordinate those activities. In south-east Asia a desktop review & key informant interviews[28] found that most countries had school health programs. However, these programs suffered from weak leadership and inadequate funding, and they report that intersectoral coordination is often focused on specific topics and was rarely sustained.
The Global Survey on school meals[29] reported while school meal programs were often accompanied by programs on handwashing & clean water, this example of an “entry point” strategy[30] was not truly able to expand to other services such as dental cleaning, eye care or menstrual health in most countries. A 2009 evaluation of Child Friendly Schools[31] in six countries found that CFS principles were well-accepted by educators, but schools and education ministries lacked resources, training and sustained leadership to implement the entire CFS framework. For example, including students with disabilities, likely one of core CFS objectives, was very challenging to many schools in the study. A 2017 survey of Disaster Risk Reduction[32]in 68 higher risk countries reported that fewer than one-half of responding countries had the full range of DRR policies on safe facilities, disaster management and risk/resilience education. A lack of funding and capacity were the two themes identified as barriers to implementation.
A 2020 systematic review[33] of 9677 controlled trials of school-based programs that included sustainability as a major feature was used to determine if they were sustainable after start-up funds end. The review found that none of selected programs maintained all their components after funding ended. “No discernible relationship was found between evidence of effectiveness and sustainability. Key facilitators included commitment/support from senior leaders, staff observing a positive impact on students’ engagement and wellbeing, and staff confidence in delivering health promotion and belief in its value. Important contextual barriers emerged: the norm of prioritising educational outcomes under time and resource constraints, insufficient funding/resources, staff turnover and a lack of ongoing training. Adaptation of the intervention to existing routines and changing contexts appeared to be part of the sustainability process.”
Another review of sustainable school programming[34] used a general theory of implementation to synthesize the findings from the diverse set of studies it reviewed. This theory suggests that contextual as well as system related characteristics will affect program sustainability. This leads to another gap in the research and evaluation done to date on IPPFs.
Other aspects that require much more research, knowledge development and iterative, practice-based development include system and organizational capacities, strategies to integrate programs within the core mandates, concerns and constraints of school systems and the quality/choices made in the implementing, maintaining, scaling up and sustaining processes.
Implementing IPPCFs in the Real World: Incremental Capacity Building
Early findings of a global study[35] and other sources[36] suggest that most education ministries are implementing or promoting about 5-10 of these IPPCFs in their jurisdictions but struggle to achieve scale up and sustainability in almost all of them. Each of these MCAs and MIPs should use the good practices to build capacity which are listed and described on this accompanying page and in Appendix Two. These practices include:
- macro-policy requiring that ministries, agencies and schools use locally developed or adapted, evidence-based IPPCF frameworks to coordinate interventions which include policy, educational programs, services and modifications to the physical and social environments in or near schools
- ensuring that inter-ministry partnerships are reciprocal, negotiated and linked directly to each ministry’s mandates and annual priorities
- long-term and annual action plans (strategies) that are based on cost-estimates and defined specified budget lines within each ministry every year
- each IPPCF has inter-ministry agreements, coordinators and committees and are supported by active coalitions and networks
- the roles of schools, local agencies, front-line staff and managers are described for each IPPCF
- an administrative unit or division within the education ministry is responsible for all IPPCFs. Each IPPCF also has an administrative unit within the other ministries to coordinate the various programs in their ministry. (For example a school health team within health ministries that coordinates all school health programs)
- several strategies being used to implement, maintain, scale up and sustain each or several aligned IPPCFs.
- several stipulated procedures or practices as well as required reporting times for the monitoring, reporting, evaluating and improving (MREI) each IPPCF.
- a written strategic plans for building the system and organizational capacities for each IPPCF. .
- a inter-ministry strategy is established for integrating each IPPCF within the core mandates, concerns and constraints of the education system.
- all ministries are using as shared systems-focused change strategy to sustain each IPPCF and all IPPCFs over the long term.
Two IPPCF frameworks illustrate how these practices can be developed and used.
- Safe Schools: This multi-component approach prevents violence against children and adolescents. School-based and school-linked violence prevention policies and programs are usually actively, supported or promoted by the Child Protection, Justice/ Law Enforcement, Social Protection/Welfare and Health sectors/ministries and hosted by the Education ministry.
The Global Partnership to End Violence Against Children is the most prominent proponent of safe schools initiatives. It was launched by the UN Secretary-General in 2016 as a unique global platform for collective advocacy, action and investment.
The examples, guidance and activities of this initiative (described below) illustrate or describe the IPPCF capacity-building, and whole of government (WoG) practices. The monitoring of comprehensive national prevention strategies defined in the INSPIRE framework suggests that a significant number of the 38 “Pathfinder” countries are truly pursuing a multi-component approach. However, they re struggling to scale up and sustain the breadth and scope recommended,
The Partnership has significantly advanced the global effort to end violence against children (EVAC) and accelerated progress to SDG 16.2. In October 2023 the End Violence Board agreed to significantly evolve the configuration of the Partnership and to transition some of the priority initiatives to new hosts. These include:
- promoting/facilitating country Pathfinding
- ending corporal punishment
- safe to learn at school
- child sexual violence
- promoting the EVAC policy agenda
- online safety
- positive parenting
The GPEVAC Strategy for 2022-2024 includes several references to whole of government and intersectoral coordination strategies. It suggests(p14) that other causes (health, education, climate etc. should be seen as opportunities rather than competition. It notes that apart from funding and staffing, the lack of intersectoral coordination and the absence of a lead national agency stymies the delivery of strategies. The priorities for the End Violence global funding program will focus on schools, communities and online safety. The strategy also notes that the Global Status Report on Preventing Violence Against Children 2020 revealed that 72% of the over 40 Pathfinder countries included at least four INSPIRE strategies. The GPEVAC Knowledge Platform brings together the evidence and experience.
Country progress is monitored in a Dashboard that includes this summary chart presenting the lead agency and basic information for each country. Using the Dashboard filters, we note that 21 of the 38 country national plans for ending violence include a school-based violence prevention plan.
The GPEVAC was supported by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO). - Promotion of and support for evidence-based, national action to end violence against children through Pathfinding is now under the leadership of the UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General.
Launched by WHO and ten other organizations working in child protection, INSPIRE is a set of seven evidence-based cross-sectoral strategies for countries and communities working to eliminate violence against children. INSPIRE serves as a technical package and guidebook for implementing effective, comprehensive programming to combat violence. INSPIRE is an acronym with each letter representing a strategy. These include implementing laws, norms & values, safe environments, parent support, income strengthening, response and support services and education & life skills. Resources such as a Handbook, an online training course and an Indicator Guidance and Results Framework have been produced.
