A Baseline Report for creating love and care · Protect me with love and care • A BAseline RepoRt foR tHe soloMon islAnDs • 2008 IX foreword The Solomon Islands Baseline Report

Protect me withlove and care

A Baseline Report for creating

a future free from violence,

abuse and exploitation of girls

and boys in the Solomon Islands

Protect me withlove and care

A Baseline Report for creating

a future free from violence,

abuse and exploitation of girls

and boys in the Solomon Islands

IV Protect me with love and care • A BAseline RepoRt foR tHe soloMon islAnDs • 2008

© 2009All rights reserved.

This publication may be reproduced, as a whole or in part, provided that acknowledgement of the source is made. Notification of such would be appreciated.

Published by: UNICEF Pacific

November 2009

Authors: Salote Austin, Osborn Cains, Anafia Norton, Penelope Taylor, Marie Wernham and FreidaEditor: Marie WernhamDesign and layout: Pasifika Communications

For further information and request for copies, contact: Child Protection Programme, United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) Pacific 3rd and 5th Floor, Fiji Development Bank Building360 Victoria ParadeSuva, FIJI ISLANDSTel: (679) 330 0439email: [email protected]

The project partners are grateful to AusAID for their financial support of this project.

Protect me with love and care • A BAseline RepoRt foR tHe soloMon islAnDs • 2008 V

Acknowledgements

This research would not have been possible without the hundreds of girls, boys, women and men throughout the country who gave freely of their time to participate in this project. Our thanks go primarily to the communities and professionals

who contributed their valuable thoughts and experiences.

A large team of people devoted considerable time and effort to the production of this report. Sincere thanks to everyone for their invaluable contributions and hard work.

national Research team:Salote Austin (Lead Researcher, Solomon Islands), Osborn Cains (Research Associate) and Babra Ningalo (Administrative

Assistant).

field Research team:field supervisors: Osborn Cains, Joe Iluga (replaced previous FS) and Hilda Kii. Field Counsellors: Eileen Kwalea, Dian

Manu and Dennisia Solomae. Field Researchers: Henry Anea, Audrey Aole, Bradley Ghemu, Mitalyn Hebana, Rose Kapata, Henry Kato, Priscilla Ma’au, Veronika Maebiru, Kendrick Mana, Miriam Mara, Roberta Ramoifuila, William Talasasa and

Apolonia Talo.

Regional Research team: Marie Wernham (Lead Researcher), Penelope Taylor (Legal Specialist) and Anafia Norton (Institutional Stocktaking Researcher).

national steering Committee:Macarthur Akoeasi, SWD; Percy Elima, Correctional Services SI; Liana Harding, CCC; Erin Hiesley, SWD; Anika Kingmele,

UNICEF; Sr. Mary, CCC; Baddley Nukumuna, SCA; James Rizzu, MWYCA; Alice Rore, Family Health and Safety Study; Lorio Sisiolo, Family Support Centre; Adriel Tahisi, MWYCA; Ronald Talasasa, Director of Public Prosecutions; Florence Taro,

Sexual Assault Unit, RSIP; Morris Temanguhaua, Domestic Violence Unit, RSIP; Sharyn Titchener, UNICEF; Moses Tongare, RAMSI Law & Justice Program; Linda Tupe, SWD; Ian Vaevaso, Youth Crime Prevention, RSIP; Kylie Walsh, Public Solicitor’s

Office; Katalaini Ziru, Attorney General’s Chambers.

UniCef field office:Anika Kingmele (Child Protection Officer) and Roy Bowen (Chief of UNICEF Solomon Islands Field Office).

UNICEF Pacific Regional Office: Johanna Eriksson Takyo (Chief of Child Protection), Ravi Cannetta (Officer in Charge), Laisani Petersen (Child Protection Officer), Salote Kaimacuata (Child Protection Specialist), Laura Giltrap (Child Protection

Officer), Filomena Ratumaibuca (Child Protection Programme Assistant), Vika Namuaira (Child Protection Programme Assistant and Baseline Research Administrative Assistant), Mere Nailatikau (Child Protection Intern), Christine Calo-oy

(Senior Supply Assistant), Joseph Hing (Senior Communication Assistant), Will Parks (Chief of Policy, Advocacy, Planning and Evaluation), Tim Sutton (Deputy Representative) and Snehal Morris (Child Protection Communications Officer)

others:Sameer Thapar (DevInfo Support Team), Patrick Shing (Monitoring and Evaluation Officer, UNICEF), Allon Leever (Data

Analyst).

The Lead Researcher, Solomon Islands would also like to personally thank the following: Aaron Olofia (Director of Social Welfare), Adriel Tahisi (Children’s Desk, MWYCA), Dudley Ratu (Senior Health Officer, Choiseul Province), Dr Henry Daiwo (Provincial Director of Health, Choiseul Province), Judy Basi (Social Welfare Officer, Gizo), Ogier Kiko (Community Welfare Volunteer Coordinator), Turiti Boso (Catholic Parish of Takwa), Denis McDermott (Commander, Participating Police Force,

RAMSI), Sharyn Titchener (Consultant, Family Health Study), Lusia Ranuku (Administrative / Research Assistant, Fiji), Charles Olaka (Community Sector Programme), and Brenda Waleka (Development Programme Coordinator, NZAID).

VI Protect me with love and care • A BAseline RepoRt foR tHe soloMon islAnDs • 2008

Acknowledgments iii

Acronyms vi

foreword vii

statement by the UniCef pacific Representative viii

executive summary 1

1. Background 5

1.1 Government / UNICEF partnership 51.2 UniceF Protective environment Framework 51.3 Country context 5

2. Methodology 8

2.1 aims of child Protection Baseline research 82.2 Structure and roles 92.3 Stages and timeline 112.4 research tools 11

2.4.1 outcome 1: children are increasingly protected by legislation and are better served by justice systems that protect them as victims, offenders and witnesses 112.4.2 outcome 2: children are better served by well-informed and coordinated child protection social services which ensure greater protection against, and responds to violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect 112.4.3 outcome 3: children in selected geographical areas grow up in home and community environments that are increasingly free from violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect 12

a. Overview 12b. Locations 13c. Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) 14d. Completed data log 14

2.5 child participation 152.6 ethics 152.7 data analysis 16

2.7.1 outcome 1: children are increasingly protected by legislation and are better served by justice systems that protect them as victims, offenders and witnesses 162.7.2 outcome 2: children are better served by well-informed and coordinated child protection social services which ensure greater protection against, and responds to violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect 162.7.3 outcome 3: children in selected geographical areas grow up in home and community environments that are increasingly free from violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect 16

2.8 lessons learned 172.8.1 Successes 172.8.2 challenges 18

2.9 recommendations regarding methodology for future research 19

table of Contents

Protect me with love and care • A BAseline RepoRt foR tHe soloMon islAnDs • 2008 VII

3. findings 203.1 Overview 203.2 matrix of findings per output indicator 203.3 Respondent information

3.4 detailed findings per output 403.4.1 detailed findings for outcome 1 403.4.2 detailed findings for outcome 2 763.4.3 detailed findings for outcome 3 103

4. Recommendations 189

5. Concluding statement 199

Appendices 200A. Index of tables and charts 201B. Results and Resources Framework 207C. Completed data log 210D. Code of Conduct for field research 212E. Bibliography 216F. List of people interviewed or consulted 220

CD-Rom contents1. Government / UniceF child Protection Baseline research, Solomon islands 2008 national report (full text)

2. Solomon islands 2008 child Protection legislative review (full text)

3. Solomon islands 2008 child Protection institutional Stocktake (full text)

4. terms of reference for Government / UniceF child Protection Baseline research, Solomon islands 2008:

a. TOR for CPBR overall

b. TORs for Regional Research Team

5. methodology

a. outcomes 1 and 2

b. Outcome 3

6. analysis frameworks

a. Solomon Islands overall analysis framework

b. Solomon Islands graphics analysis frameworks

7. data from field research

a. Databases

b. Processed data (tables, charts and graphs)

VIII Protect me with love and care • A BAseline RepoRt foR tHe soloMon islAnDs • 2008

Acronyms

AA Administrative Assistant

AHHQ Adult Household Questionnaire

CHHQ Child Household Questionnaire

Cp Child Protection

CpBR Child Protection Baseline Research

Cso Civil Society Organisation

CWV Community Welfare Volunteer

Devinfo [Name of computer software used for PDA data collection and analysis]

Dpp Department of Public Prosecutions

fC Field Counsellor

fR Field Researcher

fRt Field Research Team

fs Field Supervisor

GA Group Activity

Kii Key Informant Interview

lR Lead Researcher

lRsi Lead Researcher Solomon Islands

MeHRD Ministry of Education and Human Resource Development

MHMs Ministry of Health and Medical Services

MoHA Ministry of Home Affairs

MWYCA Ministry of Women, Youth and Children Affairs

nACC National Advisory Committee on Children

nR National Researcher

nsC National Steering Committee (Child Protection Sub-Committee of the National Advisory Committee on Children)

olon Overall Location Observation Notes

pDA Personal Digital Assistant

RA Research Associate

RAMsi Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands

RRf Results and Resources Framework

Rsip Royal Solomon Islands Police

sWD Social Welfare Division

sWo Social Welfare Officer

tACseC Taskforce Against Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children

UnCRC United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

UniCef United Nations Children’s Fund

Protect me with love and care • A BAseline RepoRt foR tHe soloMon islAnDs • 2008 IX

forewordThe Solomon Islands Baseline Report is the first major baseline research on abuse and exploitation of children in the Solomon Islands. It was

undertaken by the Child Protection Sub-Committee of the National Advisory Committee on Children (NACC) with the support of UNICEF and the

endorsement of the Government of the Solomon Islands, representing the people of the Solomon Islands across the country.

Conducting research in a country such as the Solomon Islands can be a very daunting task because communities are located on remote and isolated

islands, the local weather is unpredictable, the different languages spoken throughout the country presents a language barrier for researchers, funds

are not always available on time and there are urgent timelines to meet. However, the document in your hands shows that these challenges can be

overcome if there is commitment and dedication exhibited by all stakeholders concerned in such an undertaking.

The data collected in the Baseline Report confirmed that abuse and exploitation of children in the Solomon Islands is widespread and common and

that it cuts across boundaries of culture, faith, race and provincial borders. This Baseline Research Report along with the mandate of the Convention

on the Rights of the Child (CRC) will form the basis upon which to build a convincing momentum for action at all levels of society: national, the

provincial and the community; to prevent abuse and exploitation of children. Such action must be supported by a national prevention strategy and

a legal framework.

The Solomon Islands Government has an obligation towards the children of the Solomon Islands to take a leading role in the fight against all forms

of abuse and exploitation against children. The data provided in the Report means there should be no pretext to the implementation of the ensuing

principal recommendations.

The Child Protection Sub-Committee of NACC, the Baseline Research Steering Committee and the primary stakeholders are committed to the

Baseline Report findings. They will work to ensure that the Government of the Solomon Islands is required to fulfill its obligations under the CRC and

work without delay towards providing for the children of this country through policy and legislation an environment that is free from any form of

abuse and exploitation

I would like to thank UNICEF for its principal role in the research and those good people who work for this UN Agency who one way or the other

made the Baseline project become a success. To all those committed Solomon Islanders who worked on the task and the thousands of our good

people out there who provided information to the researchers, provided logistics and other menial labour: ‘Tangio tu mus.’

I hope these Baseline Report findings will help to change for the better some of the attitudes and the long held views that we have toward children,

and that change should be reflected in the way that we treat our own children and children of the Solomon Islands as a whole.

This Report is dedicated to the children of the Solomon Islands.

Aaron R. Olofia

Director of Social Welfare

Chairman of the Child Protection Sub Committee & The Baseline Research Steering Committee.

Ministry of Health and Medical Services

Solomon Islands.

X Protect me with love and care • A BAseline RepoRt foR tHe soloMon islAnDs • 2008

statement by the UniCef pacific RepresentativeThe geographical scatter of the Pacific Island Countries (covering over 30 million km2 of ocean) and the high cost of doing business in this region

make development programming a major challenge, particularly when reliable data is scarce. This is why generating good data such as the report

“Protect me with love and care: A baseline report for creating a future free from violence, abuse and exploitation of girls and boys in the Solomon

Islands” is necessary to promote evidence-informed programming.

This baseline report answers what is perhaps a more difficult and technical examination, of legal frameworks, formal social service structures, and the

various environments provided by our communities and families; to see how effectively each of these circles of child protection, as duty bearers can

work alone in concert with each other to keep our children safe.

The report provides an in-depth analysis of the findings of the research and includes strategic recommendations for programme design and direction

based on three pillars of the Child Protection Framework, legal and regulatory systems, the social welfare systems and social behaviour change

system. This research provides an opportunity to build on and complement the existing studies to arrive at a more comprehensive situational

analysis of child protection in the Solomon Islands that is both qualitative and quantitatively sound. It serves as a marker in 2008 for measuring

progress and achievement of the child protection interventions by the end of the Government of the Solomon Islands and UNICEF programme

cycle in 2012.

I thank the Government of the Solomon Islands for it’s commitment to the protection of children of the Solomon Islands to live in an environment that

is free from violence, abuse and exploitation and soundly protected by family, community and government effectively working in collaboration.

Let us take lead from the title “Protect me with love and care” – derived from the findings of the Solomon Islands baseline research that highlights the

key response from children stating they wished to be protected with love and care by their parents, teachers and guardians – to work together with

partners and stakeholders to utilise the data from this report to make results-focused programming more efficient and achievable and ultimately

make progress towards the targets of the Millennium Development Goals.

Isiye Ndombi

Protect me with love and care • A BAseline RepoRt foR tHe soloMon islAnDs • 2008 1

executive summary:SOLOMON ISLANDS CHILD PROTECTION BASELINE REPORT 2008

BackgroundIn the Solomon Islands, traditional practices, economic difficulties, ethnic tensions, and the effects of natural disaster (such as the 2007 earthquake and tsunami) all contribute to children’s vulnerability to violence, abuse and exploitation.

The Country Programme Action Plan (CPAP), agreed by the Government of the Solomon Islands and UNICEF Pacific, and its Results and Resources Framework (RRF), provide strategic direction for child protection interventions in the country. It provides the basis for the joint Solomon Islands Government/UNICEF Pacific Child Protection Programme, which runs from 2008-2012.

The Child Protection Programme is guided by the Protective Environment Framework, a child-centred, holistic and long-term approach to keeping children safe from harmful situations, preventing child abuse and exploitation, and addressing the social reintegration and recovery of those who have been abused. The Child Protection Programme articulates the following outcomes:

1. Children are increasingly protected by legislation and are better served by justice systems that protect them as victims, offenders and witnesses.

2. Children are better served by well-informed and coordinated child protection social services, which ensure greater protection against and respond to violence, abuse and exploitation.

3. Families and communities establish home and community environments for children that are increasingly free from violence, abuse and exploitation.

The Solomon Islands Child Protection Baseline Report was guided by these outcomes. It reviews the situation in 2008, develops recommendations, and aims to promote capacity-building, networking and inter-agency collaboration further.

MethodologyThe research consisted of a legislative compliance and desk review, as well as extensive field research in 30 purposively sampled locations throughout eight provinces in the country. This included 93 key informant interviews (KII); 274 child household questionnaires (CHHQ, 16-17 year olds only); 273 adult household questionnaires (AHHQ); and 278 group activities with children aged between 7-18, and young adults, divided by age and segregated by gender. There were also questionnaires sent to police, and workshops with children in the justice system and with key stakeholders.

findings

Outcome 1: Children are increasingly protected by legislation and are better served by justice systems that protect them as victims, offenders and witnesses

Output 1.1 Child Protection Bill aligned with the CRC / Optional Protocols is endorsed and implementation initiated

The legislative review component of the research identified the articles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) relating to child protection standards. These articles were fleshed out to their full legal ramifications and a list of 227 indicators developed, drawing heavily on existing UNICEF tools. Domestic law and policy was evaluated against these 13 indicators: child welfare/child protection system; family separation and alternative care; violence against children; sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children; abduction, sale and trafficking; child labour and children in street situations; child-friendly investigative and court processes; rehabilitation; children in conflict with the law; Refugee/unaccompanied migrant children; Children in armed conflict; Information access; and Birth registration.

Of the indicators investigated within each category, 61 were fully compliant, 51 were partially compliant and 111 were non-compliant with CRC provisions (four were not applicable). The legislative review also found:

- There is no national legislation or policy for child welfare/child protection. Discussions around draft bills, including the Rights of the Child Convention Bill 2004 and the National Children’s Policy and Plan of Action are ongoing but there is still far to go.

- There are some basic child protection provisions in place, however, for instance regarding adoption legislation, protection from violence and neglect, and legislation regulating child labour.

- Significant work was undertaken in 2008 to develop inter-agency protocols in child protection between the social welfare department, NGOs and other government services.

- Existing laws, such as the Penal Code 1963 are currently undergoing comprehensive review by the Law Reform Commission. Stronger protection for children would be achieved if they were made more specific and comprehensive.

- Definitions, penalties and age thresholds need to be reviewed within the contexts of addressing the sexual abuse and exploitation of the girl child, child labour and involvement in armed conflict.

The National Children’s Policy and the Rights of the Child Convention Bill need to be redrafted, finalised and approved as a matter of priority. Further drafts and existing laws relating to child protection also need finalising and amending and, in all cases, accompanying details for supporting processes outlined.

2 Protect me with love and care • A BAseline RepoRt foR tHe soloMon islAnDs • 2008

Output 1.2 The judiciary and chiefs (in at least 4 provinces) apply principles of child rights when dealing with cases involving children

Very few children in conflict with the law are referred to the police (only 18% of Key Informants mention this option, with 51% indicating the use of counselling, family support, community work, fines and supervision instead). Police estimate that 50% of suspects in crimes are under 18 but in 2005, young offenders made up less than 5% of criminal charges in the courts. Although formal diversion options do not exist, police tend to informally divert children back to the community.

Standing orders (police operating procedures) contain some specific provisions relating to the treatment of children in conflict with the law, including a ‘no drop’ policy for sexual crimes and domestic violence.

However, there are no written procedures guiding how police, prosecutions, courts or public solicitors deal with child victims/witnesses. Support services are limited although police do refer sexual assault victims to the Ministry of Health and Medical Services (MHMS). Only a few police in the capital have received specialised training and there are no specialised court procedures for such cases.

Traditional processes are often applied in lieu of police intervention (unless they fail). This includes sexual assault cases and other cases involving children. Chiefs report their primary objective in cases dealing with children committing crimes and child victims is ‘trying to understand their motivation’ and ‘do what’s best for the child’, respectively. They demonstrate some (but not much) awareness of child-friendly practices and there is some evidence that some groups, such as women, do not have confidence in the chiefs.

Clear protocols, procedures and guidelines are needed for police and wider judiciary system, traditional justice processes, the social welfare department and the sexual offences unit. Dedicated training and awareness raising about child protection issues are also required for these groups.

Output 1.3 Community-based programmes for restorative justice and diversion are established in at least 4 provinces

Formal community-based reintegration programmes do not exist, but there are informal mechanisms such as church reconciliation processes. Despite the lack of community programmes, 63% of Key Informants agree that children who have committed crimes are accepted back into the community. Mentoring programmes and providing support to returning offenders would help their reintegration.

Outcome 2: Children are better served by well-informed and coordinated child protection social services which ensure greater protection against, and responds to violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect

Output 2.1 Social welfare officers are employed in all provinces and there is increased opportunity for in-service and pre-service training in social work

Although in its infancy, the Solomon Islands has a clearly mandated department for child protection, the Ministry of Health and Medical Services’ Social Welfare Division (SWD). It is making progress in strengthening its capacity and ability to undertake the core responsibilities as set out in its Strategic Plan. Four out of nine provinces currently have social welfare officers.

Social work still needs to be recognised as a profession in the Solomon Islands, however, and existing social welfare staff require further training and supervision.

Output 2.2 Social workers, police, healthcare workers follow operational procedures ensuring immediate and professional handling of cases involving children

Currently, government departments including hospitals, schools and courts do not routinely refer children’s cases to SWD. This is not surprising given how new it is. At the time of the research, an ‘intake’ system was being piloted but case management policies and procedures were not yet in place. However, in 2008 SWD drafted Service Protocols and Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) to assist five emergency and crisis providers to consider a sector-wide referral system for managing cases, investigation and collecting data.

The Solomon Islands also has a strong NGO sector that has been involved at the community level over a number of years, including Save the Children, World Vision and the Family Support Centre.

In the health sector, MHMS (Clinical Services) is in the process of working with the police to develop standard forms for collecting evidence of child sexual assault.

Overall, 72% of key informants interviewed indicated they would refer to informal measures if they suspect or if someone tells them about a child being abused or neglected, compared to 16% who specifically mention government services; however, they are aware of the availability of formal services, with formal services accounting for 57% of responses about services available to help children.

Output 2.3 Relevant Annual Workplans, Corporate Plans and Strategies are informed by disaggregated data on child protection

Only the SWD (out of seven relevant ministries) has a strategic work plan that incorporates child protection. Pertinent agencies that do not have child protection components in their Strategic Plans include Ministries of Finance, Justice, Education and Home Affairs, the Police, and MHMS (apart from Social Welfare Division).

Disaggregated data on child protection is not currently available but SWD instituted a file record keeping system in 2008 from which disaggregated data can be extracted.


Output 2.4 A consolidated and easily accessible birth registration system is operational in at least 4 provinces

Birth registration in the Solomon Islands is estimated to be the lowest in the Pacific region (approximately 0.1% of all births were registered formally in 2007). Information and awareness on the importance of birth registration is lacking. Although 88% of parents and caregivers claimed their children had been registered, but only 32% of relevant respondents were able to show birth certificates for these children and there was confusion with other documents such as baptism certificates.

A communication programme for improving knowledge of the population on the importance of birth registration and how to register children is vital. Birth registration should be integrated into ongoing basic service programmes.

Outcome 3: Children in selected geographical areas grow up in home and community environments that are increasingly free from violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect

Output 3.1 Community Welfare Volunteers (CWV) in at least 4 provinces are working effectively for the prevention of child protection abuses and notify relevant authorities as per referral guidelines

Awareness of CWVs was quite low, including in areas where they were actually operating; conversely CWVs were reported in areas where there are none currently operating. About a quarter of all respondents stated that their community has a plan to help keep children safe from violence in their community. Most of these respondents thought that the plans had been developed by ‘community elders or leaders’ or by a ‘village or community committee’. The presence of CWVs in communities does not seem to have had a strong impact on the development of plans.

Child respondents demonstrated the least amount of knowledge regarding the content of the plans and how long they have been in place. The process of developing plans does not appear to be very participatory: although on average 25% of respondents claim to have been consulted about the plan, this drops to 19% for child respondents. Even amongst key informants, a high proportion were not consulted.

The vast majority (88%) of respondents who stated that there are plans in place feel that these plans do help to keep children safe from violence, mainly by clarifying acceptable and unacceptable behaviour towards children and raising awareness of abuse and how to prevent it.

The CWVs needs to be evaluated and strengthened as appropriate. Communities should be encouraged to develop, publicise and regularly monitor plans, supported by CWVs where relevant, with full participation from the entire community. Roles and responsibilities should be clearly stated, as well as appropriate actions and roles for the formal sector.

Output 3.2 Parents and care-givers in at least 4 provinces discuss and demonstrate positive child-rearing practices preventing abuse, violence and exploitation of children

What to do in cases of violence

75% of parents and caregivers are confident about knowing what to do if someone hurt a child in their care. In terms of what they would actually do, 68% of parents and caregivers indicated a reaction focused on the perpetrator rather than the child. The vast majority of parents and caregivers (83%) also consist of ‘informal’ actions – mostly ‘confront the perpetrator’ and ‘ask the child what happened’ - compared to 15%

which refer to ‘formal’ (state) services. However, 95% of parents and caregivers are comfortable and confident to ask these services for help.

Risks associated with alternative places of residence

17% of parents and caregivers had biological children of their own currently under the age of 18 living outside their households, mostly with other relatives. 63% of these feel that their children are safe but this is based largely on assumptions, rather than information from the children themselves.

Commercial sexual exploitation of children

91% of parents and caregivers state they have heard stories about children being involved in prostitution in the Solomon Islands and believe most commonly that this is a result of poverty. A stronger understanding/emphasis is needed on the role of exploitation and physical, sexual and emotional abuse and neglect as push factors.

Corporal punishment

72% of parents and caregivers admit to physically hurting children in their household. The main reason given by children and parents and caregivers for corporal punishment is ‘discipline’ or ‘education’, even though – according to the same respondents – this is not acknowledged to be a particularly good way to discipline children.

Practicing positive discipline

Parents and caregivers demonstrate a reasonably high level of awareness of positive discipline techniques and proactive ways to show children that they are loved and cared for. However, this is undermined by inappropriate name-calling and making children feel unwanted: 25% of child respondents have been called an inappropriate name by an adult within the past month.

Recommendations include awareness-raising among caregivers, siblings and other members of households on the range of child protection services available and cultivating responses that are child-centred and in the best interests of the child. Greater awareness is also needed to understand the risks associated with children living away from home as well as the negative impact of verbal and emotional abuse.

Output 3.3 Teachers have knowledge of and practice non-violent forms of discipline

School child protection policies

96% of school-going child respondents and 55% of education key informants stated that their school has rules to help keep children safe but these tend to be ‘general school and discipline rules’ regulating children’s behaviour. There is much less emphasis on the role of teachers. Children have had very limited involvement in developing the rules.

Corporal punishment

70% of education key informants admitted that ‘teachers in this school hit, smack, pinch, kick, dong or pull or twist children’s ears’. The majority of children assume that they experience violence for punishment, discipline or ‘education’ but teachers place an emphasis on frustration, stress, anger or ignorance on the part of the perpetrator.

Schools as child-friendly, safe environments

Schools have the potential to become completely ‘child-friendly’ environments and stakeholders identified a range of positive, protective factors already in place. However, school-going child respondents report experiencing physical harm and verbal insults from both teachers and other children at school and inappropriate touch by other children and


adults, including teachers. Bullying, poor physical environment and lack of understanding about child abuse also features as things that make children feel unsafe in schools.

Teacher education and curriculum development should include non-violent forms of discipline. Policies prohibiting teacher misconduct should be strictly enforced and school rules and policies should include child protection measures that are mutually agreed upon with all stakeholders, including parents and children. ‘Model’ teachers could be formally recognised.

Output 3.4 Children in at least 4 provinces are aware of their protection rights and form and express their views at home and in school

All respondents feel that children can speak out most freely in informal spaces – ‘with friends’, followed by ‘at home’, ‘at school’ and ‘in the community’ in that order. However, importantly, for all respondent groups ‘in the community’ ranked significantly lower than the other spaces.

However, even within the home children are somewhat limited in what they can say freely; only 61% of children’s and parent’s and caregiver’s responses combined indicate that families create opportunities to raise and discuss problems through family meetings. Further, only 49% of CCHQ agreed that they could say what they wanted to their parents without fearing punishment.

Whilst it is reassuring that some children speak out (43% of child respondents who had experienced violence), it is of great concern that there are still many incidences of violence, including ‘inappropriate touching’, which are going unreported by children. While the majority of child respondents (aged 15-17 years) claim to understand appropriate and inappropriate touching some do not fully understand what

constitutes acceptable and unacceptable touching and when they should speak out, rendering them vulnerable to sexual abuse.

Consistently, across all types of violence, children are experiencing more violence than they are reporting. Overall, across all types of violence, 43% of child respondents who had experienced violence within the past 1 month told someone about it. When asked about what they would do if badly hurt by someone the child respondents overwhelmingly stated that they would ‘hit back’ and/or talk to their parents and rely much more on immediate family and friends for help than formal services, although they are aware of their existence and generally feel confident and comfortable to approach these services.

ConclusionsIn the Solomon Islands, the reliance on traditional processes and informal contacts, even among formal services such as the police, emphasises the need to make sure that key community groups, and children themselves are empowered to help children in need of protection and aware of the full range of services available in their area.

CWVs and SWD have a role to play in this, and although they are relatively new, could strengthen their performance through specialised training, working with communities to foster positive parenting skills and build protective environments. They should also support communities to develop and implement community child protection plans, and promote inter-agency referral and collaboration between services related to child protection. In relation to this, the MEHRD should support schools to develop a child welfare focus.

Existing laws such as the Penal Code 1963 require extensive reform and others, such as Birth Registration, need concerted effort to secure their implementation. Finally, relevant parties need to agree upon and ratify child protection legislation that is currently in draft form.


1.1 Government / UniCef partnershipTo guide and support the collaboration between UNICEF and the Pacific Island countries working together for the protection of children, a ‘Pacific Regional Framework’ document was developed in 2006. This document was the result of a consultation process involving partners1 in the Solomon Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Samoa, Vanuatu, UNICEF and AUSAID2 from August to November 2006. The ‘Regional Framework’ emerged as a new strategic direction for child protection interventions to be implemented by the five Pacific Island countries and provided the basis for the development of the Pacific Governments/UNICEF Child Protection Programme, 2008-2012.

The document draws on global and regional (South East Asia and the Pacific region) experience in the area of child protection, including the UNICEF Child Protection Strategy of May 2008, and offers a programme strategy for building a ‘Protective Environment’ for children.

The ultimate goal of the Child Protection Programme is to contribute to the reduction of violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation of children in Pacific Island countries.

The Pacific Governments/UNICEF Child Protection Programme, 2008-2012, has identified three key outcomes expected to be achieved by the end of 2012. These have been further articulated in country-specific Country Programme Action Plans (CPAP) and Results and Resource Frameworks (RRF) for the period 2008-2012.3 The three outcomes which are expected to be fulfilled by the end of 2012 are:

1 Government Departments / Ministries and non-government organization (NGOs) who have a mandate to work on child protection issues and/or work or have activities on the issue.2 AusAid and UNICEF entered into a Multi-Country Programme Contribution Agreement in March 2005, confirming AusAID’s commitment to provide AUD$7.35 million for a five-year period (2005-2010).3 See Appendix B for the Results and Resources Framework for the Solomon Islands.


2. Children are better served by well informed and coordinated child protection social services which ensure greater protection against and respond to violence, abuse and exploitation.


section 1: Background


Targeting the child’s immediate environment, the Programme will work closely with parents, caregivers and other community members such as teachers in preventing child abuse and mitigating risks for violence, abuse and exploitation. The Programme will relate to the socio-economic, political and cultural context by addressing values and norms that have a fundamental impact on children’s protection.4

The Programme promotes a systems-building approach that identifies and meets capacity building needs of institutions providing social, justice and birth registration services for children. Lessons learnt from work done previously by the Pacific Children’s Programme (PCP) endorse the need to involve a wide range of relevant stakeholders - including civil society and faith-based organizations, as well as those from other programme areas within UNICEF - in exploring synergies and collectively developing rights-based and protective national frameworks, policies and programme interventions.

1.2 UniCef protective environment frameworkAgencies and development partners working in the area of child protection developed the ‘Protective Environment Approach’ to child protection programming. The ‘Protective Environment’ was introduced as the key principle in the ‘Pacific Regional Framework’ mentioned above.

Programmatically, the Protective Environment Approach can be categorized into three broad areas of intervention that build or strengthen systems for protecting children, recognizing the socio-economic, political and cultural contexts in which children grow (see the diagram). These three areas form the basis for the Child Protection Programme as articulated in the CPAPs and RRFs, and as reflected in the three outcome areas highlighted above.

Within these three broad areas, the Protective Environment Framework identifies eight factors that are instrumental in keeping children safe from harmful situations. These factors can all be strengthened, and changes measured, through the targeted support of national and international actors.

The Protective Environment Approach has two key features. Firstly, it seeks to comprehensively address the environment around children and repositions community members as duty-bearers with primary responsibility for children’s well-being and protection. Secondly, the Protective Environment Approach aims to provide protection for all children over time, rather than targeting specific responses just for children in need of special protection, for example children who live on the streets. The Protective Environment Approach is therefore a child-centred, holistic and long-term approach to preventing abuse and exploitation for all children as well as addressing the social reintegration and recovery of those who have been abused.

4 UNICEF’s Multi-Country Programme Document (CPD) for Pacific Island Countries.

CHilD

family

socio-economic political and cultural context

Child’s immediate environment

prevention and response systems

Community & peers

societal behaviour change system

social welfare

system

lega

l and

regu

lato

ry

syst

em

Child Protection Conceptual Framework


5 Solomon Islands 1999 National Population Census.6 Solomon Islands 1999 National Population Census.7 UNDP Human Development Report data for 2005 as cited in 2007/2008 report.8 UNICEF, UNESCAP and ECPAT 2008 Commercial sexual exploitation of children and child sexual abuse in the Pacific – A regional report9 In the Solomon Islands the National Researcher was dismissed part-way into the research and these duties were subsequently taken on by the Lead Researcher, Solomon Islands (LRSI), assisted by a Research Associate

1.3 Country context

Total population Total population as at 1999 population census: 409,042.Males: 51.7%; Females: 48.3%; 52.7% of total population under the age of 19 years5

Ethnic groups Melanesian: 94.55%Polynesian: 3%Micronesian: 1.19%Chinese: 0.11%European: 0.16%Mixed: 0.70%Other ethnicity: 0.11%Not Reported: 0.17%6

Civil unrest, known as ‘the tensions’ developed between people of Guadalcanal and immigrants from Malaita province in 1998. In 2003 the Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands (RAMSI), an Australian led coalition of police from across the Pacific, was deployed to restore law and order.

Religions • Christian:97%o Church of Melanesia (Anglican): 32.8%o Roman Catholic: 19%o South Seas Evangelical Church: 17%o Seventh Day Adventists: 11.2%o United Church: 10.3%o Christian Fellowship Church: 2.4%o Other: 4.4%

• Indigenousbeliefs:2.9%

Languages spoken • Localdialects(approximately100)• Pidgin• English

English is the official language (spoken only by 1-2% of the population) but is not widely used outside of main urban areas. Pidgin is the most widely spoken language.

GDP per capita (US$) Solomon Islands: 2,0317

UNDP Human Development Index ranking

Solomon Islands: 129 out of 177 countries with data8

‘Cultural’ factors which impact on child protection

• Childrenareconsideredto‘belong’totheirparentsandthereforesubjecttotreatmentsconsidered‘right’bytheirparents.• Informal/customaryadoptionofchildreniscommonwithintheextendedfamilysystem.• Strongfamilialandkinship(wantok)ties:thewantoksystemcanbeseenasanunwrittensocialcontract,betweenthose

who speak the same language (‘one talk’), to assist each other in times of need. This is also loosely used to refer to family members and people from the same island group/province. This ranges from little things such as assistance in school fees to favours that border on corruption, such as offering a job or contract to a person or persons because they are a ‘wantok’.

• Cultureofcompensation:thiswastraditionallyusedtoredressgrievancesandmaintainpeaceinthecommunitythrough the giving of shell money and/or food to the wronged party. This places the ‘offender’ back on an equal footing with their ‘victim’. However, this has serious implications for child protection cases which are ‘settled’ outside the formal justice system via compensation without necessarily addressing the underlying issue or paying attention to child rights (including child participation and the best interests of the child). The use of compensation could explain the low number of child protection cases reported through the courts and other authorities.

• Strongreligiousbeliefse.g.‘sparetherodandspoilthechild’.• Stronginfluenceandstandingoftraditionalandreligiousleadersincommunities.

Other factors which impact on child protection

• Pressuresofurbanisationandmigration,especiallyintoHoniara,includingovercrowdingandgrowthofsquattersettlements.

• Duetothesubstantiallymonetisedeconomy,communitiesaredepartingfromself-sufficiencyandrelyingonwantoksfor support in seeking out opportunities to make money. This leads to the break up of traditional structures (e.g. parents leaving their children with relatives while they seek work). Rural people may not be able to afford school fees meaning that children are not sent to school or boys are sent to school rather than girls. Children are being asked by parents to collect bottles or cans to sell to supplement family income.

• Generallackofknowledgeandunderstandingofchildrightsandpositivediscipline,e.g.alotofpeopledonotknowabout the UNCRC and practice violence in the name of discipline.

• Commercialsexualexploitationofchildrenisoccurringandincludesproblemssuchasearlymarriagewithbrideprice,pornography and anecdotal evidence of parents ‘selling’ their children for sex with foreigners for money or goods.9

• Impactsoftheethnictensione.g.childsoldiers,displacementoffamilies,andtherapeofwomenandchildren• Thetsunamion2ndApril2007affectedwomenandchildreninWesternandChoiseulProvinces:familiesweredisplaced

and living in temporary shelters, impacting the health, safety and security of children, and children did not have any formal schooling for months.

CHilD

family

socio-economic political and cultural context

Child’s immediate environment

prevention and response systems

Community & peers

societal behaviour change system

social welfare

system

lega

l and

regu

lato

ry

syst

em

Child Protection Conceptual Framework


Map

of t

he s

olom

on is

land

s sh

owin

g th

e pr

ovin

ces


2.1 Aims of Child protection Baseline ResearchThe Baseline Research covered all 3 components of the Protective Environment Framework:

• Legislativeandregulatoryframeworkcompliancereview.

• Institutional stocktaking of child protection social welfare andprotection systems in theory and in practice, and inter-agency collaboration.

• Reviewof societal behaviour regarding childprotection, includingpositive practices, at family and community level.

Aims of the Baseline Research:

1. To review the current situation in all 3 Protective Environment Framework areas, including acknowledgement of existing work and strengths.

2. To develop recommendations to help shape the 5-year Government / UNICEF Pacific Child Protection Programme: how best to move towards a more protective environment for children.

3. To further promote capacity-building, networking and inter-agency collaboration through the process of the research, with a focus on broad ownership of data and the sustainability of any resulting programme interventions.

2.2 structure and roles • NationalResearchTeam:

o National Researcher: Overall coordination of the societal behaviour component of the research, including planning and managing the field research, inputting and analysing data and commenting on report findings.

o Administrative Assistant : Logistical and administrative support to the National Researcher and Field Research Team.

o Field Research Team x 3:• Field Supervisors: 1 per team; on-site management,

monitoring and coordination.• Field Counsellors: 1 per team; emotional support to

respondents and team members.• FieldResearchers:5perteam;datacollection.

• NationalSteeringCommittee:Advisory group of government and civil society representatives [Child Protection Sub-Committee of the National Advisory Committee on Children (NACC)].

• RegionalResearchTeam:o Lead Researcher: Overall coordination of the 4-country

research project including: technical assistance in planning, implementation and data analysis; writing up findings for the societal behaviour component of the report; overall report editing.

o Legal Specialist: Responsible for legislative compliance reviews, analysing the functioning of justice systems in each country and writing up the results.

o Institutional Researcher: Responsible for researching and writing up the institutional stocktaking component.

• RegionalReferenceGroup:Advisory group of representatives from government, UN agencies, regional organisations, CSOs operating at regional level and universities.

section 2: Methodology


Regional Reference Group

Child protection sub-Committee

(nACC)Government & Civil

Society Organisations

UNICEF Field

Office

Regional Research Team

Institutional Researcher:

Anafia norton

Lead Researcher:

MarieWernham

Legal Specialist: penelope

taylor

National Researcher:

saloteAustin

National Research Team

International Advisor to

SWD

Field Research Teams x 3:• Field Supervisor• Field counselor• Field researchers

Directly contractedby UNICEF

Directly contractedSWD

Administrative Assistant:

Babra ningalo

Research Associate: osborn Cains

structure of the Research team


2.3

stag

es a

nd ti

mel

ine

Legi

slat

ive

& re

gula

tory

fram

ewor

k co

mpo

nent

Inst

itutio

nal s

tock

taki

ng

com

pone

ntSo

ciet

al b

ehav

iour

com

pone

ntN

ACC

CPS

C m

eetin

gs

Oth

er

Jan

08Le

ad R

esea

rche

r rec

ruite

d: in

itial

pl

anni

ng &

dev

elop

men

t of T

ORs

Feb

08Le

gal S

peci

alist

recr

uite

d25

.2.0

8-27

.2.0

8: U

NIC

EF c

hild

pr

otec

tion

retr

eat,

Suva

, Fiji

- d

etai

led

timel

ine

plan

ning

Mar

08

Des

k re

view

& d

evel

opm

ent o

f in

dica

tors

•Institu

tiona

lRes

earche

rrec

ruite

d•

Des

kre

view

5.3.

08: I

ntro

duct

ion

of B

asel

ine

to

rese

arch

team

and

end

orse

men

t of

met

hodo

logy

Apr 0

8D

esk

revi

ew &

dev

elop

men

t of

indi

cato

rsD

esk

revi

ew

May

08

Des

k re

view

& d

evel

opm

ent o

f in

dica

tors

Des

k re

view

Recr

uitm

ent o

f NR

June

08

1.6.

08–6

.6.8

: In-

coun

try

field

rese

arch

an

d ke

y in

form

ant i

nter

view

s co

nduc

ted

1.6.

08–6

.6.8

: In-

coun

try

field

rese

arch

an

d ke

y in

form

ant i

nter

view

s co

nduc

ted

Recr

uitm

ent o

f FRT

Seco

ndm

ent o

f AA

18.6

.08:

Pre

sent

atio

n of

CPB

R m

etho

dolo

gy &

rese

arch

loca

tions

by

LR &

NR

10.6

.08-

12.6

.08:

Con

sulta

tions

with

ch

ildre

n by

Sav

e th

e Ch

ildre

n Fi

ji in

pa

rtne

rshi

p w

ith S

ave

the

Child

ren

Aust

ralia

/ So

lom

on Is

land

s

July

08

Prep

arat

ion

of in

itial

find

ings

and

re

com

men

datio

ns•

8.7.08

-14.7.08

:Training

ofFRT

•14

.7.08-

18.7.08:Fieldte

st•

28.7.08:Fieldre

search

co

mm

ence

d•

Recruitm

ento

fLRS

I

Aug

0829

.8.0

8: N

atio

nal R

esea

rche

r dism

issed

Sept

08

1.9.

08–5

.9.0

8: In

-cou

ntry

fiel

d re

sear

ch a

nd k

ey in

form

ant i

nter

view

s co

nduc

ted

2.9.

08: 1

-day

wor

ksho

p w

ith c

hild

ren

who

hav

e ex

perie

nced

the

just

ice

syst

em, H

onia

ra3.

