2.4 Limitations This consultation has a number of limitations – both in terms of the sample and the methods. First, in terms of the sample, access was arranged via NGOs and, while the coverage is unprecedented in its global reach on this issue, it was unavoidably determined by the availability and willingness of NGO partners to undertake the consultation in each national context. Second, while we are very grateful to the institutions that facilitated access to children thereby enabling children to contribute to the Global Study, the Study would have preferred a more independent, positive environment for the interviews. This would have ensured that children felt more at ease to volunteer their participation. A third limitation may be the type of child who responded to, or was permitted to participate in the consultation. There is no way of knowing whether participants were selected because they were considered to be positive, well-behaved or better able to engage within the institution and with the researchers. At the same time, the fact that the children’s responses were both positive and negative would suggest a balanced outcome in this respect. Fourthly, the sample of participants is dominated by the experiences of children within the criminal justice system, with fewer children participating from other types of institutions. Finally, our focus was on children in detention and we did not consult with children who had experiences of alternatives to detention, albeit that some of the children in the consultation had experience of both. There are also some limitations in the methods employed to collect the views of children. First, focus groups were the main form of data collection notwithstanding that some children will not have felt comfortable or safe giving their views freely in front of their peers. Secondly, in the majority of consultations, an additional adult was required to be present by the State/institution regulation. This may have been a social worker, education worker or institutional staff member who was in place to represent the institution, or an interpreter or parent who was needed to help the child express their views. While their presence was usually required by the institution, it may have impacted, either positively or negatively, on how freely the children expressed their views. Thirdly, findings were not provided as verbatim transcripts, with the initial decision about what to report delegated to facilitators. This means that reporting may not always have been approached consistently. And finally, most of the data were translated into English from the child’s own language by the facilitators, which provides scope for misunderstandings and misinterpretation. Despite these limitations, the consultation, undertaken within a relatively short period of time and with limited resources, represents an important, novel and deliberate effort to include in the Global Study the views and perspectives of a range of children with varied experiences of detention around the world. The value of their contribution is evident from the summary below. 86