The 2021-2024 global strategy for Safe to Learn includes early childhood, primary & secondary schools and post-secondary education and training. The strategy will “clarify” the contradictory messages from the education and violence prevention communities to develop one voice on evidence to be used in a global advocacy campaign. This campaign will include high level events, an evidence panel and specific advocacy and research activities. The work in countries will fund the design of violence prevention components, work in five countries, finance regional roundtables and strengthen capacity at the country level. The strategy promotes achievement of SDGs 4, 5, 10, 16 and 17. The strategy will use a whole school approach and use the school as an entry point into families and communities. The strategy will work with the Coalition for Good Schools (in global south countries) and the End Violence Lab, which now has its work housed in the End Violence Knowledge Platform.
The Global Partnership to End Violence Against Children has promoted the concept of Pathfinding, which aims to raise awareness, stimulate leadership commitment, galvanize action, and establish a standard of national violence prevention. Today, 38 countries have joined the partnership as Pathfinders and progress is mapped in country dashboard. These countries use a multi-sectoral framework to assess and monitor progress. The diagram below shows how governments are encouraged to build capacity and use a whole of government approach. Progress in achieving a multi-component approach can be assessed using this framework and the more focused Safe to Learn criteria.
For example, the Country dashboard can be used to track how many countries are implementing and scaling up the INSPIRE framework. For example:
- 31 countries have appointed a lead coordinating body
- 8 countries have launched, costed a national strategy that has at least four INSPIRE strategies
- 19 countries have Education Sector Plans that include violence prevention
- 21 countries have a school-based prevention plan
Schools are a key setting for this movement which links several sectors and issues and, as such, benefits from an integrated, comprehensive approach based on the INSPIRE framework. These are fully described in the Programmatic Framework & Benchmarking Tool and include:
- prevention of violence in and around schools is specific strategy in education sector policies, plans and budgets
- There is explicit prohibition of corporal punishment in schools, and policies are in place to support positive discipline and classroom management
- The roles and responsibilities of the Ministry of Education in response and referral to
- incidents of violence are clearly set out in the multisectoral national child protection policy framework
- The country has endorsed the Safe Schools Declaration and in situations of armed
- conflict is implementing the Guidelines for Protecting Schools and Universities from Military Use during Armed Conflict
- Key violence prevention strategies are embedded in curriculum-based activities for children
- Child safeguarding principles and procedures are in place in schools, inclusive of codes of conduct, child-friendly reporting and referral procedures, and safe recruitment standards
- Each school has at least one focal point who is capacitated to provide front-line mental health/psychosocial support to children experiencing violence
- The physical environment in and around schools is safe and designed with the well-being of children in mind
- There is wide dissemination and engagement with stakeholders to build knowledge and appreciation of child rights and laws prohibiting violence.
- Specific, evidence-informed interventions are implemented and evaluated with schools, addressing social norms that drive key forms of violence
- Young people, parents, teachers and community members in and around schools engaged and active on the topic of school violence
- Domestic resources are allocated to support people, programming and processes to end violence in schools
- Donors provide funding targeting the country level to end violence in schools, investing in effective approaches
- There is private sector engagement in the provision of financial and non-financial
- resources including technical support, expertise and advocacy towards ending violence in school
- Information and reporting of incidents allow for disaggregated baseline information and monitoring of trends and reflect needs and gaps in the system
- There is regular data collection on prevalence and forms of violence in schools using methods that follow high ethical standards
- Decisions on replication and scale-up of violence prevention initiatives are based on evaluations of trialed models and approaches
- A Theory of Change is used by the country to focus different stages of change, implementation and scale up.
- A standard Monitoring Framework with Benchmarking Tool (based on the INSPIRE Framework and international tools) has been adapted and adopted
- Safe to Learn, which is focused on preventing violence in and through schools, is now hosted by UNICEF, with ongoing involvement of the Safe to Learn coalition of partners. The Safe to Learn's Call to Action, proposes an IPPFC framework for schools and includes several capacity0building criteria and actions. A Programmatic Framework & Benchmarking Tool helps countries to implement the framework. The Safe to Learn Diagnostic Tool maps out the interventions in the benchmarking tool as the national, sub-national, local and school levels.
This excerpt shows how the roles, capacities and shared responsibilities are defined.
Benchmark
National
Sub-National/ District
School
1.3 The roles and responsibilities of the
Ministry of Education in response and
referral to incidents of violence are clearly
set out in the multi-sectoral national child
protection policy framework.
A national policy framework, strategy or
other system that outlines the role of the
Ministry of Education as part of the national
child protection system alongside other
formal actors (Health, Social Welfare,
Justice, Police).
There is district-level coordination of
national policy framework and support for
implementation in schools
School follows national and/or district
policy and coordinates with local
authorities and other duty bearers.
The Ministry of Education has established
a national child protection/safeguarding
policy with the requirement that all subnational authorities and schools under
their purview develop their own localized
policies.6
The district authorities support the
establishment of localized and coordinated
school child protection policies, and has
identified one focal point with overseeing
and responding to concerns
School follows national policy or
independently has established child
safeguarding policies and procedures.
The Collaboration Multiplier Prevention Violence Tool to Prevent Interpersonal Violence was published by the Violence Prevention Alliance, a coalition of WHO member states and several other organizations. The tool promotes the value of multisectoral collaboration and describes how different sectors can engage with each other in ways driven by their respective mandates and concerns. Challenges to collaboration (different values, priorities, structures, management practices, data gathering, accountability systems, partnership buyin, etc. are addressed in general terms through a recommended process of information gathering and joint analysis of needs and priorities across the sectors. Activities, mandates in the justice, education, social services and public health sectors are described. Three local examples of collaboration are described. The approach is to motivate the sectors to work together through joint activities that answer the question what is in it for them. However, there is little discussion of how these sectors can be mandated or supported to coordinate their policies and programs for a specific population such as school-age youth or to use a particular setting such as schools. Perhaps this could be done in a school version of the collaboration tool.
The End Violence Campaign has several elements and will support school-based interventions and components. These include affiliated events organized by partners, a joint statement that can be endorsed by countries, organizations and individuals, a children’s manifesto, and several prominent advocates.
The advocacy campaign proposes six general actions to end violence (which can be linked to schools). These are affiliated events to be organized by partners:
1. Ban all forms of violence against children by 2030. All countries should commit to and start the legislative process to prohibit corporal punishment, sexual violence and child marriage in all settings.
2. Make the internet safe for children. Adopt implement comprehensive child online safety policies. Scale up solutions that keep children safe such as , particularly those that tackle grooming and distribution of child sexual abuse material and sexual abuse. Commit to preventing, detecting and stopping all activities that may harm children online.
3. Protect children from violence in humanitarian settings. Prioritize the inclusion of child protection elements in all humanitarian and refugee response plans.
4. Equip parents and caregivers to keep children safe. Scale-up the use of the evidence-based positive parenting resources. Scale-up parenting support programmes, including home visitation and parent resource centres. Establish policy frameworks and plans to scale-up parenting support programmes.
5. Make schools safe, non-violent, and inclusive. ensure that violence prevention and response measures, including removing violence-related barriers to return to school post COVID-19, are part of school plans. Governments should commit to and allocate investments for policy and programmes to end violence in and through schools. Donors should commit a percentage of education spending to remove violence-related barriers to enable a safe return to school after disease outbreaks and conflicts.