9.08

: 1-d

ay w

orks

hop

with

re

pres

enta

tives

from

inst

itutio

ns

11.9

.08:

2 m

embe

rs o

f FRT

dism

issed

Recr

uitm

ent o

f RA

22.9

.08-

26.9

.08:

UN

ICEF

regi

onal

ch

ild p

rote

ctio

n m

eetin

g, S

uva,

Fiji

: pr

esen

tatio

n of

initi

al fi

ndin

gs

Oct

08

Repo

rt-w

ritin

gRe

port

-writ

ing

•1.10

.08:Fieldre

search

com

plet

ed•

16.10.08

-17.10

.08:FRT

Rev

iew

Mee

ting

•Dat

aen

try&

analys

isof

field

rese

arch

dat

a

16.1

0.08

-17.

10.0

8: D

ebrie

f

Nov

08

Dat

a en

try

& an

alys

is of

fiel

d re

sear

ch

data

Dec

08

Repo

rt-w

ritin

gCo

nsul

tatio

n w

ith S

ub-c

omm

ittee

of

NAC

C on

dra

ft re

com

men

datio

ns

on C

ompo

nent

3 fi

ndin

gs (s

ocie

tal

beha

viou

r)

Jan

09

Feb

– N

ov 0

9Co

nsul

tatio

n on

dra

ft re

port

by

• N

ACC

Nat

iona

l Rep

ort fi

nalis

ed•


2.4 Research tools

All research tools were designed to specifically measure the output indicators agreed upon by the government and UNICEF in the country RRF. See Appendix B on page 207 for the full RRF.

2.4.1 Outcome 1: Children are increasingly protected by legislation and are better served by justice systems that protect them as victims, offenders and witnesses

The information collected for Outcome 1 was sourced via:

Research tool Quantity

1. Desk review Primary sources:2 policy documents from 2 departments / institutions / organisationsSecondary sources:19 reports

2. Legislative compliance review 56 laws in place3 draft laws1 draft policy2 sets of regulations6 international instruments2 cases

3. Key informant interviews 63 KIIS with 40 people (26 male / 14 female ) from 15 different departments / institutions / organisations2 other people provided feedback by email

4. Workshops with children in the justice system 1 workshop with 10 boys / young men (approximate age range 13-21 years)

5. Questionnaires to police 1 questionnaire to police throughout the Solomon Islands of which 0 were completed

2.4.2 Outcome 2: Children are better served by well-informed and coordinated child protection social services which ensure greater protection against, and responds to violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect


Research tool Quantity

1. Desk review Primary sources: 2 x policies/MOUs/plans1 x Census 1999Secondary sources: 13 documents/reports1x source book

2. Key informant interviews 31 KIIs with 33 people (13 male / 19 female) from 20 different institutions4 people provided feedback by email

3. Workshops with key stakeholders 1-day workshop with 27 people (12 male / 15 female) from 14 different departments / institutions / organisations


2.4.3 Outcome 3: Children in selected geographical areas grow up in home and community environments that are increasingly free from violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect

Note on translation of tools for field research:

All tools were originally developed in English. The decision was made by the original National Researcher not to develop a written translation of the tools into Pidgin due to the wordiness of the Pidgin language and the likelihood that many different local languages would be used out in the provinces. Researchers allegedly preferred to verbally translate into local languages using the clarity of the English written version as the constant reference point. During the training and pilot test researchers clarified and systematised specific phrases in order to ensure consistency in the language used in the field. However, in hindsight researchers said they would have preferred the tools to be translated into written Pidgin.

a. Overview


• Adult household questionnaires (AHHQ): 10 per location; randomly selected primary caregiver in a household where children are present.

• Childhouseholdquestionnaires(CHHQ):10 per location; randomly selected 15, 16 and 17 year-olds in households where children of this age are present. Due to the length, format and content of the CHHQ, it was deemed appropriate as a research tool only for older children.

• Groupactivities(GA):10 per location; 8-10 people per group.

Outline of activity

1 7-11 year-old girls Drawing or writing “Words and actions we like or don’t like at home and at school” and discussion

2 7-11 year-old boys

3 12-15 year-old girls Drawing or writing “Who do you go to when…?” and discussion

4 12-15 year-old boys

5 16-18 year-old girls Writing and discussion “What did your caregiver do when…?” [range of situations] comparison between when they were in primary school and now. Individual or group exercise6 16-18 year-old boys

7 19-25 year-old young women Drawing a map of the community and marking safe and unsafe places for children followed by discussion on how safe places can be kept safe and how unsafe places can be made safer (pair work)8 19-25 year-old young men

9 +25 year-old women Writing and discussion “What did your caregiver do when you were a child when….?” And “What do you as a caregiver do now when…?” [range of situations] comparing possible changes in behaviour. Individual or group exercise

10 +25 year-old men

• Keyinformantinterviews(KII): Up to 9 per location.

1. ‘Community leader’ (administrative and/or traditional)

2. Religious leader

3. Youth leader

4. Representative from the health sector

5. Representative from the education sector

6. Representative from the social welfare sector

7. Representative from the police

8. Representative from the judiciary

9. Representative from a civil society organisation

• Overall location observation notes (OLON): 1 per location, completed by the field research team to record general observations of the location and any factors affecting data collection and / or data analysis.

• Fielddiaries (FD):1 per field researcher to record professional and personal observations in relation to use of the tools and the location.

• Polaroid photodisplay: 10 Polaroid (instant) photos per location to represent “how we keep children safe in this community”, chosen by community members, displayed on plastic-covered card by children within the community and left as a gift / positive reminder for the community of the field research team’s visit. Where possible, this display was photographed digitally as a record for the national report.

• Photographs: Visual record of group activities and research locations as a whole where possible.


b. Locations

• 30 locations were identified throughout 8 provinces of thecountry, distributed according to population weighting, and chosen through purposive sampling based on the following criteria:

Cross-section of the population:

• Typeoflocation:

o Urban (wealthy / middle class / poor / slum)o Peri-urban (wealthy / middle class / poor / slum)o Rural (interior / coastal) (wealthy / middle class / poor)o Central islando Remote island o Stable population (low migration / flux)o Unstable population (high migration / flux)

Specific focus communities

• UNICEF programme focus areas. These are geographic areaswhere UNICEF’s five supported programmes – Health, Water and Sanitation; Education; Child Protection; HIV/AIDS; and the Policy, Advocacy, Planning and Evaluation (PAPE) Programme will converge

• Non-UNICEFprogrammefocusareas(controlgroup)

• Particularly low socio-economicdevelopmentor isolation frommainstream development and government processes

• Identifiedhigh-riskinrelationtospecificissues(e.g.commercialsexual exploitation of children)

Previous research

• Areasexperiencing‘research-fatigue’

• Areasflaggedforfurtherresearch

Final research locations

Province10 Assigned no. of locations

Constituency Wards (number refers to administrative division)

Village / Urban Neighbourhood

Choiseul 3 North West ChoiseulSouth ChoiseulNorth East Choiseul

Batava (#7)Wagina (#1)Sasamuga (#5)

TaroWaginaSasamuga

Western 6 Gizo/KolombagaraGizo/KolombagaraWest New GeorgiaMarovoRannoga/SimboSouth Vellavella

Gizo (#1)Gizo (#1)Munda (#15)Munda (#15)Central Rannoga (#5)Vonunu (#11)

GizoTitianaMadouMunda11

PienunaVonunu

Isabel 2 Maringe KokotaGao Bugotu

Buala (#5)Tatamba (#10)

BualaTatamba

Central 2 Ngella Russell/Savo

Tulagi (#4)Mbanika(#9)

TulagiYandina12

Rennell Bellona 1 RENBEL West Ghogau (#9) Tingoa

Guadalcanal 3 NE GuadalcanalWest GuadalcanalSouth Guadalcanal

Tasimboko (#7)Wanderer Bay (#5)Marau (#11)

TasimbokoWanderer Bay13

Marau

Malaita 8 Auki /LangalangaWest KwaioWest ArearaEast KwaioBaegu/AsifolaSmall MalaitaLau/MbaeleleaWest Kwara’ae

Aoke (#1)Buma (#3)Tai (#25)Waneagu/Taelanasina(#28)East Baegu (#13)Aba/asi meuri (#25)Takwa (#10) Fauambu (#4)

AukiBumaRohinariAtoifi14

SulufoloaFanaleiTakwaDala

Makira/Ulawa 2 Central BauroWest Makira

Central Bauro (#10)Central Makira (#9)

KirakiraNukukaisi15

Honiara Town Council

3 West HoniaraEast HoniaraCentral Honiara

Ngossi (#1)Vura (#11)Cruz (#4)

WhiteriverVuraPoint Cruz

Total 30 (only 29 were visited in practice - Atoifi abandoned due to bad weather conditions)

10 Temotu Province was not included due to remoteness and logistical problems (boats every 2 months and flights every 2 weeks at the time of project planning). However, Tikopian communities (of Polynesian ethnicity / representative of Temotu Prvince), were included in the Makira/Ulawa and Honiara selection of locations. It should also be pointed out that the CPBR was not intended to provide a comprehensive national research but rather baseline data for the Government / UNICEF Child Protection Programme.

11 Due to the closure of Seghe airport, Seghe (part of the original selection) was replaced with Munda (similar population size and other conditions).12 Tawaroga, Makira / Ulawa Province (part of the original selection) was replaced with Yandina, Central Province due to extremely rough seas (a World Vision boat had capsized trying to reach Tawaroga in the same week

that the FRT was due to travel). The recent unrest and ongoing troubles related to the Russell Islands Plantation Limited (RIPEL) provided an impetus to find out the situation on child protection in the area of Yandina. See also footnote #14.

13 Viso, South Guadalcanal (part of the original selection) was replaced with Wanderer Bay, West Guadalcanal. This was due to some civil unrest in Mbainmbainkera, South Guadalcanal, involving an attack on the local police station, which caused concern for the safety of the FRT.

14 Atoifi had to be abandoned due to dangerous weather conditions.15 Due to the necessary change of location from Tawaroga (Makira/Ulawa) to Yandina (Central) (see footnote #11), Nukufero, Central Province (part of the original selection) was replaced with Nukukaisi, Makira/Ulawa

Province in order to maintain a Tikopian settlement in the selection of locations whilst still respecting the overall quota of locations per province.


Baseline Research Locations

c. Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs)

An important feature of the CPBR was the pioneering use of PDAs for electronic data capture. PDAs are hand-held computers. AHHQs and CHHQs were programmed as ‘templates’ and corresponding ‘PDA questionnaires’ using DevInfo software16 . The ‘PDA questionnaires’ were then copied as many as times necessary, each with a unique file name, loaded onto PDAs, and programmed with basic information such as location, time period and a unique identity code. In order to avoid duplication of data, each individual PDA contained only the questionnaires relevant for the researchers who would be using that PDA.

Researchers worked in pairs to conduct AHHQs and CHHQs with one researcher asking the questions from a paper copy of the questionnaire and the other recording the answers in the PDA. On completion the questionnaires were downloaded onto a computer via a USB connection and then imported directly into the ‘template’ / database ready for data analysis. In theory some of the benefits of using PDAs for data collection are as follows: no need for copying and carrying large numbers of paper questionnaires in the field; ‘skips’ in the questionnaire can be programmed to jump automatically between questions (e.g. ‘if no, go to question 10’) and this helps to reduce data collection error; a huge amount of time is saved by eliminating the need to manually enter data from paper questionnaires into a database.

The use of PDAs in this research was innovative in that the types of

questionnaires being used were much longer and more complex than those which have previously been used internationally with this technology and software. The CPBR was deliberately testing the appropriateness of this technology for qualitative as well as quantitative data collection.

See Section 2.8 for lessons learned.

d. Completed data log

The following research tools were completed as part of the field research:

• 274 CHHQs

• 273 AHHQs17

• 278 GAs18 (56 with 7-11 year-olds; 56 with 12-15 year-olds; 58 with 16-18 year-olds; 54 with 19-25 year-olds; 54 with +25 year-olds)

• 93 KIIs19 (13 with traditional or administrative community leaders; 18 with religious leaders; 11 with youth leaders; 4 with social welfare representatives; 20 with education representatives; 13 with health representatives; 8 with police; 0 with justice representatives; 6 with CSO representatives)

• 29OLONs

• 82digitalphotos

See Appendix C for a detailed breakdown of tools per location.

16 DevInfo is a database system for monitoring human development. It is a tool for organizing, storing and presenting data in a uniform way to facilitate data sharing at the country level across government departments, UN agencies and development partners. DevInfo has features that produce tables, graphs and maps for inclusion in reports, presentations and advocacy materials.” www.devinfo.org

17 Following the dismissal of the original Field Supervisor and a Field Researcher from Team B part-way into the research, the teams were rearranged to maintain a gender balance amongst researchers and team num-bers were reduced. This affected the teams’ ability to collect a full complement of AHHQs and CHHQs. In one location an AHHQ respondent refused to continue with the interview following an outside disturbance.

18 Some GAs could not be carried out either due to unavailability of, or refusal by, respondents to participate. For example, students were unavailable to participate in GA4 in Munda due to death of the principal of Goldie College students refused to participate in GA4 in Titiana. Other activities were missed out due to confusion over timing and whether permission was granted to enter schools to undertake research activities, e.g. GAs 1, 2, and 5 for Whiteriver.

19 Unfortunately no KIIs were returned from Malaita Province as these were maliciously withheld by the former Field Supervisor for Team B in response to his dismissal for repeated misconduct.


2.5 Child participationThere were two types of child participation in relation to the CPBR.

Type A: Children as ‘respondents’ in the baseline research

• AspartofthefieldresearchfortheCPBRcomponenton societal behaviour: 16-17 year-olds were involved in CHHQs; 7-11 year-olds, 12-15 year-olds and 17-18 year-olds were involved in group activities (segregated by age and sex). Young people aged 19-25 also took part in specific group activities. Of the 2,238 people consulted as part of the field research, 1,217 (54%) were children aged 7-18 years old.

• AllFieldResearcherswereovertheageof18,butFieldResearch Teams included some young people under the age of 25.

Type B: Children as ‘participants’ in the baseline research process

• Thistypeofparticipation,nottobeconfusedwithTypeA,refersto involvement in the project cycle management of the CPBR. The diagram below represents the difference stages of project cycle management.

particular, they drafted a series of questions to key informants which the Lead Researcher incorporated, unedited, into the KII questionnaires. Other workshop activities included: discussions on the UNCRC; recall about ‘unfair treatment’; discussions about violence in homes, communities and schools. Feedback from these activities and discussions is included in this report.

• Aspartoftheworkshopthechildrendrewupalistofactionpointsto take the issue further in their communities (for east, central and west Honiara – see findings for the ‘Additional General’ section of the report for details). The intention was that Save the Children Australia / Solomon Islands would continue to work with these same children throughout the CPBR process to keep them up to date with the research and encourage comment on the research findings and input into the recommendations. Unfortunately, due to logistical constraints, consultation on the recommendations did not happen. Child participation in the research project cycle process therefore continues to be challenging.

2.6 ethics Code of Conduct

• ACodeofConduct(CoC)wasdevelopedfortheresearchintheSolomon Islands21, covering the following three areas:

1. Behaviour guidelines: between researchers and children, between researchers and respondents, between researchers and the community and between the researchers themselves.

2. Guidelines for photographs: both official and personal.

3. Communication guidelines: concerning images and narratives about children involved in the study.

• The CoCwas developed in consultation with researchers whosigned a statement of commitment to the CoC prior to embarking on the pilot phase of the research.

• For the purposes of the CPBR, itwas decided – due to ethicaland time constraints – not to involve under-18s in actual data collection (‘implementation’). However, under-18s who were part of existing, well-supported groups were intended to be involved in the ‘planning’ stage (commenting on methodology) and the ‘evaluation’ stage (analysis of results and inputting into recommendations).

• In the Solomon Islands, from 10-12 June 2008, 22 children (11boys and 11 girls) aged 11-17 from Honiara20 participated in a 3-day consultation workshop facilitated by Save the Children Fiji in association with Save the Children Australia / Solomon Islands. The workshop introduced the CPBR to the children and conducted a series of activities to promote open discussions about child rights and violence against children in the Solomon Islands. The children gave specific input into the CPBR field research methodology. In

20 Honiara settlements represented: Karaina, Police Residential Area, Mbuburu, Mbokonavera, Mbokona, Koa Hill, Vavaea Ridge, Vara Creek, Matariu, Koia’ale, Mbua Valley, Fulisango, Naha, Baranaba, Kobito, Fishing Village, Marara, Tanagai, Lunga, Burns Creek.

21 See Appendix D.

monitor

assess / identify needs

implement

evaluate plan

The project cycle


Informed consent of respondents

• Informedconsentwasrequiredfromrespondentsforallresearchactivities. For every AHHQ, CHHQ, GA and KII researchers were required to sign a consent sheet proving that they had read out the required information to the participant(s) and obtained informed consent for their participation in the activity. Participants were informed that they had the right to stop the interview / activity at any point and they had the right to refuse to answer any or all questions.

• Childparticipantsintheresearchwererecruitedfromhouseholdsand schools. For children from households participating in either the CHHQ or any of the group activities, consent was first sought from a parent or caregiver. In cases where children were recruited in schools, consent was initially sought from the head teachers and principals concerned.22 In both settings the children were explained the nature of the research and asked to give informed consent indicating their willingness to participate.

2.7 Data analysis2.7.1 Outcome 1: Children are increasingly protected by legislation and are better served by justice systems that protect them as victims, offenders and witnesses

Legislative review:

• Thelegislativereviewcomponentwasundertakenbyidentifyingthe articles of the UNCRC relating to child protection standards. These articles were then fleshed out to their full legal ramifications and a list of 227 indicators developed, drawing heavily on existing UNICEF tools for legislative analysis. The indicators were categorised into specific areas of child protection e.g. child labour, violence against children, treatment of children in conflict with the law and so on.

• ExistinglawandpolicyintheSolomonIslandswasthenmeasuredagainst these indicators and a compliance table displaying the strengths and weaknesses in the regulatory framework was created.

• Findings of existing reviews and draft legislation were alsoconsidered against gaps identified in the compliance table.

• Thefindingsweresummarisedandtentativerecommendationsdrafted. A stakeholder workshop and some individual interviews were then undertaken to confirm the findings and finalise the recommendations.

• Afinalreportwasthenpreparedincorporatingthefeedbackfromthese workshops.

Justice system review:

• The review of the justice systemwas undertaken through thedevelopment of both comprehensive ‘ideal system’ indicators based on international standards and indicators that were directly responsive to the RRF Output Indicators.

• Existingreportsandcompileddatawerereviewed,representativesof the key institutions interviewed, workshops run with children who had experienced the system as either victim/survivors or offenders, and questionnaires distributed to police.

• A list of findings and recommendations were then made in

relation to each legal institution (police, courts, ODPP and People’s Lawyer) and stakeholders consulted as to the accuracy and efficacy of those findings in a 1-day workshop.

• Thefinalreportwasthenpreparedincorporatingfeedbackfromthe workshop.

2.7.2 Outcome 2: Children are better served by well-informed and coordinated child protection social services which ensure greater protection against, and responds to violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect

The process for data analysis for the Institutional Stocktake was based on the following steps:

• An ‘ideal system’ matrix for child protection institutions wasdeveloped based on international experience and including elements of a Child Protection Social Welfare checklist developed by UNICEF East Asia Pacific Regional Office (EAPRO).

• Desktopresearchinformationwasconvertedintotableformat.

• InitialinterviewswithUNICEFChildProtectionOfficersandotherkey informants conducted.

• Questionnairesweredistributed.

• Resulting data was converted into a consultation documentcontaining findings and recommendations.

• Consultationworkshopheldwithkeystakeholders.

• AfterconsultationthisdocumentwasconvertedintotheBaselineResearch Institutional Stocktake Report (available separately) and information from this full report was summarised for inclusion in this National Report against the RRF indicators.

2.7.3 Outcome 3: Children in selected geographical areas grow up in home and community environments that are increasingly free from violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect

Field Research Team Review Meeting:

• FRTsgatheredtogetherfortwodaysaftercompletionofthefieldresearch in order to tidy up completed research tools, reflect on their experiences, make recommendations for any future similar research, and to generally provide ‘closure’ for the FRTs which was deemed necessary due to the sensitive nature of the research.

• TheFRTstookthisopportunitytosharetheirexperienceswiththeNational Steering Committee.

Childandadulthouseholdquestionnaires:

• Completedquestionnairesweredownloadedonto a computerby the NR / LRSI and imported into the pre-prepared DevInfo template / database by the Lead Researcher. Errors were corrected (e.g. mistakes in file names or accidental mapping of questionnaires to the wrong location).

• Acomprehensivesetofchartsandgraphswasproducedaccordingto the detailed ‘graphics analysis frameworks’ (Excel spreadsheets setting out what information is needed in order to measure each of the RRF indicators). The ‘graphics analysis frameworks’ are based, in turn on the ‘overall analysis framework’ which sets out which research tools and questions measure each indicator. All analysis frameworks and the full set of charts and graphs for the CHHQs and AHHQs are available on the accompanying CD-Rom,

22 The Ministry of Education had given prior approval for research teams to recruit children from schools for the purpose of the research.


grouped per RRF indicator.

• ThecompletedchartsandgraphsweresenttotheLRSIandRAand key data was presented to the National Steering Committee for discussion and the formulation of initial recommendations which were incorporated into a first draft report.

• TheLeadResearcherwroteupthedetailedfindings,incorporatinginput from the National Steering Committee, into the societal behaviour component of the National Report which was then circulated to the sub-committee of the NACC for comment before being finalised.

Group activities:

• Hardcopiesofflipchartsandresearchers’noteswerecollectedbythe LRSI and RA and the data entered into pre-prepared, ‘coded’ Excel spreadsheets which were then sent to the Lead Researcher for analysis.

• Tables, chartsandgraphswereproduced,basedon the‘overallanalysis framework’, which were then used to inform the writing up of the societal behaviour component of the National Report (circulated for comment, as above).

• Copiesofthe‘rawdata’andaccompanyingchartsandgraphsareavailable on the accompanying CD-Rom.

Key informant interviews:

• Hardcopiesof theKIIswerecollectedby theLRSI andRA, andthe results for each type of key informant interview (e.g. police) were compiled into one amalgamated, ‘master’ electronic version (mixture of Excel & Word) which was then forwarded to the Lead Researcher.

• TheLeadResearcherproducedtables,graphsandcharts,basedon the ‘overall analysis framework’, which were then used to inform the writing up of all three components of the National Report (circulated for comment, as above).

Other:

• Anecdotal informationwas extracted from the overall locationobservation notes and researchers’ Field Diaries to inform the report findings.

• The LRSI, RA and Lead Researcher also drew on additionalinformation from background reading and photographs as relevant.

2.8 lessons learned 2.8.1 Successes (what went well)

Outcome 1:

• Workshopwithchildrenincontactwiththejusticesystem: It involved only a small number of boys, and would have been more effective had there been more participants, but proved to be a rich source of information on the disempowerment and injustice children experience in the justice system. The participants clearly felt comfortable and were very open about their thoughts, feelings and experiences by the end of the process.

• Consultation workshop on the findings regarding the legal institutions was very effective. There was excellent participation and the process of assessing the findings then the recommendations worked well. Good feedback was gleaned this way and although the process was lengthy participants were

willing to stay engaged with it to the end due to the richness of the dialogue and the use of humour.

Outcome 2:

• Research design and implementation: This process was successful- i.e. desktop review followed by interviews and then workshops. The process supported itself and gave those who were committed to the process a chance to participate meaningfully.

• Consultation workshops: They provided a mechanism for networking and participants were able to learn about the work of other institutions and make connections that will help protect children in the future. New ideas were generated at the workshops through the interaction of participants.

• Workshop consultation paper: The consultation paper prepared in advance of the workshop worked well in terms of guiding the discussion. In some ways the information in the consultation paper was too detailed. However, it was made clear at the beginning of the consultations that the researchers did not expect participants to fully read the paper but that during the course of the workshop the content would be thoroughly interrogated and time would be allocated to review each section before talking about it in detail.

• Therewasgoodoverlapbetweenthelegalreview(Outcome1) and institutional stocktake (Outcome 2) in the Solomon Islands. Many of the same participants attended both days workshops (on 03/09/08 and 04/09/08) and there were some common issues that arose from the institutional stocktake that were then considered in the context of legislation.

Outcome 3:

• Successfulcompletionoffieldwork: Despite many trials and tribulations, the research was completed successfully. 29 out of 30 research locations were covered by the three research teams over the course of just over two months. This achievement should not be underestimated given the many and complex challenges faced by the project in the Solomon Islands and it is a testament to the hard work and dedication of the LRSI, RA, AA and those FRT members who remained faithful to the aims and spirit of the research throughout the difficulties.

• Local human resource capacity in social researchstrengthened: The research created a pool of 19 trained and experienced field researchers in conducting social research, particularly in the area of child protection.

• Inter-agencycollaborationfurtherbolstered:

o Successful partnership between UNICEF and the SWD in facilitating the administration of the baseline research.

o Support was received from organisations such as the South Pacific Community (SPC’s) Family Health and Safety Study, Ministry of Health and Medical Services (in the provision of boats and boat drivers, as well as use of their radio room for contact with teams), Community Sector Program (boat), Honiara Central Police Station (use of their radio frequency to mediate contact with our team on Malaita), and provincial government offices (distribution of information to communities).

• Increasedawarenessaboutchildrightsandchildprotection: For many people (including children) in the communities visited, this would have been the first time that they became aware of the rights of the child and wider concept of child protection.


that they were not willing to consult on legislative steps until the National Children’s Policy was in place. Finally, the workshop did not target participants of a sufficiently high level (with one or two exceptions) and the participants that were there were unwilling to comment on proposed legislative reforms which were outside of their personal decision-making powers. In spite of these difficulties some useful information was gleaned from the process that did occur.

• The lack of information-gathering time spent in country severely inhibited accurate and complete information collection.

Outcome 2:

• The ‘ideal systems’ matrix approach was not utilised fully. The Legal Specialist followed a data collection approach for the justice institutions based on the RRF indicators, this approach should also have been taken by the institutional researcher to ensure consistency. The Ideal Systems Matrix was not utilised in the Justice section of the institutional stocktake.

• The volume of information available about each institution and the length of the report made the research time and resource intensive.

Outcome 3:

• Lengthandtimingofresearch:Needed to be taken at a much slower pace, over a much longer period of time so that processes are worked out properly and so that everyone involved in the research is completely clear of, and comfortable with, their role. The research took place during the Ara season, characterised by high seas and very strong winds. This caused a lot of delays in travel, as well as fears for the safety of researchers with their materials and data.

• Language of research tools: More consultation time was needed on the language and content of the research tools as the Lead Researcher received no feedback from the NSC, NR, FRT or UNICEF Field Office. There was disagreement over whether the tools should have been translated into written pidgin: the NR decided that this was not necessary. However, in hindsight the FRT stated that they would have preferred this in order to clarify some ambiguous terms such as ‘hit’ in English which is translated into ‘kill’ in pidgin.24

• Financial planning: Under-budgeting25 was a significant factor in delays to the research. Unforeseen expenditures arose at different points during the research and the rise in oil price (up to SBD$18 per litre in rural areas) impacted on funds made available. This necessitated constant requests for funds from the UNICEF Office in Suva, thereby causing delays to the completion of field work.

• Personnel problems: There were significant problems in recruiting an appropriate NR and AA for the Solomon Islands. Eventually the DSW seconded a staff member as AA for part of the research. The original NR was dismissed during the research process to be replaced by the LRSI assisted by a RA. The make-up of the National Research Team was therefore much more complex and challenging than in the other project countries. In addition one Field Supervisor and one Field Researcher were also dismissed part-way into the research. These changes in staffing caused confusion and affected progress and work continuity. FRT structure, coherence and morale was negatively affected when some FRs had to be moved from their original team to

23 Adapted from CPBR Human Interest Story, researched and documented by Mere Nailatikau. 24 The FRT was specifically and repeatedly asked to feedback on the issue of language after the field test but no comments were received at the time. If such issues were arising during the research then the Field Super-

visor should have picked up on them and clarified them during the team meetings.25 The original budget was prepared by the initial National Researcher who was later dismissed from the project.

Rural communities welcome the research teams 23

While visiting rural communities for the CPBR, the Lead Researcher for the Solomon Islands (LRSI) was pleased by the welcoming response the research team received: “I was struck by the enthusiasm people showed towards the research. The researchers had got in a few days earlier and had been to church as part of their PR work to advertise their presence in the community. They had been well-received and made to feel welcome.” According to field researchers, many locals stopped them on the road to ask them when they were going to reach their homes and some people even complained that the research team had visited some houses and not theirs.

“This experience made me realize how critical this work on child protection was,” says the LRSI. “It made me think that despite the ‘evils’ we hear from the researchers about the way children were treated in various communities, there is a general willingness to make things better; to move on from one way of doing things to another that may be a safer option for children and for the communities at large.”

2.8.2 Challenges (what didn’t work so well)

Outcome 1:

• There was some offence taken to the contents and wording of the consultation report by workshop participants. To some degree this was due to some misunderstandings as to the role of the draft report and the attribution of information obtained in interviews, but it was also the result of careless wording throughout the draft report. Greater attention to tact and accuracy was needed in the preparation of the report for this stage of the process, despite it being only a draft for consultation.

• The legislation workshop was a problematic and difficult process. It did bear fruit but it was a laboured and slow-moving consultation for a number of reasons. Firstly, it was not truly a ‘good faith’ consultation in that it was approached with an intention to progress a particular piece of legislation – a child protection act. This was partly due to an understanding that this had been consulted and agreed upon in the past. However, a smoother, more informative consultation could have occurred if this step had not been assumed. Secondly, participants indicated

Researchers travelling to research locations


compensate for the gaps caused by the dismissals.

• Team constitution: The socio-cultural need for a mixture of female and male, older and younger FRs was highlighted during the FRT recruitment process, and efforts were made during the FRT training to pair male and female researchers and to ensure a mix of more mature, responsible males and females with younger, less experienced researchers in each team. However, the make-up of the teams was restricted by the FRs available. The FRTs would have benefited from more mixed-sex research pairs and the availability of more mature ‘mentors’ within the team.

• Teammonitoring:Wide geographical dispersal of the research locations meant it was difficult for the LRSI and AA to reach each team at times. Radios were used as the main form of contact for remote areas; however, these did not work well some of the time and communication was highly dependent on the radio frequencies available. On-site monitoring was the responsibility of the Field Supervisors. Unfortunately, one particular FS failed to do this properly resulting in his dismissal from the research. This negatively impacted on the general morale of his team.

• Protection of field data: PDAs and paper questionnaires were vulnerable to the elements. Official bags were used for the FRTs’ day-to-day stationary and additional protection was provided by heavy-duty plastic containers in which they stored all paper materials. Snap-lock (or equivalent water-proof ) plastic bags were used to safeguard PDAs.

Care for the PDAs places a great deal more extra responsibility on researchers in addition to the physical and emotional pressures of conducting social research. Some data was maliciously withheld by the former FS for Malaita Province.

• Venueforconductingactivities:Using schools for conducting activities was found by researchers to be distracting, both from peers and teachers alike. Some teachers came in to check on the activities and thereby offered their opinions to the respondents as well (evidenced by similarity of responses or sometimes responses were the same, word for word, and coincided with notes provided by the FRs on the Standard Observation Notes for each activity). FRs would have benefited from greater training practice through role plays on how to manage such situations and greater assistance / advice from Field Supervisors during team meetings.

2.9 Recommendations regarding methodology for future researchOutcome 1:

1.1 More time to be spent in country.

1.2 More time and resources to be invested in children’s workshops.

1.3 High level people to be engaged in the process from start to finish (this would be more easily achieved if greater time were spent in country).

Outcome 2:

2.1 Refine the ‘ideal systems matrix’ for use next time in consultation with national partners and the EAPRO toolkit authors.

2.2 Ensure the methods for gathering data under RRF indicators are consistent with the broader institutional stocktake.

2.3 Depending on resources available, consider confining the research to a smaller number of institutions.

2.4 Do not limit the reporting to the RRF indicators in the National

Research as these categories leave out some major components of a child protection system.

2.5 To ensure the integrity of information, another step in the methodology must be to have a process of feedback on the consultation report specifically from interviewees before the report is circulated more widely for consultation. This will help clear issues of misunderstanding and other language / culture barriers.

2.6 An opportunity for capacity building would be to empower a Solomon Islander to conduct some of the key informant interviews (with or without the Institutional Researcher) and take ownership of some of the information gathering.

Outcome 3:

3.1 Good logistical planning is crucial: Do not conduct research during Ara season when there are high seas and strong winds for the safety of researchers. Allow enough time for planning and implementation of the research, including significant flexibility to adapt to unforeseen circumstances. Communication to facilitate entry into communities needs to be done well in advance and properly followed up before the arrival of research teams. Consider having a Liaison Officer as part of the team to go ahead to each location and prepare each community for the team’s arrival and activities.

3.2 Encourage more proactive feedback on research methodology from NSC: Allow enough time and facilitate participatory processes to encourage more feedback on the detailed content and language of the research questions.

3.3 PDAs: PDAs are a very useful tool but the logistics of power supply (e.g. spare batteries, availability and cost of generators, fuel and/or solar-powered rechargers) needs careful consideration in rural, remote locations. Given the current technological limitations of PDAs (e.g. inability to automatically skip ‘if other, specify’ questions) lengthy questionnaires should be avoided on PDAs. Where hard copy questionnaires are being used, these need to be entered into the PDAs as soon as possible after the interview so that the information is still fresh in the FR’s mind.

3.4 Training of Field Research Team: Needs to be longer than one week so that the FRT is more confident about what is expected of them and so that they have more time to absorb and reflect on the sessions and ask questions. Particular areas to strengthen include: the importance of not influencing respondents’ answers and techniques to avoid this26; the role of Field Supervisors and Field Counsellors; more practice time on actual methodology; role plays on how to handle interruptions etc. during interviews and group activities.

3.5 Role of Field Supervisors: The role of the FS in on-site monitoring, team-building, troubleshooting and overall leadership is crucial to the success of the research, especially in countries where geographical remoteness makes hand-on monitoring of FRTs by national level staff difficult. Consider recruiting for these positions separately, have more intensive training for them and try to enforce more strictly the ‘probation period’, carefully monitoring their conduct in the early stages of the field work.

3.6 Role of Field Counsellors: In the absence of trained and experienced counsellors in the country in general, more time needs to be devoted to training the individual ‘Field Counsellors’ in their role as well as facilitating team role plays of different situations which might arise in the field.

26 This was emphasised in the training – the fact that the majority of questions were clearly marked ‘no prompt’ and the importance of this for the research, but apparently even more emphasis is needed on this point.


3.1 overview

Findings reflect the situation in 2008 and may not include reference to more recent developments.

Findings are grouped according to the three RRF ‘Outcome’ areas:


2. Children are better served by well informed and coordinated child protection social services which ensure greater protection against and respond to violence, abuse and exploitation.


Within the RRF, as agreed between the government and UNICEF, each of these high level ‘Outcomes’ is broken down into a series of ‘Outputs’. For example, in the Solomon Islands Outcome 1 has three Outputs which are numbered Output 1.1, Output 1.2 and Output 1.3. Each of these mid-level ‘Outputs’ is then further broken down into a series of ‘Indicators’. There may be one or more Indicators per Output. For example, Solomon Islands Output 1.3 has only one Indicator, labelled Indicator 1.3.1. However, Solomon Islands Output 1.1 has two Indicators numbered 1.1.1 and 1.1.2. These Indicators may or may not have ‘targets’ attached to them. For example, Solomon Islands Indicator 1.1.1 has the target ‘50% of stakeholders’.

There is an assumption that working on the more ‘manageable’ indicators will contribute to achieving the Outputs, which will

in turn result in progress towards achieving the over-arching Outcomes.

The Baseline Research measured the current status of the RRF Indicators. However, in some cases, ‘Additional Indicators’ were also measured as a means to gather further information relating to the Outputs or Outcomes more broadly, above and beyond the child protection ‘picture’ painted by the more specific RRF Indicators. An example of an Additional Indicator is ‘Indicator 3.1 Additional 1’ which is related to Output 3.1. There is also an ‘Additional General Indicator’ at the end of Outcome 3. It is important to note that these ‘additional indicators’ do not form part of the official Government / UNICEF RRF. They are merely intended to contribute additional information which it is hoped may be of use in partners’ efforts to create protective environment frameworks for children in the Solomon Islands.

The summary matrix in Section 3.2 pulls out key findings and statistics per indicator. This matrix can be used as a stand-alone summary. However, important additional analysis and comment, as well as recommendations, are included in the detailed findings in Section 3.4. Further supporting information can be found on the accompanying CD-Rom, including: full legislative compliance review; full institutional stocktaking report; raw data and comprehensive charts for CHHQs, AHHQs, KIIs and GAs from the field research. Section 3.3 summarises the profile of CHHQ, AHHQ and KII respondents who participated in the field research.

3.2 Matrix of findings per output indicator

Please note: The findings here have been summarised for ease of reference. For further information on how each indicator was interpreted and how the findings were calculated, see Section 3.4.

section 3: findings


27

Mem

bers

of t

he ju

dici

ary,

polic

e offi

cers

, soc

ial w

orke

rs, h

ealth

care

wor

kers

etc

.

Out

com

e 1:

Chi

ldre

n ar

e in

crea

sing

ly p

rote

cted

by

legi

slat

ion

and

are

bett

er s

erve

d by

just

ice

syst

ems

that

pro

tect

them

as

vict

ims,

offe

nder

s an

d w

itnes

ses

Out

put

Indi

cato

rTa

rget

Base

line

findi

ngs

2008

1.1

Child

Pro

tect

ion

Bill

alig

ned

with

the

CRC

/ Opt

iona

l Pr

otoc

ols

is

endo

rsed

and

im

plem

enta

tion

initi

ated

(N

atio

nal l

evel

)

1.1.

1Pr

opor

tion

of re

leva

nt

stak

ehol

ders

27

(mal

e/fe

mal

e) w

ho

dem

onst

rate

abi

lity

to a

pply

new

Chi

ld

Prot

ectio

n Bi

ll

50%

of

stak

e-ho

lder

s

•N

/A(C

hildPro

tect

ionBillno

tinpl

ace)

1.1.

2D

egre

e of

alig

n-m

ent b

etw

een

natio

nal l

aw/s

an

d re

leva

nt c

hild

pr

otec

tion

CRC/

Opt

iona

l Pro

toco

ls

prov

isio

ns

Num

bers

her

e re

fer t

o ho

w m

any

aspe

cts o

f the

law

and

pol

icy

com

ply

with

a d

etai

led

brea

kdow

n of

inte

rnat

iona

l pr

inci

ples

with

in e

ach

subj

ect a

rea

– se

e Se

ctio

n 3.

4 of

this

repo

rt fo

r mor

e de

tails

:1.

Ch

ild w

elfa

re/c

hild

pro

tect

ion

syst

em: F

ull c

ompl

ianc

e 1;

Par

tial c

ompl

ianc

e 2;

Non

-com

plia

nce

17 [T

otal

20]

2.

Fam

ily se

para

tion

and

alte

rnat

ive

care

: Ful

l com

plia

nce

6; P

artia

l com

plia

nce

9; N

on-c

ompl

ianc

e 22

; Not

app

licab

le

1 [T

otal

38]

3.

Viol

ence

aga

inst

chi

ldre

n: F

ull c

ompl

ianc

e 3;

Par

tial c

ompl

ianc

e 5;

Non

-com

plia

nce

4 [T

otal

12]

4.

Sexu

al a

buse

and

sex

ual e

xplo

itatio

n of

chi

ldre

n: F

ull c

ompl

ianc

e 4;

Par

tial c

ompl

ianc

e 7;

Non

-com

plia

nce

4 [T

otal

15]

5.

Abd

uctio

n, s

ale

and

traffi

ckin

g: F

ull c

ompl

ianc

e 2;

Par

tial c

ompl

ianc

e 2;

Non

-com

plia

nce

15 [T

otal

19]

6.

Child

labo

ur/s

tree

t chi

ldre

n: F

ull c

ompl

ianc

e 6;

Par

tial c

ompl

ianc

e 5;

Non

-com

plia

nce

6 [T

otal

17]

7.

Child

fri

endl

y in

vest

igat

ive

and

cour

t pr

oces

ses:

Ful

l com

plia

nce

1; P

artia

l com

plia

nce

7; N

on-c

ompl

ianc

e 16

[T

otal

24]

8.

Reha

bilit

atio

n: F

ull c

ompl

ianc

e 1;

Par

tial c

ompl

ianc

e 2;

Non

-com

plia

nce

4; N

ot a

pplic

able

1 [T

otal

8]

9.

Child

ren

in c

onfli

ct w

ith th

e la

w: F

ull c

ompl

ianc

e 33

; Par

tial c

ompl

ianc

e 10

; Non

-com

plia

nce

11 [T

otal

54]

10.

Refu

gee/

unac

com

pani

ed m

igra

nt c

hild

ren:

Ful

l com

plia

nce

0; P

artia

l com

plia

nce

1; N

on-c

ompl

ianc

e 10

[To

tal

11]

11.

Child

ren

in a

rmed

con

flict

: Ful

l com

plia

nce

1; P

artia

l com

plia

nce

0; N

on-c

ompl

ianc

e 0;

Not

app

licab

le 2

[Tot

al 3

]12

. In

form

atio

n ac

cess

: Ful

l com

plia

nce

1; P

artia

l com

plia

nce

1; N

on-c

ompl

ianc

e 2

[Tot

al 4

]13

. Bi

rth

regi

stra

tion:

Ful

l com

plia

nce

2; P

artia

l com

plia

nce

0; N

on-c

ompl

ianc

e 0

[Tot

al 2

]




28

Inc

lude

s jud

ges,

mag

istra

tes,

publ

ic d

efen

ders

, pro

secu

tors

and

loca

l cou

rts

29

A ne

w c

orre

ctio

nal f

acili

ty a

t Rov

e ke

eps y

oung

mal

es in

sepa

rate

det

entio

n fro

m a

dult

mal

es. T

here

is n

o pr

ovisi

on a

t pre

sent

for y

oung

fem

ale

offen

ders

, but

faci

litie

s can

be

mad

e av

aila

ble

if th

e ne

ed a

rises

and

no

youn

g fe

mal

e off

ende

rs a

re re

cord

ed a

s eve

r hav

ing

been

det

aine

d in

pris

on.

