Is it really better for a child to be SAD than HAPPY?
We all want children to be happy; however as human beings we ask more questions when a child is SAD than when they are HAPPY. When children are HAPPY, we celebrate with them and are less interested to know what makes them happy. When they are SAD, we are concerned and we wish to dig into why they are sad. The process of digging in, when done by children themselves is illuminating and helps us identify the best ways to not make them sad while documenting experiences and instances when they are happy offers lessons for keeps.
Well, children may not necessarily be open to tell adults (especially within the African cultural settings) why they are sad, but they can easily note down what causes their sadness and what makes them happy. This is the gist of what I call “innovation in securing child protection”
We conducted a mid-term evaluation on a child rights and protection programme in Tanzania (2013) and found this most interesting initiative that we share in part. You can decide to call it innovation for development (I4D) in child protection if you so wish, but when you do, check with the definitions proffered by Steve Rochlin and Sasha Radovich in evaluating innovation. They say “ {…..the process of making changes to something established by introducing something new whether it is an idea, method or device that is leveraged or harnessed to produce wide spread change that benefits the poor and vulnerable populations (emphasis added)}.
There were problems that made children vulnerable to abuse and right violations by adults, both at school and in the community. These included: Children not knowing their rights; corporal punishment; gender and domestic violence; poverty; lack of community support among many others. Different approaches that targeted knowledge and skills raising, systems and structural change, policy and practice change, networks and collaboration, local and national advocacy and institutional strengthening were used. However, the most innovative catalyst that has contributed to increased child protection and accountabilities there-of is the SAD and HAPPY boxes (which was not an approach for the project but was adapted from staff participation in an international exchange programme).
Background:
The idea originated from a wider child help-line approach that was modeled around the call-box. This was a result of a learning exchange attended by the organization staff, however it was adapted to context and children placed at the center of child protection.
How it works:
School children are educated (empowered) on child rights and responsibilities, examples of child rights abuses and violations and how to identify abuse. This is done through continuing education in school by TOTs (adults) who are supported by child rights club leaders. The Organization (X) makes the “Happy and Sad” boxes for the school and guides students and teachers on its use. The forms that students fill are provided however it is agreed that the boxes are opened weekly by either child-rights club leaders or other adult as the children will elect.
The students can fill the forms based on what they actually face as individuals or what their peers in or out of school face in their families, schools and community at large. They indicate the names, location and other information for follow-up if necessary. Happy information (how they are treated that makes them happy) is deposited in the Happy box and Sad information, which reflects child abuse or rights violation, is deposited in the Sad box. These are handed over to the organization (X) every week. X opens the Sad Boxes, sorts out the forms and categorizes them into minor and major cases. The major cases are handed over to Police Gender and Children desk (PGCD) who conducts investigations in collaboration with community policing unit, social welfare officers and other community child protection structures to assure legal action and protection, if necessary through the courts. The Happy boxes’ information is documented as lessons to show how children wish to be treated to feel happy and protected.
“Where a child is abused, before we take action we have to involve the WEOs and VEOs, the police, health centers and social welfare office (name withheld)). Minor cases which may need mediation, talking to parents and teachers or children themselves are referred to Child protection Committees (CPCs) who will follow up the issues as appropriate with: Teachers, families, Ward Executive Offices, Social welfare Officers, Wards Security Committees etc. In others, information is incomplete and may need to be verified further with the child. This is either done by X, teachers or CPCs but with the best interest of the child.
The interactions between these sub-systems of child protection as a result of the Happy and Sad boxes, is more complex than has been illustrated, however, it ensures all child rights and protection issues in the community are available, can be traced, followed-up and acted upon. It has created a close-knit system of relationships which protects all children, improves dialogue between parents and teachers and students, and coordinates support and action between all child protection institutions in the community. Assessments of information from the “Happy and Sad” boxes creates community dialogue on child protection, feeling of shared responsibility and accountability to child protection, and significant changes in cultural, faith and gender factors that embed child abuse and violence.
The impacts to children and communities are many; however not in the remit of this blog (We will share the evaluation when it is published). The initiative is replicable, has continuity, can be scaled up, is sustainable, has significant reach and is value for money. If only the government of Tanzania could learn from X to inform the Child Protection Systems Strengthening (CPSS) roll-out, the world would be so much better for children, with children at the drivers’ seat.
If this is not, then what is innovation for development?
Today in Tanzania 