6. More investment better spent. Governments should commit to costing and adequately funding the implementation of their national action plans to end violence against children. donors should ensure and increase funding to address violence against children in all settings. Donors should agree on a standardized methodology to track donor investments. The private sector should make new financial commitments to address violence.
- School Meal/Feeding Programs This multi-intervention program provide targeted or universal school meals, snacks food fortification to children through schools. Home=grown school meal programs connect school meals with food procured from local farmers. In some cases, the school meal/feeding program is expanded to a broader School Food & Nutrition program that includes nutrition education, clean water & hygiene/teeth brushing interventions. School-based and school-linked school meals policies and programs are usually actively, supported or promoted by the Social Protection/Welfare, Agriculture & Health sectors/ministries and hosted by the Education ministry.
The Global School Meals Coalition is the most prominent proponent of school meals/feeding programs. A group of member states launched the School Meals Coalition at the UN Food Systems Summit in 2021. Ninety-seven countries from North to South have joined the Coalition and 124 partners are supporting governments in achieving their objectives. The Coalition is supported by a Secretariat hosted by the UN World Food Programme.
The examples, guidance and activities of this initiative illustrate or describe several IPPCF capacity-building and Whole of Government (WoG) practices as part of its recommended multi-intervention program on school meals. Success stories, statements of national commitments and the data from the global survey on school meal programs indicate that many countries are scaling up their SM programs. However, their reach is not universal in almost all jurisdictions. As well, the recommended number of multiple interventions beyond the essential elements of a SM program (e.g. oral health, deworming, etc.) is very difficult to achieve and sustain. Further, these interventions may or may not be truly coordinated with the SM program.Consequently, it is likely that SM programs expanding to even a broader School Food & Nutrition program may be challenging for many countries.
44 countries have defined their national commitments in support of achieving the overall goal of ensuring that all children have access to healthy and nutritious meals in school by 2030. The Declaration of Commitment has countries promising to work towards the full implementation of SM programs (which are not fully defined as a coordinated set of multiple interventions) by:
• setting out a long-term plan to restore access to school meals for children who lost them during the pandemic and reach those previously left behind.
• Improving their approach in a collaborative way, sharing best practices and lessons learnt tailored to national and local contexts.
• Investing in scaling up progress through the Coalition initiatives; and mobilize the means required to implement this agenda through partnerships.
• Working collaboratively with all stakeholders across the sectors and at regional, national and
subnational levels to realize these goals.
The National Commitments Summary document refers to country actions such. Some countries, but not necessarily all. are committed to the pillars of a multi-intervention program that included policy changes, classroom instruction and extended education activities, delivering and procuring food, changes to the physical environment/resources to cook and prepare food in schools, to support safe food handing and reducing food waster and increasing social support through student, parent and community engagement. Several countries referred to capacity-building, inter-sectoral cooperation, systems change strategies and a national action plan. A more detailed review of country commitments may reveal other insights:
- Finland pledges to adopt school meals procurement criteria that prioritize environmentally friendly cultivation, food safety, nutrition, animal welfare, and pupil involvement in planning and assessment
- France committed to joining the Peer-to-Peer Network led by Germany for the exchange of good practices and engaging the Research Consortium through French academic institutions
- Guatemala will address bottlenecks and promote actions that lead to the improvement of the school feeding programme through research, inter-institutional and multi-sectoral coordination, including academia and the private sector.
- Honduras will update the legal, political and institutional framework to achieve the national objectives for food and nutrition security, including the school feeding programme. Continue to use public schools as central hubs
- Japan will share insights into Japan's advanced school lunch system, promotion of food education and initiatives of the private sector and contribute, through bilateral assistance in the field of school lunches, to the capacity building and human resource development of developing countries for the implementation of school lunch systems, the promotion of home-grown school lunches, and the introduction of food education
- Kenya will expand the coverage from the current 1.9 million children to universal coverage by 2030, develop a national policy on school meals by June 2023, establish a national school meals coalition and hold annual school meals stakeholder conferences, roll out a digitalized school meals data and reporting module within the National Education Management Information System by December 2023, work with multiple stakeholders to introduce green technologies that provide clean energy solutions to support safe food preparation, encourage school gardens through the re- established 4-k clubs
- Rwanda will update the National Comprehensive School Feeding Policy and strategy on a regular basis, to ensure it is relevant and inclusive. It will establish, build capacity, and sustain school feeding coordination structures and stakeholders at the national and decentralized levels through the development of the local school feeding commodity supply chain and market linkages, participate in peer-to-peer exchange and learning activities with other countries and global school feeding stakeholders build connections between national academic institutions and the school feeding research consortium
- USA is investing in additional research and innovation over the coming years. USA is is creating the BOND-KIDS project led by the United States National Institute for Health with a multi-agency steering committee. This project will provide guidance to policy makers on high quality and age-appropriate diets and identify agreed nutrition indicators. In June 2022, the United States has committed to provide $943 million for the next year to support the purchase of American-grown foods for school meal programmes.
- Armenia will develop a national school feeding strategy by 2025, upgrade the annual budget allocation for school meals, update national standards for school meals and implement a national educational school health and nutrition curriculum
- Bangladesh will Increase the annual budget and coverage for school meals, provide diversified and healthy foods in school meals, shifting the food basket from fortified biscuits to seasonal and nutritious foods and integrate school meals in the Primary Education Development Program by July 2027.
- Burkina Faso will increase the share of local food products in school canteens, develop menus adapted to the nutritional needs of schoolchildren and promoting health, hygiene and nutrition activities in schools, strengthening the capacities of communal actors in the management of school canteens, strengthen the legal framework and governance of school canteens and encourage mayors to formulate recommendations
- Burundi will increase school feeding coverage for pre and primary schools from 24% to 50% by 2027 and 100% by 2032, accompanied by increase in the annual national budget dedicated to school feeding through the Finance Act. It will update the National School Feeding Policy by 2024 and integrate school feeding into the Food Fortification Policy and the School health/nutrition Strategy by end of 2025. Scale up decentralized procurement from smallholder farmers and small to medium-scale food processors. Improve quality of meals by introducing menu guides. Scale up improved energy-saving stoves in 100 schools by 2025. Finalize by the end of 2025 the school feeding impact evaluation, cost-benefit/value for money studies, assessment of nutritional status of school-age children. Mobilize stakeholders, including ministries, universities, donors, and local administration, for an informed policy review and funding to implement recommendations arising from the studies.