Figu

res w

ere

not a

vaila

ble

for p

olic

e cu

stod

y. An

ecdo

tal e

vide

nce

sugg

ests

that

sepa

rate

det

entio

n is

not s

tand

ard

prac

tice,

par

tly d

ue to

inad

equa

te fa

cilit

ies a

nd lo

w a

war

enes

s of t

he re

quire

men

t. Th

e RS

IP (R

oyal

Sol

omon

Isla

nds P

olic

e) S

tand

ing

Ord

ers r

equi

rem

ent i

s onl

y th

at th

ey b

e ke

pt

sepa

rate

from

adu

lt de

tain

ees ‘

if po

ssib

le’.

It is

note

d th

at it

is n

ot a

lway

s in

the

child

’s be

st in

tere

sts t

o be

kep

t sep

arat

ely,

espe

cial

ly if

it m

eans

bei

ng se

para

ted

from

fam

ily m

embe

rs w

ho a

re a

lso in

det

entio

n, o

r rel

ocat

ed a

way

from

thei

r pro

vinc

e an

d th

e su

ppor

t of e

xten

ded

fam

ily.

30

Mos

t rec

ent r

elia

ble

data

is fr

om 2

005

whi

ch in

dica

tes t

hat 5

8 m

atte

rs in

volv

ing

unde

r-18s

resu

lted

in 7

6 ch

arge

s, bu

t whe

re c

harg

es w

ere

not p

ress

ed, n

umbe

rs a

re n

ot a

vaila

ble.

31

It is

estim

ated

that

the

rate

of i

nfor

mal

div

ersio

n is

very

hig

h du

e to

the

low

num

bers

of y

oung

peo

ple

bein

g re

cord

ed a

s com

ing

into

con

tact

with

the

form

al ju

stic

e sy

stem

.32

An

ecdo

tal e

vide

nce

sugg

ests

that

the

usua

l inf

orm

al d

iver

sion

prac

tice

is to

retu

rn th

e ch

ild to

the

villa

ge a

utho

ritie

s, gi

ve th

em a

war

ning

or i

mpo

se im

med

iate

cor

pora

l pun

ishm

ent.

Que

stio

nnai

res t

o fu

rthe

r asc

erta

in p

olic

e pr

actic

es w

ere

dist

ribut

ed b

ut n

one

wer

e re

turn

ed.

33

Avai

labl

e se

nten

cing

opt

ions

und

er la

w a

re b

road

but

are

not

fully

util

ized

due

to th

e la

ck o

f sup

port

ing

stru

ctur

es fo

r alte

rnat

ive

sent

enci

ng in

pra

ctic

e, su

ch a

s pro

batio

n offi

cers

. M

agist

rate

s rep

ort u

sing

susp

ende

d se

nten

ces a

nd g

ood

beha

viou

r bon

ds a

s the

prim

ary

alte

rnat

ive

sent

enci

ng

optio

ns. T

he m

agist

rate

’s co

urt r

epor

ts p

ract

icin

g di

vers

ion

thro

ugh

the

dism

issal

of c

harg

es w

here

reco

ncili

atio

n ha

s occ

urre

d in

min

or p

hysic

al a

nd se

xual

ass

ault

mat

ters

. You

ng o

ffend

ers r

epor

ted

bein

g ch

arge

d at

the

polic

e le

vel a

nd d

iver

ted

at th

e co

urt l

evel

for b

eing

too

youn

g (s

ome

as

youn

g as

12

at th

e tim

e).

Out

put

Indi

cato

rTa

rget

Base

line

findi

ngs

2008

1.2

The

judi

ciar

y28

and

chie

fs (i

n at

le

ast 4

pro

vinc

es)

appl

y pr

inci

ples

of

chi

ld ri

ghts

w

hen

deal

ing

with

cas

es in

-vo

lvin

g ch

ildre

n.

(Nat

iona

l and

pr

ovin

cial

lev

el)

1.2.

1Pr

opor

tion

of

youn

g off

ende

rs

(mal

e/fe

mal

e) w

ho

are

sepa

rate

d fr

om

adul

ts in

all

plac

es

of d

eten

tion

–pol

ice

cust

ody,

pre

-tri

al

dete

ntio

n et

c.

100%

of

youn

g off

ende

rs

No

data

from

any

inst

itutio

n ex

cept

pris

ons,

whe

re th

ere

wer

e 8

youn

g off

ende

rs in

clud

ing

thos

e on

rem

and.

•Ca

sesi

nvolving

you

ngoffe

nder

sin20

07:8

•Ch

ildre

nse

parate

dfro

madu

ltsin

pris

onin

200

7:100

% 2

9

1.2.

2In

crea

se o

f num

ber

of c

ases

div

erte

d an

d ch

ildre

n gi

ven

alte

rnat

ive

sent

enci

ng.

•Ke

yinfo

rman

tsatc

omm

unity

leve

lrep

ortt

hats

omeca

sesof

childre

nincon

flict

with

thelaware

dea

ltwith

with

out

appr

oach

ing

the

polic

e at

all.

One

chi

ef re

port

s rec

eivi

ng b

etw

een

2-3

refe

rral

s per

wee

k an

d an

othe

r sta

tes r

ecei

ving

re

port

s, al

beit

‘rare

ly’. W

hen

aske

d ab

out h

ow th

e co

mm

unity

han

dles

chi

ldre

n in

con

flict

with

the

law

, onl

y 18

% o

f key

in

form

ants

’ res

pons

es m

entio

n re

ferr

ing

the

mat

ter t

o th

e po

lice.

21%

of r

espo

nses

indi

cate

that

he

child

is re

ferre

d to

a tr

aditi

onal

, rel

igio

us le

ader

or V

illag

e Co

mm

ittee

. The

use

of c

ouns

ellin

g, fa

mily

sup

port

, com

mun

ity w

ork,

fine

s an

d su

perv

ision

acc

ount

s for

51%

of r

espo

nses

(not

ably

‘cou

nsel

ling’

at 2

9%).

Phys

ical

pun

ishm

ent a

ccou

nts f

or 4

% o

f re

spon

ses (

only

one

resp

onde

nt).

•Out

com

esofc

ases

dea

ltwith

bypo

licefo

rmallyin

200

7:noda

taava

ilabl

e.30

•Nofo

rmald

iver

sionop

tions

are

cur

rent

lyava

ilabl

eto

theRS

IP.•

No

data

existsfo

rinfo

rmald

iver

sion

optio

ns:31

how

ever

, inf

orm

al o

ptio

ns a

re u

sed

incl

udin

g re

turn

ing

the

child

to

thei

r com

mun

ity. P

olic

e es

timat

e th

at 5

0% o

f sus

pect

s in

crim

es a

re u

nder

18,

but

in 2

005

youn

g off

ende

rs m

ade

up

less

than

5%

of c

rimin

al c

harg

es in

the

cour

ts.32

•37

%o

fpolice,chiefand

CSO

repr

esen

tativ

esin

field

rese

arch

KIIs

[N=27

]sta

ted

that

policedive

rtchildre

nwho

hav

eco

mm

itted

crim

es b

ack

to th

e co

mm

unity

rath

er th

an g

oing

to c

ourt

(‘ye

s’ an

d ‘so

met

imes

’ resp

onse

s com

bine

d); 4

%

said

they

did

not

; and

59%

said

they

did

not

kno

w o

r did

not

ans

wer

.•

8po

liceinte

rviewed

aspa

rto

fthe

field

rese

arch

sta

ted

that

whe

nth

eyb

elieve

achildh

ascom

mitt

edacrim

eth

ey:

Giv

e th

e ch

ild a

form

al c

autio

n (2

cas

es p

er m

onth

x 3

resp

onde

nts)

; giv

e th

e ch

ild a

war

ning

and

let t

hem

go

(1 c

ase

per m

onth

x 2

resp

onde

nts)

; no

answ

er (x

3 re

spon

dent

s).

•Th

e8po

licere

pres

enta

tives

wer

ealso

ask

ed:“Ifavilla

gechiefo

rpolitician

tells

you

tore

fera

crim

inalm

atte

rto

the

villa

ge a

utho

ritie

s, w

hat

do y

ou d

o?” R

espo

nses

incl

ude:

ref

er t

he m

atte

r to

the

vill

age

auth

oriti

es b

ut r

ecor

d th

e ou

tcom

e of

the

tra

ditio

nal p

roce

edin

gs (

x2);

refe

r th

e m

atte

r to

the

vill

age

auth

oriti

es (

x1);

cons

ult

supe

riors

(x1

); ss

ituat

ion

has n

ever

occ

urre

d (x

1); n

o an

swer

(x3)

.•

Ther

eis

nod

ata

availabl

eon

out

com

eso

fca

sesinvo

lving

child

offe

nder

sde

altwith

by

the

cour

tso

verth

epa

st

year

.33

•22

%ofp

olice,chiefand

CSO

repr

esen

tativ

esin

fieldre

search

KIIs

[N=27

]sta

tedth

atth

eco

urtsdiver

tchildre

nwho

hav

eco

mm

itted

crim

es b

ack

to t

he c

omm

unity

rath

er t

han

goin

g to

pris

on (‘

yes’

and

‘som

etim

es’ r

espo

nses

com

bine

d).

How

ever

, the

maj

ority

(78%

) sa

id th

ey d

id n

ot k

now

or d

id n

ot a

nsw

er th

e qu

estio

n.


Out

put

Indi

cato

rTa

rget

Base

line

findi

ngs

2008

1.2.

3Pr

opor

tion

of c

hild

vi

ctim

s w

ho a

re

prov

ided

pro

per

prot

ectio

n an

d su

ppor

t at a

ll st

ages

of

the

crim

inal

pr

ocee

ding

s.

With

in 3

ye

ars,

form

al

proc

edur

es

are

in

plac

e; b

y 20

12 1

00%

of

chi

ld

vict

ims a

re

deal

t with

in

line

with

pr

oced

ures

.

•Nooffi

ciald

ataav

ailabl

efro

mp

olice,p

rose

cutio

ns,c

ourtso

rpub

licso

licito

rabo

utcas

esin

volving

child

victim

s/su

r-vi

vors

/witn

esse

s in

the

past

yea

r. •

8po

liceinte

rviewed

inth

efie

ldre

search

KIIs

claim

edto

dea

lwith

app

roxim

ately4ca

seso

fchildp

hysic

alabu

se,3

ca

ses o

f chi

ld se

xual

abu

se a

nd o

ne c

ase

of n

egle

ct p

er m

onth

. Pol

ice

resp

onde

nts s

tate

d th

at in

such

cas

es th

ey:

refe

r the

m to

the

Sexu

al O

ffenc

es U

nit (

1 ca

se p

er m

onth

x 3

resp

onde

nts)

; ref

er to

hos

pita

l for

exa

min

atio

n (1

cas

e pe

r mon

th x

1 re

spon

dent

); ‘de

al w

ith th

e in

vest

igat

ion

mys

elf a

nd re

solv

e th

e m

atte

r the

trad

ition

al w

ay’ (2

cas

es

per y

ear x

1 re

spon

dent

); ‘Sa

ve th

e Ch

ildre

n ad

vise

s on

wha

t to

do w

ith th

e ca

se’ (x

1 re

spon

dent

); no

ans

wer

(x 2

re

spon

dent

s).

•Th

ereareno

writ

tenpr

oced

ures

/guide

lines

inp

lace

forp

olice,p

rose

cutio

ns,c

ourtso

rpub

licso

licito

rfor

dea

ling

with

chi

ld v

ictim

s/w

itnes

ses.

•Sp

ecialis

edunits/

polic

eoffi

cersw

hohav

ere

ceived

app

ropr

iate

training

forc

hildre

non

lyexistasp

arto

fthe

Sex

ual

Offe

nces

Uni

t in

Hon

iara

.34

•Th

ereis

nofirm

dat

ato

con

firm

how

crim

inalcha

rges

are

han

dled

byth

epo

licean

dth

ereareno

pro

cedu

rest

oen

sure

the

child

’s vi

ew is

take

n in

to c

onsid

erat

ion.

35

•Sp

ecialis

edevide

ncepr

oced

ures

dono

texist.

•Co

urtisn

otaut

omat

icallyclose

dfo

rchildre

n36 a

nd p

ublic

atio

n of

iden

tifyi

ng d

etai

ls of

chi

ldre

n in

volv

ed in

mat

ters

be

fore

the

cour

t is n

ot a

utom

atic

ally

pro

hibi

ted.

•

Aca

sewor

kerf

rom

anap

prop

riate

dep

artm

ent(

e.g.so

cialw

elfare

)isn

otassigne

dto

allch

ildvictim

s/su

rvivor

stha

tco

me

to th

e at

tent

ion

of th

e po

lice.

Chi

ldre

n id

entifi

ed a

s in

need

of o

ther

serv

ices

(e.g

. cou

nsel

ling,

hou

sing,

em

-pl

oym

ent o

r med

ical

trea

tmen

t) ar

e no

t ref

erre

d to

thos

e se

rvic

es.37

•

Thepo

liceem

ploy

info

rmalsp

orad

icm

easu

reso

nth

eiro

wninitiat

iveto

ens

urech

ildvictim

s/su

rvivor

s/witn

esse

sare

sa

fe fr

om re

talia

tion

and

intim

idat

ion.

The

re a

re n

o fo

rmal

pro

cedu

res o

r fac

ilitie

s in

plac

e.38

•M

atte

rsin

volving

child

renareno

texp

edite

dth

roug

hth

eco

urts.T

here

isnosy

stem

inp

lace

fort

his.D

elay

sofu

pto

m

any

year

s hav

e be

en re

port

ed.

34

It

is re

port

ed th

at a

ll se

xual

offe

nces

in H

onia

ra a

re re

ferre

d to

this

Uni

t. O

utsid

e of

Hon

iara

sexu

al o

ffenc

es a

re h

andl

ed b

y re

gula

r pol

ice.

The

re is

no

spec

ializ

ed u

nit f

or c

hild

vic

tims/

surv

ivor

s of n

on-s

exua

l crim

es, s

uch

as n

egle

ct o

r phy

sical

abu

se.

35

Anec

dota

l evi

denc

e is

cont

radi

ctor

y: so

me

docu

men

ts su

gges

t tha

t rep

orts

to th

e po

lice

abou

t crim

es o

f a se

xual

nat

ure

are

vigo

rous

ly p

ursu

ed a

nd o

ther

repo

rts s

ugge

st th

at w

here

cus

tom

ary

proc

esse

s hav

e ta

ken

plac

e th

e po

lice

will

take

no

furt

her a

ctio

n.36

Th

e co

urtr

oom

is n

ot c

lose

d au

tom

atic

ally

, but

requ

ests

for c

lose

d co

urt f

or y

oung

witn

esse

s are

not

gen

eral

ly re

fuse

d. U

nder

law

, eve

n w

hen

cour

t is c

lose

d, m

embe

rs o

f the

pre

ss a

re p

erm

itted

to re

mai

n in

cou

rt.

37

SWD

is n

ot c

urre

ntly

resp

onsib

le fo

r vic

tims/

surv

ivor

s as p

art o

f its

serv

ice

man

date

. Po

lice

do n

ot re

fer c

hild

ren

to se

rvic

es a

s a g

ener

al ru

le, b

ut in

divi

dual

pol

ice

office

rs m

ay ta

ke th

is in

itiat

ive

at ti

mes

. Thi

s is p

artly

due

to th

e la

ck o

f sup

port

ing

serv

ices

ava

ilabl

e to

rece

ive

refe

rral

s.38

Po

lice

repo

rt th

at in

timid

atio

n of

witn

esse

s/vi

ctim

s/su

rviv

ors i

s a b

ig p

robl

em a

nd is

the

caus

e of

low

repo

rtin

g of

crim

es a

gain

st w

omen

and

chi

ldre

n. W

here

a c

hild

vic

tim/s

urvi

vor r

equi

res p

rote

ctio

n th

e po

lice

may

info

rmal

ly a

ssist

with

thei

r rel

ocat

ion

to a

diff

eren

t vill

age.

No

othe

r pro

cedu

res

or fa

cilit

ies f

or th

is pu

rpos

e ar

e in

pla

ce.


Out

put

Indi

cato

rTa

rget

Base

line

findi

ngs

2008

1.2.

4Pr

opor

tion

of c

hief

s w

ho d

emon

stra

te

unde

rsta

ndin

g of

chi

ld ri

ghts

in

deci

sion

mak

ing.

•In

form

ationga

ther

edth

roug

hinte

rviewsi

ndicates

that

them

ajor

ityofc

hiefsd

emon

strate

som

eaw

aren

esso

fch

ildre

n’s r

ight

s and

juve

nile

just

ice

/ chi

ld-fr

iend

ly p

roce

sses

but

furt

her i

nves

tigat

ion

is ne

eded

to se

e w

heth

er

this

is be

ing

appl

ied

in p

ract

ice

– es

peci

ally

in re

latio

n to

how

the

best

inte

rest

s of t

he c

hild

are

bal

ance

d w

ith

the

inte

rest

s of t

he fa

mily

and

com

mun

ity a

s a w

hole

, and

the

exte

nt to

whi

ch c

hild

ren

are

able

to p

artic

ipat

e in

pr

ocee

ding

s.•

Chiefsfr

om13loca

tions

infield

rese

arch

KIIs

stated

that

whe

nde

aling

with

a c

hild

who

has

com

mitt

ed a

cri

me,

th

eir p

riorit

ies a

re: t

o un

ders

tand

why

the

child

did

wha

t the

y di

d (2

8% o

f res

pons

es);

wha

t is b

est f

or th

e ch

ild (1

7%);

wha

t is b

est f

or th

e vi

llage

(11%

); to

hea

r the

chi

ld’s

vers

ion

of e

vent

s (11

%);

and

6% e

ach

for -

wha

t is b

est f

or th

e ch

ild’s

fam

ily; t

o pu

nish

the

child

; to

prot

ect t

he c

hild

from

em

barr

assm

ent i

n fro

nt o

f the

vill

age;

to m

ake

the

child

fe

el so

rry

but f

orgi

ven;

to m

ake

sure

any

fact

ors t

hat c

ause

d th

e ch

ild to

com

mit

the

crim

e ar

e ad

dres

sed;

to m

ake

sure

the

part

icul

ar c

hild

is a

war

e th

at w

hat h

e di

d w

as w

rong

.•

Chiefsfr

om13loca

tions

infield

rese

arch

KIIs

stated

that

whe

nde

aling

with

a m

atte

r inv

olvi

ng a

chi

ld v

ictim

of

crim

e, th

eir p

riorit

ies a

re: w

hat i

s bes

t for

the

child

vic

tim (3

3% o

f res

pons

es);

to m

ake

sure

the

offen

der d

oes n

ot

do th

e cr

ime

agai

n (1

7%);

to p

rote

ct th

e ch

ild v

ictim

from

feel

ing

any

sham

e (1

1%);

and

6% e

ach

for -

wha

t is b

est

for t

he c

hild

vic

tim’s

fam

ily; w

hat i

s bes

t for

the

villa

ge; t

o en

sure

the

com

mun

ity d

oes n

ot ju

dge

the

child

vic

tim; t

o pr

otec

t the

chi

ld v

ictim

from

the

offen

der;

to u

nder

stan

d w

hat t

he c

hild

vic

tim w

ould

like

to h

appe

n; to

mak

e su

re

the

child

vic

tim is

abl

e to

tell

thei

r sto

ry w

ithou

t fee

ling

scar

ed; m

ake

sure

the

vict

im a

nd h

is/he

r fam

ily a

re sa

tisfie

d w

ith a

ny d

ecisi

ons t

he le

ader

s com

e up

with

are

in th

e be

st in

tere

st o

f bot

h pa

rtie

s.

1.3

Com

mun

ity-

base

d pr

ogra

mm

es39

fo

r res

tora

tive

just

ice

and

dive

rsio

n is

es

tabl

ishe

d in

at l

east

4

prov

ince

s.40

(Pro

vinc

ial l

evel

)

1.3.

1N

umbe

r of

prov

ince

s w

ith

com

mun

ity-

base

d pr

ogra

mm

es fo

r so

cial

rein

tegr

atio

n of

you

ng o

ffend

ers

clos

e to

thei

r hom

e.

At le

ast 4

pr

ovin

ces

•Th

ereareno

form

alcom

mun

ity-b

ased

reinte

grat

ionpr

ogram

mes

.•

63%offi

eld

rese

arch

KIIs

[tot

alN

=73

]agr

eeth

atchildre

nwho

hav

eco

mm

itted

crim

esare

acc

epte

dba

ckin

toth

eco

mm

unity

; 15%

stat

e ‘so

met

imes

yes

, som

etim

es n

o’; 1

% d

isagr

ee; 2

1% d

on’t

know

or n

o an

swer

.•

Only12

%ofc

hiefs,po

licean

dCS

Ore

pres

enta

tives

[N=3]st

ateth

atth

ereareco

mm

unity

pro

gram

mes

fort

hem

(74%

do

n’t k

now

); 15

% st

ate

that

they

‘do

not d

eser

ve h

elp

afte

r wha

t the

y ha

ve d

one’.

39

Incl

udes

med

iatio

ns o

r oth

er re

stor

ativ

e ju

stic

e pr

ogra

mm

es, c

ouns

ellin

g, m

ento

ring,

life

skill

s pro

gram

me,

supe

rvisi

on, a

nd a

ltern

ativ

e se

nten

ces i

nclu

ding

pro

batio

n, c

are,

gui

danc

e co

mm

unity

serv

ice

wor

k et

c.40

Su

gges

ted

prov

ince

s: G

uada

lcan

al (H

onia

ra);

Wes

tern

; Cho

iseul

, Mak

ira; T

emot

o an

d M

alai

ta. F

or ju

veni

le ju

stic

e iss

ues,

Hon

iara

and

Mal

aita

is th

e pr

iorit

y.


Out

com

e 2:

Chi

ldre

n ar

e be

tter

ser

ved

by w

ell-i

nfor

med

and

coo

rdin

ated

chi

ld p

rote

ctio

n so

cial

ser

vice

s w

hich

ens

ure

grea

ter

prot

ectio

n ag

ains

t, an

d re

spon

ds t

o vi

olen

ce, a

buse

, ex

ploi

tatio

n an

d ne

glec

t

Out

put

Indi

cato

rTa

rget

Base

line

findi

ngs

2008

2.1

Soci

al w

elfa

re

office

rs a

re

empl

oyed

in

all p

rovi

nces

an

d th

ere

is in

crea

sed

oppo

rtun

ity

to in

-ser

vice

an

d pr

e-se

rvic

e tr

aini

ng in

so

cial

wor

k.

(Pro

vinc

ial

leve

l)

2.1.

1N

umbe

r of

prov

ince

s w

ith

soci

al w

elfa

re

office

rs.

All p

rovi

nces

4 ou

t of 9

pro

vinc

es 41

Cent

ral:

0Ch

oise

ul: 1

42

Gua

dalc

anal

(Hon

iara

): 6

Isabe

l: 1

Mak

ira: 0

Mal

aita

: 143

Renn

ell a

nd B

ello

na: 0

Tem

otu:

0W

este

rn: 0

2.1.

2In

crea

se in

pr

opor

tion

of

soci

al w

elfa

re

office

rs w

ho a

re

qualified

.

1 ou

t of 9

Soc

ial W

elfa

re O

ffice

rs o

r 11%

1 SW

O (b

ased

in H

onia

ra) i

s a c

ertifi

ed p

ara-

prof

essio

nal S

ocia

l Wor

ker.

44

Of t

he 5

soci

al w

elfa

re re

pres

enta

tives

[not

nec

essa

rily

all S

WO

s] in

terv

iew

ed d

urin

g th

e fie

ld re

sear

ch, 1

had

a

cert

ifica

te in

soci

al w

ork,

1 h

ad a

cer

tifica

te in

edu

catio

n (p

rimar

y te

achi

ng),

1 ha

d se

cond

ary

scho

ol e

duca

tion

and

1 ha

d no

spec

ific

trai

ning

- ju

st o

n th

e jo

b tr

aini

ng.

41

Te

leph

one

inte

rvie

w w

ith C

hild

Pro

tect

ion

Offi

cer,

UN

ICEF

Sol

omon

Isla

nds,

03/1

2/08

and

em

ail c

orre

spon

denc

e w

ith D

irect

or, S

ocia

l Wel

fare

04/

12/0

8.42

An

offi

cer i

s allo

cate

d to

Cho

iseul

. How

ever

, due

to a

lack

of r

esou

rces

(sui

tabl

e offi

ce sp

ace)

the

office

r is r

esid

ing

in H

onia

ra a

nd a

wai

ting

mob

ilisa

tion.

43

An o

ffice

r is a

lloca

ted

to M

alai

ta. H

owev

er, a

s with

Cho

iseul

, due

to a

lack

of r

esou

rces

(sui

tabl

e offi

ce sp

ace)

the

office

r is r

esid

ing

in H

onia

ra a

nd a

wai

ting

mob

ilisa

tion.

44

This

wor

ker h

as a

‘Cer

tifica

te o

f Soc

ial W

ork’

alth

ough

no

tert

iary

qua

lifica

tions

in S

ocia

l Wor

k. In

200

8 an

Aus

tral

ian

Yout

h Am

bass

ador

for D

evel

opm

ent p

rofe

ssio

nal s

ocia

l wor

ker w

as p

lace

d in

the

SWD

. Her

pro

ject

was

to se

t up

a ca

se m

anag

emen

t sys

tem

for t

he re

ferr

als a

risin

g fro

m th

e W

omen

’s Li

fe a

nd H

ealth

Sur

vey.

This

surv

ey w

as le

ad b

y an

othe

r pro

fess

iona

l soc

ial w

orke

r. In

add

ition

, a c

onsu

ltant

par

a-pr

ofes

siona

l soc

ial w

orke

r was

pla

ced

with

SW

D fo

r a n

umbe

r of m

onth

s in

2008

to b

uild

tech

nica

l cap

acity

in in

ter-a

genc

y co

llabo

ratio

n an

d tr

aini

ng o

f soc

ial w

elfa

re a

nd

priso

n offi

cers

.


Out

put

Indi

cato

rTa

rget

Base

line

findi

ngs

2008

2.2

Soci

al w

ork-

ers,

pol

ice,

he

alth

care

w

ork-

ers

follo

w

oper

atio

nal

proc

edur

es45

en

suri

ng im

-m

edia

te a

nd

prof

essi

onal

ha

ndlin

g of

ca

ses

invo

lv-

ing

child

ren.

(N

atio

nal

leve

l)

2.2.

1Pr

opor

tion

of c

ases

(m

ale/

fem

ale)

re

port

ed (i

nclu

ding

fr

om S

WVs

) and

ad

dres

sed

(at

natio

nal a

nd

prov

inci

al le

vel)

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith e

stab

lishe

d op

erat

iona

l pr

oced

ures

.45

100%

of

case

s in

2012

Unk

now

n•

TheSW

Din

theSo

lom

onIs

land

siss

tillinits

infanc

y.At

thetim

eof

there

search

an‘in

take

’sys

tem

was

being

pilo

ted

but c

ase

man

agem

ent p

olic

es a

nd p

roce

dure

s wer

e no

t in

plac

e. F

urth

er te

chni

cal a

ssist

ance

is re

quire

d to

pro

gres

s th

is iss

ue.

•SW

KIIs: T

he 4

soci

al w

elfa

re re

pres

enta

tives

who

wer

e in

terv

iew

ed a

s par

t of t

he fi

eld

rese

arch

stat

ed th

at

colle

ctiv

ely

they

dea

lt w

ith 2

1 ca

ses o

f chi

ld a

buse

or n

egle

ct w

ithin

the

past

yea

r (av

erag

e of

5.2

5 pe

r res

pond

ent)

and

witn

esse

d an

othe

r 3 c

ases

(ave

rage

of 0

.75

per r

espo

nden

t). O

f the

21

case

s dea

lt w

ith, o

nly

8 w

ere

refe

rred

to

anot

her a

genc

y fo

r hel

p (7

sexu

al a

buse

cas

es a

nd 1

phy

sical

abu

se c

ase)

. 2 o

f the

4 re

spon

dent

s rec

orde

d ca

ses

in w

ritin

g un

der t

he c

hild

’s na

me

and

notifi

ed S

WD

; 1 o

f the

4 re

cord

ed c

ases

in w

ritin

g bu

t did

not

not

ify S

WD

. In

term

s of f

ollo

w-u

p to

thes

e ca

ses,

one

resp

onde

nt n

otifi

ed th

eir b

oss a

nd 2

resp

onde

nts f

ollo

wed

up

to se

e ho

w

the

child

was

doi

ng w

ithin

3 m

onth

s. Al

l 4 S

W re

spon

dent

s sta

te th

ey a

re a

war

e of

repo

rts t

hey

shou

ld m

ake

eith

er

by p

hone

or i

n w

ritin

g if

they

susp

ect a

chi

ld h

as b

een

abus

ed o

r neg

lect

ed (n

ot sp

ecifi

ed).

3 of

the

4 re

spon

dent

s co

uld

not n

ame

any

stan

dard

ope

ratin

g pr

oced

ures

or d

ocum

ents

from

SW

D th

at g

ive

guid

ance

on

how

to d

eal

with

chi

ld p

rote

ctio

n ca

ses.

The

4th

resp

onde

nt st

ated

they

had

a c

opy

of a

doc

umen

t but

it w

as n

ot a

vaila

ble

at th

e tim

e of

inte

rvie

w. 3

of t

he 4

resp

onde

nts s

tate

d th

ey d

id n

ot h

ave

an in

tern

al p

olic

y or

Cod

e of

Con

duct

to re

gula

te

thei

r beh

avio

ur a

nd c

omm

unic

atio

ns w

ith c

hild

ren.

One

stat

ed th

ere

was

such

a p

olic

y, bu

t ‘cou

ld n

ot re

mem

ber

the

exac

t titl

e’.•

Hea

lthKIIs: O

f the

17+

cas

es e

ither

dea

lt w

ith o

r witn

esse

d by

13

heal

th re

pres

enta

tives

inte

rvie

wed

ove

r the

pa

st y

ear o

nly

3 ca

ses o

f sex

ual a

buse

wer

e re

ferre

d to

ano

ther

age

ncy

for h

elp.

5 o

ut o

f 13

resp

onde

nts s

aid

they

w

ere

awar

e of

repo

rts t

hey

shou

ld m

ake

if th

ey su

spec

t chi

ld a

buse

(not

spec

ified

). Re

gard

ing

stan

dard

gui

danc

e do

cum

ents

on

how

to d

eal w

ith c

hild

pro

tect

ion

case

s: 8

said

that

ther

e w

ere

none

; 1 st

ated

‘it is

a st

anda

rd

prac

tice

to re

port

to so

cial

wel

fare

’; 1 m

entio

ned

‘Sav

e th

e Ch

ildre

n’; 1

cite

d ‘si

mpl

e no

tes f

rom

wor

ksho

ps’; 1

said

‘co

unse

lling

’; and

1di

d no

t ans

wer

.•

Educ

ationKIIs:9

/ 20

stat

ed th

at th

ey w

ere

awar

e of

repo

rts t

hey

need

ed to

mak

e if

they

susp

ecte

d ch

ild a

buse

(n

ot sp

ecifi

ed).

•

CSOKIIs:0

/ 6

CSO

repr

esen

tativ

es h

ad d

ealt

with

or w

itnes

sed

any

case

of c

hild

abu

se in

the

past

yea

r. 4

wer

e aw

are

of re

port

s the

y sh

ould

mak

e if

they

susp

ect a

chi

ld h

as b

een

abus

ed o

r neg

lect

ed (n

ot sp

ecifi

ed).

3 st

ated

th

ey h

ad a

n in

tern

al p

olic

y or

Cod

e of

Con

duct

regu

latin

g be

havi

our a

nd c

omm

unic

atio

ns w

ith c

hild

ren.

•

Relig

iouslead

erKIIs: O

f the

81

case

s of c

hild

abu

se a

nd n

egle

ct d

ealt

with

col

lect

ivel

y by

the

18 re

ligio

us le

ader

s in

terv

iew

ed, o

nly

8 w

ere

refe

rred

to a

noth

er a

genc

y fo

r hel

p. 1

0 / 1

8 di

d no

t kno

w o

f any

syst

em in

pla

ce to

resp

ond

to c

hild

abu

se b

ut 5

men

tione

d an

‘unw

ritte

n du

ty o

f car

e’ an

d 3

men

tione

d a ‘

writ

ten

prot

ocol

’. 8 /

18 sa

id th

ere

wer

e aw

are

of re

port

s the

y sh

ould

mak

e in

cas

es o

f chi

ld a

buse

(not

spec

ified

).•

Youthlead

erKIIs:1

1 yo

uth

lead

ers c

olle

ctiv

ely,

witn

esse

d ‘m

any’

case

s of c

hild

neg

lect

, 3 c

ases

of e

mot

iona

l ab

use

and

one

case

of s

exua

l abu

se o

ver t

he p

ast y

ear.

Non

e of

them

had

act

ually

dea

lt w

ith o

r ref

erre

d an

y ca

se o

f ch

ild a

buse

in th

e pa

st y

ear.

3 / 1

1 sa

id th

ey a

re a

war

e of

repo

rts t

hey

shou

ld m

ake

if th

ey su

spec

t a c

hild

has

bee

n ab

used

or n

egle

cted

(not

spec

ified

).•

86%ofk

eyin

form

ants[t

otalN

=93

]sta

teth

eyare

eith

erver

yco

nfide

ntorc

onfid

enta

bout

kno

wing

wha

ttodo

ifa

child

is b

adly

hur

t in

thei

r com

mun

ity.

45

In li

ne w

ith c

hild

righ

ts a

nd g

loba

l goo

d pr

actic

es.


Out

put

Indi

cato

rTa

rget

Base

line

findi

ngs

2008

2.2

Add

i-tio

nal

1

Prop

ortio

n of

ke

y ac

tors

at

com

mun

ity

leve

l w

ho a

re a

war

e of

, and

can

use

, in

stitu

tiona

l su

ppor

ts.

•Ch

ildp

rote

ctionca

sesr

efer

red

to‘ano

ther

age

ncy’

bykey

info

rman

ts:so

cialw

elfare

repr

esen

tativ

es–8out

of2

1ca

ses;

heal

th re

pres

enta

tives

– 3

out

of 1

7+ c

ases

; rel

igio

us le

ader

s – 8

out

of 8

1 ca

ses;

yout

h le

ader

s – 0

out

of 4

+

(or ‘m

any’

) cas

es.

•W

hatk

eyin

form

antsw

ouldyou

doifth

eysu

spec

torifs

omeo

nete

llsth

emabo

utachildb

eing

abu

sed

orneg

lected

(to

p 5)

: ask

the

child

wha

t hap

pene

d (3

0%);

talk

to th

e pa

rent

s (24

%);

deal

with

the

mat

ter m

ysel

f as c

omm

unity

le

ader

(11%

); re

port

the

inci

dent

to th

e po

lice

(10%

); as

k fo

r adv

ice

from

com

mun

ity e

lder

s (5%

). O

vera

ll, ‘in

form

al’

resp

onse

s mak

e up

72%

of t

he to

tal f

or th

is qu

estio

n. R

espo

nses

whi

ch sp

ecifi

cally

men

tion

the

invo

lvem

ent o

f go

vern

men

t ser

vice

s46 (p

olic

e, so

cial

wel

fare

, tea

cher

s and

‘ano

ther

aut

horit

y’) m

ake

up 1

6% (e

xclu

ding

‘dea

l with

th

e m

atte

r mys

elf’

whi

ch m

ay b

e ei

ther

form

al o

r inf

orm

al).

•Oth

erse

rvices

iden

tified

byke

yinfo

rman

ts‘in

this

com

mun

ity’tohe

lpchildre

n(to

p5):d

octo

r/nur

se/

health

se

rvic

e (2

4%);

relig

ious

lead

er (2

0%);

polic

e (1

5%);

trad

ition

al le

ader

(11%

); so

cial

wel

fare

/ so

cial

wor

ker (

8%).

Appr

oxim

atel

y 57

% o

f the

se se

rvic

es a

re ‘fo

rmal

’ (gov

ernm

ent)

com

pare

d w

ith 3

7% w

hich

are

‘info

rmal

’. Thi

s in

dica

tes t

hat t

here

are

mor

e fo

rmal

serv

ices

ava

ilabl

e to

key

info

rman

ts th

an th

ey w

ould

act

ually

mak

e us

e of

‘if a

ch

ild in

thei

r com

mun

ity w

as b

adly

hur

t by

som

eone

’. Th

e ov

eral

l pre

fere

nce

is re

cour

se to

info

rmal

or ‘

trad

ition

al’

inte

rven

tions

.

2.3

Rele

vant

A

nnua

l W

orkp

lans

, Co

rpor

ate

Plan

s an

d St

rate

gies

ar

e in

form

ed

by d

isag

gre-

gate

d da

ta

on c

hild

pr

otec

tion.

(N

atio

nal

leve

l)

2.3.

1Pr

opor

tion

of

Ann

ual P

lans

, Co

rpor

ate

Plan

s an

d St

rate

gies

(a

t nat

iona

l and

pr

ovin

cial

leve

ls)

that

inco

rpor

ates

ch

ild p

rote

ctio

n.

100%

of

plan

s and

st

rate

gies

47

1 ou

t of 7

or 1

4% o

f Min

istr

ies

•Onlyth

eSW

Dhas

a‘S

ocialW

elfare

Divisi

onStrateg

icPlan20

06-2

011’

inco

rpor

ating

thefu

nctio

nof

childp

rote

ction.

48

•Disa

ggre

gate

dda

taonch

ildp

rote

ctionis

nota

vaila

ble.

46

Pol

ice,

soci

al w

elfa

re, t

each

er a

nd ‘a

noth

er a

utho

rity’

(whi

ch is

ass

umed

to b

e fo

rmal

). 4

7 It

is c

onsid

ered

that

ther

e ar

e 7

cruc

ial a

genc

ies w

hose

pla

ns sh

ould

incl

ude

child

pro

tect

ion:

Min

istry

of F

inan

ce, P

olic

e, M

inist

ry o

f Hea

lth, M

inist

ry o

f Hom

e Aff

airs

(Civ

il Re

gist

ratio

n O

ffice

), M

inist

ry o

f Jus

tice

and

the

Min

istry

of E

duca

tion.

48

SW

D/U

NIC

EF S

olom

on Is

land

s, N

ACC,

Chi

ld P

rote

ctio

n Su

b-Co

mm

ittee

: DRA

FT R

oad

Map

for C

hild

Pro

tect

ion

Inte

r-Age

ncy P

roto

cols,

Legi

slatio

n an

d Re

gula

tions

, 200

8, S

WD

/UN

ICEF

Soc

ial W

elfa

re a

nd C

hild

Pro

tect

ion

Advi

ser,

SIG

200

8 (S

WD

/UN

ICEF

200

8) [D

RAFT

Inte

rnal

Doc

umen

t].


Out

put

Indi

cato

rTa

rget

Base

line

findi

ngs

2008

2.4

A

cons

olid

ated

an

d ea

sily

ac

cess

ible

bi

rth

regi

stra

tion

syst

em is

op

erat

iona

l in

at l

east

4

prov

ince

s.

(Pro

vinc

ial

leve

l)

2.4.

1Pr

opor

tion

of

child

ren

(boy

s an

d gi

rls)

und

er 5

yea

rs

regi

ster

ed in

at

leas

t 4 p

rovi

nces

.

70%

of

child

ren

regi

ster

ed

in a

t lea

st 4

pr

ovin

ces

Offi

cial

sta

tistic

s fo

r chi

ldre

n un

der 5

regi

ster

ed a

re n

ot a

vaila

ble.

•Ap

prox

imately0.1%

ofa

llbirths

inw

erere

gister

edfo

rmallyin

200

7.49

•

Appr

oxim

ately40

%ofa

llbirths

wer

ere

cord

ed(b

utnot

register

ed)b

yM

OHin

200

7.50

•Itis

cons

ider

edth

atcov

erag

eof

birt

hre

gistratio

ninth

eSo

lom

onIs

land

sist

helo

wes

tinth

ePa

cific

.51

Fiel

d re

sear

ch fi

ndin

gs:

•AH

HQre

spon

dent

s(up

to10pr

imar

yca

regive

rsse

lected

atr

ando

min

eac

hof

the30

bas

elinere

search

loca

tions

)claim

that

88%

[N=21

3(120

girls&

93bo

ys)]of

theirc

hildre

nag

edund

er5

52 h

ave

been

regi

ster

ed.

•How

ever,o

nly32

%ofr

elev

antr

espo

nden

tsw

ereab

leto

show

birt

hce

rtifica

tesf

orth

esech

ildre

n,p

lus4

%w

how

ere

able

to sh

ow C

ivil

Regi

stra

tion

Regi

ster

of B

irths

. An

addi

tiona

l 48%

wer

e ab

le to

show

a ‘C

hild

Hea

lth R

ecor

d / B

ook’

or ‘B

aby

Clin

ic B

ook’

and

anot

her 3

% sh

owed

Bap

tism

Cer

tifica

tes i

ndic

atin

g co

nfus

ion

arou

nd w

hat c

onst

itute

s ‘b

irth

regi

stra

tion’.

•25

%ofr

elev

antr

espo

nden

tsst

ateth

atth

eyhad

top

ayto

register

som

eof

allof

thes

ech

ildre

nun

der5

(for

birt

hce

rtifi

cate

s or C

ivil

Regi

stra

tion

Regi

ster

of B

irths

) and

50%

had

to p

ay fo

r ‘Ch

ild H

ealth

Rec

ord

/ Boo

k’ or

‘Bab

y Cl

inic

Bo

ok’.

•H

ospita

lsan

dhe

alth

clin

icsa

ccou

ntfo

r95%

ofr

egist

ratio

ns.

•91

%ofr

elev

antA

HHQre

spon

dent

ssta

teth

atitw

asver

yea

sy,e

asyor

‘OK’

tore

gister

childre

nun

der5

,for

the

follo

win

g to

p 3

reas

ons:

coul

d re

gist

er th

em lo

cally

(22%

of r

espo

nses

); so

meb

ody

else

did

it fo

r me

(17%

); pr

oces

s w

as e

asy

to u

nder

stan

d (1

4%).

•4%

ofr

elev

antA

HHQre

spon

dent

ssta

teth

atitw

as‘d

ifficu

lt’to

register

childre

nun

der-5

,3%‘d

on’tkn

ow’and

1%

refu

sed

to a

nsw

er. T

op 3

reas

ons w

hy d

ifficu

lt: e

xpen

sive

(71%

of r

espo

nses

); ha

d to

ask

rela

tives

for fi

nanc

ial h

elp

(14%

); do

not

kno

w (1

4%).

•To

p3re

ason

swhy

rem

aining

28ch

ildre

nun

der5

are

not

register

ed:d

ono

tkno

w(3

8%);ot

her(

19%);pr

oces

sist

oo

com

plic

ated

(6%

).

49

Onl

y 20

birt

hs w

ere

regi

ster

ed in

bot

h of

the

civi

l reg

istra

tion

office

s in

2007

(for

fore

ign

and

indi

geno

us b

irths

). Es

timat

ed n

umbe

r of b

irths

per

yea

r in

the

Solo

mon

Isla

nds i

s 12,

000

acco

rdin

g to

Ass

essm

ent o

n th

e cu

rrent

Sta

tus o

f Civ

il Re

gist

ratio

n w

ith F

ocus

on

Birt

h Re

gist

ratio

n in

Sol

omon

Isl

ands

, Joa

o M

ende

s, U

NIC

EF P

acifi

c Se

ptem

ber 2

008,

p. 7

.50

Ib

id. 4

,800

birt

hs w

ere

reco

rded

out

of a

ppro

xim

atel

y 12

,000

birt

hs in

200

7.51

Ib

id. p

. 352

Ch

ildre

n un

der 5

yea

rs, w

heth

er b

iolo

gica

l or h

oste

d, li

ving

with

in th

e ho

useh

old

and

child

ren

unde

r 5 w

ho b

elon

g to

the

resp

onde

nt b

ut w

ho c

urre

ntly

live

out

side

the

hous

ehol

d.


Out

put

Indi

cato

rTa

rget

Base

line

findi

ngs

2008

3.1

Com

mun

ity

Wel

fare

Vo

lunt

eers

(C

WV

) in

at le

ast 4

pr

ovin

ces

are

wor

king

eff

ectiv

ely

for t

he

prev

entio

n of

chi

ld

prot

ectio

n ab

uses

an

d no

tify

rele

vant

au

thor

ities

as

per r

efer

ral

guid

elin

es.

(Pro

vinc

ial

leve

l)

3.1.

1Pr

opor

tion

of

villa

ge c

omm

ittee

s in

4 p

rovi

nces

that

ha

ve c

omm

unit

y pr

otec

tion

plan

s.

100%

of

villa

ge

com

mitt

ees

in a

t lea

st 4

pr

ovin

ces

invo

lved

in

the

CWV

sche

me

[Ple

ase

note

: The

se fi

ndin

gs a

re fo

r all

rese

arch

loca

tions

com

bine

d, n

ot d

ivid

ed b

y pr

ovin

ce, a

lthou

gh th

is in

form

atio

n is

avai

labl

e fro

m th

e CH

HQ

& A

HH

Q d

atab

ases

]•

27%ofC

HHQ,2

2%ofA

HHQand

26%

ofK

IIre

spon

dent

ssta

ted

that

theirc

omm

unity

has

ap

lanto

help

keep

ch

ildre

n sa

fe fr

om v

iole

nce.

Acc

ordi

ng to

CH

HQ

and

AH

HQ

resp

onse

s, al

l res

earc

h lo

catio

ns h

ad a

t lea

st o

ne

resp

onse

stat

ing

ther

e w

as a

pla

n ap

art f

rom

Vur

a. T

he lo

catio

n w

ith th

e gr

eate

st n

umbe

r of p

ositi

ve re

spon

ses

was

Tata

mba

, fol

low

ed b

y Fa

nale

i and

Roh

inar

i. The

re is

not

a p

artic

ular

ly st

rong

cor

rela

tion

betw

een

the

exist

ence

of

pla

ns a

nd c

omm

uniti

es w

here

CW

Vs a

re w

orki

ng, a

lthou

gh M

adou

scor

ed re

lativ

ely

high

ly in

this

rega

rd.

Resp

onde

nts’

know

ledg

e of

the

exist

ence

of p

lans

is v

ery

patc

hy.

•Oft

hese

existing

plan

s,39

%ofr

elev

antC

HHQre

spon

dent

ssta

teth

atth

eyare

writ

tendo

wnco

mpa

red

with

31%

of

KII a

nd 2

3% o

f AH

HQ

resp

onde

nts.

•CH

HQ,A

HHQand

KIIre

leva

ntre

spon

dent

smos

tlykno

wabo

utth

esepl

anst

hrou

gh:‘s

omeo

neto

ldm

eab

outt

he

plan

’ (48%

CH

HQ

/ 22

% A

HH

Q /

4% K

II) a

nd ‘c

omm

unity

mee

ting

or d

iscus

sion’

(28%

CH

HQ

/ 33

% A

HH

Q /

20%

KII)

. Ve

ry fe

w st

ated

that

they

had

act

ually

seen

the

plan

(1%

CH

HQ

/ 3%

AH

HQ

/ 4%

KII)

. 40%

of K

II re

spon

ses s

tate

d ‘I

have

resp

onsib

ility

for i

mpl

emen

ting

the

plan

’ com

pare

d w

ith 1

0% o

f AH

HQ

and

0%

of C

HH

Q re

spon

ses.

Mor

e AH

HQ

and

KII

than

CH

HQ

resp

onde

nts m

entio

ned

that

they

kno

w a

bout

the

plan

bec

ause

they

wer

e ‘in

volv

ed in

m

akin

g th

e pl

an’ (1

2% e

ach

for A

HH

Q a

nd K

II re

spon

ses c

ompa

red

to 3

% o

f CH

HQ

resp

onse

s).

•W

henas

ked

dire

ctlyw

heth

erth

eyw

ereco

nsulte

dab

outt

hed

evelop

men

toft

hep

lan,47%

ofK

IIre

spon

dent

ssaid

yes c

ompa

red

to 2

7% o

f AH

HQ

and

19%

of C

HH

Q re

spon

dent

s.•

Mos

tCHHQ,AH

HQ&

KIIre

spon

dent

stho

ught

that

thepl

ansh

adb

eende

velope

dby

‘com

mun

ityelder

sorlea

ders’

(52%

, 36%

& 2

9% re

spec

tivel

y) o

r by

a ‘vi

llage

or c

omm

unity

com

mitt

ee’ (1

9%, 1

8% &

13%

resp

ectiv

ely)

. 10%

of

AHH

Q, 8

% o

f KII

% 6

% o

f CH

HQ

resp

onse

s ind

icat

ed th

at th

e ‘w

hole

com

mun

ity w

as c

onsu

lted’

.•

How

long

plans

hav

ebe

enin

place

varies,as

isto

beex

pected

fort

hera

ngeof

loca

tions

invo

lved

:43%

ofC

HHQ,

32%

of A

HH

Q a

nd 3

2% o

f KII

resp

onse

s ind

icat

ed th

at th

e pl

ans h

ave

been

in p

lace

for l

ess t

han

2 ye

ars,

com

pare

d w

ith 4

7% o

f KII,

27%

of C

HH

Q &

38%

of A

HH

Q re

spon

ses w

hich

indi

cate

d th

at th

ey h

ave

been

in p

lace

for o

ver 5

ye

ars o

r ‘a lo

ng ti

me’.

Out

com

e 3:

Chi

ldre

n in

sel

ecte

d ge

ogra

phic

al a

reas

gro

w u

p in

hom

e an

d co

mm

unit

y en

viro

nmen

ts th

at a

re in

crea

sing

ly fr

ee fr

om v

iole

nce,

abu

se, e

xplo

itatio

n an

d ne

glec

t


Out

put

Indi

cato

rTa

rget

Base

line

findi

ngs

2008

3.1.

2Co

mm

uniti

es

repo

rt s

igni

fican

t ch

ange

in re

latio

n to

the

prot

ectio

n of

ch

ildre

n as

a re

sult

of S

ocia

l Wel

fare

Vo

lunt

eers

.

•13

%ofK

II,12%

ofC

HHQ&

7%ofA

HHQre

spon

dent

ssta

ted

that

ther

eis

aCW

V(em

ploy

edb

ySW

D)w

orking

in

thei

r com

mun

ity. I

n te

rms o

f res

earc

h lo

catio

ns w

here

ther

e ar

e ac

tual

ly C

WVs

in o

pera

tion,

9 C

HH

Q &

AH

HQ

re

spon

dent

s (ou

t of a

pos

sible

20)

repo

rted

the

exist

ence

of C

WVs

in G

izo

and

6 in

Mad

ou, b

ut v

ery

few

(onl

y 1

or 2

ou

t of a

pos

sible

20)

repo

rted

the

exist

ence

of C

WVs

in P

ienu

na, T

aro,

Titi

ana,

Von

unu

and

Wag

ina.

Also

, CW

Vs w

ere

repo

rted

in o

ther

loca

tions

– n

otab

ly K

iraki

ra, (

Mak

ira /

Ula

wa)

, Sas

amun

ga (C

hoise

ul) a

nd B

uala

(Isa

bel)

– w

here

th

ere

are

no S

WD

CW

Vs in

ope

ratio

n (p

ossib

ly d

ue to

the

exist

ence

of S

ave

the

Child

ren

volu

ntee

rs w

orki

ng o

n ch

ild

prot

ectio

n in

oth

er lo

catio

ns).

•Th

em

ajor

ityofr

espo

nses

indica

teth

atth

eCW

Vshav

ebe

enw

orking

ther

efo

rles

stha

n2ye

ars(

48%ofC

HHQ,

58%

of A

HH

Q &

56%

of K

II re

spon

ses)

alth

ough

man

y ‘di

d no

t kno

w’ h

ow lo

ng th

ey h

ad b

een

wor

king

ther

e (3

7% o

f CH

HQ

, 26%

of A

HH

Q &

11%

of K

II re

spon

ses)

.•

78%ofK

II,67%

ofC

HHQ&

53%

ofA

HHQre

leva

ntre

spon

dent

s(i.e

.tho

sew

host

ated

ther

ewas

aC

WV)

stateth

atth

eCW

Vs ‘d

o so

met

hing

to h

elp

keep

chi

ldre

n sa

fe fr

om v

iole

nce

in th

e co

mm

unity

’.•

From

thos

epo

sitivere

spon

ses,type

soft

hing

sdon

eby

CW

Vsin

clud

e:‘sha

resi

nfor

mat

ionab

outh

owto

kee

pch

ildre

nsa

fe/p

reve

ntviolenc

e’(38%

AHHQ/

33%C

HHQ/

25%KIIre

spon

ses–

tota

lN=20

);ru

nsw

orks

hops

fort

he

com

mun

ity’(2

2%A

HHQ/

17%C

HHQ/

50%

KIIre

spon

ses–

tota

lN=15

);&‘ta

lksa

bout

/exp

lainsw

hatc

hildabu

seis

’(22%

AHHQ/

20%C

HHQ/

8%KIIre

spon

ses–

tota

lN=11

).•

Prop

ortio

nof

resp

onde

ntsi

nco

mm

unities

with

CW

Vsw

hoth

inkch

ildre

ninth

eco

mm

unity

are

safera

sare

sultof

th

e CW

V w

orki

ng th

ere

(% o

f rel

evan

t CH

HQ

/ AH

HQ

/ KI

I res

pond

ents

resp

ectiv

ely)

:o

Yes –

a li

ttle

(37%

/ 21

% /

44%

)o

Yes –

a lo

t (18

% /

26%

/ 22

%)

o N

o –

not a

t all

(12%

/ 16

% /

0%)

o M

aybe

yes

, may

be n

o (1

2% /

11%

/ 11

%)

o N

o –

not r

eally

(12%

/ 21

% /

11%

)o

Do

not k

now

(6%

/ 5%

/ 11

%)

o Re

fuse

d: (3

% /

0% /

0%)

3.1.

3In

crea

se in

cas

es

refe

rred

as

per

guid

elin

es.

No

spec

ific

data

ava

ilabl

e. S

ee fi

ndin

gs fo

r Out

put 2

.2 fo

r inf

orm

atio

n on

the

prog

ress

of d

evel

opin

g ‘g

uide

lines

’ and

an

ecdo

tal i

nfor

mat

ion

abou

t cas

es re

ferre

d at

com

mun

ity le

vel a

nd re

port

ed to

SW

D G

izo

office

as a

resu

lt of

CW

V in

terv

entio

n an

d aw

aren

ess-

raisi

ng.

3.1

Add

i-tio

nal

1

Prop

ortio

n of

vi

llage

com

mitt

ees

in 4

pro

vinc

es

that

impl

emen

t co

mm

unit

y [c

hild

] pr

otec

tion

plan

s.

Wha

t com

mun

ity p

lans

to k

eep

child

ren

safe

from

vio

lenc

e in

clud

e, a

ccor

ding

to re

leva

nt re

spon

dent

s:•

Top

3 an

swer

s (%

of C

HH

Q re

spon

ses)

: Low

er th

e cr

ime

rate

(17%

); D

o no

t kno

w (1

6%) j

oint

ly w

ith Y

outh

act

iviti

es

for o

ver-1

8s (1

6%);

Rule

s and

way

s to

prot

ect c

hild

ren

(8%

) joi

ntly

with

Adv

ice

for c

hild

ren

(8%

).•

Top

3 an

swer

s (%

of A

HH

Q re

spon

ses)

: You

th a

ctiv

ities

for o

ver-1

8s (1

8%);

Child

act

iviti

es fo

r und

er-1

8s (1

5%);

Syst

em to

resp

ond

to c

hild

ren

as v

ictim

s or s

urvi

vors

(13%

) joi

ntly

with

Low

er th

e cr

ime

rate

(13%

).•

Top

3 an

swer

s (%

of K

II re

spon

ses)

: Par

entin

g cl

asse

s / ta

lks (

26%

); yo

uth

activ

ities

for o

ver-1

8s (1

8%);

syst

em to

re

spon

d


Out

put

Indi

cato

rTa

rget

Base

line

findi

ngs

2008

3.1

Add

i-tio

nal

2

Prop

ortio

n of

co

mm

unit

y m

embe

rs w

ho

feel

that

the

exis

tenc

e an

d im

plem

enta

tion

of c

hild

pro

tect

ion

plan

s he

lps

to k

eep

child

ren

safe

.

•Pr

opor

tionof

resp

onde

ntsi

nco

mm

unities

whe

rep

lans

existw

hofe

elth

atth

esepl

ansh

elp

tokee

pch

ildre

nsa

fe

from

vio

lenc

e (%

of r

elev

ant C

HH

Q, A

HH

Q &

KII

resp

onse

s res

pect

ivel

y): Y

es (9

0% /

85%

/ 84

%);

No

(7%

/ 3%

/ 0%

); Pa

rtly

(3%

/ 12

% /

16%

).•

How

doe

sthisp

lanhe

lpto

kee

pch

ildre

nsa

fefr

omviolenc

einth

isco

mm

unity

?o

Top

3 an

swer

s (%

of r

elev

ant C

HH

Q re

spon

ses)

: Mak

es it

cle

ar w

hat i

s goo

d be

havi

our w

ith c

hild

ren

(30%

); M

akes

it c

lear

wha

t is b

ad b

ehav

iour

with

chi

ldre

n (2

2%);

Do

not k

now

(13%

).o

Top

3 an

swer

s (%

of r

elev

ant A

HH

Q re

spon

ses)

: Mak

es it

cle

ar w

hat i

s goo

d be

havi

our w

ith c

hild

ren

(35%

); M

akes

it c

lear

wha

t is b

ad b

ehav

iour

with

chi

ldre

n (2

5%);

Hel

ps p

eopl

e un

ders

tand

abo

ut c

hild

abu

se (8

%).

o To

p 3

answ

ers

(% o

f rel

evan

t KII

resp

onse

s): M

akes

it c

lear

wha

t is g

ood

beha

viou

r with

chi

ldre

n (3

0%);

Mak

es it

cle

ar w

hat i

s bad

beh

avio

ur w

ith c

hild

ren

(22%

); H

elps

peo

ple

know

abo

ut c

hild

abu

se (1

6%).

•W

hyd

oest

hisp

lanno

thelp

tokee

pch

ildre

nsa

fefr

omviolenc

einth

isco

mm

unity

?o

% o

f rel

evan

t CH

HQ

resp

onse

s:The

planis

nott

aken

serio

usly(5

0%N

=4);P

eopl

eareno

tint

eres

ted

inth

epl

an(2

5%N

=2);D

ono

tkno

w(1

3%N

=1);O

ther

(13%

N=1).

o %

of r

elev

ant K

II re

spon

ses:O

ther

(33%

N=3);T

hep

lanis

nott

aken

serio

usly(3

3%N

=3);P

eopl

eareno

tinte

rested

inth

epl

an(2

2%N

=2);P

lanis

notim

plem

ente

d(11%

N=1).

o %

of r

elev

ant A

HH

Q re

spon

ses:The

planis

nott

aken

serio

usly(1

00%N

=1).

•97

%ofb

othCH

HQand

AHHQand

92%

ofK

IIre

spon

dent

sinco

mm

unities

that

dono

tcur

rent

lyhav

epl

anst

ohe

lp

keep

chi

ldre

n sa

fe fr

om v

iole

nce

stat

ed th

at it

wou

ld b

e a

good

idea

to d

evel

op su

ch a

pla

n.•

Top

3re

ason

swhy

resp

onde

ntst

hink

itw

ouldb

eago

odid

eato

dev

elop

ap

lan(%

ofr

elev

antC

HHQ,A

HHQ%

KII

resp

onse

s res

pect

ivel

y): T

o he

lp k

eep

child

ren

safe

or t

o pr

otec

t chi

ldre

n (3

8% /

42%

/ 42

%);

To p

rote

ct c

hild

ren

from

al

coho

l dru

gs o

r kav

a (1

8% /

12%

/ 4%

); To

mak

e it

clea

r wha

t is g

ood

beha

viou

r with

chi

ldre

n (9

% /

9% /

4%).

•Re

ason

swhy

releva

ntA

HHQre

spon

dent

sfeltitw

ouldnot

beago

odid

eato

dev

elop

ap

lan(n

ore

spon

sesf

rom

CH

HQso

rKIIs

fort

hisq

uestion)

:Ap

lanis

onlyap

iece

ofp

aper

(33%

N=2);A

planwillnot

beta

kense

rious

ly(3

3%

N=2);T

hep

lanwillnot

beim

plem

ente

d(17%

N=1);Itw

illta

kealo

ngtim

e(17%

N=1).


Out

put

Indi

cato

rTa

rget

Base

line

findi

ngs

2008

3.2

Pare

nts

and

care

-giv

ers

in

at le

ast f

our

prov

ince

s di

scus

s an

d de

mon

stra

te

posi

tive

child

-rea

ring

pr

actic

es

prev

entin

g ab

use,

vi

olen

ce a

nd

expl

oita

tion

of c

hild

ren.

3.2.

1%

of c

are-

give

rs

who

kno

w w

hat t

o do

/ w

ho to

turn

to

in c

ase

of v

iole

nce,

ex

ploi

tatio

n an

d ab

use

of c

hild

ren

in

thei

r car

e.

•75

%ofA

HHQre

spon

dent

ssta

ted

that

they

felt‘co

nfide

nt’o

r‘ve

rycon

fiden

t’ab

outk

nowing

wha

ttodo

ifachildin

th

eir c

are

was

hur

t by

som

eone

. 9%

wer

e ‘O

K’. 1

2% w

ere

‘not

ver

y co

nfide

nt’ a

nd 1

% ‘n

ot a

t all

confi

dent

’.•

Wha

tAHHQre

spon

dent

swou

ldd

oifach

ildin

theirc

arewas

bad

lyhur

tbyso

meo

ne(t

op5ans

wer

s-%

of

resp

onse

s): C

onfro

nt th

e pe

rpet

rato

r (41

%);

Ask

the

child

wha

t hap

pene

d (2

5%);

Repo

rt th

e in

cide

nt to

the

polic

e (1

0%);

Reco

ncile

or a

sk fo

r com

pens

atio

n fro

m p

erpe

trat

or o

r per

petr

ator

’s fa

mily

(5%

); Re

port

the

inci

dent

to a

do

ctor

/ nur

se/ h

ealth

wor

ker (

4%).

•In

act

ualc

ases

whe

reC

HHQre

spon

dent

srep

orte

dex

perie

ncing

violen

ceto

theirm

othe

rsorf

athe

rs,3

1%oft

he

reac

tions

by

pare

nts a

re fo

cuse

d on

the

child

(‘m

ade

me

feel

bet

ter’

and

‘talk

ed to

me’

) and

43%

are

focu

sed

on

the

perp

etra

tor (

‘spok

e to

’ or ‘g

ot a

ngry

with

’ the

per

petr

ator

). 11

% o

f res

pons

es in

dica

te th

at th

e pa

rent

spok

e to

a

teac

hero

rsom

eone

else

.4%[N

=2]sh

owth

atth

epa

rent

did‘n

othing

’.•

Serv

ices

men

tione

dby

AHHQre

spon

dent

sasb

eing

ava

ilabl

einth

eira

reaifach

ildin

theirh

ouse

holdw

ereba

dly

hurt

by

som

eone

(top

5 a

nsw

ers -

% o

f res

pons

es):

Polic

e (2

3%);

Doc

tor/

nur

se/ h

ealth

serv

ice

(23%

); Tr

aditi

onal

le

ader

(20%

); Re

ligio

us le

ader

(18%

); Co

mm

unity

org

anisa

tions

(5%

).•

94%ofA

HHQre

spon

dent

ssaid

they

felt‘co

mfo

rtab

leand

con

fiden

t’to

ask

thes

ese

rvices

forh

elp.The

reas

onsg

iven

fo

r thi

s wer

e as

follo

ws (

top

3): K

now

they

can

hel

p (4

1%);

Trus

t the

m (1

7%);

They

are

par

t of t

he c

omm

unity

(15%

). [1

1 (o

ver 5

0%) o

f the

21

‘no’

resp

onse

s wer

e fo

r the

pol

ice]

.•

Reas

onsw

hyre

spon

dent

sdono

tfee

lcom

fortab

leand

con

fiden

ttoas

kfo

rhelp

from

serv

ices

(top

3ans

wer

s-%

of

resp

onse

s):S

care

dof

them

(24%

N=6);D

ono

tthink

they

can

help

(20%

N=5);joint

ly-Not

eas

yto

app

roac

h/D

ono

ttrus

tthe

m/

Refus

ed(1

2%N

=3).

•15

-18ye

ar-o

ldsi

ngr

oup

activ

ities

indica

teth

atasc

hildre

nge

tolder

they

are

exp

ecte

dto

‘tou

ghen

up’

inre

actio

nto

bei

ng h

it or

bul

lied

as c

areg

iver

s bec

ome

incr

easin

gly

less

sym

path

etic

. Adu

lts in

gro

up a

ctiv

ities

reve

al c

hang

es

in c

areg

iver

s’ re

actio

ns o

ver t

he c

ours

e of

one

gen

erat

ion:

som

e pa

rent

s / c

areg

iver

s tod

ay re

act w

ith m

ore

sym

path

y an

d ar

e m

ore

likel

y to

inve

stig

ate

reas

ons b

ehin

d re

port

s of v

iole

nce

and

bully

ing

rath

er th

an re

talia

ting

dire

ctly

aga

inst

the

perp

etra

tor a

s in

the

past

. Som

e gr

oups

’ resp

onse

s ind

icat

e an

incr

ease

in p

ositi

ve c

hild

-rear

ing

tech

niqu

es a

cros

s one

gen

erat

ion

in th

e w

ay th

ey e

ncou

rage

chi

ldre

n to

solv

e pr

oble

ms w

ithou

t res

ortin

g to

vi

olen

ce.

3.2.

2%

of p

aren

ts

(mot

hers

/fat

hers

) w

ho c

onsi

der

send

ing

thei

r ch

ildre

n aw

ay

from

hom

e as

a

pote

ntia

l ris

k.

•17

%ofA

HHQre

spon

dent

s[N=46

]had

biologica

lchildre

nof

theiro

wncu

rrent

lyund

erth

eag

eof

18liv

ing

outside

theirh

ouse

holds[

N=59

childre

n(29girls

,30bo

ys)],m

ostly

age

d11

+yea

rs.1

1%ofC

HHQre

spon

dent

s[N=31

]sta

ted

that

ther

e w

ere

child

ren

unde

r the

age

of 1

8 w

ho b

elon

g to

the

fam

ily b

ut w

ho c

urre

ntly

live

out

side

the

hous

ehol

d [N

=44

childre

n(17girls

,27bo

ys)],m

ostly

age

d11

+yea

rs.

•W

here

thes

e ch

ildre

n liv

e if

they

are

not

livi

ng in

the

hous

ehol

d (%

of r

elev

ant A

HH

Q re

spon

ses –

top

3): W

ith

othe

r rel

ativ

es –

urb

an lo

catio

n (3

2%);

Inst

itutio

n –

boar

ding

scho

ol (2

8%);

With

oth

er re

lativ

es –

rura

l loc

atio

n (2

6%)

•W

hy th

ese

child

ren

are

livin

g in

alte

rnat

ive

plac

es (%

of r

elev

ant A

HH

Q re

spon

ses –

top

3): T

o at

tend

scho

ol

(59%

); O

ther

(10%

); In

vite

d to

live

ther

e (8

%).

•Pr

opor

tion

of re

leva

nt A

HH

Q re

spon

dent

s w

ho fe

el th

at th

eir c

hild

ren

are

safe

in a

ltern

ativ

e pl

aces

of

resid

ence

: Yes

(62%

); N

o (1

9%);

Do

not k

now

(15%

); Re

fuse

d (4

%).

•Re

ason

s w

hy re

leva

nt A

HH

Q re

spon

dent

s th

ink

thei

r chi

ldre

n ar

e sa

fe in

alte

rnat

ive

plac

es o

f res

iden

ce (t

op 3

): Th

e ho

sts a

re p

art o

f the

fam

ily (3

6%);

They

cal

l/ w

rite/

visi

t reg

ular

ly (2

7%);

I tru

st th

e ho

sts (

17%

).•

Reas

ons

why

rele

vant

AH

HQ

resp

onde

nts

do n

ot th

ink

thei

r chi

ldre

n ar

e sa

fe in

alte

rnat

ive

plac

es o

f res

iden

ce:

Conc

ernab

outp

hysic

alsa

fety(3

3%N

=3);C

once

rnabo

utb

adin

fluen

ceso

rbad

beh

aviour

(33%

N=3);T

heyte

llm

eth

eyd

ono

tlikeitth

ere(11%

N=1);Id

ono

ttru

stth

eho

sts(

11%N

=1);Id

ono

tkno

wth

eho

stsv

erywell(11

%N

=1)

•67

% o

f CH

HQ

resp

onde

nts

disa

gree

or s

tron

gly

disa

gree

that

“It i

s go

od fo

r chi

ldre

n to

live

with

rela

tives

or

fam

ily fr

iend

s w

ho h

ave

mor

e m

oney

”. 16

% a

gree

or s

tron

gly

agre

e. 1

3% sa

id ‘s

omet

imes

yes

, som

etim

es n

o’.


Out

put

Indi

cato

rTa

rget

Base

line

findi

ngs

2008

3.2.

3%

of a

dults

who

do

not a

ccep

t cor

pora

l pu

nish

men

t as

disc

iplin

e / m

eans

of

edu

catio

n.

•19

% o

f AH

HQ

resp

onde

nts

stat

e th

at a

chi

ld in

thei

r hou

seho

ld h

as to

ld th

em a

bout

bei

ng h

it by

an

adul

t w

ithin

the

hous

ehol

d in

the

past

1 m

onth

. 11%

of A

HH

Q re

spon

dent

s sta

te th

at a

chi

ld in

thei

r hou

seho

ld h

as

told

them

abo

ut b

eing

hit

by so

meo

ne e

lse in

the

com

mun

ity in

the

past

1 m

onth

. •

17%

of C

HH

Q re

spon

dent

s st

ate

that

they

hav

e be

en h

it, s

mac

ked,

kic

ked,

pin

ched

or fl

icke

d or

had

thei

r ea

rs p

ulle

d or

twis

ted

by a

n ad

ult i

n th

e ho

useh

old

in th

e pa

st 1

mon

th. W

ho re

leva

nt C

HH

Q re

spon

dent

s wer

e hi

t by

(top

3- n

umbe

r of r

espo

nses

): Fa

ther

(34%

); Si

blin

g (2

2%);

Unc

le (8

%).

•72

% o

f AH

HQ

resp

onde

nts

stat

e th

at th

ey h

it, s

mac

k, k

ick,

pin

ch o

r flic

k ch

ildre

n or

pul

l or t

wis

t the

ir e

ars.

•Oft

hese

AHHQre

spon

dent

s,th

em

ajor

ity‘sm

ack’ch

ildre

n(57%

ofr

espo

nses

)followed

by‘hit’(21%

)and

‘pullo

rtwist

ea

rs’ (1

2%) [

top

3]. T

his c

ompa

res w

ith th

e fo

llow

ing

top

3 an

swer

s of C

HH

Q re

spon

dent

s who

wer

e ac

tual

ly h

it by

an

adu

lt in

the

hous

ehol

d w

ithin

the

past

1 m

onth

: Hit

(34%

); Sm

ack

(32%

); Ki

ck (1

6%).

•Re

ason

sgiven

byre

leva

ntA

HHQre

spon

dent

sfor

why

they

doth

is(to

p3-%

ofr

espo

nses

):Ch

ildis

nau

ghty

or d

isobe

dien

t (50

%);

To d

iscip

line

or e

duca

te th

em (2

6%);

I get

ang

ry w

ith th

em /

I los

e m

y te

mpe

r (13

%).

This

com

pare

s with

the

follo

win

g to

p 3

reas

ons g

iven

by

CHH

Q re

spon

dent

s who

wer

e ac

tual

ly h

it by

an

adul

t in

the

hous

ehol

d w

ithin

the

past

1 m

onth

: I a

m n

augh

ty /

diso

bedi

ent (

36%

); G

ets a

ngry

with

me

/ lo

ses t

empe

r (32

%);

I m

ade

a m

istak

e (1

4%).

•3be

stw

ayst

odisc

iplin

ech

ildre

n:7%ofA

HHQre

spon

sesm

entio

ned‘hit/

smac

kth

em’(7

thm

ostp

opularout

of2

7an

swer

s). 6

% o

f CH

HQ

resp

onse

s men

tione

d ‘h

it, sm

ack

or w

hip

them

’ (8th

mos

t pop

ular

out

of 2

4 an

swer

s). 2

AH

HQ

an

d 10

CH

HQ

resp

onde

nts s

tate

d ‘D

o no

t hit

/ sm

ack

them

’. •

Reas

onsg

iven

byre

leva

ntA

HHQre

spon

dent

sfor

why

they

dono

tphy

sicallyhur

tchildre

n(to

p3-%

ofr

espo

nses

):It

is w

rong

(29%

); Th

ere

are

bett

er w

ays t

o di

scip

line

/ edu

cate

chi

ldre

n (1

6%) j

oint

ly w

ith It

hur

ts th

em (1

6%);

Child

ren

are

vuln

erab

le o

r wea

k or

smal

l (10

%).

•In

term

soffre

quen

cyofp

hysic

allyhur

ting

child

ren,th

eva

stm

ajor

ityofr

elev

antA

HHQre

spon

dent

ssta

ted

they

do

this

‘Dep

endi

ng o

n w

hat t

he c

hild

doe

s’ (9

1% o

f res

pons

es).

This

was

also

the

maj

ority

ans

wer

for r

elev

ant C

HH

Q

resp

onde

nts o

n ho

w o

ften

they

had

bee

n hi

t by

an a

dult

in th

e ho

useh

old

in th

e pa

st 1

mon

th: ‘D

epen

ds o

n w

hat I

di

d’ (7

8%) f

ollo

wed

by ‘

Whe

n he

/she

felt

like

it’ (7

%).

•Oft

hose

AHHQre

spon

dent

swho

hitch

ildre

n,64%

ofr

espo

nses

stated

they

use

dan

‘ope

nha

nd’;2

4%‘stic

k’;8

%

‘bro

om’ [t

op 3

]. Th

is co

mpa

res w

ith th

e fo

llow

ing

top

3 an

swer

s of C

HH

Q re

spon

dent

s who

wer

e ac

tual

ly h

it by

an

adul

t in

the

hous

ehol

d w

ithin

the

past

1 m

onth

: Ope

n ha

nd (4

1%);

Stic

k (3

1%);

Clos

ed fi

st (1

5%).

•W

here

onth

ebo

dyadu

ltsin

theho

useh

old

hitc

hildre

n:

o To

p 3

rele

vant

AH

HQ

resp

onse

s: Bu

ttoc

ks (5

2%);

Palm

s of h

ands

(19%

); Ba

ck (6

%) j

oint

ly w

ith O

ther

(6%

).o

Top

3 re

leva

nt C

HH

Q re

spon

ses:

Butt

ocks

(26%

); Ba

ck (1

9%);

Side

of f

ace

(13%

) .

•How

releva

ntC

HHQre

spon

dent

sfelta

bout

being

phy

sicallyhur

tbyan

adu

ltinth

eho

useh

old

with

inth

epa

st1

mon

th (t

op 3

- %

of r

espo

nses

): Sa

d or

ups

et (3

0%);

Pain

/ ‘it

hur

t’ (2

5%);

Angr

y (2

1%).

•7-

11yea

r-olds

ingro

upact

ivities

talking

abou

t‘act

ions

wedo

n’tlikeat

hom

e’:m

ostp

opularre

spon

se(3

2%of

resp

onse

s and

mor

e bo

ys th

an g

irls)

indi

cate

s tha

t chi

ldre

n do

n’t l

ike

to b

e hi

t, sm

acke

d or

hur

t by

adul

ts; ‘a

dults

hi

ttin

g or

hur

ting

each

oth

er’ (9

% o

f res

pons

es –

mor

e bo

ys th

an g

irls)

feat

ured

as t

he 4

th to

p an

swer

(ind

icat

ing

that

chi

ldre

n ar

e w

itnes

sing

viol

ence

as w

ell a

s exp

erie

ncin

g it

pers

onal

ly) a

nd 4

% (m

ore

girls

than

boy

s) d

o no

t lik

e ad

ults

drin

king

alc

ohol

.•

45%ofe

duca

tionke

yinfo

rman

tsst

ated

that

paren

tsg

etang

ryw

ithte

ache

rsusin

gco

rpor

alp

unish

men

tinsc

hools

(bec

ause

they

feel

it is

thei

r rig

ht, n

ot th

e te

ache

rs’, t

o ad

min

ister

this)

. 30%

said

par

ents

’ reac

tions

dep

end

on

whe

ther

or n

ot p

aren

ts th

emse

lves

use

this

at h

ome.

Onl

y 20

% d

efini

tely

impl

ied

that

par

ents

disa

gree

with

cor

pora

l pu

nish

men

t in

scho

ols.


Out

put

Indi

cato

rTa

rget

Base

line

findi

ngs

2008

3.2.

4%

of a

dults

who

ar

e aw

are

of ri

sks

of C

SEC.

•91

% o

f AH

HQ

resp

onde

nts

stat

e th

ey h

ave

hear

d st

orie

s ab

out c

hild

ren

bein

g in

volv

ed in

pro

stitu

tion

in

the

Solo

mon

Isla

nds.

•To

p 5

reas

ons

why

AH

HQ

resp

onde

nts

thin

k ch

ildre

n m

ight

end

up

in p

rost

itutio

n (%

of r

espo

nses

): Po

vert

y –

need

to e

arn

mon

ey fo

r the

mse

lves

(29%

); Po

or c

hild

-rear

ing

e.g.

no

love

or c

are,

neg

lect

, poo

r disc

iplin

e, n

o va

lues

(1

4%);

Lack

of e

duca

tion/

opp

ortu

nitie

s/ a

ltern

ativ

es (1

1%);

Peer

pre

ssur

e (7

%);

Pove

rty

- nee

d to

ear

n m

oney

for

thei

r fam

ilies

(5%

).•

Top

5 w

ays

how

AH

HQ

resp

onde

nts

thin

k it

is p

ossi

ble

to p

reve

nt c

hild

ren

in th

e So

lom

on Is

land

s fr

om

endi

ng u

p in

pro

stitu

tion

(% o

f res

pons

es):

Goo

d di

scip

line

(21%

); G

over

nmen

t law

and

pol

icie

s (12

%);

Goo

d su

perv

ision

of c

hild

ren

(10%

); Lo

ve a

nd c

are

for c

hild

ren

(9%

); G

ood

educ

atio

n an

d op

port

uniti

es (9

%);

Teac

hing

ch

ildre

n ab

out o

ur c

ultu

re (8

%).

•92

%ofA

HHQre

spon

dent

sthink

that

itis

impo

rtan

ttha

ttha

tyou

ngchildre

nun

dert

heage

of1

2aresu

perv

ised

at

all t

imes

in th

e ho

me

(5%

som

etim

es y

es, s

omet

imes

no)

.

3.2.

5Pa

rent

s, c

are-

give

rs a

nd c

hild

ren

repo

rt s

igni

fican

t ch

ange

s in

rela

tion

to th

e pr

otec

tion

of

child

ren.

30%

incr

ease

fro

m

base

line

in

at le

ast f

our

prov

ince

s

Com

paris

on o

f CH

HQ

, AH

HQ

and

KII

resp

onse

s53 r

espe

ctiv

ely

to th

e st

atem

ents

: •

“Ing

ener

alchildre

naresa

feand

pro

tected

ath

ome”:(82

%/

88%/6

5%);

•“In

gen

eralchildre

naresa

feand

pro

tected

ats

choo

l”:(6

3%/

57%/

36%);

•“In

gen

eralchildre

naresa

feand

pro

tected

inth

eco

mm

unity

”:(50%

/41

%/

21%).

•95

%ofr

eligious

lead

ersf

eltt

hatc

hildre

naresa

feand

pro

tected

inp

lace

sofw

orsh

ip.

•How

peo

plere

acte

dwhe

nth

eCH

HQre

spon

dent

toldth

emabo

utexp

erienc

ing

violen

ce(p

hysic

al,v

erba

l,se

xual

and

negl

ect)

(top

3): G

ot a

ngry

with

the

perp

etra

tor (

20%

); M

ade

me

feel

bet

ter (

19%

); O

ther

(15%

).•

Adultsin

gro

upact

ivities

disc

usse

dth

efo

llowing

chan

gesi

ndisc

iplin

ete

chniqu

esin

thesp

aceof

one

gen

erat

ion:

a de

crea

se in

the

use

of c

orpo

ral p

unish

men

t by

7-11

% a

nd in

the

use

of ‘p

unish

men

t’ in

gen

eral

by

2-6%

; a sl

ight

de

crea

se o

f 2%

in b

eing

ang

ry; a

n in

crea

se o

f 9%

in c

onsu

lting

/ as

king

why

; an

incr

ease

of 4

-9%

in b

eing

mad

e to

do

the

wor

k or

to a

polo

gise

; and

an

incr

ease

of 1

1% in

par

ents

hel

ping

chi

ldre

n to

do

hous

ehol

d ch

ores

.

53

‘Str

ongl

y ag

ree

or a

gree

’ resp

onse

s add

ed to

geth

er.


Out

put

Indi

cato

rTa

rget

Base

line

findi

ngs

2008

3.2

Add

i-tio

nal

1

% o

f adu

lts w

ho

prac

tice

posi

tive

disc

iplin

e (n

ot ju

st

‘not

hitt

ing’

).

•18

% o

f AH

HQ

resp

onde

nts

stat

e th

at a

chi

ld in

thei

r hou

seho

ld h

as to

ld th

em a

bout

bei

ng c

alle

d an

in

appr

opri

ate

nam

e by

an

adul

t in

the

hous

ehol

d w

ithin

the

past

1 m

onth

. 13%

of A

HH

Q re

spon

dent

s st

ate

that

a c

hild

in th

eir h

ouse

hold

has

told

them

abo

ut b

eing

cal

led

an in

appr

opri

ate

nam

e by

an

adul

t in

the

com

mun

ity

with

in th

e pa

st 1

mon

th. 2

5% o

f CH

HQ

resp

onde

nts r

epor

t hav

ing

been

cal

led

inap

prop

riate

nam

es

by a

n ad

ult i

n th

e ho

useh

old

in th

e pa

st m

onth

. In

term

s of f

requ

ency

, mos

tly th

is ‘d

epen

ds o

n w

hat I

did

’ (63%

). To

p 3

type

s of i

napp

ropr

iate

nam

e: G

ener

al sw

earin

g (3

0%);

Stup

id (1

8%);

Mad

e fu

n of

my

nam

e (1

0%).

Top

3 re

ason

s w

hy re

leva

nt C

HH

Q re

spon

dent

s thi

nk th

e ad

ult d

id th

is: G

ets a

ngry

with

me/

lose

s tem

per (

37%

); Te

asin

g (2

6%);

I am

nau

ghty

/ diso

bedi

ent (

17%

). H

ow re

spon

dent

s fel

t abo

ut th

is (to

p 3)

: Sad

or u

pset

(23%

); Em

barr

asse

d (2

1%);

Unc

omfo

rtab

le (1

5%).