- Cambodia will Increase the share of school meals funded and managed by the government in areas with high poverty, malnutrition and low educational performance. Formalize and operationalize a national school meals policy whilst strengthening its integration across relevant sectoral policies and strategies. Implement a holistic package of complementary activities as part of the national school meals program that supports the human capital development of Cambodian children. Develop a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation framework to measure the performance of the national school meals program, including cross-sectoral performance indicators. Take forward the agenda of the School Meals Coalition "Peer to Peer Community of Best practices"
- Cameroon will Increase coverage, finalize the School Feeding Strategy 2023-2030 and its action plan and include school nutrition in the Education Sector Strategy, set up a SM program with the decentralized local authorities, technical and financial partners, civil society organizations and sectoral ministries
- Chad will increase the budget line allocated to the school feeding programme by 15% each year, pass a law on school food and nutrition. By 2030, 50% of schools with canteens will have school food based on local production, school meals will be provided for 20% of primary school pupils, 50% of schools with canteens benefit from an integrated health, nutrition and hygiene support programme. Starting 2024, a round table will organize resources every two years
- Chile will Strengthen the inter-sectoral support of our School Feeding Programme through institutional agreements, using the Gastronomic Laboratory for the promotion of innovation, incorporating healthy products from other countries, organizing and providing access to statistics, data and participating in experience sharing activities with other countries
Note: GO TO the summary of country commitments for more countries or see the individual statements below
Summaries and copies of the national commitments can be found here: Armenia | Bangladesh | Benin | BurkinaFaso | Burundi | Cambodia | Cameroon |
- | Chile | China | Dominican Republic | Democratic Republic of Congo | Finland | France | Gambia | Germany | Guatemala | Honduras | Iraq | Japan | Kenya | Latvia | Lebanon | Lesotho | Liberia | Libya | Luxembourg | Mali | Mauritania | Mexico | Mongolia | Peru | Philippines | Rwanda | Sao Tome and Principe | Senegal | Somalia | South Sudan | Sri Lanka | Tajikistan | USA | Zambia
Organizations that have signed the Declaration of Support are considered Coalition partners.
They are based in Africa | Asia and the Pacific | Europe | Latin America and the Caribbean | North America | Regional The SM Coalition partners are Academia and Think Tanks | Foundation and Networks | Multilateral Organizations, Development Banks and Agencies, International Financial Institutions | NGOs | Cities and City Networks | United Nations
The WFP School Feeding Strategy 2020 - 2030 The WFP strategy positions School Meals as part of an integrated package of interventions which include these interventions suitable for low resource countries vaccinations, healthy lifestyle education, oral health promotion, sexuality education, vision screening & treatment, adolescent health services, mosquito net promotion, nutrition education, deworming, mental health education & counselling, school meals/feeding & fortification, menstrual health management.
However, its funding commitments to countries is solely focused on school meals, The global level activities do support the broader set of topics listed above. (See the data from the school meals survey below) And there is an explicit effort to integrate cross-cutting themes such as climate change and girls education into the school meal activities.
The strategy (p4) explains the new approach to school feeding adopted by WFP, as a pillar of an integrated school health and nutrition response. A key element of this new approach is to transform school feeding into a major driver of a climate change responsive approach to feeding children, for example by reducing the length of supply chains and adopting a zero-tolerance response to waste.
The strategy (p6) states that WFP will implement this through a context-specific approach providing school feeding to 35 million children in 30 of the most fragile and low-income countries and working with national governments of the 30 stable, low- and middle-income countries to reach 38 million children (contexts 2 and 3) by transitioning and scaling up nationally owned programmes. WFP will raise USD 20 million to provide technical assistance and secure transitional funding for operations.
At the global level, WFP will have four work streams;
- Work stream 1 – Sharing knowledge and best practice through a research consortium
- Work stream 2 – Increasing the investment through the new context-driven financing model
- Work stream 3 – partner to advocate for implementation of the integrated package above
- Work stream 4 – Strengthening programmatic approaches in key areas such as nutritional sensitivity,girls education, food systems and value chains, digital innovation and humanitarian-peace nexus programs.
The School Meals Coalition documents success stories and profiles country passed programs in its impact stories.
It also promotes and supports research and publications on a variety of topics related toi school meals. These include the silos in health and education, coordinating deworming and school meal programs and school meals & climate change.
The Global Child Nutrition Foundation publishes the global school feeding survey. The latest survey done in 2021 ands published in 2022 found that:
- Across the 139 countries in the 2021 database, at least 330.3 million children received food through school meal programs in the school year that began in 2020.
- Almost all (93%) of the 183 school meal programs reported an objective to meet the nutritional and/or health needs of students. Meanwhile, just 35% of programs reported a goal to prevent or mitigate obesity, with programs in high-income countries (70%) far more likely to incorporate this focus than those in lower middle-income (16%) or low-income countries (5%)
- School meal programs exhibited a wide diversity of approaches to targeting beneficiaries. Some directed resources geographically towards areas with high levels of poverty, food insecurity, and malnutrition. Other programs targeted students based on their individual characteristics, such as household income or membership in a marginalized group. Still others opted for universal targeting, whereby all students in a given school or grade level were designated to receive school food
- Some schools which have SM programs (not necessarily all schools) also offer (or are paired with) other services that complement the school food. For example, 84% of programs offer handwashing facilities, 59% ensure there is drinking water. A large majority (87%) of programs incorporate some food and nutrition education. 68% of programs are paired with school gardens, However, very few programs were paired with HIV prevention, reproductive health, deworming, eye testing, hearing, menstrual hygiene, or even testing for anemia. (see p46)
- Country reports (from the 2019 and 2021 surveys) are available. The survey did not ask about inter-ministry coordination but a few reports may have added comments in the section for additional comments.
Whole of Government (WoG) Approaches, Strategies and Practices.
As noted above, despite strong evidence and experience of the effectiveness of the IPPCFs at the school level, case studies, reviews and reports all note that inter-ministry coordination beyond specific short-term projects or a few single interventions is rarely practiced. Several global statements and reports have called for such whole of government approaches.
A Whole of Government approach (across and within ministries) and several systems-based good practices is required to align, coordinate, support and sustain these IPPCF frameworks. These include:
- an over-arching policy on child & adolescent development,
- laws and regulations on the mandates of several ministries on working with and within schools,
- the active support of first ministers,
- establishing inter-ministry coordination mechanisms,
- comprehensive agreements between ministries,
- jointly named inter-ministry coordinators,
- joint budgeting,
- joint sector reviews,
- shared accountability systems and other actions.
The 2022 UN Transforming Education Summit (TES) and the accompanying vision statement on by the UN Secretary-General for the Summit highlighted such WofG strategies. However, an analysis of country commitment statements from TES found that very few countries were making progress on such WofG approaches. The revised UNESCO "Recommendation" (policy framework), OECD Declaration on Building Equitable Societies Through Education and the Education Commission/Dubai Care Foundation call for transformation based on WoG approaches. Global educator organizations and NGO coalitions such as the FRESH Partnership have also advocated for Whole of Government approaches to strengthen the use of IPPCF frameworks.