•7-

11 y

ear-

olds

in g

roup

act

iviti

es ta

lkin

g ab

out ‘

wor

ds’ w

e do

n’t l

ike

at h

ome’

: 90%

of r

espo

nses

focu

s on

‘shou

ting

or sw

earin

g’, e

ither

dire

ctly

at c

hild

ren

or in

gen

eral

with

in th

e ho

useh

old,

incl

udin

g am

ongs

t chi

ldre

n th

emse

lves

. Spe

cific

insu

lts su

ch a

s ‘st

upid

’, ‘wor

thle

ss’, ‘s

hut u

p’, ‘s

illy

boy’

and

‘bad

wor

ds a

bout

boy

s / g

irls’

acco

unt

for 9

% a

nd ‘t

ellin

g lie

s’ ac

coun

ts fo

r 1%

of r

espo

nses

.•

18%

of A

HH

Q re

spon

dent

s st

ate

that

a c

hild

in th

eir h

ouse

hold

has

told

them

abo

ut b

eing

mad

e to

feel

un

wan

ted

by a

n ad

ult i

n th

e ho

useh

old

with

in th

e pa

st 1

mon

th. 2

4% o

f CH

HQ

resp

onde

nts s

tate

d th

ey h

ad

been

mad

e to

feel

unw

ante

d by

som

eone

in th

e ho

useh

old

in th

e pa

st 1

mon

th. T

his w

as b

y: M

othe

r (32

%);

Fath

er

(21%

); Si

blin

g (1

3%) (

top

3). 3

mai

n w

ays i

n w

hich

rele

vant

CH

HQ

resp

onde

nts w

ere

mad

e to

feel

unw

ante

d: Te

ased

m

e (1

9%);

Shou

ting,

arg

uing

or n

aggi

ng (1

6%) j

oint

ly w

ith ‘o

ther

’; Sw

ore

at m

e (1

2%).

Top

3 re

ason

s why

rele

vant

CH

HQ

resp

onde

nts t

hink

the

adul

t did

this:

Do

not k

now

(24%

); I w

as d

isobe

dien

t / n

augh

ty /

didn

’t do

my

wor

k (1

5%);

Angr

y w

ith m

e (8

%) j

oint

ly w

ith ‘o

ther

’. How

resp

onde

nts f

elt a

bout

this

(top

3): S

ad o

r ups

et (4

6%);

Angr

y (1

8%);

Unc

omfo

rtab

le /

emba

rras

sed

/ ash

amed

(13%

).•

80%ofA

HHQ&

79%

ofC

HHQre

spon

dent

sfee

ltha

tchildre

nca

nsp

eakou

tfre

elyat

hom

e.49%

ofC

HHQ

resp

onde

nts a

gree

that

‘In g

ener

al, y

ou h

ave

the

right

to sa

y w

hat y

ou w

ant t

o yo

ur p

aren

ts w

ithou

t fea

ring

puni

shm

ent’

(24%

som

etim

es y

es, s

omet

imes

no)

.•

69%ofA

HHQre

spon

dent

sagr

eeth

at‘W

eha

vere

gularf

amily

mee

tings

whe

reIca

nta

lkabo

utm

ywor

ries’co

mpa

red

with

54%

of C

HH

Q re

spon

dent

s.•

95%ofC

HHQre

spon

dent

sagr

eeth

at‘P

eopl

ewho

look

afte

rchildre

nsh

ouldsh

owth

emlo

veand

affe

ctionev

ery

day’

and

95%

also

agr

ee th

at ‘P

aren

ts a

nd te

ache

rs sh

ould

pra

ise c

hild

ren

whe

n th

ey b

ehav

e w

ell’.

•Re

ason

sgiven

byre

leva

ntA

HHQre

spon

dent

sfor

why

they

dono

tphy

sicallyhur

tchildre

n(to

p3-%

ofr

espo

nses

):It

is w

rong

(29%

); Th

ere

are

bett

er w

ays t

o di

scip

line

/ edu

cate

chi

ldre

n (1

6%) j

oint

ly w

ith It

hur

ts th

em (1

6%);

Child

ren

are

vuln

erab

le o

r wea

k or

smal

l (10

%).

•3

best

way

s to

dis

cipl

ine

child

ren

(top

3 -

% o

f res

pons

es):

o CH

HQ

resp

onde

nts:

Spea

k w

isely

to th

em /

teac

h rig

ht a

nd w

rong

(21%

); Sh

ow th

em a

goo

d ex

ampl

e (1

4%);

Expl

ain

rule

s (13

%).

o AH

HQ

resp

onde

nts:

Spea

k w

isely

to th

em (1

7%);

Expl

ain

rule

s (12

%);

Emph

asise

spiri

tual

or r

elig

ious

val

ues

(9%

); •

How

adu

lts s

how

chi

ldre

n in

thei

r hou

seho

ld th

at th

ey lo

ve a

nd c

are

for t

hem

(top

3 -

% o

f res

pons

es):

o CH

HQ

resp

onde

nts:

Care

for t

heir

need

s (21

%);

Giv

e th

em g

ood

and/

or e

noug

h fo

od (1

6%);

Teac

h th

em w

hat

is rig

ht a

nd w

rong

/ go

od p

ath

(8%

).o

AHH

Q re

spon

dent

s: Ca

re fo

r the

ir ne

eds (

21%

); G

ive

them

goo

d an

d/or

eno

ugh

food

(12%

); Sh

ow th

em lo

ve

and

affec

tion

(kiss

es, c

uddl

es, s

mile

s) (9

%).

•7-

11 y

ear-

olds

in g

roup

act

iviti

es ta

lkin

g ab

out ‘

actio

ns’ a

nd ‘w

ords

’ we

like

at h

ome’

: chi

ldre

n lik

e be

ing

prai

sed

and

bein

g th

anke

d. In

term

s of ‘a

ctio

ns’, t

he m

ost p

opul

ar b

lock

of a

nsw

ers i

s aro

und

good

man

ners

, co

mm

unic

atio

n, li

sten

ing,

resp

ect a

nd tr

eatin

g ch

ildre

n eq

ually

(39%

of a

ll re

spon

ses)

. ‘Hel

ping

with

cho

res’

in th

e ho

useh

old,

gar

den

or fa

rm a

ccou

nts f

or 2

7% o

f res

pons

es a

nd o

ther

resp

onse

s whi

ch in

volv

e ‘sp

endi

ng ti

me

with

ad

ults

’ acc

ount

for 8

2% (s

pend

ing

time

toge

ther

and

hel

ping

with

hom

ewor

k). S

how

ing

love

, hug

s and

kiss

es

acco

unts

for 1

1% o

f res

pons

es.


Out

put

Indi

cato

rTa

rget

Base

line

findi

ngs

2008

3.3

Teac

hers

hav

e kn

owle

dge

of

and

prac

tice

non-

viol

ent

form

s of

di

scip

line

(Pro

vinc

ial

leve

l)

3.3.

1Pr

opor

tion

of

teac

hers

who

de

mon

stra

te

alte

rnat

ive/

posi

tive

disc

iplin

ary

met

hods

.

80%

of

teac

hers

in

at le

ast 4

pr

ovin

ces

•70

% o

f edu

catio

n ke

y in

form

ants

(14

out o

f 20)

adm

it th

at ‘t

each

ers

in th

is s

choo

l hit,

sm

ack,

pin

ch, k

ick,

kn

ock

or p

ull o

r tw

ist c

hild

ren’

s ea

rs’, o

f whi

ch 6

0% sa

id ‘s

omet

imes

yes

, som

etim

es n

o’.•

7 %

[N=1

6] o

f sch

ool-g

oing

CH

HQ

resp

onde

nts

stat

ed th

at th

ey h

ave

been

hit,

sm

acke

d, k

icke

d, p

inch

ed

or fl

icke

d, o

r had

thei

r ear

s pu

lled

or tw

iste

d by

a te

ache

r in

the

past

1 m

onth

. In

term

s of f

requ

ency

, rel

evan

t CH

HQ

resp

onde

nts s

tate

d th

at th

is ha

ppen

s: D

epen

ds o

n w

hat I

did

(81%

); O

nce

per w

eek

(13%

); Ev

ery

day

(6%

). Th

e m

ajor

ity o

f phy

sical

abu

se b

y te

ache

rs a

ccor

ding

to C

HH

Q re

spon

dent

s was

(top

3):

Smac

k (4

3%);

Hit

(19%

); Pu

ll or

twist

ear

s (19

%).

CHH

Q re

spon

dent

s who

wer

e hi

t by

teac

hers

with

in th

e pa

st 1

mon

th re

port

bei

ng h

it w

ith (t

op 3

): O

pen

hand

(44%

); St

ick

(31%

); H

osep

ipe

(13%

). Re

leva

nt C

HH

Q re

spon

dent

s wer

e ph

ysic

ally

hur

t by

teac

hers

with

in th

e pa

st m

onth

on

(top

3): S

ide

of fa

ce (2

9%);

Butt

ocks

(23%

); Ba

ck (1

8%).

Reas

ons w

hy re

leva

nt

CHH

Q re

spon

dent

s thi

nk te

ache

rs p

hysic

ally

hur

t the

m in

the

past

mon

th (t

op 3

): I a

m n

augh

ty/ d

isobe

dien

t (44

%);

I did

not

do

my

hom

ewor

k (1

9%);

Get

s ang

ry w

ith m

e/ lo

ses t

empe

r (13

%) j

oint

ly w

ith to

disc

iplin

e or

edu

cate

me

(13%

). H

ow re

spon

dent

s fel

t whe

n ph

ysic

ally

hur

t by

a te

ache

r in

the

past

1 m

onth

(top

3):

Sad

or u

pset

(44%

); An

gry

(19%

); Af

raid

/ sc

ared

(19%

). Ac

cord

ing

to e

duca

tion

KII r

easo

ns w

hy te

ache

rs m

ight

phy

sical

ly a

buse

chi

ldre

n [N

=11

],45

%re

late

toig

noranc

eor

lack

ofu

nder

stan

ding

onth

epa

rtoft

each

ers.Non

eof

theirr

espo

nses

relate

to

‘disc

iplin

e’, ‘p

unish

men

t’ or

‘edu

catio

n’, b

ut 4

5% re

late

to fr

ustr

atio

n, st

ress

or a

nger

on

the

part

of t

he p

erpe

trat

or -

com

pare

d to

onl

y 13

% o

f CH

HQ

resp

onse

s.•

16%

[N=3

5] o

f sch

ool-g

oing

CH

HQ

resp

onde

nts

repo

rt h

avin

g be

en c

alle

d an

inap

prop

riat

e na

me

by a

te

ache

r at s

choo

l in

the

past

1 m

onth

. Typ

es o

f ina

ppro

pria

te n

ame

used

by

teac

hers

acc

ordi

ng to

rele

vant

CH

HQ

re

spon

dent

s (to

p 3)

: Stu

pid

(19%

); G

ener

al sw

earin

g (1

7%) j

oint

ly w

ith O

ther

(17%

); An

imal

nam

e (1

4%).

Reas

ons

why

rele

vant

CH

HQ

resp

onde

nts t

hink

the

teac

her c

alle

d th

em a

n in

appr

opria

te n

ame

(top

3): I

am

nau

ghty

/ di

sobe

dien

t (24

%);

Get

s ang

ry w

ith m

e / l

oses

tem

per (

21%

); As

a jo

ke (1

3%).

How

resp

onde

nts f

elt w

hen

calle

d an

in

appr

opria

te n

ame

by a

teac

her i

n th

e pa

st 1

mon

th (t

op 3

): Em

barr

asse

d (3

4%);

Angr

y (2

4%);

Sad

or u

pset

(15%

).•

57%ofs

choo

l-going

CHHQre

spon

dent

s&50%

ofe

duca

tionKIIs

agre

eth

at‘In

gen

eralchildre

nca

nsp

eakou

tfre

ely

to te

ache

rs a

t sch

ool’.

77%

of C

HH

Q a

nd 7

5% %

of e

duca

tion

KIIs

agre

e th

at ‘T

each

ers o

ften

prai

se c

hild

ren

for d

oing

go

od w

ork’.

63%

of C

HH

Q &

60%

of e

duca

tion

KIIs

agre

e th

at ‘T

each

ers o

ften

help

to e

xpla

in th

ings

pat

ient

ly’. 5

8% o

f CH

HQ

& 5

0% o

f edu

catio

n KI

Is ag

ree

that

‘Tea

cher

s spe

ak n

icel

y to

us’.

95%

agr

ee th

at ‘P

aren

ts a

nd te

ache

rs sh

ould

pr

aise

chi

ldre

n w

hen

they

beh

ave

wel

l’. 79

% d

isagr

ee th

at ‘It

is O

K to

cal

l a c

hild

stup

id to

mak

e hi

m o

r her

real

ise

hom

ewor

k m

istak

es’ (1

3% a

gree

).•

3 be

st w

ays

to h

elp

keep

chi

ldre

n sa

fe in

sch

ools

(top

3 -

% o

f res

pons

es):

o CH

HQ

resp

onse

s: G

ener

al sc

hool

rule

s hel

p to

pro

tect

chi

ldre

n (1

4%);

Teac

hers

are

frie

ndly

(11%

); Te

ache

rs

help

exp

lain

thin

gs (9

%).

o Ed

ucat

ion

KII r

espo

nses

: Tea

cher

s lov

e an

d ca

re fo

r chi

ldre

n (1

7%);

Gen

eral

scho

ol ru

les h

elp

to p

rote

ct

child

ren,

teac

hers

are

frie

ndly

, tea

cher

s kno

w a

nd u

nder

stan

d ab

out c

hild

abu

se, h

ave

child

pro

tect

ion

polic

ies i

n sc

hool

s (10

% e

ach)

.•

3m

ainth

ings

which

mak

ech

ildre

nno

tfeelsa

fein

scho

ols(

top

3-%

ofr

espo

nses

):o

CHH

Q re

spon

ses:

Bully

ing

amon

gst c

hild

ren

(12%

); Te

ache

rs a

re n

ot fr

iend

ly (1

0%);

Neg

ativ

e pe

er p

ress

ure

(9%

)o

Educ

atio

n KI

I res

pons

es: T

each

ers a

re n

ot fr

iend

ly (1

5%);

Teac

hers

hum

iliat

e ch

ildre

n or

cal

l the

m b

ad n

ames

(1

3%);

Teac

hers

hit

child

ren,

bad

phy

sical

env

ironm

ent a

nd te

ache

rs d

o no

t lov

e an

d ca

re fo

r chi

ldre

n (1

1%

each

).


Out

put

Indi

cato

rTa

rget

Base

line

findi

ngs

2008

3.3

Add

i-tio

nal

1

Prop

ortio

n of

sc

hool

s th

at h

ave

child

pro

tect

ion

polic

ies

and/

or

inco

rpor

ate

child

pr

otec

tion

into

sc

hool

’s M

issi

on,

Visi

on a

nd/o

r Co

nstit

utio

n.

•96

% o

f sch

ool-g

oing

CH

HQ

resp

onde

nts

& 5

5% o

f edu

catio

n KI

I res

pond

ents

sta

ted

that

thei

r sch

ool h

as

rule

s to

hel

p ke

ep c

hild

ren

safe

. Of t

hese

, 88%

of C

HH

Q &

100

% o

f edu

catio

n KI

Is st

ate

that

thes

e ru

les a

re w

ritte

n do

wn.

Ove

rall,

84%

of C

HH

Q a

nd 5

5% o

f edu

catio

n KI

I res

pond

ents

stat

ed th

at th

eir s

choo

l has

writ

ten

rule

s to

prot

ect c

hild

ren.

•Re

leva

ntC

HHQre

spon

dent

skno

wabo

utth

eseru

lest

hrou

gh(t

op3):Sc

hoolm

eetin

gs,a

ssem

blieso

rdisc

ussio

ns

(38%

); Sc

hool

not

ice

boar

d (2

1%) j

oint

ly w

ith I

have

seen

the

rule

s (21

%);

Som

eone

told

me

abou

t the

rule

s (13

%).

Rele

vant

edu

catio

n KI

I res

pond

ents

kno

w a

bout

thes

e ru

les t

hrou

gh (t

op 3

): I h

ave

resp

onsib

ility

for i

mpl

emen

ting

the

rule

s (42

%);

I was

invo

lved

in m

akin

g th

e ru

les (

25%

); I h

ave

seen

the

rule

s (17

%).

•53

%ofC

HHQ&

82%

ofe

duca

tionKIIres

pond

entsst

ated

that

theru

lesh

adb

eeninp

lace

form

oreth

an5yea

rsor

‘sinc

e th

e sc

hool

star

ted’

; 30%

of C

HH

Q re

spon

dent

s did

not

kno

w h

ow lo

ng th

e ru

les h

ad b

een

in p

lace

com

pare

d w

ith 9

% o

f edu

catio

n KI

Is; 1

6% o

f CH

HQ

resp

onde

nts a

nd 9

% o

f edu

catio

n KI

Is th

ough

t the

rule

s had

bee

n in

pla

ce

for l

ess t

han

5 ye

ars.

•87

%ofC

HHQ&

93%

ofe

duca

tionKIIres

pons

esin

dica

ted

that

theru

lesh

adb

eende

velope

dby

adu

lts:tea

cher

sand

H

ead

Teac

hers

(67%

of C

HH

Q &

54%

of e

duca

tion

KII r

espo

nses

); di

scip

linar

y co

mm

ittee

(1%

CH

HQ

& 5

% e

duca

tion

KIIs)

; sch

ool m

anag

ers /

com

mitt

ee (1

6% C

HH

Qs &

37%

edu

catio

n KI

Is); E

duca

tion

Auth

ority

(1%

CH

HQ

s); r

elig

ious

le

ader

s / c

hurc

h (1

% C

HH

Q);

pare

nts a

nd c

hief

(1%

CH

HQ

s). 1

3% o

f CH

HQ

resp

onse

s did

not

kno

w w

ho th

e ru

les

wer

e de

velo

ped

by. W

hen

aske

d di

rect

ly w

heth

er so

meo

ne h

ad a

sked

thei

r opi

nion

abo

ut th

ese

rule

s, th

e m

ajor

ity

of C

HH

Q re

spon

dent

s (82

%) s

tate

d ‘n

o’ co

mpa

red

with

45%

of e

duca

tion

key

info

rman

ts. 1

6% o

f CH

HQ

resp

onde

nts

& 55

% o

f edu

catio

n ke

y in

form

ants

said

‘yes

’, whi

lst 1

% o

f CH

HQ

resp

onde

nts s

aid

‘don

’t kn

ow’.

•89

%ofC

HHQ&

100

%ofe

duca

tionKIIs

stateth

atth

ereis

som

eone

childre

nca

nre

portto

with

insc

hoolsw

hen

scho

ol ru

les a

re b

roke

n –

mos

tly te

ache

rs.

•Th

e m

ajor

ity

of th

e ru

les

incl

ude

- CH

HQ

top

3: G

ener

al sc

hool

and

disc

iplin

ary

rule

s (77

%);

No

bully

ing

(9%

); N

o re

latio

nship

betw

eenbo

ysand

girls(

4%).1%

[N=3]ofr

espo

nses

spec

ifica

llym

entio

ned

a‘sc

hoolp

rote

ctionpo

licy’

and

1%[N

=3]m

entio

ned‘w

hatt

odo

ifchildis

hur

t’.Ed

ucat

ionKIItop

3:G

ener

alsc

hoold

isciplin

eru

les(

42%);No

bully

ing

(27%

); Te

ache

rs sh

ould

not

hit

child

ren

(12%

).•

84%

of r

elev

ant C

HH

Q &

55%

of e

duca

tion

KII r

espo

nden

ts s

tate

that

thes

e ru

les

help

to k

eep

child

ren

safe

in

sch

ools

. Top

3 re

ason

s why

rele

vant

CH

HQ

resp

onde

nts t

hink

rule

s hel

p to

kee

p ch

ildre

n sa

fe: E

duca

tiona

l /

help

s chi

ldre

n’s d

evel

opm

ent o

r fut

ure

(32%

); M

akes

it c

lear

wha

t is b

ad b

ehav

iour

by

othe

r chi

ldre

n (2

9%);

Mak

es

it cl

ear w

hat i

s goo

d be

havi

our b

y te

ache

rs (1

7%).

Top

3 re

ason

s why

rele

vant

edu

catio

n KI

I res

pond

ents

thin

k ru

les

help

to k

eep

child

ren

safe

: Mak

es it

cle

ar w

hat i

s bad

beh

avio

ur b

y ot

her c

hild

ren

(37%

); M

akes

it c

lear

wha

t is g

ood

beha

viou

r by

teac

hers

(30%

); H

elps

teac

hers

kno

w /

unde

rsta

nd a

bout

chi

ld a

buse

(11%

).•

8% o

f CH

HQ

& 4

5% o

f edu

catio

n KI

I res

pond

ents

who

sta

ted

that

thei

r sch

ool a

lread

y ha

s ru

les

felt

that

th

ese

rule

s on

ly p

artly

hel

p to

kee

p ch

ildre

n sa

fe, w

hilst

5%

of C

HH

Q re

spon

dent

s fel

t the

y di

d no

t hel

p (3

%

CHH

Q ‘d

on’t

know

’). To

p 3

reas

ons b

y re

leva

nt C

HH

Q re

spon

dent

s thi

nk ru

les d

o no

t hel

p to

kee

p ch

ildre

n sa

fe (n

o da

ta fo

r KIIs

): Th

e ru

les a

re n

ot ta

ken

serio

usly

(44%

); Pe

ople

igno

re th

e ru

les (

25%

); Ru

les d

o no

t dea

l with

the

right

iss

ues /

do

not r

eflec

t the

real

situ

atio

n (7

%) j

oint

ly w

ith R

ules

nee

d up

datin

g (7

%).

•92

% [N

=11]

of C

HH

Q &

89%

[N=8

] of e

duca

tion

KII r

espo

nden

ts w

ho s

tate

d th

eir s

choo

l doe

s no

t hav

e ru

les

to h

elp

keep

chi

ldre

n sa

fe s

tate

d th

at th

ey th

ink

it w

ould

be

a go

od id

ea to

dev

elop

rule

s.•

Amon

gstt

heC

HHQre

spon

sest

oth

equ

estio

n‘w

hat a

re th

e 3

best

way

s to

mak

e ch

ildre

n fe

el s

afe

in s

choo

l?’

only

6 re

spon

ses (

1%) e

xplic

itly

men

tione

d ‘h

ave

child

pro

tect

ion

polic

ies i

n sc

hool

s’, bu

t the

mos

t pop

ular

resp

onse

to

this

ques

tion

was

‘gen

eral

scho

ol ru

les h

elp

to p

rote

ct c

hild

ren’

(14%

of r

espo

nses

). Am

ongs

t res

pons

es to

the

ques

tion

‘wha

t are

the

3 m

ain

thin

gs w

hich

mak

e ch

ildre

n no

t fee

l saf

e in

sch

ools

?’ 1

3 re

spon

ses (

2%) e

xplic

itly

men

tione

d ‘n

o ch

ild p

rote

ctio

n po

licie

s in

scho

ols’.

The

4th

mos

t pop

ular

ans

wer

s was

‘sch

ool r

ules

do

not h

elp

to

prot

ect c

hild

ren

/ no

resp

ect f

or ru

les’

(7%

of r

espo

nses

).•

63%

of C

HH

Q &

% o

f 36%

of K

II re

spon

dent

s st

ated

that

‘In

gene

ral c

hild

ren

feel

saf

e an

d pr

otec

ted

at

scho

ol’ (

24%

som

etim

es y

es, s

omet

imes

no,

11%

disa

gree

).


Out

put

Indi

cato

rTa

rget

Base

line

findi

ngs

2008

3.4

Child

ren

in

at le

ast 4

pr

ovin

ces

are

awar

e of

thei

r pr

otec

tion

righ

ts a

nd

form

and

ex

pres

s th

eir

view

s at

hom

e an

d in

sch

ool.

(Pro

vinc

ial

leve

l)

3.4.

1Pr

opor

tion

of

child

ren

in a

t le

ast 4

pro

vinc

es

who

repo

rt th

at

they

dis

cuss

chi

ld

prot

ectio

n is

sues

at

hom

e an

d in

sc

hool

and

who

de

mon

stra

te li

fe-

skill

s th

at p

rote

cts

them

from

chi

ld

prot

ectio

n ab

uses

.

50%

of

child

ren

in

at le

ast 4

pr

ovin

ces

Child

ren’

s ab

ility

to s

peak

out

in g

ener

al:

•Co

mpa

rison

ofC

HHQ,A

HHQand

KIIre

spon

ses54

resp

ectiv

ely

to th

e st

atem

ents

: ‘In

gene

ral c

hild

ren

can

spea

k ou

t fre

ely

at h

ome’

(79%

/ 80

% /6

0%);’

…at

scho

ol” (

57%

/ 50

% /

27%

); ‘…

in th

e co

mm

unity

’ (45%

/ 39

% /

15%

)’; …

with

th

eir f

riend

s’ (8

3% /

87%

/ 95

%).

•49

%ofC

HHQre

spon

dent

sagr

eeth

atth

eyhav

eth

erig

htto

saywha

tthe

ywan

ttoth

eirp

aren

tsw

ithou

tfea

ring

puni

shm

ent (

24%

som

etim

es y

es, s

omet

imes

no)

.•

69%ofA

HHQre

spon

dent

sagr

eeth

at‘W

eha

vere

gularf

amily

mee

tings

whe

reIca

nta

lkabo

utm

ywor

ries’co

mpa

red

with

54%

of C

HH

Q re

spon

dent

s.•

19%ofr

elev

antC

HHQre

spon

dent

ssta

teth

atth

eyw

ereco

nsulte

dab

outt

hecom

mun

ityp

laninp

lace

tohelp

keep

ch

ildre

n sa

fe; 1

6% w

ere

aske

d th

eir o

pini

on a

bout

scho

ol ru

les i

n pl

ace

to k

eep

child

ren

safe

. 89%

stat

e th

at th

ey c

an

repo

rt to

som

eone

if sc

hool

rule

s are

bro

ken.

Spea

king

out

spe

cific

ally

abo

ut C

P is

sues

:•

44%ofC

HHQre

spon

dent

swho

had

exp

erienc

edviolenc

e(p

hysic

al,v

erba

l,se

xual,n

eglect

)with

inth

epa

st1m

onth

to

ld so

meo

ne a

bout

this.

18%

of A

HH

Q re

spon

dent

s sta

ted

that

a c

hild

in th

eir h

ouse

hold

had

told

them

abo

ut

expe

rienc

ing

viol

ence

(phy

sical

, ver

bal,

sexu

al, n

egle

ct) w

ithin

the

past

1 m

onth

. Top

3 p

eopl

e w

ho th

ey to

ld: F

riend

(4

0%);

Oth

er re

lativ

e (1

7%);

Mot

her (

11%

) joi

ntly

with

Fat

her (

11%

). To

p 3

reas

ons w

hy re

leva

nt C

HH

Q re

spon

dent

s to

ld so

meo

ne: W

e ar

e cl

ose

/ we

have

a g

ood

rela

tions

hip

(32%

); I t

rust

them

(28%

); I w

as w

orrie

d or

I fe

lt ba

d (1

8%).

Top

3 re

ason

s why

rele

vant

AH

HQ

resp

onde

nts t

hink

a c

hild

in th

eir h

ouse

hold

told

them

abo

ut e

xper

ienc

ing

viol

ence

: Chi

ld tr

usts

me

(45%

); Ch

ild w

as w

orrie

d or

ups

et (2

1%);

We

are

clos

e / w

e ha

ve a

goo

d re

latio

nshi

p (1

3%).

•67

%ofC

HHQre

spon

dent

sagr

eeth

at‘Ikn

oww

hoIca

nta

lkto

ifso

meo

nehur

tsm

e’.Thisc

ompa

rest

o84

%ofA

HHQ

resp

onde

nts w

ho a

gree

that

‘Chi

ldre

n in

my

hous

ehol

d kn

ow w

ho th

ey c

an ta

lk to

if so

meo

ne h

urts

them

’ and

68%

of

KII

resp

onde

nts w

ho a

gree

that

‘Chi

ldre

n in

my

com

mun

ity k

now

who

they

can

talk

to if

som

eone

hur

ts th

em’.

•W

hatC

HHQre

spon

dent

swou

ldd

oifth

eyw

ereba

dlyhu

rtb

yso

meo

ne(t

op3):Hitba

ck(2

0%);Ta

lkto

som

eone

Itr

ust –

par

ent (

18%

); Co

nfro

nt th

e pe

rpet

rato

r (11

%).

•12

-15ye

ar-o

ldsi

ngr

oup

activ

ities

:71%

ofr

espo

nses

indica

teth

eyw

ouldg

oto

fam

ilym

embe

rs,e

spec

ially

m

ales

, whe

n ex

perie

ncin

g vi

olen

ce o

r bul

lyin

g; 2

7% w

ould

go

to fo

rmal

serv

ices

; 2%

wou

ld g

o to

frie

nds.

Whe

n ex

perie

ncin

g em

otio

nal d

istre

ss, 6

1% o

f res

pons

es re

fer t

o fa

mily

mem

bers

; 28%

refe

r to

frien

ds (i

nclu

ding

bo

yfrie

nds a

nd g

irlfri

ends

); 6%

refe

r to

form

al; 2

% to

trad

ition

al le

ader

s; 2%

to re

ligio

us le

ader

s.•

Top

3CH

HQre

spon

sest

oth

equ

estio

n:‘W

hats

ervice

sare

ther

einyou

rare

ath

atcou

ldhelp

youifyo

uwer

eba

dly

hurt

by

som

eone

?’: P

olic

e (2

3%);

Doc

tor /

nur

se /

heal

th se

rvic

e (2

1%);

Pare

nts (

15%

).•

86%ofC

HHQre

spon

dent

swho

iden

tified

serv

ices

stated

that

they

feltco

mfo

rtab

leand

con

fiden

ttoap

proa

ch

thes

e se

rvic

es. O

f the

35

‘not

com

fort

able

or c

onfid

ent’

resp

onse

s, 54

% w

ere

for t

he p

olic

e an

d 23

% fo

r ‘doc

tor /

nu

rse

/ hea

lth se

rvic

e’.•

Top

3re

ason

swhy

CHHQre

spon

dent

sfee

lcom

fortab

leand

con

fiden

ttoap

proa

chse

rvices

[N=34

5]:K

nowth

eycan

he

lp (3

3%);

Trus

t the

m (1

9%);

Know

them

(16%

).•

Top

3re

ason

swhy

CHHQre

spon

dent

sdono

tfee

lcom

fortab

leand

con

fiden

ttoap

proa

chse

rvices

[N=51

]:Sc

ared

of

them

(35%

); N

ot e

asy

to a

ppro

ach

(24%

); I a

m e

mba

rras

sed

/ ash

amed

(8%

) joi

ntly

with

Ref

used

(8%

).

54

‘Str

ongl

y ag

ree

or a

gree

’ resp

onse

s add

ed to

geth

er.


Out

put

Indi

cato

rTa

rget

Base

line

findi

ngs

2008

CHH

Q re

spon

dent

s’ un

ders

tand

ing

/ att

itude

abo

ut g

ener

al C

P is

sues

: •

96%agr

eeth

at‘P

aren

tsand

teac

herssh

ouldp

raise

childre

nwhe

nth

eyb

ehav

ewell’;

96%agr

eeth

at‘P

eopl

ewho

lo

ok a

fter c

hild

ren

shou

ld sh

ow th

em lo

ve a

nd a

ffect

ion

ever

y da

y’; 2

9% a

gree

that

‘It is

mor

e im

port

ant f

or y

our

pare

nts t

o at

tend

thei

r rel

igio

us o

blig

atio

ns th

an to

spen

d tim

e he

lpin

g ch

ildre

n w

ith th

eir h

omew

ork’

(39%

di

sagr

ee; 2

6% so

met

imes

yes

, som

etim

es n

o); 6

7% d

isagr

ee th

at ‘It

is g

ood

for c

hild

ren

to b

e se

nt a

way

to li

ve w

ith

rela

tives

or f

amily

frie

nds w

ho h

ave

mor

e m

oney

’; 57%

agr

ee th

at ‘If

you

stol

e so

me

mon

ey, i

t is g

ood

for a

n ad

ult

to h

it yo

u be

caus

e it

will

mak

e yo

u le

arn

not t

o st

eal a

gain

’ (30%

disa

gree

); 79

% d

isagr

ee th

at ‘It

is O

K to

cal

l a c

hild

st

upid

to m

ake

him

or h

er re

alise

hom

ewor

k m

istak

es’.

•How

CHHQre

spon

dent

sfelta

bout

exp

erienc

ing

violen

ce(p

hysic

al,v

erba

l,se

xual,n

eglect

-to

p3):A

ngry

(24%

);Sa

dor

ups

et (2

3%);

Emba

rras

sed

(15%

).CH

HQ

resp

onde

nts’

unde

rsta

ndin

g ab

out /

att

itude

s to

war

ds in

appr

opri

ate

touc

h:

•83

%ofC

HHQre

spon

dent

sagr

eeth

at‘Iun

dersta

ndw

hatk

ind

ofto

uching

isacc

epta

blean

dun

acce

ptab

le’(4

%

disa

gree

). [C

ompa

red

to 7

7% o

f AH

HQ

resp

onde

nts w

ho a

gree

that

‘We

have

exp

lain

ed to

our

chi

ldre

n w

hat k

ind

of

touc

hing

is a

ccep

tabl

e an

d un

acce

ptab

le’].

•

90%ofC

HHQre

spon

dent

sdisa

gree

that

‘Adu

ltsoro

lder

childre

nha

veth

erig

htto

touc

hyo

urb

odyev

enifyou

do

not w

ant t

hem

to’ (4

% a

gree

). 69

% o

f CH

HQ

resp

onde

nts d

isagr

ee th

at ‘If

you

kno

w th

e pe

rson

who

touc

hes y

ou

in a

way

that

mak

es y

ou fe

el u

ncom

fort

able

, the

re is

no

need

to te

ll an

yone

abo

ut it

’ (20%

agr

ee).

72%

of C

HH

Q

resp

onde

nts a

gree

that

‘If so

meo

ne o

ffers

you

mon

ey, s

wee

ts, c

loth

es o

r oth

er th

ings

to to

uch

your

bod

y, yo

u sh

ould

tell

som

eone

’ (20%

disa

gree

).Ch

ildre

n’s

expe

rien

ce o

f ina

ppro

pria

te to

uchi

ng:

•14

%ofC

HHQre

spon

dent

s(20

boy

s&19girls

)sta

ted

that

som

eone

ath

omeor

inth

eco

mm

unity

touc

hed

them

in

a w

ay th

at m

ade

them

feel

unc

omfo

rtab

le in

the

past

1 m

onth

and

32%

(35

girls

& 3

3 bo

ys) s

tate

that

som

eone

at

scho

ol to

uche

d th

em in

the

past

mon

th. 8

% o

f AH

HQ

resp

onde

nts s

tate

that

a c

hild

in th

eir h

ouse

hold

told

them

ab

out b

eing

touc

hed

in th

e pa

st m

onth

. Per

petr

ator

s of t

ouch

ing

at h

ome

or in

the

com

mun

ity w

ere:

ano

ther

chi

ld

(67%

); ad

ult (

31%

). Pe

rpet

rato

rs o

f tou

chin

g at

scho

ol w

ere:

ano

ther

chi

ld (9

1%);

adul

t (9%

). [O

f inc

iden

ts o

f tou

chin

g re

port

ed to

AH

HQ

resp

onde

nts 8

3% o

f per

petr

ator

s wer

e an

othe

r chi

ld &

17%

wer

e ad

ults

]. W

here

inap

prop

riate

to

uchi

ng to

ok p

lace

(top

3 -

% o

f 111

tota

l inc

iden

ces a

ccor

ding

to C

HH

Q re

spon

dent

s): A

t sch

ool (

58%

); O

n th

e w

ay

hom

e (1

3%) j

oint

ly w

ith In

the

com

mun

ity (1

3%);

At h

ome

(10%

). [A

ccor

ding

to A

HH

Q re

spon

dent

s the

inci

dent

s re

port

ed to

them

occ

urre

d (to

p 3)

: At h

ome

(35%

); So

mew

here

else

(26%

) joi

ntly

with

On

the

way

hom

e (2

6%);

At

scho

ol (9

%)].

Top

3 ar

eas o

n th

e bo

dy w

here

inap

prop

riate

touc

hing

took

pla

ce: C

hest

are

a –

fem

ale

(29%

); G

enita

l ar

ea (2

4%);

Stom

ach

area

(10%

). In

gen

eral

, boy

s wer

e m

ostly

touc

hed

by o

ther

chi

ldre

n on

the

geni

tals

whi

lst g

irls

wer

e m

ostly

touc

hed

by o

ther

chi

ldre

n on

the

brea

sts.

CHH

Q re

spon

dent

s’ ex

peri

ence

of p

eer v

iole

nce55

: •

19%ofs

choo

l-going

CHHQre

spon

dent

ssta

teth

atano

ther

childats

choo

lhit,kicke

d,sm

acke

d,p

inch

ed,k

nock

ed

or fl

icke

d th

em o

r pul

led

thei

r ear

s in

the

past

mon

th. T

his h

appe

ned

mos

tly ‘D

epen

ds o

n w

hat I

did

’ (51%

) or ‘

Whe

n he

or s

he fe

els l

ike

it’ (2

9%).

Top

3 ty

pes o

f phy

sical

vio

lenc

e ex

perie

nced

in th

e pa

st 1

mon

th: H

it (3

1%);

Push

eac

h ot

her p

layf

ully

(18%

); Ki

ck (1

6%) j

oint

ly w

ith S

mac

k (1

6%).

Resp

onde

nts w

ho w

ere

hit w

ere

done

so w

ith (t

op 3

): O

pen

hand

(45%

); Cl

osed

fist

(27%

); Le

gs (9

%).

Top

3 pl

aces

on

the

body

whe

re re

spon

dent

s wer

e hu

rt: B

ack

(31%

); Ar

ms (

15%

); jo

intly

(10%

eac

h) S

ide

of fa

ce, b

utto

cks,

head

. Top

3 re

ason

s why

they

thin

k th

is ha

ppen

ed: G

ets a

ngry

w

ith m

e /

lose

s tem

per (

48%

); Pl

ay fi

ghtin

g - n

ot re

ally

figh

ting

(17%

); O

ther

(10%

).•

50%ofs

choo

l-going

CHHQre

spon

dent

ssta

teth

atano

ther

childats

choo

lcalledth

emaninap

prop

riate

nam

einth

epa

st 1

mon

th. T

his m

ostly

hap

pene

d: D

epen

ds o

n w

hat I

did

(45%

); W

hen

othe

r chi

ld fe

els l

ike

it (3

1%).

Top

3 ty

pes

of in

appr

opria

te n

ame

in th

e pa

st 1

mon

th: G

ener

al sw

earin

g (2

8%);

Mad

e fu

n of

my

nam

e (1

9%);

Oth

er (1

1%).

Top

3 re

ason

s why

they

thin

k th

is ha

ppen

ed: P

layi

ng -

does

not

real

ly m

ean

it / f

or a

joke

(29%

); Te

asin

g (2

8%);

Get

s ang

ry

with

me

/ los

es te

mpe

r (21

%).

• CH

HQ

resp

onde

nts’

wis

h fo

r the

futu

re (t

op 3

): Be

a d

octo

r or n

urse

(23%

); Be

a te

ache

r (11

%);

Get

a g

ood

job

(10%

).55

‘I

n ad

ditio

n to

inap

prop

riate

touc

hing

men

tione

d ab

ove.


Out

put

Indi

cato

rTa

rget

Base

line

findi

ngs

2008

Add

ition

al g

ener

alPe

rcep

tion

of

child

ren’

s sa

fety

in

the

hom

e, s

choo

l an

d co

mm

unit

y an

d th

ings

whi

ch

help

or h

inde

r thi

s.

•Co

mpa

rison

ofC

HHQ,A

HHQand

KIIre

spon

ses56

resp

ectiv

ely

to th

e st

atem

ents

: ‘In

gene

ral c

hild

ren

are

safe

and

pr

otec

ted

at h

ome’

(82%

/ 88

% /6

5%); ‘

…at

scho

ol’ (6

3% /

57%

/ 36

%); ‘

…in

the

com

mun

ity’ (5

0% /

41%

/ 12

%).

95%

of

relig

ious

lead

ers f

elt t

hat c

hild

ren

are

safe

and

pro

tect

ed in

pla

ces o

f wor

ship

.•

3be

stw

ayst

om

akech

ildre

nfeelsa

fein

theco

mm

unity

(top

3):CH

HQre

spon

dent

s:Lo

veand

carefo

rchildre

n(1

3%);

Spiri

tual

or r

elig

ious

cou

nsel

ling

& ac

tiviti

es (1

0%) j

oint

ly w

ith Im

prov

e up

brin

ging

in th

e ho

me

(10%

); Cr

eate

sa

fe p

lace

s for

chi

ldre

n to

spen

d tim

e (8

%).

AHH

Q re

spon

dent

s: Im

prov

e up

brin

ging

& d

iscip

line

in th

e ho

me

(13%

); Lo

ve a

nd c

are

for c

hild

ren

(12%

); Sp

iritu

al o

r rel

igio

us c

ouns

ellin

g , v

alue

s & a

ctiv

ities

(9%

). KI

I res

pond

ents

: Lov

e an

d ca

re fo

r chi

ldre

n (3

2%);

Educ

ate

pare

nts o

n ho

w to

look

afte

r chi

ldre

n (2

3%);

Do

not h

it ch

ildre

n (1

4%).

•3m

ainth

ings

which

mak

ech

ildre

nfeelnot

safein

theco

mm

unity

(top

3):CH

HQre

spon

dent

s:Al

coho

list

oo

easil

y av

aila

ble

(18%

); Fi

ghtin

g in

the

fam

ily (1

1%);

Pare

nts d

o no

t kno

w h

ow to

look

afte

r chi

ldre

n (8

%).

AHH

Q

resp

onde

nts:

Alco

hol i

s too

eas

ily a

vaila

ble

(19%

); Ba

d in

fluen

ce o

f oth

er p

eopl

e (1

2%);

Pare

nts d

o no

t kno

w h

ow to

lo

ok a

fter c

hild

ren

(8%

). KI

I res

pond

ents

: Alc

ohol

is to

o ea

sily

avai

labl

e (2

9%);

Pare

nts h

ittin

g ch

ildre

n (2

0%);

No

love

or

car

e fo

r chi

ldre

n (1

7%).

•KIIres

pond

ents’3

wish

esto

help

keep

childre

nsa

fein

theco

mm

unity

:Oth

er(ind

ividua

lres

pons

es)(12

%);Al

lch

ildre

n to

hav

e pa

rent

s / a

hap

py, l

ovin

g fa

mily

; par

ents

to re

spec

t, lo

ve a

nd c

are

for c

hild

ren

(11%

); Tr

aini

ng a

nd

awar

enes

s rai

sing

for c

omm

unity

mem

bers

on

child

abu

se a

nd/o

r chi

ld ri

ghts

(e.g

. par

ents

, tea

cher

s, co

mm

unity

le

ader

s) (1

1%).