A United Nations paper on WofG approaches notes that this harmonization of government efforts requires strong leadership, policy and mandate coordination, the capacity to bring together all departments and key stakeholders, the appointment of a senior officials with authority on inter-ministry boundaries, the establishment of a coordinating body within government, the ability to overcome differences in visions, priorities and terminologies, interoperability of systems, personnel, funding mechanisms and more.
The education reform paper (Rewiring Education) prepared by the Education Commission and the Dubai Cares Foundation (now transferred to EDC) also calls for multi-sector coordination and describes some of its features. It states that "driving and sustaining collaborative action requires new incentive structures. To that end, we recommend that governments, in partnership with international and local actors:
- Embed education in all relevant sections of national development plans and other sector strategies, complemented by integrated strategic planning and mutual accountability frameworks that can align incentives and actions of leaders at all levels. Similarly ensure that education is considered as a concrete solution in global action toward the SDGs.
- Embrace multisectoral financing approaches and tailor financing strategies to differentiated needs and contexts, recognizing that countries can benefit from a variety of financial tools and vehicles for mobilizing grants, loans, and private and philanthropic investment.
- Develop delivery-focused implementation approaches, underpinned by strong data systems, to help connect actions within and across line ministries for achieving the goals of development and sector
To avoid creating a deluge of specific, issue/topic-focused programs and programs that will overwhelm educators or compete among themselves for their attention, other ministries and sectors should also adopt a whole child approach to their work and programs. This holistic, whole child approach is often articulated using different terms in different sectors. For example, in health promotion, the term “salutogenesis”[37] is used to shift the focus to the origins of health rather than on various diseases. A “holistic approach to social work”[38] considers all major facets of a client’s life to better determine underlying issues that may cause medical problems, emotional distress, or negative changes in behavior. In law enforcement, “positive youth development”[39] can be the central tenet to crime prevention within a community policing approach.
A Whole Child approach is increasingly used in the education and other sector to ensure that each and every child is included and has equitable opportunities. ASCD and global organizations (including several FRESH Partners) have published statements[40],[41],[42], foundation documents[43],[44] research[45],[46],[47] and practical resources on the whole child approach in education. The well-established tenets of the whole child approach have been adapted here to underline the need for action outside of and within schools as well as before and after young people enter and graduate from schools.
A whole child approach seeks to ensure each child, in each school, in each community…
- benefits from a good start in life provided by parents, families and agencies including early childhood education programs and day-care centres, compensatory early start services so that all children enter the first years of schooling ready and able to learn
- receives adequate and healthy food, clean water and lives and learns in clean, sanitary conditions while learning basic about nutrition, relevant infectious diseases, and personal hygiene
- is protected from external threats such as conflict and war, disasters, environmental hazards, and epidemics/pandemics and learns coping and survival skills needed for recovery and resilience
- studies in healthy, environmentally sustainable school buildings and facilities and learns about and practices healthy lifestyles, environmental citizenship and concern for the health and safety of others
- learns about and benefits from personal safety in school environment and routes to school that are physically and emotionally safe for students and adults
- feels socially and emotionally secure and connected to peers, trusted adults in the school, families and neighbourhoods/communities while learning about family life, relationships and living with others
- is actively engaged in learning through a wide breadth of learning opportunities provided through an extensive range of core subjects and extended education activities during, after and within the school day
- has access to personalized learning as well as heterogeneous classes/programs and is supported by qualified, caring adults, professionals and agencies based or linked with their school
- is challenged or motivated academically and prepared for success in college/university, training or further informal study leading to decent employment and participation in local, national or global economies
- Is recognized for their personal, social and academic achievements through appropriate student assessment practices as well as planned and inclusive informal, class and school activities
- Is encouraged and expected to develop ethically, morally, and spiritually in school-related ways which are appropriate to their families and communities
- Is counselled, supported, taught, and encouraged in their planning for life, future studies or work after school
This better practice can be defined as follows: A whole of government (WofG) approach to overall child and adolescent development (meeting the needs of every child and the whole child) requires that education ministries coordinate with other ministries who provide funding, staff, and advice to school-based and school-linked programs. These WofG approaches align and coordinate the many strategies, policies and programs that use the school as a hub within the government and communities. School systems can be part of other, broader W of G strategies on children and youth but any efforts to engage school systems should be aligned and coordinated through a school-system focused WofG approach to avoid competition and duplication of efforts and resources.
There are several good examples of WoG approaches and good practices using the school as a that illustrate how progress can be made. These include:
A Policy on Overall Development & Education of Children/Youth (Whole Child)(WoG Good Practice #1)
- South Africa provides another example of a WofG, whole child approach that includes school systems. The national policy[48] and legislation in South Africa as well as an application of the municipal level[49] reveals both coherence and the potential for effective coordination. The SA national plan is for all departments (ministries) of government. It presents a coherent vision of the country’s hopeful future and well as a shared understanding of its past. Each ministry is presented with a vision, the components for action and priorities. All ministries are expected to work together.
The chapter on the education system unites early childhood education, basic education in primary and secondary schools, and post-secondary education and training. The focus is child-centred, defining child development as “broadly defined, taking into account all the development needs of a child, and is provided to all children. A key administrative handbook[50] describes the shared responsibilities of several ministries in working with and within schools.
A municipality in South Africa illustrates vertical coordination within the South African WofG approach. The Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality Child and Youth Development Strategy[51] reflect and refers to the national policies and intersectoral strategies. The concordances and cohesion between the two levels of government are worthy of close examination
- The National Strategy and Plan of Action on Inclusive Education 2011-2015[52] of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic has detailed descriptions of the roles of several ministries of government as well as civil society and private sector organizations (pp 6-22), as well as cost estimates and implementation arrangements. The nine action areas promoting the inclusion of disabled students, girls, minorities and rural students within the plan include creating friendly social environments, ensuring all children have access to primary education and striving to reduce repetition and drop-out rates, reforming curricula and providing learning and teaching materials supportive of inclusive education, ensuring that schools are healthy, safe, and protective places, guaranteeing appropriate facilities and services to people with disabilities and gradually increasing the budget for and investment in the education sector, inclusive education in particular.
Using Dedicated Inter-Ministry Coordination Mechanisms (WoG Good Practice #16)
- Several types of Inter-ministry mechanisms can be used to support cooperation, voluntary alignment, and coordination between and among ministries. These include (a) assigned staff in First Ministers' offices, (b) inter-ministry agencies, (c) multi-stakeholder councils, (d) technical working groups, (e) task forces, (f) advisory bodies and (g) coordinating committees. Mechanisms mandated by government or agreed to be bi-lateral agreements can truly coordinate inter-ministry action while voluntary cooperation often varies with different topics, different officials, or different times.
An example of this better practice is found in Manitoba, Canada which has a long-standing agency, Healthy Child Manitoba, to coordinate ministry policies and programs from a whole child perspective. HCM is led by the Healthy Child Committee of Cabinet, authorized by a specific law, supports a healthy child advisory committee, and facilitates holistic surveys on early child development and youth health. A recent Manitoba education review commission has confirmed that HCM should focus on working across ministries to “facilitate the development of coordinated policies, programs, and services” rather than implement any programs of its own (thereby creating confusion or potential competition with programs of various ministries.
Joint/Multi Sector Reviews (WoG Good Practice #19)
- A GPE investigation[53] found that Joint Sector Reviews (JSRs) are commonly used in the development or humanitarian aid sectors, particularly within health and education, to bring a variety of stakeholders to the table to monitor and evaluate sector progress. GPE’s study contends that JSRs, when effective, can serve as a valuable tool for responsive sector planning, and may also act as platforms for building and supporting mutual accountability. The GPE full report[54] provides background, research evidence and examples, including the use of JSRs for sector wide discussions. GPE has also published a practical guide[55] for organizing effective joint sector reviews as well as several related tools and country examples listed in a repository. The Rural Water & Sanitation Forum has published an excellent checklist on the use of JSR collaborative planning in WASH programs. UNICEF has published the WASH Bottleneck Analysis Tool (WASH-BAT)[56], which can be included as part of the JSR process. The tool was designed with inputs from WASH sector stakeholders to facilitate joint identification and prioritisation of sector bottlenecks and create an action plan for their removal.
To fully benefit from the extensive evidence and experience with school-based and school-linked approaches as described in the many IPPCFs now available, we need to
- strengthen the current work on school frameworks within countries by improving their contextually relevant, strategic capacity-building and scale up activities beyond the school level, (systems change from the bottom up)
- learn more and do more about to broadening topic-specific programs often used as “entry points” into school systems into synergistic, broader approaches
- develop/adopt Whole of Government (WoG) strategies, policies, shared accountability, joint funding and adaptive structures/processes.
If we pursue these three objectives simultaneously and if we re-allocate some of the many, many resources now expended in scatter-shot efforts, we can make significant progress.
APPENDIX ONE: List of Intersectoral Policy=Program Coordination Frameworks (IPPCFs)
Multi-Component Approaches (Linking Sectors)
Multi-Intervention Programs (Specific Issues)
Promoting Educational Success
- Inclusive, Equitable, Child-Friendly
- Early Childhood Education
- Social & Emotional/ Life Skills
- Students with Disabilities
- Transition to Work or Training
Barriers to Inclusion & Equity/Threats to Health, Safety, Personal, Social & Sustainable Developmenmt
- Out of School/Dropouts
- Gender related Barriers
- School Health & Nutrition
- Healthy Schools
- Discrimination/Racism
- Safe Schools (Violence, Bullying)
- Safe Schools (Crime, Drugs)
- Community Schools (Poverty)
- Disaster Risk Reduction
- Global Citizenship
- Peace Education
- Education Sustainable Development
Contexts & Populations
- Conflict-Affected Countries
- Low resource Countries
- Indigenous Schooling
- Minority Communities
Building Core Components
- Macro-Policy & Coordination (FRESH Framework)
- Integrated Student Services
- Physical Resources (WASH)
- Safe School Buildings
- Curriculum & Extended Education/ (H&LS/PSH/HWB)
Student Learning/Success
- Literacy
- Primary Grades/Foundational Learning
- Transitions (Early Childhood to Primary)
- Transitions (Primary to Secondary)
- Transitions (Secondary to PSE or Work)
- Learning Majority Language as 2nd language
- IEPs & Alternative Schooling
Child & Adolescent Development
- Child growth & development
- Vision,
- Hearing
- Child Abuse & Neglect
- Family Violence
- Child Sexual Abuse
- Menstrual health & hygiene
Healthy/Risky Behaviours
- HIV/STI, Sexual Health
- Substance abuse/tobacco use
- Physical activity
- Accidental injury/safety
- Mental health/illness
- NCDs
- Chronic health conditions
- Sun safety
- Environmental hazards
- Climate crisis threats (Heat, Floods, Zika, Dengue)
- Infectious Diseases
- Immunization/Vaccinations
- Oral/dental health
- School Meals
- School Feeding
- School food & nutrition
- Obesity/overweight
Child Safety/Security
- Child Trafficking/ Exploitation
- Refugee students/immigrants
- Bullying, Cyber Bullying
- Gangs, gang involvement
- Isolation, alienation, violent extremism, school shootings
APPENDIX TWO (Capacity-building and Whole of Government Practices)
Capacity-Building Practices, Strategies & Structures
Whole of Government Practices, Strategies & Structures
- Policy requiring the use of IPPCFs
- Policy that interventions be coordinated
- Reciprocal, negotiated partnerships
- Ministries action plans for each IPPCF
- Estimates of start-up and on-going costs
- IPPCF inter-ministry agreements
- IPPCF active Inter-ministry Committee
- IPPCF inter-ministry coordinators
- Active, broadly-based coalitions support
- Agreed role for each ministry
- Role of local agencies described
- The role of local schools described
- Role of front-line staff described
- Each IPPCF engages parents, communities and students
- Each ministry has a budget line for each IPPCF
- Budgets for IPPCFs are jointly developed
- Administrative structure within the MOE to supervise all and each IPPCF
- Several strategies are used to implement, maintain, scale up and sustain IPPCFs. These include:
b) implementation frameworks,
c) stakeholder consultations,
d) active senior staff involvement,
e) consultations with middle managers,
e) mentoring/training of coordinators,
f) communities of practice
- Stipulated procedures to monitor, report, evaluate
- MRE data used in improvement systems
- Organizational capacities for IPPCFs including:
b) policy coordination,
c) knowledge development & exchange,
d) strategic & coordinated issue management,
- Plan to integrate within education mandates & concerns
- Plan to implement systems change
- MCAs and MIPs help to build core components
- WoG Policy/Plan on Children & Youth-Whole Child
- Required Use of IPPCF Frameworks
- Required Coordination of Programs & Interventions
- Several Data Sources Regularly Compiled
- Defined National Priorities for Child/Youth/IPPCFs
- Focus Resources on 4-5 National Priorities
- Regular Surveys of Policies & Programs Status
- Reciprocal, Negotiated, Strategic Inter-Ministry Partnerships
- Education Ministry is Host & Co-Lead for IPPCFs
- Other Ministry Roles are anchored in their Core Mandates & Programs
- Defined, Aligned Roles for Front-Line Staff and Local Agencies
- Regular reports on IPPCF Capacities
- Senior & Middle Manager Involvement
- Negotiate Formal & Informal Boundaries between ministries
- Use of Inter-Ministry Mechanisms/Agencies
- Comprehensive Inter-Ministry Agreements
- Each IPPCF & ministry uses/supports Core Components (core H&LS curriculum, integrated student services, minimum conditions for physical and social environment
- Use of Joint/Multi Sector Reviews & Planning
- Jointly named Inter-Ministry Coordinators
- Defined job descriptions, competencies and training for Inter-Ministry Coordinators
- Donors & Internal Funding enable "blended or integrated funding" at local or regional levels
End Notes
[1] UN (2023) The Sustainable Development Goals Report Special edition, New York, NY
[2] UN Secretary General (2016) Press Release “Secretary-General, in Message to International Commission, Calls Education Target ‘a Springboard’ for Attaining Other Sustainable Development Goals 24 January 2016