•18

-25ye

ar-o

ldsi

ngr

oup

activ

ities

iden

tified

theto

p3sa

fesp

aces

forc

hildre

nincom

mun

ities

as:

scho

ol(1

5%of

all r

espo

nses

); ch

urch

(12%

); an

d ot

her p

lace

s whi

ch w

ere

spec

ific

to p

artic

ular

com

mun

ities

(10%

). To

pe 3

uns

afe

plac

es: r

iver

s, cr

eeks

and

stre

ams (

11%

of a

ll re

spon

ses)

; oth

er p

lace

s spe

cific

to p

artic

ular

com

mun

ities

(10%

); an

d ro

ads a

nd fo

otpa

ths (

8%).

56

‘Str

ongl

y ag

ree

or a

gree

’ resp

onse

s add

ed to

geth

er.d

ed to

geth

er.


3.3 Field research – respondent information

AHHQ CHHQ

Type of location Of completed AHHQs:60%=Village22%=Peri-urban18%=Urbanneighbourhood

Of completed CHHQs:62%=Village21%=Peri-urban17%=Urbanneighbourhood

Total number of respondents 273 274

Sex 59% Female41% Male

55% Male 45% Female

Age 18 – 25yr 5%25 – 35yr 35%35 – 45yr 36%45 – 55yr 15%55 – 65yr 7%65 – 75yr 1%

15 years 30%16 years 29%17 years 41%

Ethnicity 99% Solomon Islanders1% I-Kiribati

99% Solomon Islanders1% I-Kiribati

Religion 98% Christian2% Other

Christian Denominations37% Anglican29% Catholic16% Methodist/United Church9% Seventh Day Adventist7% South Seas Evangelical Church2% Other

97% Christian3% Other

Christian Denominations32% Anglican28% Catholic17% Methodist/United Church11% South Seas Evangelical Church9% Seventh Day Adventist3% Other

Marital status 89% Married3% Living with Partner3% Single3% Widowed2% Separated

100% Single

Work status 56% Unpaid23% Full–time employed8% Part-time self-employed5% Full-time self-employed3% Part-time employed3% Casual worker1% Retired1% Other

81% Not working10% Unpaid work3% Part-time employed3% Other1% Full-time employed1% Casual worker1% Full-time self-employed

Education status N/A Attending school 88%, of whom:

76% Full-time secondary15% Full-time primary3% Part-time secondary6% Other

Highest education level attained 42% Secondary36% Primary13% Tertiary5% Vocational training4% No formal schooling

79% Secondary19% Primary1% Tertiary0.3% No formal schooling0.3% Refused0.3% Other


AHHQ CHHQ

Household income 79% OK11% Poor4% Well off2% Other1% Refused1% Don’t know1% Very poor0%Verywell-off[N=1]

[Please note that these answers are subjective, based on a simple self description by respondents]

73% OK11% Poor6% Well-off4% Don’t know4% Refused1% Very well-off1% Other

[Please note that these answers are subjective, based on a simple self description by respondents]

Number of children per household

Girls:54%Boys:46%

0-5yrs:29%6-10yrs:30%11-15yrs:26%16-18yrs:15%

Biological:85%Hosted:15%

Girls biological:47%Girls hosted:7.5%Boys biological:38%Boys hosted:7.5%

Girls:48%Boys:52%

0-5yrs:13%6-10yrs:24%11-15yrs:31%16-18yrs:32%

Biological:87%Hosted:13%

Girls biological:43%Girls Hosted:5%Boys biological:44%Boys hosted:8%


3.4 Detailed findings per output

3.4.1 Detailed findings for Outcome 1

Overview

Outcome 1 is made up of three Outputs. Output 1.1 relates to the Child Protection Bill and the degree of alignment between domestic legislation and regulations in relation to child protection with international standards. Output 1.2 looks at the functioning of the justice system, with emphasis on separation of detained children, diversion for children in conflict with the law, the level of protection and support provided to children as victims / survivors, and the extent to which chiefs demonstrate child rights in decision making. Output 1.3 examines community-based programmes for children in conflict with the law.

Findings for Output 1.1 Child Protection Bill aligned with the CRC / Optional Protocols is endorsed and implementation initiated (National level)


Output 1.1 Child Protection Bill aligned with the CRC / Optional Protocols is endorsed and implementation initiated (National level)

Indicator 1.1.1Proportion of relevant stakeholders57(male/female) who demonstrate ability to apply new Child Protection Bill

Target: 50% of stakeholders

Indicator 1.1.2Degree of alignment between national law/s and relevant child protection CRC / Optional Protocols provisions

Comments There are no findings for Indicator 1.1.1 as the Child Protection Bill is not yet in place. The findings here relate directly to Indicator 1.1.2, even though this does not necessarily relate to the overall Output.

Measurement was achieved by fleshing out the relevant UNCRC provisions and international principles to their full domestic law and policy ramifications. A list of more detailed indicators was developed based on this and divided into categories of child protection issues for analysis as follows:1. Child welfare/child protection system2. Family separation and alternative care3. Violence against children4. Sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children5. Abduction, sale and trafficking6. Child labour and children in street situations7. Child-friendly investigative and court processes8. Rehabilitation9. Children in conflict with the law10. Refugee/unaccompanied migrant children11. Children in armed conflict12. Information access13. Birth registration

This part of the report is divided according to these 13 sections. The table at the beginning of each section summarises the assessment of domestic law and policy against each of the detailed indicators using a scale of compliance as follows:• Yes=Requirementsofanindicatorfullymetbylegislativeandpolicyprovisions.• Partly=Provisionscomplywithsomeaspectsoftheindicatorbutnotall,orprovisionscomply

fully with the indicator in substance, but do not protect all children.• No=Norelevantlegalorpolicyprovisionforagivenindicator,ortheexistingprovisionsare

grossly inadequate.

Following the compliance table, each section presents the basic findings of the review, opportunities (existing work in that area that supports reform) and recommendations.

Please note that the findings here have been summarized from a much more detailed legislative compliance review which is available on request as a separate document.

57 Members of the judiciary, police officers, social workers, healthcare workers etc.


Important background information:

The drafting capacity of the Attorney General’s Office is extremely limited at this point in time and there is a significant backlog of drafting work. The Attorney General is open to the outsourcing of drafting work for specific pieces of legislation, provided that the selection of such technical assistance is made in consultation with his office and works closely with his office.

An important first step in achieving any law reform for child protection is the endorsement of a national children’s policy and plan of action. A process to achieve this has been ongoing since 2003. This policy should be finalized and endorsed by Cabinet as soon as possible.

Despite existing work, as noted below, progress on law reform for child protection has been slow. It is recommended that weaknesses in the current legislative framework be addressed at a policy and protocol level to ensure maximum protection for children until law reform can be achieved.

1 Child welfare/child protection systemCRC Articles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 18, 19 and 20

Indicator Complies

1(1) A national child protection law has been enacted to establish the framework for the provision of child and family protection services that:

No

1(1) (a) Establishes clear procedures and accountabilities for reporting, assessment and intervention in cases of children at risk and children who have experienced violence, abuse, neglect or exploitation.

No

1(1) (b) Makes it mandatory for all persons to report suspected children at risk, and protects them from liability for doing so. Professionals working with children (health professionals, teachers, child care workers, etc) specifically relieved from confidentiality obligations. [This law to be enacted only in the context of a functioning and confidential child protection system].

No

1(1) (c) Specifies the duties and powers of social welfare agencies and others to prevent child abuse and exploitation, to support children and families at risk, and to take protective measures where necessary.

No

1(1) (d) Provides for a child-friendly reporting and complaints system e.g. telephone helplines. No

1(1) (e) Promotes a coordinated and multidisciplinary response to children in need of protection. No

1(1) (f ) Specifies a variety of supportive and protective interventions that may be used (counselling, financial assistance, income generation support, family supervision orders, respite care, parental education, temporary foster or other alternative care, emergency shelter, education/vocational training assistance etc.), and procedures and criteria for applying those interventions.

No

1(1) (g) Prohibits separation of a child his/her family against their will except by order of a competent authority, and when necessary in the best interests of the child (see Family Separation and Alternative Care below).

Partly

1(1) (h) Defines the legal obligation on the Sate to provide alternative care for children without parental care or who cannot in their best interest be permitted to remain in parental care, and the forms of alternative care to be provided (foster care, kinship care, guardianship, adoption and institutional care) – see Family Separation and Alternative below.

No

1(1) (i) Requires the best interests of the child be the paramount consideration in any decision affecting the child, couched in a Constitutional guarantee as well as in specific welfare/child protection legislation.

No

1(1) (j) Specifies criteria for establishing the best interests of the child. No

1(1) (k) Requires that the views of the child be sought and respected in any decision about intervention or support services and their right to privacy upheld.

No

1(1) (l) Minimum standards have been established for the professional qualification, training and ethical conduct of social workers and individuals working in institutions caring for children, and accreditation required.

No

1(1) (m) Minimum standards have been established for the types and quality of support services to be provided to children in need of protection and their families, governing services provided by both government and non-governmental service providers.

No

58 Progress against this RRF indicator can be measured by a shift in the numbers of partial and non-compliances. As the “partial compliance” category covers a broad range of degrees of compliance, it may be that significant progress is made in some areas without achieving the standard of full compliance. In order to ensure that such achievements are acknowledged in the review in 2012 it is recommended that a more refined system be used involving the use of Partial + and Partial – compliance.


Indicator Complies

1(1) (n) Accreditation required to operate as any institution, service and facility responsible for the care or protection of children.

No

1(1) (o) No discriminatory provisions contained in existing child protection/welfare system legislation. Yes

1(1) (p) Independent, child-friendly, avenue of complaint for children for consideration and resolution of complaints in relation to service providers within the child protection and social welfare framework.

Partly

1(1) (q) Informal customary processes relating to child welfare and protection recognized in law and standards of care established and applied.

No

1(2) A national overarching policy on Child Protection and family welfare is in place, further defining the legal framework (where necessary), specifying:

No

1(2) (a) Precise definitions of abuse, neglect and exploitation (if the law does not provide details). -

1(2) (b) Guiding principles including at least: the best interest of the child, non discrimination, family preservation, participation, continuum of services, and permanency planning.

-

1(2) (c) Child protection operational areas involve prevention, tertiary intervention and out-of-home care (all child and family focused).

-

1(2) (d) Government focal point for child and family welfare. -

1(2) (e) Basket of essential services to be delivered to children and families. -

1(2) (f ) Reference to sectoral policies and regulations (quality standards) on child and family welfare services provision.

-

1(3) Provisions are in place regarding child protection practice in emergency situations (natural and man made disasters).

No

Summary:• Thelawisessentiallysilentonthechildwelfare/childprotectionsystem.• There isnonational legislationorpolicydefiningthevariousformsofabuse,neglectandexploitationofchildren,norspecifyingthe

rights, powers and responsibilities of government services, the courts, traditional authorities, parents and children, including supportive mechanisms for child protection and minimum standards in alternative care.

Opportunities: • AdraftchildprotectionbillentitledtheChild and Family Services Bill was prepared by a consultant in 1999 in response to an identified

need for some form of child protection legislation. The draft bill was rejected on a number of grounds including assertions that it was unresponsive to the local context and lacked meaningful consultation. There have been ongoing discussions since this time in relation to progressing the legislation but no further drafting work undertaken.

• Adraftchildren’srightsbillentitledThe Rights of the Child Convention Bill 2004 was prepared based on a draft children’s rights bill initiated in 2000. The draft Bill is designed to bring into legal force the provisions of the UNCRC and make provision for basic child protection intervention powers. Discussions in relation to progressing this Bill have been ongoing.

• WorkonaNational Children’s Policy and Plan of Action has been ongoing since 2003, including unsuccessful attempts to obtain Cabinet approval for previous draft Policies. Technical assistance is currently in place to facilitate completion of an amended draft Policy this year for submission to Cabinet. The current draft makes provision for the development of child protection legislation and internal and inter-agency procedures for government departments and services dealing with children.

• Significantworkhasbeenundertakenin2008todevelopinter-agencyprotocolsinchildprotectioninthefollowingserviceareas:- Corrections Service and SWD - provision of social welfare services in the corrections facility in Honiara;- Magistrates Courts and SWD - strengthen the existing referral system for young offenders;- MHMS and SWD – referral protocols for child protection;- Police and SWD – referral protocols for child victims/survivors and children in conflict with the law;- NGO crisis service providers and government agencies – service and referral protocols for child victims/survivors of violence, abuse and

exploitation. Full Compliance: 1 Partial Compliance: 2 Non-Compliance: 17 Total: 20


2 Family separation and alternative careCRC Articles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 12, 20, 21 and 25

Indicator Complies

2(1) Family/Child Protection laws clearly define parental roles and responsibilities. Partly

2(2) The law designates a competent authority to make determinations about when a child can be separated from his/her parents, and stipulates grounds and procedures for doing so. These decisions are subject to judicial review.

Partly

2(3) The law requires that all cases dealing with the separation of children from their parents be dealt with speedily. No

2(4) The law requires that all cases dealing with the separation of children from their parents be dealt with confidentially and, where court proceedings are involved, in a closed court.

No

2(5) Family laws stipulate that, when parents separate, the grounds for allocating parental responsibility are based on the individual child’s best interests.

No

2(6) Family laws stipulate that, when parents separate, there is a presumption that children’s best interests, unless proved to the contrary, are in maintaining contact with both parents.

No

2(7) Family laws stipulate that, when parents separate, the nature of the parents’ relationship is explicitly excluded as a consideration in allocating parental responsibility.

No

2(8) Family/child protection laws state that parents and children may be separated against their will by authorities only when it is in the best interests of the child and necessary for the child’s protection, i.e. as a last resort

Partly

2(9) Family preservation is explicitly stated to be a priority in arrangements for child protection. No

2(10) There are legal limitations on the ability of parents to voluntarily give up their parental responsibilities (e.g. by admitting a child to an orphanage or other institution).

n/a

2(11) Neglect arising from poverty explicitly excluded as a grounds for child removal. No

2(12) All laws specifying the grounds justifying the separation of a child from their parents are free from discriminatory provisions.

No

2(13) The law provides for standards/criteria for determining when a child should be separated from their parents by authorities.

Partly

2(14) The law specifies the alternative care options available such as family member care, foster care, adoption, institutional care etc.

Partly

2(15) The law requires that priority be given to placement of a separated child with members of their wider family, with appropriate support where necessary. Institutionalisation is explicitly a measure of last resort.

No

2(16) The law requires that the best interest of the child be the primary consideration in making decisions about alternative care.

No

2(17) The law requires that due regard must be paid to the desirability of continuity in a child’s upbringing and to the child’s ethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic background.

No

2(18) The law requires that the child’s views be taken into consideration in any decision made about alternative care, and that those views be given due weight in accordance with the child’s age and maturity.

No

2(19) The law requires that the views of all interested parties by heard and taken into consideration in any decision made in relation to the separation of a child from its parents and the allocation of alternative care.

No

2(20) The law requires that all children in alternative care (foster care, adoption, institutions, etc) are subject to a regular review of that placement.

No

2(21) The law gives children separated from their parents the right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child’s best interests.

No

2(22) Standards of care have been established for residential care facilities and other forms of alternative care (including fostering, guardianship, etc) and accreditation required.

No

2(23) The law requires that all adoptions be authorized only by a competent authority, and that: Partly

2(23) (a) The best interest of the child is the paramount consideration. Partly

2(23) (b) The consent of the child is required, or the views of the child sought, considered and given due weight, having regard to the child’s age and capacity.

Yes

2(23) (c) Authorities must be satisfied that the adoption is permissible in view of the child’s status and that all consents required by law have been given.

Yes


Indicator Complies

2(23) (d) Where consent is required, the law requires that counseling be provided. Partly

2(23) (e) Due regard must be paid to preservation of the child’s identity and the desirability of continuity in the child’s background and to the child’s ethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic background.

No

2(23) (f ) Inter-country adoption is permitted only as a last resort for suitable alternative care. No

2(23) (g) Legal safeguards for international adoption of equivalent or greater stringency to those in place for domestic adoption.

Yes

2(23) (h) Improper financial gain from inter-country adoption is prohibited by law and appropriately sanctioned. Yes

2(24) Border controls are in place for monitoring the entry and exit of babies and children traveling with adults who are not their parents.

No

2(25) Laws and procedures governing deportation require consideration of the child’s right not to be separated from his or her parents unless necessary for his or her best interests.

No

2(26) The law provides for babies and young children to be able to reside with incarcerated mothers. Yes

2(27) Prisoners are permitted by law to be visited by their children. Yes

2(28) The law provides for the child’s right to knowledge of whereabouts of parents where separation results from action by the State.

No

2(29) Legislative provision for an independent, child-friendly avenue of complaint for consideration and resolution of complaints by children regarding state actions to separate them from their parents and related issues (e.g. alternative care).

Partly

2(30) Traditional customs which separate parents and children unnecessarily are outlawed. No

Summary:• The legislationandpolicydealingwith familyseparationandalternativecareareextremely limitedand, inmany respects, the law is

completely silent on these issues. • Theadoptionlegislationisreasonablystronginsofarasitaddressesformaladoptions.However,itsreachdoesnotextendtoregulation

of adoptions under kastom which make up the vast number of adoptions in the Solomon Islands.

Opportunities: • DraftChildren and Family Services Bill as per Section One above.• National Children’s Policy and Plan of Action as per Section One above.

Full Compliance: 6 Partial Compliance: 9 Non-Compliance: 22 Not applicable: 1 Total: 38


3 Violence and maltreatmentCRC Articles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12 and 19

Indicator Complies

3(1) All forms of violence against children (physical, sexual, emotional, neglect) are clearly defined and strictly prohibited in law.

Partly

3(2) The law requires the reporting and investigation of all child deaths. Partly

3(3) Corporal punishment is explicitly prohibited in the home, school, institutions and community. Legal exceptions or defences are not available in law to parents or others in relation to assaults on children (e.g. the defence of “parental correction”).

No

3(4) The threat of and use of mental violence in homes, schools (public/private), child care institutions (public/private), foster care, alternative care, day care and the penal system is an offence,

No

3(5) The law prohibits all expressions of violence in schools, whether by pupils or teachers, including physical violence, emotional violence (bullying), sexual harassment, stigma and discrimination.

Partly

3(6) National policies, strategies and laws exist to counter spousal violence and its impact on children including (but not restricted to):

Partly

3(6) (a) • Criminalassaultagainstwomeninthehomeisaspecificoffence -

3(6) (b) • Domesticviolencelegislativeprovisionsprovidefortheremovaloftheperpetratorfromthehomebypolice following acts or threats of violence

-

3(6) (c) • Asystemofapprehendedviolenceorders -

3(6) (d) • Definitionofmentalviolenceincludeswitnessingactsofviolence -

3(7) Traditional practices harmful to children, such as early marriage, female genital mutilation, honour killings etc., have been identified and prohibited by law and appropriate penalties prescribed for those who violate these provisions.

No

3(8) Negligent treatment of a child by any person who has care of that child an offence, a defence to which is poverty.

Yes

3(9) Infanticide is a criminal act. Yes

3(10) Provisions protecting children from violence are free from discrimination. Yes

3(11) Independent child-friendly complaints avenue outside of the criminal legal system available to child victims/survivors of violence.

Partly

3(12) Institutions dealing with reports of violence against children are required to record and report disaggregated data in relation to reports received and actions taken.

No

Summary:• Thelawprovidessomeprotectionforchildrenfromthevariousformsofviolence,withneglectcomprehensivelyaddressed.• Otherformsofviolenceareprohibitedbutnotclearlydefinedandtheexistenceofexceptionsfordisciplinepurposesunderminestheir

efficacy for children. • AgelimitsforprotectionsneedtobealignedwiththeUNCRCdefinitionofthechild.• Thelawissilentonviolencebetweenchildren.Theindirectimpactofdomesticviolenceonchildrenisaddressedonlyatapolicylevel.

Opportunities: • ThePenal Code 1963 is currently undergoing comprehensive review by the Law Reform Commission. The weaknesses in the current

legislation have been communicated to the Law Reform Commission through the consultation process associated with this CPBR report.

Full Compliance: 3 Partial Compliance: 5 Non-Compliance: 4 Total: 12


4 Sexual abuse and sexual exploitation CRC Articles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, 19 and 34

Indicator Complies

4(1) The law defines unlawful sexual activity involving children. Partly

4(2) The criminal law penalizes all forms of unlawful sexual acts against children as separate and more serious crimes than similar conduct against adults.

Partly

4(3) The criminal law establishes an age below which a child is deemed to be unable to consent to sexual activities which is the same for boys and girls.

Partly

4(4) No defence of honest and reasonable belief the victim/survivor was of legal age. Partly

4(5) Minimum legal age for marriage ideally set at 18, with a strict minimum of 15 and is the same for boys and girls.

Yes

4(6) No exemption from rape prosecution for marital rape. Yes

4(7) Definition of rape includes penetration of any part of the body by any body part/object and is not gender specific. The definition of non-consent is broad.

No

4(8) Special protections in place for vulnerable children, such as disabled children. Yes

4(9) Sexual harassment explicitly prohibited between children and between children and adults in all institutional contexts.

Partly

4(10) The criminal law includes a separate and distinct offence of prostituting children, defined in accordance with the Optional Protocol and sanctioned in a manner that reflects the gravity of the crime.

Partly

4(11) The criminal law includes a specific criminal offence(s) relating to child pornography, defined in accordance with the Optional Protocol and sanctioned in a manner that reflects the gravity of the crime. Issues relating to internet pornography have been explicitly addressed. Offences to include the production, possession or dissemination of child pornography.

No

4(12) The law includes ‘extraterritorial’ provisions permitting the prosecution of nationals/residents for unlawful acts committed against children in other countries.

Partly

4(13) Extradition laws or extradition arrangements are in place to ensure that perpetrators are prosecuted either in their country of origin, or in the country in which the offence was committed.

Yes

4(14) Government has acceded to and promoted bilateral and multilateral measures to protect the child from sexual abuse and sexual exploitation.

Not established

4(15) No discriminatory provisions in protective legislation in relation to sexual abuse and exploitation. No

4(16) Institutions dealing with reports of sexual abuse and exploitation of children are required to record and report disaggregated data in relation to reports received and actions taken.

No

Summary:• Comprehensivecriminalprovisionsexistaddressingthesexualabuseandexploitationofthegirlchild,butpenaltiesandagethresholds

need to be reviewed. • Theboychilddoesnotreceiveequivalentprotectionandthepossibilityoffemaleabusersisnotrecognized.• Unlawfulsexualactsagainstadultsarenotalwaysidentifiedasseparateandmoreseriousoffenceswhenperpetratedagainstchildren.• Thedefinitionofrapeisnarrow.• Extraditionprovisionsexisttosupportextra-territorialprosecutionfortheabuseofchildren.• AlthoughtheminimumageofmarriagestrictlycomplieswiththeUNCRCrequirement,theexistinglowminimumageislinkedtothe

exploitation of the girl child and should be reviewed to the more ideal age of 18.





5 Abduction, sale and traffickingCRC Articles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 11, 12, 34, 35 and 36

Indicator Complies

5(1) A central authority been designated to deal with issues of international child abductions. No

5(2) Legal provisions are in place to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in the country and to ensure that rights of custody and access under the law of other countries are effectively respected.

No

5(3) Courts empowered to make any orders necessary to prevent child abduction. Partly

5(4) Laws and policies support effective communication of court orders re travel restrictions etc. to border officials. No

5(5) State institutions empowered to release information that will help to trace the whereabouts of abducted children.

No

5(6) The criminal law includes a specific crime relating to sale of children, defined broadly in accordance with the Optional Protocol to the CRC, and sanctioned in a manner that reflects the gravity of the crime.

No

5(7) The criminal law includes the specific crime of trafficking in humans, defined in accordance with the Trafficking Protocol, and sanctioned in a manner that reflects the gravity of the crime.

Yes

5(8) The laws relating to human trafficking provide additional penalties where trafficking involves children. No

5(9) The law also criminalizes activities related to trafficking, including forced or compulsory labour, debt bondage, forced marriage, forced prostitution, unlawful confinement, labour exploitation, and illegally withholding identity papers.

Partly

5(10) The law imposes civil or criminal liability on legal entities (travel agencies, marriage brokers, sex shops, bars, brothels or employment agencies) for trafficking offences.

No

5(11) The law provides for the seizure and confiscation of goods, assets and other instrumentalities used to commit or facilitate trafficking, and that proceeds or assets confiscated from traffickers be used to support trafficking victims/survivors.

No

5(12) Measures are in place to assist the prosecution of those engaged in child trafficking outside of the jurisdiction. Yes

5(13) Legal provisions and policies promote cooperation between relevant agencies, in particular the police, immigration and welfare services, in identifying child victims/survivors of trafficking.

No

5(14) Guidelines are in place for border officials for the identification and handling of child victims/survivors of trafficking.

No

5(15) Procedures/guidelines provide for immediate and safe emergency care for children who have been rescued from trafficking.

No

5(16) Criminal trial procedures permit the use of testimony of foreign trafficked victims/survivors which was taken before repatriation, for example, through the use of video and audio tapes of the trafficked victims/survivors’ testimony as evidence.

No

5(17) Immigration laws permit foreign trafficked children to remain in the country, temporarily or permanently, in appropriate cases, and in accordance with the stated views of the child.

No

5(18) Protection, rehabilitation and support services are available to all child victims/survivors of trafficking regardless of nationality and agreement to appear as witnesses in any criminal proceedings.

No

5(19) Guidelines have been developed for the safe and timely return and repatriation of child victims/survivors of cross-border trafficking where appropriate.

No


Summary:• ThePenal Code 1963 criminalises the crime of trafficking through its kidnapping provisions and also prohibits various activities associated

with trafficking such as forced prostitution, labour and begging etc. • SomeprovisionisalsomadefortheprosecutionoftraffickingcrimesthatoccuroutsideoftheSolomonIslandsjurisdiction.• Astrongerprotectionforchildrenwouldbeachievedbyaspecificandcomprehensiveanti-traffickinglawthatdealswithprevention,

prosecution and repatriation and rehabilitation of victims/survivors, including penalties that reflect the seriousness of the crime. • Provisionsintermsofpreventingandrespondingtochildabductionbyparentsareverylimited.

Opportunities: • The Penal Code 1963 is currently undergoing comprehensive review by the Law Reform Commission. The weaknesses in the current



6 Child labour and children in street situationsCRC Articles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, 32 and 33

Indicator Complies

6(1) Laws do not criminalize vagrancy or other status offences and children living and working on the street are not subject to arbitrary police arrest or detention.

No

6(2) Laws are in place to ensure appropriate standards for children’s work and pay in both the formal and informal sectors.

No

6(3) Minimum age for employment is defined in legislation not less than 15 and at least equal to the age of completion of compulsory education.

Partly

6(4) The law includes provisions regulating permissible work by children over the minimum age, including regulations defining the hours and conditions of work for children (formal and informal sector).

Partly

6(5) The law prohibits anyone under the age of 18 from engaging in any type of employment or work that by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out is likely to jeopardize the health, safety or morals of young persons, including hazardous work, work that interferes with the child’s education or any work that involves cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, the sale of children or servitude.

Partly

6(6) The law clearly defines the types of work that are prohibited for children. Yes

6(7) Exemptions to the definition of child labour are specified in legislation, for example, domestic assistance in the child’s own family home.

Yes

6(8) The law prohibits the use of children for the purposes of begging. Yes

6(9) Penalties over and above standard criminal sanctions for drug activities for offenders who involve children in any aspect of the drugs trade.

No

6(10) Employers required to have, and produce on demand, proof of age of all children working for them. Yes

6(11) Persons responsible for compliance with provisions concerning child labour are defined in legislation. Yes

6(12) Labour/criminal laws provide for appropriate penalties for those who violate child labour laws. Partly

6(13) Labour inspectors are trained and sufficiently empowered to enforce child labour laws, including the authority to immediately remove a child from a work environment that is hazardous or harmful to the child’s health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development.

Yes

6(14) Independent, child-friendly complaints avenue for investigation, consideration and resolution of complaints regarding breaches of children’s labour rights.

Partly

6(15) Prohibition on the use of children for all forms of research, including medical or scientific experimentation, unless appropriate consents have been obtained from the child and/or parents or legal guardians.

No

6(16) A national strategy exists for the elimination of the worst forms of child labour. No

6(17) No discriminatory provisions in the labour law. No


Summary:• Theprovisionsregulatingpermissiblechildlabourarequitecomprehensiveandinmanyrespectscomplywiththeminimumstandards

for child labour in terms of age and permissible work. • Payandconditionsforchildrenneedtobeaddressedmoreexplicitly,withaclearerprohibitionofemploymentofchildrenofschoolage

and hazardous employment for anyone under 18. • Homelessnessandpovertyofchildrenisacriminaloffenceunderthevagrancyprovisions.• Thereisspaceforstrategiestobeputinplacetoeliminatetheworstformsofchildlabour.




7 Child-friendly investigative and court procedures CRC Articles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, and 39

Indicator Complies

7(1) Criminal procedure laws/guidelines include measures to protect the rights and interests of children at all stages of the justice process and to reduce trauma and secondary traumatisation, including:

7(1) (a) • Inter-agencyreferralprocedurestopromotecoordinationbetweenpolice,healthcareworkers,socialworkers and other service providers.

No

7(1) (b) • Coordination/referralmechanismisinplaceforchildrenwhocometotheattentionofthepolice. No

7(1) (c) • Inanyactionstakenthebestinterestsofthechildwillbetheprimaryconsideration. No

7(1) (d) • Anyactionstakentotakeintoaccountthechild’sviewsinaccordancewiththeirageandmaturityandrespect the child’s right to privacy.

No

7(1) (e) • Thelawguaranteeschildrentherighttoparticipateinanyjudicialproceedingsthataffectthem,toexpress their views, and to have those views given due weight.

No

7(1) (f ) • Child-friendlyinterviewenvironmentsandinterviewtechniques(police,prosecutors,judges,socialworkers etc.)

No

7(1) (g) • Specialprocedurestoreducethenumberandlengthofinterviewschildvictims/survivorsaresubjectedto. No

7(1) (h) • Victim/survivor/witnesssupportprogramtofamiliarizechildrenwiththecourtprocessandprovidesupport at all stages of the process, including social and legal counseling.

No

7(1) (i) • Childrenareentitledtohaveasupportpersonpresentwiththematallstagesoftheinvestigationandtrialproceedings (legal/social).

No

7(1) (j) • Lawpermitschild-friendlycourtprocedures,includingalternativearrangementsforgivingtestimonysuchas screens, video-taped evidence and closed circuit television.

Partly

7(1) (k) • Measurestoensurechildvictims/survivorsareprotectedfromdirectconfrontationwithpersonsaccusedof violating their rights and from hostile, insensitive or repetitive questioning or interrogation.

No

7(1) (l) • Lawrequiresinvestigationsandtrialsofcasesinvolvingchildwitnessestobeexpeditedandprioritizedinthe legal system.

No

7(1) (m) • Measurestoprotectthechild’sprivacy,suchasclosedcourtproceedingsandbansonpublishingthechild’s identity or any information leading to identification of the child.

Partly

7(1) (n) • Measurestoprotectthesafetyofchildvictims/survivorsandtheirfamilyandtopreventintimidationand retaliation, including safe shelter (emergency and longer-term); relocation; and prohibition on the disclosure of information concerning the victim/survivor’s identity and whereabouts.

Partly

7(1) (o) • Requirementthatpolice,prosecutors,lawyersandjudgesreceivespecializedtrainingindealingwithcaseswhere children are victims/survivors.

No


Indicator Complies

7(1) (p) Police, prosecutors and courts have specialised units, or designated specialists to handle cases involving child victims/survivors/witnesses.

No

7(2) Prohibition on requirement for corroboration of child victim/survivor’s evidence in criminal proceedings for sexual assault.

No

7(3) Prohibition of the use of prior sexual conduct to establish non-consent in sexual assault proceedings. No

7(4) Prohibition on requiring proof of resistance to establish non-consent in sexual assault proceedings. No

7(5) Expert evidence re patterns of disclosure or behaviour in child victims/survivors automatically admissible. Partly

7(6) The law guarantees access to an interpreter at any stage of the process on request. Partly

7(7) All processes free from discriminatory provisions. Yes

7(8) Independent and child-friendly complaints tribunal available for the investigation, consideration and resolution of any complaints by children regarding their treatment within the justice system.

Partly

7(9) Legal recognition of informal customary law processes. Partly

Summary:• Lawandpolicycurrentlyprovidelittleornoprotectionorsupportforchildreninrelationtoinvestigationofcrimesagainstthemand

court processes associated with those crimes.

Opportunities: • ADraft Evidence Bill 2008 is currently in circulation for comment. The Bill addresses a number of weaknesses in existing legislation identified

in this set of indicators, including 7(1)(e), 7(1)(i), 7(1)(j), 7(1)(k), 7(1)(m), 7(2) and 7(3).• Initialstepsweretakenin2008bySWDtodevelopreferralprotocolsbetweenthepoliceandSWDforchildvictims/survivorsofabuse,

neglect and exploitation. Full Compliance: 1 Partial Compliance: 7 Non-Compliance: 16 Total: 24

8 RehabilitationCRC Articles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12 and 39

Indicator Complies

8(1) Child victims/survivors of neglect, exploitation, abuse, torture or any other form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or armed conflicts are entitled to compensation.

Yes

8(2) Legislative provisions exist protecting privacy and identity of child victims/survivors with appropriate sanctions. No

8(3) The law provides for a range of services to support the protection and psychological recovery and reintegration of child victims/survivors of abuse and exploitation, including:

No

8(3) (a) • Short-termcare,wherenecessary,byfosterfamilies,shelters,etc. -

8(3) (b) • Medicalcare -

8(3) (c) • Psychologicalcounselling -

8(3) (d) • Adviceabouttheirlegalrights -

8(3) (e) • Education,employmentandtrainingopportunities -

8(3) (f ) • Protectionforthevictim/survivorsandhis/herfamilyfromintimidationorretaliation -

8(4) Standards or guidelines exist for these programs and services. n/a

8(5) The law requires that preference be given to promoting recovery and reintegration in families and communities (rather than institutional care).

No

8(6) The child’s views are sought in relation to any recovery and reintegration processes. No

8(7) The law protects all child victims/survivors of exploitation from prosecution and involuntary detention. Partly

8(8) Independent, child-friendly complaints tribunal for the investigation and resolution of complaints regarding discriminatory treatment etc. by child victims/survivors.

Partly


Summary:

• Thelawprovidesforcompensationforvictims/survivorsbutisotherwisesilentinrelationtotherehabilitationandprotectionofchildvictims/survivors of abuse, neglect and exploitation.

• Itshouldbenotedthatmanyofthesupportingstructures,bothlegislativeandinstitutional,arenotyetinplacetosupportmeaningfullegal/policy provisions for this indicator.

Full Compliance: 1 Partial Compliance: 2 Non-Compliance: 4 Not applicable : 1 Total: 8

9 Children in conflict with the lawCRC Article: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, 37 and 40

Indicator Complies

9(1) Any special procedures and protections for children who are in conflict with the law, are available to all children under the age of 18.

Yes

9(2) A minimum age of criminal responsibility has been established which is at least 12 (as per UN Committee on the Rights of the Child Comment). Children below this age required to be referred to the appropriate social services.

Yes

9(3) Arrest is used only as a measure of last resort, for the shortest possible period of time and the law provides for a minimum age for arrest. Maximum period specified for detention of a child following arrest without a court hearing at which the detention can be challenged.

Partly

9(4) Laws/guidelines include restrictions on the use of force or restraints against children. Yes

9(5) Police are required to notify parents immediately upon the arrest of a child, and parents are entitled to be present during all investigative and trial proceedings, in accordance with the views of the child.

Yes

9(6) Police are required to notify legal assistance immediately upon the arrest of a child and legal assistance is entitled to be present during all investigative and trial proceedings, in accordance with the views of the child.

Partly

9(7) Police are obligated to have parents, legal guardians and/or a defence lawyer present whenever questioning a child.

No

9(8) Child has the right to be informed promptly and directly of any charges against him/her. Yes

9(9) Children are guaranteed the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Yes

9(10) Children are guaranteed the right to remain silent and not be compelled to give evidence or confess guilt. Yes

9(11) Children are guaranteed the right to legal representation at all stages of the proceedings. Yes

9(12) Explicit right to free assistance from an interpreter where necessary. Yes

9(13) Law requires that children detained in police custody have the right to challenge their detention before a competent authority.

Yes

9(14) Children are guaranteed the right to have the matter determined by a competent authority without delay. Yes

9(15) The law gives police, prosecutors and judges a broad discretion to resolve child cases through diversion and these diversionary procedures are specified where appropriate (e.g. mediation, community conferencing).

Partly

9(16) The law requires the consent of the child and/or the child’s parents for diversion procedures to be applied. No

9(17) The use and duration of pre-trial detention against children is limited, explicitly a measure of last resort and there are alternative measures in place for supervising children accused pending trial.

Yes

9(18) Children detained pre trial to be separated from convicted children. Yes

9(19) Laws/policy require that all children’s cases are tried by a specialized court (or a specially designated judge) separate from adult court proceedings.

Yes

9(20) All court proceedings involving offenders under 18 required to occur in a closed court. Yes

9(21) Publication of the name or any information leading to the identification of a child offender strictly prohibited. Yes

9(22) The law requires that children’s cases are expedited. No

9(23) Courts are empowered to compel the child’s parents to be present at any/all stages of proceedings. Yes


Indicator Complies

9(24) Criminal procedure laws include special rules of procedures for conducting children’s trials to ensure that they are conducted in an atmosphere of understanding, which allows the child to participate fully.

Yes

9(25) Right to obtain witnesses under equal conditions to prosecution. Yes

9(26) Explicit right to be present and to participate in any hearing or court process affecting the child (formal or informal).

Yes

9(27) Explicit right to appeal to competent, independent and impartial authority. Yes

9(28) The law requires that any penalties imposed are based on the best interests of the child and aim at rehabilitation rather than punishment, with an explicit emphasis in drug and substance offences.

No

9(29) The law requires that any penalties imposed are proportionate to the gravity of the offence and also the circumstances and needs of the child.

No

9(30) Pre-sentence or social inquiry reports are prepared and considered prior to imposing sentence on a child. Yes

9(31) Deprivation of liberty is imposed only as a measure of last resort, against children who commit serious crimes of violence or persist in committing other serious offences.

Yes

9(32) Judges are given broad discretion to tailor the sentence to the individual child. Yes

9(33) A wide range of alternative, community-based dispositions are available (including probation; care, guidance and supervision orders; diversion to mental health treatment, counseling; victim/survivor reparation and restitution, community service work opportunities; education and vocational training, living arrangement orders etc.).

Yes

9(34) A responsible authority (e.g. probation, community-based corrections, or social welfare agency) has been designated responsible for promoting, regulating and monitoring community-based programmes.

No

9(35) Life imprisonment, capital punishment and indeterminate sentences are not imposed on children. Partly

9(36) Prohibition on torture and all other cruel, inhuman or degrading punishments or treatment. Yes

9(37) Children are separated from adults in all places of detention, including police custody, pre-trial detention centres and prisons.

Yes

9(38) Special facilities have been established for the detention of children, including open-custody and small-scale centres designed to promote rehabilitation and reintegration.

Partly

9(39) Explicit right to family contact, visitors and correspondence while imprisoned with restrictions to these rights limited to exceptional circumstances.

Yes

9(40) Explicit right to access to education and training suited to child’s needs and abilities. Yes

9(41) Law/policy requires that while in detention children receive care, protection and all necessary individual assistance – social, educational, vocational, psychological, medical and physical – that they may require in view of their age, sex and personality, in the interests of their wholesome development.

Yes

9(42) Disciplinary procedures within detention centres are strictly regulated and the following are specifically prohibited:

Yes

9(42) (a) • Corporalpunishment -

9(42) (b) • Solitaryconfinement -

9(42) (c) • Placementinadarkcell -

9(42) (d) • Reductionofdiet -

9(42) (e) • Denialofcontactwithfamilymembers -

9(42) (f ) • Anyotherpunishmentthatmaycompromisethephysicalormentalhealthofthechildconcerned -

9(43) There is an effective system for inspection and monitoring of all institutions in which children may be deprived of their liberty.

Yes

9(44) The law requires that children deprived of liberty be subject to a periodic review of their situation. No

9(45) The Standard Minimum Rules for prisoners explicitly apply to children in detention, with regulations/policy addressing at least the following:

Yes

9(45) (a) • Register -

9(45) (b) • Hygiene -

9(45) (c) • Clothing&bedding -

9(45) (d) • Food -


Indicator Complies

9(45) (e) • Exercise&sport -

9(45) (f ) • Medicalservices -

9(45) (g) • Disciplineandpunishment -

9(45) (h) • Instrumentsofrestraint -

9(45) (i) • Complaints -

9(45) (j) • Contact -

9(45) (k) • Books -

9(45) (l) • Religion -

9(45) (m) • Prisonerproperty -

9(45) (n) • Death,illness,transfer -

9(45) (o) • Institutionalpersonnel -

9(45) (p) • Privilegessystems -

9(45) (q) • WorK -

9(45) (r) • Educationandrecreation -

9(46) Children released from detention are provided with support for their reintegration into the community. An authority has been designated responsible for child reintegration, and programmes are in place to assist children who are released from detention.

Partly

9(47) Police, prosecutors, courts and prison officials are required to have specialised units, or designated specialists, to handle children in conflict with the law.

No

9(48) The law requires that the needs of disabled children are catered to at all stages of the legal process. No

9(49) All justice sector officials, including police, prosecutors, judges, lawyers and prison officials are required to receive training and sensitization on children in contact with the law as part of their induction training (at police academies, law schools, judicial training programmes, etc.), as well as on an in-service basis.

No

9(50) All children in conflict with the law have access to effective complaints procedures concerning all aspects of their treatment.

Partly

9(51) Mechanisms are required to be in place to monitor the treatment of children in conflict with the law, and to appropriately sanction justice sector officials who violate children’s rights.

Partly

9(52) All processes defined in legislation have the best interests of the child (including the maximum development of the child) specified as the primary consideration.

No

9(53) Law/policy requires the recording and reporting of systematic disaggregated data by all institutions dealing with child offenders.

Partly

9(54) Legal recognition of informal customary law processes. Partly

Summary:• Thebasicprovisionsprotectingchildreninconflictwiththelawarestrong.• Thereislegalprotectionoftheminimumhumanrights,aseparatechildren’scourtisrequiredanddiscretionexistsforsomediversionary

and alternative sentencing procedures. • Agreateremphasisisneededonthechild’sbestinterestsandrehabilitationatallstagesofproceedings.• Theexistingprovisionscouldbestrengthenedthroughsomereformsandthecreationofsupportingpoliciesandproceduresforthe

existing powers and discretions.

Opportunities:• TheCriminal Procedure Code 1962 is currently undergoing comprehensive review by the Law Reform Commission. The weaknesses in the

current legislation have been communicated to the Law Reform Commission through the consultation process associated with this CPBR report.

• WorkhasbeenundertakenbySWDin2008todevelopinter-agencyprotocolsforchildreninconflictwiththelawinthefollowingserviceareas:

- Corrections Service and SWD - provision of social welfare services in the corrections facility in Honiara;- Magistrates Courts and SWD - strengthen the existing referral system for children in conflict with the law;- Police and SWD – referral protocols for children in conflict with the law.


• SavetheChildrenhaspreparedinsertionsfortheJudicialBenchBooktoguidecourthandlingofmattersinvolvingchildreninconflictwith the law. The proposed insertions are currently with the Chief Justice for approval, following which Save the Children will arrange for them to be printed.


10 Refugees, unaccompanied children and migrant childrenCRC Articles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12 and 22

Indicator Complies

10(1) Laws governing refugees and asylum seekers provide for special protection, care and treatment for:

10(1) (a) Unaccompanied and separated children seeking asylum or refugee status; No

10(1) (b) Internally displaced unaccompanied and separated children. No

10(2) The law guarantees unaccompanied children and refugee and asylum seeking children the right to accommodation in safe environments, wherever possible with their family, as well as access to education, health care and appropriate support and rehabilitative care.

No

10(3) Guidelines have been developed for the safe and timely return of illegal migrant children. No

10(4) Laws and procedures governing deportation require consideration of the best interests of the child and the child’s right not to be separated from his or her parents (unless necessary for his or her best interests).

No

10(5) Laws and procedures governing deportation require that the views of the child be sought and that those views be given due weight in accordance with the child’s age and maturity.

No

10(6) Laws, policies and mechanisms exist to trace family members of unaccompanied or displaced children. No

10(7) State required to provide such care and protection as is necessary for the wellbeing of any child at times of national disaster.

No

10(8) Laws governing refugees, unaccompanied and migrant children are free from any unreasonably discriminatory provisions.

No

10(9) Independent, child-friendly complaints avenue for consideration and resolution of complaints from children regarding treatment as refugees, migrant or unaccompanied children.

Partly

10(10) Laws require disaggregated data be recorded and reported in relation to refugees and asylum seekers. No

Summary:• Therearenolegalprovisionsaddressingtheprotectionandwell-beingofchildrefugeesorasylumseekers.• ThisispartlyreflectiveofthefactthatthisisnotconsideredtobeanissueofpracticalsignificanceintheSolomonIslands.



11 Children involved in armed conflictCRC Articles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12 and 38

Indicator Complies

11(1) The law sets 18 as the minimum age for direct participation in hostilities, for recruitment into armed groups, and for compulsory recruitment by governments.

Yes

11(2) The minimum voluntary recruitment age is at least 16, and the law outlines safeguards to ensure that recruitment is: genuinely voluntary and carried out with the informed consent of the person’s parents or legal guardians; that the child is fully informed of the duties involved in military service; and the child provides reliable proof of age prior to acceptance into national military service.

N/A

11(3) No discriminatory provisions in laws relating to children’s participation in armed conflict. N/A

Summary:• TherearenomaintainedgovernmentarmedforcesintheSolomonIslands.Thelawprovidesthat,whereaneedarises,theycanbedrawn

from the Royal Solomon Islands Police Force, which has a minimum age of 18 for recruitment. • Accordingly,SolomonIslandslegislationconformswiththerequirementsoftheUNCRCinthisregard.• Internalandcross-borderconflictsinrecentyearshaveinvolvedchildrenasarmedcombatants.Itwouldseemappropriatethatthisissue

be further explored and more stringent legislative measures be considered. Full Compliance: 1 Partial Compliance: 0 Non-Compliance: 0 Not applicable: 2 Total: 3

12 Information accessCRC Articles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, 17 and 29

Indicator Complies

12(1) Censorship board or equivalent with jurisdiction over all media – print, electronic and audio/visual. Partly

12(2) Requirement that pubertal change and sex education be included in school curricula. No

12(3) Requirement that legal rights and human rights education be included in school curricula. No

12(4) No discriminatory provisions in access to information. Yes

Summary:• There is some protection of children from exposure to inappropriate and damagingmedia but the roles and powers allocated to

censorship bodies need to be refined for stronger protection of children. • There is no provision for legal rights or sex/pubertal change education in law or policy, but suchmatters arewithin theMinister’s

discretion. Full Compliance: 1 Partial Compliance: 1 Non-Compliance: 2 Total: 4


13 Birth registrationCRC Articles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 12

Indicator Complies

13(1) The law makes birth registration compulsory and free for all. Yes

13(2) No discriminatory provisions in birth registration laws Yes

Summary:• Theminimumrequirementsforfreeandcompulsorybirthregistrationareinplace.


Recommendations for output 1.1 (indicator 1.1.2)

Child welfare/child protection system1.1-R1.1 Finalise the draft National Children’s Policy and Plan of Action and submit it to Cabinet for approval as a priority. The Policy should

contain clear and detailed provision for the creation of child protection legislation. Responsibleactors:MWYCA/NACC1.1-R1.2 Undertake law reform measures as detailed in recommendations 1.1-R1.3 and 1.1-R1.4 following Cabinet approval of the draft

National Children’s Policy and Plan of Action.

1.1-R1.3 Abandon the existing draft Child and Family Services Bill and prepare new draft child protection legislation. The new draft should be minimalist and non-prescriptive in nature, reflecting existing mechanisms and providing the minimum basic powers required by agencies for child protection interventions in extreme cases, with a view to future amendment for more comprehensive legislation as appropriate. Consider ways of obtaining a package of technical assistance to support the Bill preparation and submission to Cabinet. Responsibleactors:MWYCAinpartnershipwiththeMHMS/NACC

1.1-R1.4 Review the Rights of the Child Convention Bill 2004, reworking it to reflect existing agencies and separating out the child protection provisions [to be addressed in the proposed child protection legislation]. Submit this to Cabinet. Consider ways of obtaining a package of technical assistance to support the reworking of the existing draft Bill and submission to Cabinet. Responsible actors:MWYCA/NACC

1.1-R1.5 Continue to support the existing work on inter-agency protocols and seek further technical assistance to expedite the process if necessary. Responsible actors: MHMS, SWD, Police, Magistrates Courts, Corrections Service

1.1-R1.6 Following the enactment of child protection legislation, develop policies and protocols to provide supporting process detail for the powers and discretions provided for by the Act. Relevant actor: MHMS

1.1-R1.7 Undertake further research as to how to effectively recognize existing traditional and community child protection mechanisms in child protection legislation and policy in order to support policy initiatives in the short term and the development of comprehensive child protection legislation in the long term. Relevantactors:NACC,MWYCA

1.1-R1.8 Undertake further research into the special needs of disabled children within the current protection system with a view to informing appropriate law and policy reform for this especially vulnerable group. Relevantactors:NACC,MWYCA

Family separation and alternative care1.1-R2.1 As per recommendations 1.1-R1.1, 1.1-R1.2, 1.1-R3 and 1.1-R1.6 above.

1.1-R2.2 Amend the Adoption Act 2004 and Adoption Regulations 2008 in line with the child protection weaknesses identified above. Submit a submission for reform to Cabinet for endorsement and consider means of obtaining technical assistance to facilitate the drafting of the proposed amendments. Relevantactors:NACC,MHMS,MWYCA

1.1-R2.3 Undertake further comprehensive research into customary adoption processes to inform the development of effective legislative and policy measures to regulate these processes for the protection of children. Relevantactor:MWYCA

1.1-R2.4 Prepare a new and comprehensive Family Law Act with a view to replacing the Islanders Divorce Act 1960 and the Affiliation, Separation and Maintenance Act 1971. Relevantactor:MWYCA

1.1-R2.5 Following the enactment of child protection legislation, develop policies and protocols to provide supporting process detail for the powers and discretions provided for by the Act. Relevant actors: MHMS

1.1-R2.6 Issue a Court Direction to guide the use of existing court powers to issue care orders addressing, as far as possible, the relevant gaps in the legislative framework identified above. Relevant actor: Chief Justice

1.1-R2.7 Issue a Court Direction to guide the handling of family law matters involving children to address, as far as possible, the relevant gaps in the legislative framework identified above. Relevant actor: Chief Justice

1.1-R2.8 Issue a Court Direction requiring that court be closed for any matter involving the welfare of a child. Relevant actor: Chief Justice


Violence against children1.1-R3.1 Support the process of review by the Law Reform Commission of the Penal Code 1963 through the consultation processes

which will accompany the review process. Make detailed submissions where appropriate. Relevantactors:NACC,MWYCA1.1-R3.2 Develop and implement a clear policy prohibiting the practice of corporal punishment in all educational institutions, and

detailing processes and consequences for breach of the policy. Relevant actor: Ministry of Education1.1-R3.3 Develop and implement a clear policy addressing all forms of bullying – physical, emotional and sexual – between students

and between students and staff in all educational institutions, detailing processes and consequences for breach of the policy. Relevant actor: Ministry of Education

1.1-R3.4 Prepare and submit to Cabinet a policy paper to seek endorsement for the drafting of a comprehensive Domestic Violence Bill. Following Cabinet endorsement, consider ways of obtaining technical support for drafting due to the restricted drafting capacity of the Office of the Attorney General at present. Relevantactor:MWYCA

Sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children1.1-R4.1 Support the process of review by the Law Reform Commission of the Penal Code 1963 through the consultation processes

which will accompany the review process. Make detailed submissions where appropriate. Relevantactors:NACC,MWYCA1.1-R4.2 Review and amend the provisions of the Islanders Marriage Act 1945 relating to minimum age for marriage to provide for a

higher minimum age threshold that is the same for both boys and girls. Relevantactor:MWYCA

Abduction, sale and trafficking1.1-R5.1 Support the process of review by the Law Reform Commission of the Penal Code 1963 through the consultation processes

which will accompany the review process. Make detailed submissions where appropriate. Relevantactors:NACC,MWYCA1.1-R5.2 The Solomon Islands to become a signatory to The Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (1980) and

develop supporting regulations. Relevantactors:MWYCA,NACC1.1-R5.3 TACSEC to develop a comprehensive child trafficking policy dealing with all aspects of child trafficking – prevention, response

and rehabilitation. Relevant actor: TACSEC 1.1-R5.4 Undertake further research to explore the need for specific anti-trafficking legislation.

Child labour and children in street situations1.1-R6.1 Address Penal Code 1963 provisions relating to the crime of vagrancy through the Law Reform Commission reform process.

Relevant actors: NACC, Law Reform Commission1.1-R6.2 Submit to Cabinet for endorsement a policy paper, together with detailed drafting instructions, addressing the identified

weaknesses in the Labour Act 1960. Consider ways of obtaining technical support for the drafting process following Cabinet endorsement in light of the limited drafting capacity in the Attorney General’s Office at this point in time. Relevant actor: Ministry of Labour, NACC

1.1-R6.3 Develop a national strategy to address the worst forms of child labour. Relevant actor: TACSEC1.1-R6.4 Undertake further research into the new and growing phenomenon of children in street situations in order to identify the most

effective legislative and policy response. Relevantactor:NACC,MWYCA

Child-friendly investigative and court processes1.1-R7.1 Support the Draft Evidence Bill 2008.Relevantactors:NACC,MWYCA1.1-R7.2 Revise and further develop the RSIP Force Standing Orders relating to the treatment of child victims of neglect, abuse and

exploitation to ensure comprehensive provisions for management of matters involving child victims/survivors, through the use of Commissioners Directions until the Standing Orders themselves can be formally amended. Relevant actor: RSIP

1.1-R7.3 The DPP to develop a clear written policy for the handling of matters involving child witnesses, both inside and outside of the courtroom. Relevant actor: DPP

1.1-R7.4 Issue a court direction which clearly identifies and restricts the degree to which customary processes may be recognized at any stage of criminal matters involving the abuse, neglect or exploitation of children. Relevant actor: Chief Justice

1.1-R7.5 All agencies dealing with child victims/survivors of neglect, abuse and exploitation to put in place clear privacy and confidentiality policies and provide copies to all service users, supported by institutional/departmental training and awareness raising. Relevant actors: RSIP, Chief Justice, MHMS, DPP, Public Solicitor, Ministry of Education

1.1-R7.6 Develop clear courtroom procedures for matters involving child witnesses for insertion into the existing judicial bench book, accompanied by comprehensive training for all judges, magistrates and court clerks in the new provisions. Relevant actor: Chief Justice

1.1-R7.7 Continue the work started by SWD on inter-agency referral protocols and finalise, sign and implement the protocols with appropriate training support. Widely disseminate copies of the protocols throughout the relevant services. Relevant actor: MHMS

Rehabilitation1.1-R8.1 As per recommendation 1.1-R7.5 above.

1.1-R8.2 DPP to develop a policy for compensation requests in criminal matters relating to the abuse, neglect or exploitation of children. Relevant actor: DPP


Children in conflict with the law1.1-R9.1 Support the process of review by the Law Reform Commission of the Criminal Procedure Code through the consultation

processes which will accompany the review process. Make detailed submissions where appropriate. Relevant actors: NACC, MWYCA

1.1-R9.2 Prepare and submit to Cabinet for endorsement a request to refer the Juvenile Offenders Act 1972 to the Law Reform Commission for review. In the short term, address identified weaknesses in the Act at a policy level as detailed below. Relevant actor: MWYCA

1.1-R9.3 Continue the existing work by SWD on intera-gency protocols. Finalise, sign and implement the protocols with appropriate training and awareness raising for implementing agencies. Widely disseminate copies of the protocols throughout the relevant services. Relevant actors: Corrections Service, Police, Courts, SWD

1.1-R9.4 Issue a Court Directive detailing child-friendly procedures and juvenile justice principles for the Juveniles Court and undertake training and awareness raising amongst the Magistracy on its contents. Relevant actor: Chief Justice

1.1-R9.5 Finalise, print and distribute the proposed insertions to the Judicial Bench Book, together with appropriate training and awareness raising for judges, magistrates and court clerks. Relevant actors: Chief Justice, Save the Children

1.1-R9.6 Revise the RSIP Force Standing Orders provisions relating to treatment of young offenders and address weaknesses through the issuing of Commissioners Directions for immediate impact with a longer term view of amending the Force Standing Orders. Relevant actor: RSIP

1.1-R9.7 Establish policies for both formal and informal diversion processes for the police, DPP and courts. Initial priority should be placed on regulating post-charge diversion processes for the police. Relevant Actors: RSIP, DPP, Chief Justice

1.1-R9.8 Develop internal policies for handling matters involving child witnesses or offenders for both the DPP and the Public Solicitor. Implement the policies with supporting training as appropriate. Distribute copies of the policies throughout the two agencies and make them available to the public. Relevant actors: Public Solicitor, DPP

1.1-R9.9 Issue a Court Direction to prohibit the admission of any evidence obtained through police interview of a child under the age of 18 who is not accompanied by an independent support person. Relevant actor: Chief Justice

1.1-R9.10 Undertake further comprehensive research into customary justice processes as they apply to children in conflict with the law with a view to informing effective regulatory measures in legislation and policy both for the protection of children within those processes and to support their use as pre- and post charge diversion options. Relevantactors:NACC,MWYCA

1.1-R9.11 Undertake further research into the accessibility of the current justice system and the impact of its procedures on disabled children with a view to informing appropriate law and policy reform for this especially vulnerable group. Relevant actors: NACC,MWYCA

Refugee / unaccompanied migrant children[No recommendations for refugee / unaccompanied migrant children]

Children in armed conflict1.1-R11.1 Submit the issue of the role of children in armed conflict for consideration by the Law Reform Commission in its review of the

Penal Code 1963 or, alternatively, as a stand alone piece of legislation following the review of the Penal Code 1963.

Information access1.1-R12.1 Develop supporting policies for the Cinematograph Act 1954 and Television Act 1995 dealing with regulation of audio/visual

media for the protection of child audiences.

1.1-R12.2 Consider in the longer term an overarching Censorship Act and regulations to address the regulation of all forms of media – print, electronic, audio/visual – for the protection of child audiences from exposure to harmful information and images.

Birth registration1.1-R13.1 Adopt a new uniformed modern comprehensive civil registration law such as the UN Model Law for Civil Registration in order

to improve on existing basic provisions.

Cross-cutting recommendations1.1-R14.1 There is no specific provision in law and policy for child-friendly complaints avenues. Internal policies and procedures outlining

confidential, child-friendly complaints processes need to be established for all government services that deal with children and young people. There is a need for an independent complaints mechanism for children, for example a Children’s Commissioner or a Human Rights Commission/Ombudsman’s Office with a Children’s Officer. It is recommended that a scoping exercise be undertaken to establish the viability and sustainability of such a mechanism in the Solomon Islands. Relevantactors:MWYCAand all government departments and agencies

1.1-R14.2 Law and policy is essentially silent on the collection of disaggregated data in government departments and services. It is recommended that clear policies and procedures dealing with disaggregated data collection for all government departments and services be developed and implemented. Relevant actors: All Government departments and agencies

1.1-R14.3 The NACC is not sufficiently empowered to facilitate the implementation of the UNCRC provisions in Solomon Islands. It is not currently established by an Act of Parliament which results in a lack of clout and difficulty in attracting sufficiently high level attendance at its meetings. It is recommended that the NACC be reformed and established under an Act of Parliament with clear roles, powers and responsibilities. Relevantactor:MWYCA


Findings for Output 1.2 The judiciary and chiefs (in at least 4 provinces) apply principles of child rights when dealing with cases involving children. (National and provincial level)


Output 1.2 The judiciary and chiefs (in at least 4 provinces) apply principles of child rights when dealing with cases involving children. (National and provincial level)

Indicator 1.2.1Proportion of young offenders (male/female) who are separated from adults in all places of detention –police custody, pre-trial detention etc.

Target: 100% of young offenders

Indicator 1.2.2Increase of number of cases diverted and children given alternative sentencing

Indicator 1.2.3Proportion of child victims who are provided proper protection and support at all stages of the criminal proceedings

Target: Within 3 years, formal procedures are in place; by 2012 100% of child victims are dealt with in line with procedures

Indicator 1.2.4Proportion of chiefs who demonstrate understanding of child rights in decision making

Comments Please note that the findings here have been summarized from a much broader more detailed ‘institutional stocktaking’ report which is available as a separate document. It is advisable to therefore read these findings and recommendations in the context of the full report. The full report examines the strengths and weaknesses of the different institutions which make up the child protection system and the effectiveness of inter-agency collaboration. The findings and recommendations below have been adapted from the full report to fit the RRF outputs.

Research tools used Desk reviewWorkshop with children who have had contact with the justice system 02/09/08Stakeholder workshop 03/09/08KIIs with: SI Judiciary 05/06/08; SI Magistracy 06/06/08; SI Public Solicitor’s Office 05/06/08; RSIP (Community Police) 04/06/08; SI Correctional Services – Prisons 05/06/08; SI Public Prosecution Office 05/06/08; Save the Children Australia – Solomon Islands 02/06/08, 03/06/08, 05/06/08; Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands (RAMSI) (Law and Justice Program and Justice Delivered Locally Program) 04/06/08 and 05/06/08; UNICEF SI 01/06/08 and (technical consultant) 19/08/08, 22/08/08 (via phone and email); SWD 01/06/08, 05/06/08.

Quotation “Leaders will make sure to find out the truth and then deal with the child” (Chief KII on how the village handles children in conflict with the law)


60 This simplified table has been adapted to the region and to fit the categories of the Institutional Stocktake component of the Pacific . That is, researchers considered child protection and justice systems at a whole of government level and then within different government departments and civil society organizations. This matrix does not go into specific areas of child protection such as trafficked children, children in street situations or child labour as the aim of the institutional stocktake is to look at systems as a whole to support children, encompassing groups such as these. These checklist compliance tables provide a basic summary only and are designed to assist the reader gain an overview of each institution. It is recommended that the EAPRO Child Protection Toolkit and country / region specific factors be considered when developing similar tools for other baseline studies.

Before examining the findings for Output 1.2 in detail, a series of checklist compliance tables and summaries has been produced to provide an overview of the situation of children in justice systems in Kiribati. The checklist tables are based on a child protection toolkit developed by the UNICEF East Asia Pacific Regional Office (EAPRO) in late 2008 which has been adapted and simplified by researchers to consider the Pacific context60. The checklist compliance tables are divided into sections, each followed by a summary of relevant strengths and opportunities:

1. Whole of the justice sector

2. Police

3. Courts

4. Public Prosecutor and Legal Aid

5. Diversion and alternative sentencing

6. Other services for children in the justice system

7. Places of detention

1. Whole of the justice sector(police, courts, prosecution, legal assistance, social welfare)

# Core component Not compliant Part-compliant

Fully compliant

1 A mechanism (such as an inter-agency working group) exists for collaborative planning, implementing and monitoring by all justice sector agencies (police, prosecutors, lawyers, judges, and prison officials) and with social welfare agencies

√

2 There is a clearly articulated structure for roles, responsibilities and accountabilities within individual justice agencies and across the system.

Χ

3 There is an information management mechanism across the sector including a case file management system to reduce delays and ensure efficient flow of cases through all stages of the justice system from arrest to adjudication, including a mechanism to flag and expedite all cases involving children.

Χ

Selected strengths and opportunities

Opportunities exist to improve collaborative planning, structure and information management in the justice sector. Initial steps in this regard have been made by SWD in developing inter-agency collaboration protocols. A mechanism to progress collaboration for justice services to child victims / survivors and children in conflict with the law exists as a sub-group of the National Advisory Council on Children. Opportunities also exist to establish services directed at the diversion of children in conflict with the law e.g. drug and alcohol counselling, safe houses, vocational skill development, positive parenting, life skills, and employment placement.


2. PoliceThe department ideally has the following basic policies, services and capacities:

# Core component Not compliant

Part-compliant

Fully compliant

1 Policy• Codesofconductorethicalstandardsgoverningtheconductofpolice.• Standardoperatingproceduresandreferralproceduresforallcasesinvolvingchild

victims/survivors and children in conflict with the law.• Arrestisusedonlyasameasureoflastresort,andlaws/guidelinesinclude

restrictions on the use of force or restraints against children.• Parentsorcaregiversarenotifiedimmediatelyuponthearrestofachild,andare

entitled to be present during all investigative and trial proceedings.• Theuseanddurationofpre-trialdetentionislimitedandtherearealternative

measures in place for supervising children accused pending trial.• Policehavebroaddiscretiontoresolvecasesofchildreninconflictwiththelaw

through diversion.• Thereareappropriatesanctionswhichareadheredtoforofficialswhoviolate

children’s rights.

√

2 Services• Child-friendlyinterviewenvironmentsandtechniquesareinplace.• Thereisaspecialisedunittohandlecasesinvolvingchildreninconflictwiththe

law and child victims/survivors/witnesses.• Supportisavailableforchildreninpoliceinterviews.

Χ

3 Capacity (financial, human, physical)• Afinancingandimplementationplanexiststhatincludesandidentifiesallocated

resources for special child justice measures.• Child-friendlyinterviewenvironment(room).• Trainingforhandlingcasesofchildvictims/survivorsandchildreninconflictwith

the law is provided on an in-service basis and incorporated into police academy and induction processes.

• Dataonreportedcasesofviolenceandexploitationofchildrenandchildreninconflict with the law is systematically collected and appropriately disaggregated.

Χ


Policies

Strengths in terms of policy include: the existence of the Standing Orders as the primary policy/operating procedure for police. The Standing Orders contain some specific provisions relating to the treatment of children in conflict with the law (i.e. restrictions on the use of force, separate cell, contact of parents, legal assistance). Police have also had in place a ‘No Drop Policy’ (no dropping of offences) since 2007 for sexual offences and crimes of domestic violence. This policy is also enforced in the provinces. Another strength is the policy of providing the victims / survivors of assault with a referral to the Ministry of Health for support, STI checking and some forensic sampling.

A number of opportunities exist to improve and expand police policies. These include: developing police procedures (including diversion) for children and young people with the help of Save the Children; involvement in traditional justice processes; revising the Standing Orders (and in the interim issuing Commissioner’s Directions) to better protect children in conflict with the law and child victims / survivors; expand the terms of reference of the Sexual Offences Unit to include all forms of child abuse and all such matters to be referred to the Unit for investigation where logistically viable; and, establish clear protocols

61 Workshop with people who had experienced the justice system as a child, Honiara 02/09/08.

and procedures for police response to reports of abuse, neglect or exploitation of children.

Services

A Sexual Offences Unit exists within the police service and all sexual offences in Honiara are referred to this unit. Outside of this unit regular police deal with matters. Children report the good aspects of the police are that they ‘sometimes help us with our problems, some women have soft manners, community police are good – do awareness activities’.61 Another strength is the use of pre-charge diversion. However, an opportunity exists to improve this practice by regulating it with policy/procedure for consistency and compliance with rights. Police have also tried to address the problem of commercial sexual exploitation of children in logging camp areas by undertaking some awareness raising activities.

Opportunities to improve police services in order to better protect children include: the introduction of a specialized children’s unit for children in conflict with the law; the introduction of an effective pre-charge diversion system (if viable, one that tracks the number of warnings given to individual children in conflict with the law, including a formal data system to record statistics and types of diversion); conduct


62 Note the opportunities mentioned in this section and the recommendations in the longer Institutional Stocktake document should be aligned with the Judiciary Workplan when it becomes available.

advocacy and awareness raising so child abuse cases are referred by the community to the police, demonstrating the reasons why this is the best process for the child; conduct awareness raising throughout the RSIP of the existing drug and alcohol legal restrictions for children; and establish clear guidelines for dealing with substance abuse offences that support rehabilitation where appropriate, but also protect children from risky behaviours.

Capacity

Opportunities exist to improve the human, physical and financial capacity of the RSIP. Currently police resources are extremely limited and there are logistical difficulties in servicing large areas with limited human, budgetary and transport resources. These limitations are

relevant to police capacity to take on additional relationship building and crime prevention activities with children and young people.

Opportunities include: conduct a vigorous internal police campaign addressing police violence to be implemented and strongly endorsed at the highest levels, including training for officers in non-violent methods of discipline and control; use the Standing Order provisions for children in conflict with the law as a performance indicator for supervisors; address issues of police impunity via a ‘police conduct office’ or ‘reporting line’, especially in cases of serious misconduct; develop a comprehensive training package for incorporation into the Police Academy curriculum, and for in-service training of current police, dealing with all forms of child neglect, abuse and exploitation, supporting legal provisions, relevant aspects of child development and child-friendly processes.

3. CourtsThe courts ideally have the following basic policies, services and capacities:


Part-compliant

Fully compliant

1 Policy• CodesofconductorethicalstandardsgoverningtheconductofJudgesandcourt

officials;• Standardoperatingproceduresandreferralproceduresforallcasesinvolvingchild

victims/survivors and children in conflict with the law;• Judgeshavebroaddiscretiontoresolvecasesofchildreninconflictwiththelaw

through diversion;• Specialrulesofproceduresforconductingcriminaltrialsinvolvingchildrenarein

place to ensure they are conducted in an atmosphere of understanding which allows the child to participate fully;

• Pre-sentenceorsocialinquiryreportsarepreparedandconsideredpriorto imposing sentence on a child (requires collaboration from social welfare department);

• Deprivationoflibertyisimposedonlyasameasureoflastresort,forchildrenwhocommit serious crimes of violence or persist in committing other serious offences;

• Thereareappropriatesanctionswhichareadheredtoforofficialswhoviolatechildren’s rights.

Χ ethical standards are part of admission as solicitor

2 Services• Measuresareinplacetomanagecasesinvolvingchildrensothattheyare

expedited and tried by a specialised court (or specially designated judge) separate from adult court proceedings.

• Measuresareinplacetoprotectthechild’sprivacy,suchasclosedcourtproceedings and bans on publishing the child’s identity.

√ recent appointment of a children’s magistrate

3 Capacity (financial, human, physical)• Afinancingandimplementationplanexiststhatincludesandidentifiesallocated

resources for special child justice measures.• Child-friendlycourtproceduresareinplace,includingalternativearrangementsfor

giving testimony such as screens, video-taped evidence and closed circuit television.• Trainingforhandlingcaseswherechildrenareinvolvedisprovidedonanin-service

basis and incorporated into law school syllabus (University of the South Pacific), and induction process. Training applies to judges and also to clerks.

• Dataonreportedcasesofviolenceandexploitationofchildrenandchildreninconflict with the law is systematically collected and appropriately disaggregated.

• Trainedstaff/volunteersprovidecourtsupportandreferralservicestochildvictims/survivors.

√ some ad hoc training


Selected strengths and opportunities 62

Policies

A recent innovation in policy was the insertions prepared by Save the Children for the Judicial Bench Book to guide court handling of matters involving child offenders.

Opportunities to improve policies for children in the court include: insertion of special and standardized procedures for child victims / survivors in court in the Judicial Bench Book; research into sentencing for children in conflict with the law and sexual offenders and the development of sentencing guidelines; issue of court directions to the effect that all matters involving child witnesses are to be held in a closed court for that part of the evidence and media publication of any identifying details to be prohibited by court order as a matter of course; the development of clear guidelines to regulate the recognition of traditional processes in offences against children; development of clear confidentiality policies for all court staff with particular emphasis on matters involving children in any form; and, the finalisation of inter-agency protocols - especially with SWD - for the production of social inquiry reports for children in conflict with the law.

Services

There is awareness that a separate day should be put aside for children’s matters. It is also possible for the court to be closed on request. A positive initiative is that a designated children’s court magistrate was assigned in 2008 to fully establish a children’s/juveniles’ court.

Opportunities for developing services to accompany the dedicated children’s magistrate include: a management system expediting matters involving children as offenders or victims / survivors; establishing family conferencing procedures and procedures to identify children’s matters that may be appropriate for diversion prior to the commencement of Magistrate Court procedings; the development of a directory of available services and options for diversion and alternative sentencing

available through CSOs; increased awareness raising in the community of juvenile justice principles and fostering of links with local community leaders for alternative sentencing purposes; and, relationship building with SWD so that an officer attends the court for all cases involving children in conflict with the law as per obligations under the Probation Act and as support in all matters involving child victims / survivors of abuse, neglect or exploitation.

Capacities

Strengths include some of the ad-hoc training that has been available to some magistrates and judges over the past 5 years from the Regional Rights and Resources Team, Save the Children and the South Pacific Council of Youth and Children’s Courts. As a result of this training there are some motivated magistrates and judges who are keen to take advantage of opportunities to improve the conditions for children in Solomon Islands Courts. Another strength includes the implementation of an electronic data collection system (supported by RAMSI) for all courts which will ultimately be linked with the DPP and Public Solicitor. This will focus on the magistrates’ courts, through the Law and Justice Programme, with a manual system for fallback.

Opportunities include: a possible separate building for the children’s / juvenile’s court or an existing court be re-furnished with light-weight furniture that can easily be rearranged to suit youth court needs; reviewing the staffing requirements and caseload of magistrates to improve procedures; reinvigorating the local courts which are currently not functioning; improving data collection and file management; comprehensive training in any inclusions (to benefit children) in the Judicial Bench Book; comprehensive training in juvenile justice principles and dealing with child victims / survivors of sexual crimes; the continuation to provinces of Save the Children’s training initiatives whereby Magistrates and Judges train each other; and exploration of other mechanisms for training of judges including mentoring programmes.


4. Public Prosecutor / Public SolicitorProsecutors and defenders ideally have the following basic policies, services and capacities:


Part-compliant

Fully compliant

1 Policy• Codesofconductorethicalstandardsgoverningtheconductofprosecutors/

lawyers;• Standardoperatingproceduresandreferralproceduresforallcasesinvolving

child victims/survivors and children in conflict with the law;• Prosecutorshavebroaddiscretiontoresolvecasesofchildreninconflictwith

the law through diversion.

Χ ethical standards are part of admission as solicitor

2 Services• Guaranteeofchildren’srighttoparticipateintheproceedings,tolegal

representation.• Thereisaspecialunitordesignatedspecialistprosecutor/defendertohandle

children in conflict with the law.

√ duty public solicitor is available for children in Honiara

3 Capacity (financial, human, physical)• Afinancingandimplementationplanexiststhatincludesandidentifies

allocated resources for special child justice measures.• Trainingforhandlingcaseswherechildrenareinvolvedisprovidedonanin-

service basis and incorporated into law school syllabus (University of the South Pacific), and induction process. Training may be incorporated with judges and court officials.

• Dataonreportedcasesofviolenceandexploitationofchildrenandchildreninconflict with the law is

Χ


A notable service of the Public Prosecutor is the court familiarization for young victims / survivors despite there being no formal victims’ / survivors’ assistance scheme. In terms of the Public Solicitor, strengths include: the duty lawyer presence at the magistrates’ to provide representation to children (in Honiara only); the positive feedback from children about the services of the public solicitor; and, the good relationship the public solicitor has with prisoner support via prison visits.

A number of opportunities are available to the Public Prosecutor to further protect the rights of children: the development of a prosecutions manual, supported by training, for dealing with matters involving children; the specialization of a prosecutor who is trained to handle domestic violence matters and matters involving child victims / survivors, witnesses or offenders; further training on child rights and prosecution best practice in relation to children in conflict with the law and child victims / survivors; and a disaggregated, electronic data system to be implemented with training in the office of the DPP.

A number of opportunities are available to the Public Solicitor to further protect the rights of children, including: developing written special policies and procedures for children; retaining the same solicitor for the duration of children’s matters so there is no disruption in continuity of service; improving relationships and procedures with the police so that police contact the office at the point of arrest of a child; implementing standard court familiarization for children in conflict with the law; advocating for special measures in the court for children including court closure, diversion and alternative sentencing; building relationships with SWD for referral of cases and sharing of information in relation to social inquiry reports; and finally, implement a system of disaggregated data collection for clients.


5. Diversion and alternative sentencingThe below components constitute an ideal overarching child protection system at a whole of government level in the Pacific.


Part-compliant

Fully compliant

1 A responsible authority (e.g. probation, community-based corrections, or social welfare agency) has been designated as responsible for regulating and monitoring diversion and alternative sentencing programmes.

Χ

2 Policy• Clearlyarticulatedstructure.• Facilitationofregistration,accreditation,inspectionandcomplianceofallservice

providers.

Χ

3 Services• Acasemanagementandreferralsystemisinplace.• Linkstoadequateoutreachprogrammes(community-basedprogrammes)

including mediation, restorative justice programmes, counselling and supervision) in order to facilitate diversion (pre-police charge or court sentence).

• Linksexisttoadequateoutreachprogrammes(communitybasedprogrammes)tosupport alternative sentences, including: probation; care, guidance and supervision orders; counselling; community service work opportunities; education and vocational training etc.

Χ

4 Capacity• Aninformationmanagementsystemisabletoprovidestatisticsandusefuldatafor

case management.• Professionalorpara-professionalsocialworkersarecapableofproviding

development programmes for children in conflict with the law.

Χ


Whilst there is no formal diversion or probation scheme currently operating in the Solomon Islands a number of positive elements exist which can be used as the basis for such a scheme. Firstly, there is discretion for diversion available to the courts in the form of reconciliation processes for minor assaults and the power to discharge matters. Secondly, the current Chief Magistrate strongly supports the establishment of alternative sentencing options. In addition, alternative sentencing is practiced where possible by magistrates (but is limited due to lack of options). In the past, some referrals by the court to church elders for sentencing have been successful.

As mentioned previously, the Solomon Islands has a strong NGO sector with many programmes for children and young people. This presents an opportunity to begin building a diversion / alternative sentencing scheme. As a first step a responsible body should be assigned for fostering and monitoring diversion and alternative sentencing options with post-charge diversion a possible first initiative to be considered. An existing body that may assist with establishing the initial scheme is the Parole Board to be appointed under the Correctional Services Act.

6. Other services for children in the justice systemThe following services are ideal for children who come into contact with the justice system. They can be provided by government and NGOs.


Part-compliant

Fully compliant

1 Victim/survivor/witness support programme to familiarize children with the court process and provide support at all stages of the process. It includes measures to protect the safety of child victims/survivors and their families and to prevent intimidation and retaliation.

Χ

2 Compensation for victims/survivors In the Pacific state sponsored victims of crime schemes are hindered by limited resources. However, in many Pacific nations there are traditional compensation schemes. It is imperative that the best interests of the child and child participation are considered in these traditional procedures and reconciliation ceremonies.

Χ

3 Children released from detention are provided with support for their reintegration into the community. An authority (or NGO) has been designated responsible for child reintegration, and programmes are in place to assist children who are released from detention.

√



There is an opportunity to develop a victim/survivor/witness support scheme in the Solomon Islands.

In terms of support for children released from detention, an inter-agency protocol signed in 2008 between the Corrections Department and SWD set up a system of case management for children and women who are in detention. This is an exciting first step in supporting children in detention up until their release, there is also the opportunity to link the child to other community-based services through the continuation of partnerships between NGOs, faith-based organisations and SWD.

7. Places of detention (including police custody, pre-trial detention and prisons)These are basic elements around places of detention:


Part-compliant

Fully compliant

1 Policy• Regulationsareinplacesettingspecialstandardsforallchildrendeprivedoftheir

liberty;• Codesofconductorethicalstandardsareinplacegoverningtheconductofprison

officials;• Thereareappropriatesanctionswhichareadheredtoforofficialswhoviolate

children’s rights.

Χ

2 Services• Allchildrendeprivedoflibertyhaveaccesstoeffectivecomplaintsprocedures

concerning all aspects of their treatment.• Thereisaneffectivesystemforinspectionandmonitoringofallinstitutionsinwhich

children may be deprived of their liberty.

Χ

3 Capacity (financial, human, physical)• Childrenareseparatedfromadultsinallplacesofdetention,includingpolice

custody pre-trial detention centres and prisons.• Specialfacilitieshavebeenestablishedforthedetentionofchildrenincluding

open-custody and small scale centres designed to promote rehabilitation and reintegration.

• Trainingisconductedforallpersonnel

√


Rove Correctional Facility has a separate facility for children and a recent positive development has been the assignment of a case officer from SWD to protect the interests of children in detention.

Opportunities to improve conditions for children in custody include: the expected rollout of separate holding areas for most provinces; regulations and codes of conduct for prison officials; access to complaints procedures for children in custody and an effective monitoring mechanism.

The inter-agency diagram on the following page sets out areas for improved collaboration for the justice system as a whole.


Just

ice

syst

em: i

deal

and

act

ual i

nter

agen

cy c

olla

bora

tion


findings for output 1.2 in more detail:Child victims / survivors

Police

1. The RSIP Standing Orders are the primary policy/operating procedure for the police. They contain some specific provisions relating to the treatment of children in conflict with the law (i.e. restrictions on the use of force, separate cells from adults, contact parents/guardians, legal assistance) but no child-specific measures for victims/survivors of crime. There are currently no other standard operating procedures or policies in place in relation to children in conflict with the law or victims/survivors. Compliance with Standing Orders requirements relating to children is inconsistent and varies from officer to officer, partly due to low awareness of requirements. Save the Children (SCA) has plans to develop some of these policies and protocols.

2. Community Police in Honiara have requested SCA’s assistance with developing police procedures for children.

3. A Sexual Offences Unit exists within the RSIP and all sexual offences in Honiara are referred to this unit. Outside of this unit matters are dealt with by regular police. No further information was able to be obtained in relation to this Unit. There is no other specialised unit for child victims/survivors of violent crime/neglect, or specialised procedures for children. Offences referred to the Unit must be investigated.

4. A general ‘no drop’ policy (not child-specific) has been in place since 2007 for sexual offences and crimes of domestic violence. This policy is enforced in the provinces also.63

5. There is a strong reluctance to report child sexual offences to the police for a number of reasons including fear of reprisal64 and preference that the perpetrator marry the victim/survivor.65 Often traditional processes are utilised instead. In addition, some community members believe there is no point in reporting to the police as files are often ‘lost’ or no action taken.

6. There are no protection arrangements in place for victims/ survivors who do report crimes and if necessary the child may be sent somewhere else for their own safety.

7. It has been reported that the police often respect traditional processes and will not pursue charges where these have occurred. Anecdotal evidence suggests police only get involved where traditional processes fail. However, other reports indicate that once a matter is brought to the attention of the Police it is taken seriously and investigated and charges pursued in line with the ‘no drop’ policy for sexual offences and domestic violence matters.

8. The distinction between crimes against the person and crimes against the state is not well understood, and thus the role of personal forgiveness is sometimes misapplied by police officers.

9. The Chief Justice has stated that compensation only be taken into account very carefully and that it is not a replacement for a custodial sentence. However, in practice, charges are often not pursued once compensation has been paid. Stakeholders have

indicated that they consider the payment of compensation to be a legitimate consideration by police but only in cases where it is a form of genuine restitution, such as in property offences.

10. Sexual assault matters are handled by police prosecutors unless they are really serious. They have no special training in appropriate court processes for child victims/survivors.

11. The most common charges laid are ‘defilement charges’ (S142 and S143 of the Penal Code).66 [These come with their own problems, such as unreasonable limitations periods]. Crimes of defilement address the act of sexual intercourse with a girl deemed too young to consent to the act. There are two age categories of defilement – sex with a girl under 13 years of age (life imprisonment) and sex with a girl between the ages of 13 and 15 (5 years imprisonment).