[3] High Level Steering Committee (2022) From commitment to action: A guidance note for translating national
commitments into action in follow-up to the Transforming Education Summit, Global Education Coordinating Mechanism, New York, NY, United Nations, p2
[4] UN Secretary-General (2022) Transforming Education: An urgent political imperative for our collective future. Vision Statement of the Secretary-General on Transforming Education, New York, NY, United Nations, p7
[5] UNESCO (2023) Recommendation on Education for Peace, Human Rights and Sustainable Development, Paris, UNESCO, p. 10, Section 10
[6] OECD (2022) Declaration on Building Equitable Societies Through Education, Paris, OECD
[7] American Association of School Administrators (AASA), Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development (ASCD), Canadian Association of School System Administrators (CASSA), International Confederation of Principals (ICP), International School Psychology Association (ISPA), International Association for Counselling (IAC), Public Service International (Education Support and Cultural Workers (PSAI), Global Network of Deans of Education (GNDE) (2023) Rebuilding, Renewing & Transforming School & Other Systems: A Joint Statement, Authors
[8] Education Commission, Dubai Care Foundation (2022) Rewiring Education for People and Planet, Authors and now led by the Educational Development Centre, p6
[9] UNESCO (2023) Recommendation on Education for Peace, Human Rights and Sustainable Development, Paris, UNESCO, p. 10, Section 10
[10] Langford R, Bonell CP, Jones HE, Pouliou T, Murphy SM, Waters E, Komro KA, Gibbs LF, Magnus D, Campbell R. (2014) The WHO Health Promoting School framework for improving the health and well-being of students and their academic achievement. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD008958. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008958.pub2
[11] Blank M, Melaville A, Shah B (2002) Making the Difference: Research & Practice in Community Schools, Coalition for Community Schools, Washington, DC
[12] Durack JA, Weissberg RP, Dymnicki AB, Taylor RD, Schellinger KB (2011) The impact of enhancing students' social and emotional learning: a meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions, Child Dev. 2011 Jan-Feb;82(1):405-32. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564. x.
[13] Meiklejohn S, Ryan L, Palermo C. (2016) A Systematic Review of the Impact of Multi-Strategy Nutrition Education Programs on Health and Nutrition of Adolescents. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2016 Oct;48(9):631-646.e1. doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2016.07.015
[14] Dana Burde, Ozen Guven, Jo Kelcey Heddy Lahmann, Khaled Al-Abbadi (2015) What Works to Promote Children’s Educational Access, Quality of Learning, and Wellbeing in Crisis-Affected Contexts: Education Rigorous Literature Review, Department for International Development.
[15] Bundy DAP (2011) Rethinking school health: a key component of education for all. Washington, DC: World Bank
[16] Marthe Deschesnes, Catherine Martin and Adèle Jomphe Hill (2003) Comprehensive approaches to school health promotion: how to achieve broader implementation? Health Promotion International (2003) 18 (4): 387-396. doi: 10.1093/heapro/dag410
[17] Deschesnes, M., Couturier, Y., Laberge, S. and Campeau, L. (2010), How divergent conceptions among health and education stakeholders influence the dissemination of healthy schools in Quebec, Health Promotion International, Vol. 25, 4, pp. 435-43
[18] Nastaran Keshavarz Mohammadi, Louise Rowling, Don Nutbeam, (2010) Acknowledging educational perspectives on health promoting schools, Health Education, Vol. 110 Iss: 4, pp.240 – 25
[19] Venka Simovska, Lone Lindegaard Nordin and Katrine Dahl Madsen (2015) Health promotion in Danish schools: local priorities, policies and practices, Health Promotion International, (2015) doi: 10.1093/heapro/dav009
[20] Junko Saito, Ngouay Keosada, Sachi Tomokawa, Takeshi Akiyama, Sethavudh Kaewviset, Daisuke Nonaka, Jitra Waikugul, Jun Kobayashi, Mithong Souvanvixay and Masamine Jimba (2015) Factors influencing the National School Health Policy implementation in Lao PDR: a multi-level case study, Health Promotion International (2015) 30 (4): 843-854. doi: 10.1093/heapro/dau016
[21] Michaela Adamowitsch, Lisa Gugglberger and Wolfgang Dür (2014) Implementation practices in school health promotion: findings from an Austrian multiple-case study, Health Promotion International, Advance Access 10.1093/heapro/dau018
[22] Behrouz Fathi, Hamid Allahverdipour, , Abdolreza Shaghaghi, Ahmad Kousha, and Ali Jannati (2014) Challenges in Developing Health Promoting Schools’ Project: Application of Global Traits in Local Realm, Health Promotion Perspectives, 2014; 4(1): 9–17, Published online 2014 Jul 12. doi: 10.5681/hpp.2014.002
[23] Amanda Hargreaves (2012) The perceived value of Health Education in schools: New Zealand secondary teachers’ perceptions, Journal of Curriculum Studies, Volume 45, Issue 4, 2013 pages 560-582
[24] Lisa Gugglberger and Jo Inchley (2014) Phases of health promotion implementation into the Scottish school system, Health Promotion International, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp. 256-266
[25] Grêaux KM, van Assema P, Bessems KMHH, de Vries NK, Harting J. (2023) Patterns in bottlenecks for implementation of health promotion interventions: a cross-sectional observational study on intervention-context interactions in the Netherlands. Arch Public Health. 2023 Oct 17;81(1):183. doi: 10.1186/s13690-023-01196-y. PMID: 37848963; PMCID: PMC10580618.
[26] Langford R, Bonell CP, Jones HE, Pouliou T, Murphy SM, Waters E, Komro KA, Gibbs LF, Magnus D, Campbell R. (2014) The WHO Health Promoting School framework for improving the health and well-being of students and their academic achievement. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD008958. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008958.pub2
[27] Bartelink N, Bessems K & Prevo L (2020) SHE monitoring report 2020: Overall report of the SHE member countries, Schools for Health in Europe Network Foundation, Haderslev, Denmark, p 3
[28] World Health Organization, Regional Office for South-East Asia (2021) Rapid assessment of national school health programmes in countries of the WHO South-East Asia Region: A summary. New Delhi, Author, p 17, p6, pp 17-23
[29] The Global Child Nutrition Foundation (2021) School Meal Programs Around the World: Report Based on the Global Survey of School Meal Programs, Seattle, Author, p 51
[30] The “entry point” strategy is often used as an argument for investing in one program with a plan to expand to other areas once that initial program has become established. The school meals program is one example where it is suggested that school meal programs can be expanded to include food/nutrition interventions and then expanded further to include other health interventions. such as vaccination, oral health promotion, vision screening and treatment, malaria control, deworming, sexual and reproductive health services, and menstrual hygiene management. The 2022 report on the Global School Meals program (p46) reported that countries did connect school meal programs with nutrition education, food fortification, clean water but did not connect meals with other health interventions.
[31] David Osher Dana L. Kelly, Nitika Tolani-Brown, Luke Shors & Chen-Su Chen (2009) UNICEF Child Friendly Schools Programming: Global Evaluation Final Report, Washington, DC, American Institutes for Research
[32] Rebekah Paci-Green, Adriana Varchetta, Kate McFarlane, Padmini Iyer, Marcel Goyenech (2020) Comprehensive school safety policy: A global baseline survey, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, Volume 44, April 2020, 101399, doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101399
[33] Herlitz, L., MacIntyre, H., Osborn, T. et al. (2020) The sustainability of public health interventions in schools: a systematic review. Implementation Sci 15, 4 (2020). doi.org/10.1186/s13012-019-0961-8
[34] May C. (2913) Towards a general theory of implementation. Implement Sci. 2013;8. doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-18.
[35] Laitsch D, McCall D (2022) Preliminary findings of a global survey and policy/curriculum document analysis from all countries, states and provinces, Faculty of Education, Simon Fraser University, in cooperation with UNICEF, UNESCO, International School Health Network, (In Progress)
[36] A review of SH programs in Africa (Schultz ey al, 2021) and four subsequent country case studies in Senegal, Malawi, Uganda and Kenya have documented the use of multiple multi-component approaches and multi-intervention programs in Afirican countries and called for effective, intersectoral coordination mechanisms.
[37] Mittelmark M.B., Bauer G.F. (2017) The Meanings of Salutogenesis. In: Mittelmark M. et al. (eds) The Handbook of Salutogenesis. Springer, Cham. doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04600-6_2
[38] Mendel, R (2003) Youth, Crime and Community Development: A Guide for Collaborative Action, Columbia, MD, Enterprise Foundation
[39] Campbellsville University (2019) A Holistic View of Social Work, Author, Campbellsville, KY
[40] ASCD (2021) The Learning Compact Renewed: Whole Child for the Whole World, Alexandria, VA , ASCD
[41] ASCD (nd) The ASCD Whole Child Approach, these web pages include several resources and a global network of schools
[42] ASCD, Education International (2017) The 2030 Sustainable Development Goals and the Pursuit of Quality Education for All: A Statement of Support from Education International and ASCD, Alexandria, VA, ASCD
[43] Allensworth DD, Lewallen TC, Stevenson B, Katz S. (2011) Addressing the needs of the whole child: what public health can do to answer the education sector’s call for a stronger partnership. Prev Chronic Dis. 2011;8(2):1-6.
[44] FRESH Partners (2017) The Whole Child: The Need for All Systems & Agencies to Address the Overall Development and Education of Young People, FRESH Partners
[45] Carol A. Kochhar-Bryant, Angela Heishman (2010) Effective Collaboration for Educating the Whole Child, Sage Publishing
[46] American Institutes for Research (2014) Teaching the Whole Child: Instructional Practices That Support Social-Emotional Learning in Three Teacher Evaluation Frameworks, Washington, DC
[47] Linda Darling-Hammond and Channa M. Cook-Harvey (2018) Educating the Whole Child:Improving School Climate to Support Student Success, Learning Policy Institute, Washington, DC, Author
[48] National Planning Commission (2014) National Development Plan 2030: Our Future-make it work, Department of the Presidency, Republic of South Africa
[49] Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality (2017) Child and Youth Development Strategy 2017 – 2021, Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality, South Africa
[50] Department of Basic Education (2014) Handbook for the provision of an Integrated Package of Care and Support for Learners in South African Schools. DBE, Pretoria
[51] Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality (2017) Child and Youth Development Strategy 2017 – 2021, Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality, South Africa
[52] Lao People’s Democratic Republic (2011) National Strategy and Plan of Action on Inclusive Education 2011-2015, Author
[53] Global Partnership for Education (2017) Effective Joint Sector Reviews as (Mutual) Accountability Platforms, Washington, DC, Author
[54] Global Partnership for Education (2017) Effective Joint Sector Reviews as (Mutual) Accountability Platforms: Working Paper #1, Washington, DC, Author
[55] Global Partnership for Education (2018) Joint Sector Reviews in the Education Sector, Washington, DC, Author
[56] UNICEF (2020) Review of the WASH Bottleneck Analysis Tool (BAT): Improving the WASH BAT as a tool
for planning and partnering for sustainability. New York
This summary was first posted in December 2023 as a "first draft". We encourage readers to submit comments or suggested edits by posting a comment below or on the Mini-blog & Discussion Page for this section.
For updates and reader comments on this section of this web site, go to our
Mini-Blog on Common Topics &Terms
Here is our list of topics for this section:
- Introduction & Overview
- Education Equity, Inclusion & Success - Intersectoral Policy-Program Coordination Frameworks (IPPCFs) (published at global level)
- Multi-component Approaches (MCAs)
- Core Components
- Macro & Specific Policies
- Instruction & Extended Education
- Education Promoting HSPSSD
- H&LS/PSH Curricula & Instruction
- Physical Education
- Home Economics/Family Studies/Financial Literacy
- Promoting HPSSD within Other Subjects
- Moral/Religious Education - Extended Education Activities
- Health, Social & Other Services
- Psycho-Social Environment & Supports
- Staff Wellness
- Student Conduct & Discipline
- Engaging/Empowering Youth
- Parent Participation
- Community Involvement
- Physical Environment & Resources
- How to Build a Multi-Intervention Program
- Learning/Behaviour Models (LBMs)
- Behaviour & Learning Theories
- Government/Inter-sector Actions & Levers
- Whole of Government Strategies
- National Action Plans
- Declarations & Consensus Statements
- Standards & Procedures
- Inter-Ministry Coordination
- Inter-Ministry Committees
- Inter Ministry Coordinators
- Inter-Ministry Agreements
- Inter-Ministry Mechanisms
- Joint Ministry Decision-making - Inter-Agency Coordination
- Inter-Professional Coordination
- Workforce Planning in HPSD
- Teacher Education & Development
- Early Childhood Educators
- Primary School Teachers
- Secondary PSHE Specialists
- Home Economics Specialists
- Physical Education Specialists
- School Counsellors
- School Psychologists
- School Principals - Preparing Other Professionals to Work with or within Schools
- School Nurses
- School Social Workers
- School Resource (Police) Officers
- Security/Civil Protection Guards
- Teaching/Learning Assistants
- School Administrative/Clerical Staff
- School Maintenance Staff
- Pastoral Counsellors
- Community Volunteers & Elders
- Emergency Relief Aid Workers
- Development Aid Workers
- A Systems Focused Paradigm
- Contextualizing Approaches & Programs
- Implement, Maintain, Scale Up & Sustain Programs & Approaches
- System & Organizational Capacities
- Integrate Within Education System Mandates, Concerns & Constraints
- Better Use of Systems Science & Organizational Development Tools