12. Limited support services are available for police referral of child victims/survivors in Honiara and nothing formal exists outside of Honiara.

13. When child sexual assault cases are reported to the police, the police provides the victim with a referral to the MHMS for support, checking for sexually transmitted infections and some forensic sampling. Medical evidence has been criticised for being substandard.

14. The quality of medical reports in sexual assault cases is a major problem in prosecuting child sexual assault cases. MHMS (Clinical Services) are in the process of working together with the police to develop standard forms for evidence of child sexual assault. The overarching problem has been identified as a lack of confidentiality on the part of health workers.

15. Delays often occur in prosecution of offences against children partly due to police failing to forward evidence to prosecutors as it becomes available and also slow investigation processes, partly due to lack of resources such as a vehicle.

16. It is extremely rare for matters of commercial sexual exploitation of children to be formally reported to the police despite common knowledge of child prostitution. Police do not patrol the coast for commercial sexual exploitation of children in relation to fishing boats commonly known to be utilising the sexual services of young girls. An inquiry into child prostitution was undertaken but insufficient evidence was obtained.

17. The police have undertaken some awareness raising activities around commercial sexual exploitation of children in the logging camp areas.

18. TACSEC is the multidisciplinary taskforce chaired by SWD working on community awareness raising around the commercial sexual exploitation of children and child sexual abuse. It is working on developing informal referrals between agencies.

19. As part of the field research component of the CPBR, police in 8 locations in the Solomon Islands were asked how many cases they deal with per month and what they do when child abuse is reported to them (see Tables 1.2-A and 1.2-B below). Reports of physical abuse appear to be the most common, followed by sexual abuse, but bearing in mind that these are cases reported

63 The source of this ‘no-drop policy’ is unclear, as is the extent to which it being complied with in practice.64 Kenneth Averre, Juvenile Justice: An Overview, Public Solicitor Solomon Islands Government, (Date unknown), p. 28.65 Kenneth Averre, Juvenile Justice: An Overview, Public Solicitor Solomon Islands Government, (Date unknown), p. 30.66 Kenneth Averre, Juvenile Justice: An Overview, Public Solicitor Solomon Islands Government, (Date unknown), p. 46.


collectively by 8 police officers, the numbers are very low (e.g. 0.5 cases of physical abuse per month per respondent). The most common police response is to refer the matter to the Sexual Offences Unit (although this presumably refers only to cases of sexual abuse as opposed to physical or other abuse), to refer the child to the hospital or, rarely, to deal with the matter themselves via traditional mechanisms.

Table 1.2-A: On average, how many reports of child victims/survivors of physical or sexual abuse do you receive in one month? [Based on police KIIs from 8 locations in the Solomon Islands]

Types of report received Number of cases per month according to respondents

Physical abuse 4

Sexual abuse 3

Neglect 1

Exploitation (economic or other) 0

Table 1.2-B: When abuse of a child is reported to you what do you do? Any how many cases would this be per month? [Based on police KIIs from 8 locations in the Solomon Islands]

Action taken by police Number of cases per month according to respondents

[numbers in brackets refer to the number of respondents who gave

this answer]

Refer the child to the Sexual Assault Unit

1 case (x3)

Refer to hospital for examination

1 case (x1)

Deal with the investigation myself and resolve the matter the traditional way

2 cases per year (x1)

Save the Children advises on what to do with the case

(x1 comment – no mention of number of cases involved)

No answer 2

Public Prosecutor

20. Court familiarization occurs despite there being no formal victims’/survivors’ assistance scheme.

Courts

21. The courts report hearing few cases of child abuse but specific data was not available.69 They further report that such cases are on the increase.

22. There are no special procedures in place for child victims/survivors in court and the existing Judicial Bench Book is silent on this. In

69 Kenneth Averre, Juvenile Justice: An Overview, Public Solicitor Solomon Islands Government, (Date unknown), p. 17 and corroborated at interview.70 Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children and Child Sexual Abuse in the Solomon Islands, Christian Care Centre, RRRT and UNICEF, Honiara 2004 (CSEC 2004), pp. 22 & 25. ‘Limitations periods’ refer to the legal time-

frames within which legal action can be taken in relation to an offence. In the Solomon Islands where a crime of defilement has occurred and the girl was over 13 she has to press charges within 12 months. As sexual abuse is such a sensitive and psychologically complex topic, many children who experience this do not report incidents until many years later, if at all.

practice, there are no special measures taken for victims/survivors in court and very little in place for victims/survivors after court, funding is required for facilities. Proceedings are widely criticised as being insensitive to victims/survivors.

23. Courts are not prioritizing cases of child offenders and child victims of sex offences leading to lengthy delays which can jeopardise conviction and lead to greater embarrassment of all involved. Sme delays extend for periods of many years.

24. Sentencing for sexual offences against both children and adults is highly discretionary and widely criticised for being tokenistic. In reality, the courts are somewhat limited by the penalties available under legislation and the need to manage community responses if harsh penalties are applied. Specific monitoring and research is needed on sentencing in this area to clarify what sentences are being applied and the reasons why, in order take appropriate steps to ensure consistency in sentencing and sentencing for crimes against children that reflects the seriousness of the offence.

25. It is hard to get convictions for child sexual assault and commercial sexual exploitation of children under the current Penal Code because most of the girls involved are over 13 and a limitations period applies to reporting of certain sexual offences against this age group.70

26. Traditional reconciliation processes are taken into account by the Magistrate’s Court in sexual offences and this can lead to the dismissal of criminal charges. The Chief Justice has stated that compensation only be taken into account very carefully and that it is not a replacement for a custodial sentence. The issue of how to take compensation into account is controversial and is viewed by some as ‘buying’ people out of custody. This issue requires greater attention.

27. The way for police to get protection or restraining orders for women is through the Affiliation Act but the civil court is in Honiara and so only women and children in Honiara have any real access to this protection.

Traditional processes

28. In child sexual assault matters traditional processes are often used. If the parents of the victim/survivor choose traditional processes then this choice is respected by the police and the matter is referred to the chiefs. The chiefs will call the offender’s family to resolve the problem. Compensation is paid family to family. Sometimes for reasons of protection the practice is just to send the victim/survivor away to another place if they can.

Chiefs’ understanding of child rights

29. The low numbers of young people coming through the formal justice system indicate that large numbers of them are being dealt with through the traditional systems making the traditional justice systems the primary justice process for children in conflict with the law outside of Honiara.


30. There is a low awareness amongst chiefs of children’s rights and juvenile justice/child-friendly processes.

31. The can be a lack of impartiality by chiefs, especially where wantok is involved. Chiefs also lack accountability. There are no checks and balances.

32. Use of chiefs and traditional systems as a source of pre-court diversion is unregulated and inconsistent.

33. Some chiefs perceive there is a disintegration of respect and structures in urban areas. Some provinces are experiencing weakening traditional justice processes. In addition, in some areas the processes have been distorted by powerful individuals for their own benefit so that non-traditional practices have been given the authority of traditional practices.

34. Where the compensation awarded by the chiefs is too much for the offender’s family to pay, the offender will have difficulties

returning to the community/family as the family cannot accept them back without paying the compensation.

35. Chiefs do not check the offender’s age but treat them in accordance with their apparent age from physical appearance (e.g. size).

36. It is reported that women do not have confidence in the chiefs and will not approach them about offences that have been committed against them as they may be more at risk afterwards due to wantok. By implication this would apply to other vulnerable community members such as children and young people and, explicitly, young women.

37. As part of the CPBR field research, chiefs or deputy chiefs in 13 locations throughout the country were asked about their priorities when dealing with children in conflict with the law and children as victims / survivors of crime (see Tables 1.2-C and 1.2-D below).

Table 1.2-C: What are your priorities when dealing with a child who has committed a crime? [Based on chief KIIs from 13 locations in the Solomon Islands]

Priority Number of responses % of responses

To understand why the child did what they did 5 28%

What is best for the child 3 17%

What is best for the village 2 11%

To hear the child’s version of events 2 11%

What is best for the child’s family 1 6%

To punish the child 1 6%

To protect the child from embarrassment in front of the village 1 6%

To make the child feel sorry but forgiven 1 6%

To make sure any factors that caused the child to commit the crime are addressed 1 6%

To make sure the particular child is aware that what he did was wrong 1 6%

Total (responses) 18 100%

38. In terms of children in conflict with the law, nearly all the responses reflect principles of child rights and/or restorative justice. Only 1 respondent cited punishing the child as a priority (6% of responses). 3 respondents (17% of responses) highlight what is best for the village or the child’s family. If these are considered as priorities alongside what is also best for the child, then this can be taken to reflect restorative justice principles. If, however, priority is given to the family over and above the child’s best interests then this may be a cause for concern. It is positive to note that 45% of responses highlight the need to take the child’s version of events into account (to understand, to hear the child’s version and to take into account any factors).


Table 1.2-D: What are your priorities when dealing with a matter involving a child victim of crime? [Based on chief KIIs from 13 locations in the Solomon Islands]

Priority Number of responses

% of responses

What is best for the child victim 6 33%

To make sure the offender does not do the crime again 3 17%

To protect the child victim from feeling any shame 2 11%

What is best for the child victim’s family 1 6%

What is best for the village 1 6%

To ensure the community does not judge the child victim 1 6%

To protect the child victim from the offender 1 6%

To understand what the child victim would like to happen 1 6%

To make sure the child victim is able to tell their story without feeling scared 1 6%

Make sure the victim and his/her family are satisfied with any decisions the leaders come up with are in the best interest of both parties.

1 6%


39. In terms of children as victims/survivors of crime, it is encouraging that the majority of responses (74%) are centred on the child; 17% of responses are focused on the perpetrator and 12% on the village and child’s family. However, only 2 respondents (12% of responses) specifically indicate listening directly to the child (understand what the child would like to happen and make sure they can tell their story). There appears to be room for improvement in relation to empowering the child victim / survivor to take a more proactive role in the process.

Diversion and alternative sentencing

Police

40. Numbers of children appearing before the courts are low suggesting high rates of pre-charge diversion through a combination of non-reporting to the police and police diversion practices. Pre-charge diversion is currently unregulated by any policy/procedure for consistency and compliance with rights. The Royal Solomon Islands Police (RSIP) are working with Save the Children to develop guidelines for this purpose but high level support is lacking.

41. Anecdotal evidence suggests that police pre-charge diversion practices generally involve police referring matters to traditional processes, applying informal corporal punishment or giving a warning. Data is not kept on these kinds of informal diversion practices.

42. There is a lack of formal diversion options and support services as alternatives for police, e.g. drug and alcohol counselling, safe houses, vocational skill development, positive parenting and life skills training.

43. Awareness of juvenile justice principles in the provinces is low and anecdotal evidence suggests that children under 18 are being

charged as adults, thus are attracting more severe penalties.

44. The designated Youth Court Magistrate is in the process of drafting guidelines for the police on steps to be taken in matters involving children in conflict with the law.

45. Police resources are extremely limited. The logistical difficulties in servicing large areas with limited human, budgetary and transport resources are relevant to police capacity to take on additional relationship building and crime prevention work activities with children.

46. To supplement these general findings on police diversion, police throughout 8 locations in the Solomon Islands were asked what they do when a child has committed a crime (see Table 1.2-E below). Very few responses were given to this question and the data is therefore not entirely reliable, but police self-report cautioning or warning the child and letting them go. There was no mention of referral to traditional authorities or of corporal punishment. However, it is interesting to note some additional information given by police respondents to a different question. As part of the child participation element of the CPBR, 22 children from Honiara were consulted on questions they would like asked to key informants as part of the field research. One such question for the police was: ‘Is there anything else the police can do to protect children from bad things without sending me to jail?’ In response, 6 out of the 8 police stated ‘yes’ and gave the following examples: ‘we can send you home after we formally caution you’; ‘we can simply counsel you’; ‘we can simply talk with your parents and you to sort things out’; ‘advice and counselling’; ‘counselling services for children’; and ‘community awareness on family values’. One stated ‘we only investigate cases but the court deals with justice’ and the remaining respondent did not answer. In general these answers emphasise the role of counselling children and dealing with families.


Table 1.2-E: “When you believe a child has committed a crime what do you do? How many cases per month does this involve?” [Based on police KIIs from 8 locations in the Solomon Islands]

Action taken by police Number of cases per month according to respondents

[numbers in brackets refer to the number of respondents

who gave this answer if more than one]

Give the child a formal caution 2 cases (x3)

Give the child a warning and let them go

1 case (x2)

No answer 3

47. These same police key informants were also asked what they do if they are told by someone specifically to refer a case involving a child in conflict with the law to the village authorities (see Table 1.2-F). 3 out of 4 respondents who had dealt with such a situation said they would refer the matter as requested. The remaining one said he would consult his superiors. Although the numbers are very low, this tends to corroborate the assumption that the police are willing to use informal diversion to traditional authorities.

Table 1.2-F: “If a village chief or politician tells you to refer a criminal matter to the village authorities, what do you do?” [Based on police KIIs from 8 locations in the Solomon Islands]

Action taken by police Number of responses

Refer the matter to the village authorities but record the outcome of the traditional proceedings

2

Refer the matter to the village authorities. 1

Consult your superiors 1 (1 case per month)

Situation has never occurred 1

No answer 3

48. Other relevant key informants during the field research were asked questions about police diversion. 37% of these key informants stated that police divert children who have committed crimes back to the community rather than going to court (‘yes’ and ‘sometimes’ responses combined); 4% said they did not; and 59% said they did not know or did not answer (see Table 1.2-G below). It was not possible to gather any reliable statistics on how many cases this might involve, but one police officer mentioned one case per month and a CSO representative mentioned 3 cases per month. If police are engaged in diversion, then the nature or scope of this does not seem to be clear to other community stakeholders. For example, it is interesting that the majority of chiefs ‘did not know’ about this police practice.

Table 1.2-G: “Do the police send children who have committed crimes back to the village or community to be dealt with instead of going to court?” [Based on KIIs from 29 locations in the Solomon Islands]

Police representatives Chief or Deputy Chief CSO representatives Total

Yes 2 25% 1 8% 1 17% 4 15%

No 1 13% 1 4%

Sometimes 3 38% 3 23% 6 22%

Don’t know 7 54% 7 26%

No answer 2 25% 2 15% 5 83% 9 33%

Total (respondents) 8 100% 13 100% 6 100% 27 100%

Public Prosecution

49. The DPP is supportive of probation and is aware that not all children before the court are ‘bad’ but admits that DPP generally takes a punitive approach to offenders and it is DPP practice to ask for a severe penalty.

50. In light of traditional justice fading and the likelihood of more minor cases coming through the courts, there is a need for probation but it is dependent on community services being in place with the assistance of the chiefs and church ministers.

Public Solicitor

51. There are no written special policies and procedures for children. However, the designated Youth Court Magistrate is in the process

of drafting guidelines for solicitors where children in conflict with the law plead guilty, including what information to provide to the magistrate for sentencing.

Courts

52. The Magistrates Court does not always know the ages of the children or young people coming before it and therefore the efficacy of the Juveniles Act is compromised.

53. There is limited provision in the existing Judicial Bench Book for children in conflict with the law, but SCA has prepared insertions to guide court handling of matters involving children in conflict with the law. The proposed insertions are currently with the Chief Justice for approval, following which SCA will arrange for them to be printed.


54. Referrals for case history and analysis or pre-sentencing reports are not often made to SWD from the courts, DPP, police or prisons. However, the SWD Director is aware of one UK High Court Judge who requests background requests for applicants. In theory the court should request the ‘Social Inquiry Report’ for sentencing children and adoptions. In practice they are used by the magistrate or judge only if requested by counsel for the defence. According to the statistics 58 children passed through the court but only 8 requests were made to SWD for a report. The court sometimes tells the child in conflict with the law to go to SWD to get a report, but they do not always go.

55. There is discretion for diversion available to the courts in the form of reconciliation processes for minor assaults and the power to discharge matters, but no practical options exist for them to utilise this discretion. It is happening by default due to the delay in hearing matters, especially outside of Honiara, resulting in the dismissal of charges. It is reported that it can be up to 8 months between circuits.

56. Where a care order would be most appropriate a punitive order must be given due to the lack of infrastructure and services to support a care order.

57. Alternative sentencing is practiced where possible by the courts but is limited due to lack of options. However, prison is only used as a last resort. Suspended sentences or binding-over orders are given by the court, or children may be ordered to return to their island/village, but this is no longer such a viable alternative for a number of reasons. For example: lack of supervision or

employment in communities of origin; erosion of traditional community systems to manage such cases effectively; increase in urban migration over the years has led to the distancing of urban children and families from ‘communities of origin’, including second and third generation urban immigrants.

58. Some referrals by the court to church elders for sentencing have been successful in the past. The relationship with chiefs is not strong because courts handle a lot of land matters which always involve chiefs.

59. Educational diversion options are desirable such as vocational and life skills trainings, behavioural trainings (e.g. anger management and anti-alcohol / drugs), counselling and non-punitive community service (e.g. participation in crime prevention activities). Some of these exist but aren’t drawn on by magistrates because they are not aware which ones do and which ones don’t accept offenders. This could be rectified with better communication between NGO providers and the courts.

60. Relevant key informants during the CPBR field research were also asked questions about court diversion. 22% of these key informants stated that the courts divert children who have committed crimes back to the community rather than going to prison (‘yes’ and ‘sometimes’ responses combined). However, the majority (78%) said they did not know or did not answer the question (see Table 1.2-H below). It was not possible to gather any reliable statistics on how many cases this might involve. Again, community awareness on this issue seems to be low, even amongst police and chiefs who might be expected to be better informed.

Table 1.2-H: “Do the courts send children who have committed crimes back to the village or community to be dealt with instead of going to prison?” [Based on KIIs from 29 locations in the Solomon Islands]

Police representatives Chief or Deputy Chief CSO representatives Total

Yes 1 13% 3 23% 4 15%

Sometimes 1 13% 1 8% 2 7%

Don’t know 4 50% 9 69% 1 17% 14 52%

No answer 2 25% 5 83% 7 26%


Traditional processes

61. There are a number of advantages to referring cases to the traditional system including:

• itkeepsyoungpeopleoutoftheformalsystemandprotectsthem from the impact of criminal records and other adverse impacts of the formal justice system;

• it restores community relationships after a crime andthus facilitates reintegration of the offender back into the community;

• it is the preferred course of justice in criminal offences forsignificant portion of community (RAMSI Survey); and

• it significantly reducesthecaseloadfor formalsystemsatnocost to the state.

62. Alternative sentencing processes such as compensation, restitution, reconciliation etc. are all available in customary processes and there are provisions for that to be acknowledged

in the formal system for a certain level of offence (e.g. serious offences involving a weapon are excluded).

63. However, the traditional reconciliation processes in some areas are becoming distorted and it is reported that the threat of reporting a crime to the police is sometimes used as a coercive force to ensure a reconciliation involving cash payment, arranged between families without even the traditional recourse to chiefs.

64. Some reports suggest that community settlement of a case is usually respected, and sometimes actively supported, by the police and charges are not laid unless the victim/survivor insists or the crime is serious. It has been suggested that police get involved where local authorities / traditional processes fail and police will assist with facilitating reconciliation (i.e. diversion). The facts of a case often indicate that had compensation been paid, there wouldn’t have been a charge. However, other reports suggest that police will investigate and lay charges regardless and will vigorously pursue crimes of a sexual nature against children.


65. Use of these alternative sentencing processes depends on the victim/survivor or victim’s/survivor’s family although it is unclear to what extent the views of the children themselves are being listened to – as opposed to adult family members making decisions for them. Practices vary from place to place and it is difficult to generalise.

66. There are no anthropological or sociological surveys / research on traditional justice systems (wantok, kastom) and children’s place in these other than the recent SCA study on diversion practices.

67. Key informants at community level report that some cases of children in conflict with the law are dealt with without approaching

Table 1.2-I: “If a child has committed a crime, how does the village / community handle the situation?” [Based on KIIs from 29 locations in the Solomon Islands]

Police Chief or Deputy CSO Total

Counselling 2 25% 6 43% 8 29%

Refer child to police 4 50% 1 17% 5 18%

Dealt with by Village Committee 2 14% 2 7%

Refer to religious leader 1 7% 1 17% 2 7%

Family support 1 13% 1 17% 2 7%

Community work 1 7% 1 17% 2 7%

Refer to traditional leader 1 7% 171 17% 2 7%

Have not experienced such cases 1 7% 1 4%

Physical punishment 1 7% 1 4%

Fine 1 7% 1 4%

Supervision 1 13% 1 4%

No answer 1 17% 1 4%

Total (responses) 8 100% 14 100% 6 100% 28 100%

the police at all. One chief reports receiving between 2-3 referrals per week and another states receiving reports, albeit ‘rarely’. When asked about how the community handles children in conflict with the law, only 18% of key informants’ responses mention referring the matter to the police (see Table 1.2-I). 21% of responses indicate that he child is referred to a traditional, religious leader or Village Committee. The use of counselling, family support, community work, fines and supervision accounts for 51% of responses (notably ‘counselling’ at 29%). Physical punishment accounts for 4% of responses (only one respondent).

68. Key informants72 who stated during the field research component of the CPBR that children are diverted at police or court level were asked how the community deals with such cases. Although the total number of responseswas very small [N=8], 50% said thatcounselling is employed; 25% ‘did not know’; 13% said that the ‘Council of Chiefs deals with them’ and 13% referred to ‘family discussions on what to do’.

Separation of children in custody

Police

69. 6 out of the 8 police officers interviewed around the country as part of the CPBR field research stated that there is no space at the police station to hold children separately from adults and that therefore they do not hold children separately. The remaining 2 did not answer the question.

70. Children are not always kept in cells separate to adults and/or convicted children, partly due to lack of appropriate facilities and partly due to lack of awareness. However, efforts are made by police to find alternatives where facilities are inadequate. In some cases it is inappropriate to separate children from adult

offenders where they are related as such support is instrumental in preventing emotional suffering and self harm behaviours while in detention. Removal to Rove Correction Facility, which has separate facilities for young people, may not be in the child’s best interests if this entails separation from family support. The only option in the many stations which lack separate holding areas for young people is to keep them in the office which amounts to a dereliction of duty where only one officer is on duty or if the child is drunk. Accordingly, a blanket rule is not appropriate and the principle of the best interests of the child is the best way to manage this. An expansion program for Correctional Services is being rolled out throughout the Solomon Islands and it is expected that, in time, separate holding areas will be available in some form in most provinces.

71. Contacting parents / guardians at the point of arrest is not standard practice and depends on the individual officer.

72. It is common practice for children to be locked up without charge overnight for drunkenness. This is often with the endorsement of the child’s parents.

71 ‘Leaders will make sure to find out the truth and then deal with the child’.72 Chiefs or deputy chiefs, police and CSO representatives.


Prisons / Correction Services

73. Numbers of children in prison are consistently low: an estimated 8 children (as of 6 June 2008). It was also noted that the numbers have not gone over 10 at any one time. Information indicated that some of these children were on remand.

74. The recently introduced Correctional Services Act is child-friendly.

75. The Juvenile Detention Centre is part of Rove Prison. Male children are kept separate from adults and share one room. Although there are currently no designated separate detention facilities for girls from women capacity for this exists if required and it should be noted that no girl child has ever been detained in prison. Further prison developments throughout the Solomon Islands are planned with a new prison at Malaita due to be completed in 2009, including a large separate area for juveniles to enable them to be held in their home province.

76. Previously there have been no special procedures/policies for children outside of the new Act. The treatment had depended on the individual officer.

Department of Public Prosecution (DPP)

77. There is no protocol for children on remand and the DPP opposes bail as a matter of course. Children are treated as adult offenders in most ways. However, the DPP is open to the development of a uniform approach for children and a specific policy.

Courts

78. Children are being remanded in custody where other options are available and the general malaise amongst practitioners is that custody is all too readily used. 73

opportunities for output 1.2:

Chiefs’ understanding of child rights

1. Training and education of the chiefs in child development, rights and protection is needed. The courts have successfully piloted an education workshop with chiefs by visiting magistrates on land law matters. A similar method of awareness raising could be employed for child related matters. The magistracy is willing to support this and chiefs have indicated that they are receptive to further workshops from the magistrates. Chiefs have also indicated that they would welcome training on how to deal with new problems that are arising such as substance abuse (marijuana etc.). There is a need for a clearer understanding of the boundaries between the role of the traditional Chiefs and the role of the State law system.


2. There are some potential diversion/alternative sentencing options including youth activities with Honiara City Council or through church groups, but outside of Honiara there is very little formally available.

3. Probation is provided for in law, but has never been implemented. The current Chief Magistrate will not direct cases to alternative sentencing until there is a programme up and running, but strongly supports the establishment of alternative sentencing options. There is currently a lack of government funds for the establishment of a probation system.

4. Some churches provide a mentoring system and informal youth workers. This could be further explored in terms of developing partnerships for alternative / diversionary sentencing and crime prevention for children in conflict with the law.

Separation of children in custody

5. In August 2008 SWD took up the responsibility for providing welfare services for children, women and the elderly who are in detention. Special procedures and policies are now being developed to accompany this work.

73 Kenneth Averre, Juvenile Justice: An Overview, Public Solicitor Solomon Islands Government, (Date unknown)


Recommendations for output 1.2

Police

Child victims / survivors

1.2-R.1 Develop a comprehensive training package (based on existing international materials) for incorporation into the Police Academy curriculum and for the back-training of the current police service, dealing with all forms of child neglect, abuse and exploitation, supporting legal provisions, relevant aspects of child development and child-friendly processes.

1.2-R.2 Establish clear protocols and procedures for police response to reports of abuse, neglect or exploitation of children. Undertake further research to specifically track numbers of reports of child abuse, neglect and exploitation, when and how they are handled. Supervisors to actively monitor station responses to reports, including timeliness, as part of their performance indicators.

1.2-R.3 Undertake awareness raising with all police in relation to the distinction between personal crimes and crimes against the state so that the role of traditional forgiveness processes is not misapplied by police.

1.2-R.4 Police and other agencies such as SWD should progress advocacy and awareness raising so that child abuse cases are referred by the community to the police, demonstrating the reasons why this is in the best interests of the child.

1.2-R.5 Expand the TOR of the Sexual Offences Unit to include all forms of child abuse and take steps to ensure that all such matters are referred to the Unit for investigation where logistically viable.

1.2-R.6 Expand Coastal Patrol duties to include identification and prevention of the commercial sexual exploitation of children.74

1.2-R.7 Develop standard forms in conjunction with MHMS for assessment of child victims/survivors of abuse and assault to ensure all necessary evidence is recorded.


1.2-R.8 Develop policies, procedures and guidelines to address diversion practices including traditional justice processes and treatment of children in conflict with the law supported by wide distribution within the police force of copies of the policies and comprehensive training.

1.2-R.9 Insert alternative sentencing and diversion procedures and suggestions into the RSIP Standing Orders.

1.2-R.10 Develop a system to record pre-charge informal diversion data to enable the development and implementation of an effective pre-charge diversion system, preferably one that tracks the number of warnings given to individual children in conflict with the law.

Separation of children from adults

1.2-R.11 Establish a clear policy, based on the best interests of the child rather than a blanket rule, on the separate detention of children from adult offenders, with a rebuttable presumption that separation is in the best interests of the child.

1.2-R.12 Consult the community about the practice of locking children up for being drunk and explore alternatives.

Courts and corrections


1.2-R.13 Develop standardised court procedures for dealing with child victims/survivors/witnesses. Include these procedures in the Judicial Bench Book and undertake comprehensive training in these procedures with all judges, magistrates and court clerks. Provide supporting equipment to the courts as needed.

1.2-R.14 Develop a case management system which expedites matters involving children.

1.2-R.15 Issue a court direction to the effect that all matters involving child witnesses are to be held in a closed court for that part of the evidence and prohibit by court order media publication of any identifying details as a matter of course.

1.2-R.16 Put in place clear confidentiality policies for all court staff with particular emphasis on matters involving children in any form.

1.2-R.17 Prohibit the use of corroboration warnings.75

1.2-R.18 Develop clear guidelines to regulate the recognition of traditional processes in offences against children. The guidelines should specify when it is appropriate for the court to take into account compensation paid under traditional processes, explicitly excluding offences of neglect, abuse and exploitation of children.

74 Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children and Child Sexual Abuse in the Solomon Islands, Christian Care Centre, RRRT and UNICEF, Honiara 2004 (CSEC 2004), p. 47.75 ‘Corroboration warnings’ are warnings by the judge/magistrate to the jury that the evidence of a particular witness is not reliable (e.g. because he/she is a child) and is therefore not to be accepted as having value

unless there is other supporting or ‘corrobrating’ evidence. Corroboration warnings were used until recently in adult rape cases in western countries to warn the jury against conviction on the victim/survivor’s testimony alone.


1.2-R.19 Undertake comprehensive research into sentencing in offences against children to assess what kinds of sentences are being imposed and why in order to form the basis of court sentencing guidelines.


1.2-R.20 Finalise the proposed insertions to the Judicial Bench Book for dealing with children in conflict with the law and train all Judges and Magistrates on the new guidelines.

1.2-R.21 Age of offenders and victims/survivors to be established by prosecution and defence before the start of any proceeding in any courts.

1.2-R.22 Establish court guidelines as to what is required in a social inquiry report to clarify its role and to ensure the required information is provided.

1.2-R.23 Encourage greater involvement of SWD from the earliest stage of proceedings with the automatic practice of obtaining a pre-sentencing report.

1.2-R.24 Develop and distribute to all magistrates, judges and court clerks a community services and programmes handbook. Undertake research into the current use of court powers of discharge to establish if greater use can be made of these and existing traditional processes under S35 of the Magistrates Act for minor assaults by children.

1.2-R.25 Provide the designated Youth Magistrate with funding and technical assistance to develop guidelines for magistrates to maximise the use of the discretion to discharge matters and the use of the reconciliation powers available under S35 of the Magistrates Act.

1.2-R.26 Establish family conferencing procedures with accompanying comprehensive training for facilitators. Establish a procedure for court clerks to identify children’s matters that may be appropriate for diversion for the magistrate prior to court commencing.

1.2-R.27 Assign a responsible body to foster and monitor diversion and alternative sentencing options. Focus on post-charge diversion as an initial strategy in the Solomon Islands.

1.2-R.28 A specialist magistrate to sit in the Juvenile Court in Honiara, and go on tour for children’s matters if resources become available, with the proviso that matters not be delayed without the consent of the accused when the specialised youth magistrate is not available to hear the proceedings.

Separation of children from adults

1.2-R.29 Court officers should consider alternatives to ‘remand in custody’ for children.

Community/ CSOs / Chiefs


1.2-R.30 Undertake awareness raising activities in the community in relation to the appropriate role of the traditional system of ‘compensation’ payment in relation to child sexual abuse. 76

1.2-R.31 Undertake awareness raising activities to address community attitudes and understanding of the role of formal police processes to ensure that police are not involved only where local authorities / traditional processes fail.


1.2-R.32 Community-based restorative justice mechanisms should be formally recognised as an integral part of the Solomon Islands approach to diversion and supported through training on mediation and child rights.

1.2-R.33 Support services which are directed at the diversion of children in conflict with the law, e.g. drug and alcohol counselling, safe houses, vocational skills development, positive parenting, life skills training and employment placement.

1.2-R.34 There is a need for drug (especially marijuana) and alcohol (including kwaso) treatment for the purposes of alternative sentencing.

1.2-R.35 Compile and distribute a directory of available services and options for alternative sentencing available through CSOs and NGOs to support crime prevention, diversion and alternative sentencing for children and young people.

Public Prosecutor


1.2-R.36 Designate and train a specialised prosecutor to handle domestic violence matters and matters involving child victims/survivors, witnesses or offenders.

76 Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children and Child Sexual Abuse in the Solomon Islands, Christian Care Centre, RRRT and UNICEF, Honiara 2004 (CSEC 2004) p. 51.


Public Solicitor


1.2-R.37 Establish a policy of advocating for special measures in the court for children including court closure, diversion and alternative sentencing.

1.2-R.38 Implement court familiarisation as a standard part of the Public Solicitor service.

National Advisory Committee on Children (NACC)

Role of chiefs

1.2-R.39 Undertake comprehensive research and mapping of existing traditional criminal processes, including on the nature of traditional processes, the role and protection of children in those processes and the most effective way for those processes to be recognised and empowered in the state law system and regulated to support children’s rights.

1.2-R.40 If traditional processes are to be formally recognised and used, research is necessary to clearly identify the areas where the processes remain sufficiently strong and functional for this responsibility as in some provinces they are now fragmenting and losing their integrity.


1.2-R.41 Provide funding to establish a probation system with the requisite human resources. Identify the most appropriate agency to perform this function.

National Advisory Committee on Children and magistrates

Role of chiefs

1.2-R.42 Awareness raising and training of chiefs in children’s rights is necessary in the Solomon Islands. One access point may be to use the authority of the courts to access the chiefs and send a trainer on tour with the court or train up the magistrates to train chiefs on child development, rights and protection in the justice process. Awareness training must include a clear communication of the roles of the chiefs and the role of the state law system institutions. The programme developed by the Chief Magistrate on the roles of traditional chiefs can be drawn on as a resource. This recommendation was highlighted in consultations as extremely important. However, given the sheer number of chiefs to be reached, realistic targets should be set with clear target communities.

Inter-agency collaboration

Role of chiefs

1.2-R.43 Establish protocols to regulate referral processes and cooperation between traditional and state authorities, and to clearly demarcate the role division between these two justice structures.


1.2-R.44 Develop formal referral protocols by the court for: the referral of all children in conflict with the law matters to SWD for social inquiry reports; referrals from the High Court to SWD for social inquiry reports in adoption matters; application of diversion/alternative sentencing processes once those structures are in place.

1.2-R.45 Support any referral protocols put in place with comprehensive training, including follow-up training after implementation to address any obstacles or issues that arise.

1.2-R.46 A SWO should attend the court for all children in conflict with the law matters as per obligations under the Probation Act (although the Probation Act is not currently being used in any form in the courts) and as support in all matters involving child victims/survivors of abuse, neglect or exploitation.

1.2-R.47 A SWO should go on court circuit with the court for sittings of the Principle Magistrate.


Findings for Output 1.3 Community-based programmes for restorative justice and diversion is established in at least 4 provinces. (Provincial level)


Output 1.3 Community-based programmes77 for restorative justice and diversion is established in at least 4 provinces.78 (Provincial level)

Indicator 1.3.1Number of provinces with community-based programmes for social reintegration of young offenders close to their home

Target: At least 4 provinces

Comments Please note that the findings here have been summarized from a much broader more detailed ‘institutional stocktaking’ report which is available as a separate document. It is advisable to therefore read these findings and recommendations in the context of the full report. The full report examines the strengths and weaknesses of the different institutions which make up the child protection system and the effectiveness of inter-agency collaboration. The findings and recommendations below have been adapted from the full report to fit the RRF outputs.

Research tools used Desk reviewWorkshop with children in contact with the justice system 02/09/08KIIs with: RAMSI (Law and Justice Program and Justice Delivered Locally Program) 04/06/08 and 05/06/08; SI Correctional Services – Prisons 05/06/08; SCA – Solomon Islands 02/06/08, 03/06/08, 05/06/08; UNICEF SI 01/06/08 and (technical consultant) 19/08/08, 22/08/08 (via phone and email); SWD 01/06/08, 05/06/08

Quotation “The church accommodates them” (police representative in relation to whether or not communities have programmes for social reintegration).

1. There are no community based reintegration programmes in the formal sense, and limited alternative sentencing/diversion options. Correctional Services are reported to have done some work in the area of reintegration programs and some developments along these lines are expected in the future.

2. The new Corrections Act makes allowance for early release with community supervision and for educational and other programmes, but the implementation of these provisions is dependent on resources.

3. There is currently nothing in communities for offender reintegration and it is hard to go back to the community because of feelings of shame. Sometimes ex-offenders stay in a new village with relatives. It is planned that SWD can influence positive integration through pre-and post-release casework.

4. Reintegration consists of being told: ‘Try your best when you get out not to get involved in breaking and entering.’ Lack of organized follow-up for released children is a problem. With the Service Protocol between Corrections and SWD it is planned that reintegration will be further supported by the SW Officers.

5. Resources for children’s mental health therapy in detention are scarce (as is the case in general in the Solomon Islands). However, Correctional Services is currently trying to put in place a service protocol with the mental health unit in the MHMS.

6. There is a general halfway house for adults and children called The Lighthouse. This is only in Honiara.

7. Teretere Farm provides good alternative sentence/rehabilitation facilities but it is only for adults.

8. Communities have indicated that past offenders are welcome back into the community depending on their level of participation in church and community activities. However, activities are not always planned and available when offenders are released.

9. Churches already fill many of the gaps in the formal structures. If someone is willing to be a member of a church congregation then generally the church community will take them back. However, no one can return without a reconciliation process and if that is not arranged by the family they cannot return. Sometimes the shame or the compensation cost is too great for the family and the reconciliation process does not happen and so the child is cut off from the family and left with nowhere to go (this is rare but in these circumstances some would prefer to stay in prison). In addition, not all young offenders are willing to align themselves with a particular church. More neutral assistance is needed.

10. Support is needed for children released from prison to find employment and vocational opportunities.79

11. Key informants were asked as part of the CPBR field research whether communities are accepting of children who have committed crimes – a key component for the success of community-based diversion, alternative sentencing and rehabilitation – and whether there are any programmes in place at community level to assist in rehabilitation (see Tables 1.3-A and 1.3-B).

77 Includes mediations or other restorative justice programmes, counseling, mentoring, life skills programme, supervision, and alternative sentences including probation, care, guidance community service work etc78 Suggested provinces: Guadalcanal (Honiara); Western; Choiseul, Makira; Temoto and Malaita. For juvenile justice issues, Honiara and Malaita is priority.79 Save the Children Australia (Solomon Islands), Draft Reintegration Report, 2008.


Table 1.3-A: Whether children who have committed crimes are accepted back into the community [Based on KIIs80 from 29 locations in the Solomon Islands]

Total

Strongly agree 8 11%

Agree 38 52%

Sometimes yes sometimes no 11 15%

Disagree 1 1%

Don’t know 8 11%

No answer 7 10%

Total (respondents) 73 100%

Table 1.3-B: “Does the community have any programmes to help children rejoin the community and get back on their feet after serving a criminal sentence?”[Based on KIIs from 29 locations in the Solomon Islands]

Community programmes available Chief or deputy Police representative CSO representative Total

Don’t know 7 4 11 41%

No answer 2 5 7 26%

No. They do not deserve community help after what they have done

3 1 4 15%

No such programmes are available 1 1 2 7%

‘Yes, if specialised in any field’ 1 1 4%

Church accommodates them 1 1 4%

Counselling 1 1 4%

Total (responses) 13 8 6 27 100%

12. There is an interesting discrepancy in the results: whilst 63% of respondents agree that children who have committed crimes are accepted back intothecommunityand15%state‘sometimesyes,sometimesno’,only12%ofchiefs,policeandCSOrepresentatives[N=3]statethattherearecommunity programmes for them. Furthermore, although only 1% of respondents disagree that children are accepted back, 15% of chiefs and police state that they ‘do not deserve help after what they have done’. Combined with the 74% of chief, police and CSO responses which state that they ‘do not know’ if there are any rehabilitation programmes in the community, that there are no such programmes or who did not answer the questions, these results indicate that there is much work that needs to be done at community level in relation to this issue.

Recommendations for output 1.3Community / CSOs / Chiefs

1.3-R.1 Establish a mentor programme whereby children in conflict with the law are provided with an appropriate mentor from their community to support them pre- and post-release. It has been suggested to expand the Save the Children monitoring program, or to facilitate SWD to play this facilitating role.

1.3-R.2 Develop a model similar to Papua New Guinea where community groups support offenders back into the community and the corrections officers visit them and check on their progress. These visits could include running workshops children on business skills etc. Resources are needed to do this. Although churches could naturally fill this role, a more neutral group is desirable if possible to avoid pressure on children to align themselves with a particular church.

National Advisory Committee on Children

1.3-R.3 Make resources available to support the reintegration and early release discretions available under the Correctional Services Act.

1.3-R.4 Explore the existing Crime Prevention Committees as a community focal point for community support of children in conflict with the law post-release.

80 KIIs with: 13 chiefs or deputy chiefs; 18 religious leaders; 11 youth leaders; 4 social welfare representatives; 13 health representatives; 8 police representatives; and 6 CSO representatives.


3.4.2 Detailed findings for Outcome 2

Overview

Outcome 2 is made up of 4 Outputs. Output 2.1 looks at availability and training of social welfare officers. Output 2.2 examines how key stakeholders currently handle child protection cases. Output 2.3 deals with the extent to which workplans and strategies are informed by disaggregated data on child protection. Output 2.4 refers specifically to birth registration.

Before examining the findings for Outcome 2 in detail, however, a series of checklist compliance tables and summaries has been produced to provide an overview of the situation child protection services in Kiribati. The checklist tables are based on a child protection toolkit developed by the UNICEF East Asia Pacific Regional Office (EAPRO) in late 2008 which has been adapted and simplified by researchers to consider the Pacific

Summary of UNICEF EAPRO child protection toolkit

In relation to international learning in the area of social services for child protection, the UNICEF East Asia Pacific Regional Office has developed a toolkit containing some guidelines for an ‘ideal system’. The following is suggested: A specialised government agency or focal point is designated as responsible for child and family welfare services (including statutory) that:

• Haswell-definedresponsibilitieswithamandatetopreventandrespondtochildprotectionissues;

• Isgovernedbychild-centredandfamilyfocusedguidelines(solutions-focused/strengths-basedapproach),protocolsandstandards;

• Promotesintegratedandchild-friendlyservicesforchildvictims/survivorsandtheirfamiliesthroughcoordinationandareferralsystemwith health, education and justice and CSOs;

• Hasclearlyaccessibleandidentifiedservicesforchildrenandfamiliesatsub-districtlevel;

• Hasdesignatedpractitionersatalladministrativelevelstocarryouttertiaryinterventionsandcoordinatepreventativeservices(qualifiedsocial workers, professional or para-professional social workers);

• Isadequatelyresourced;

• Hasafunctioninginformationmanagementsystemforcasemanagement,abletoprovidestatistics(includessurveillancesystematlocallevel and a database);

• Hasmechanismsinplaceforreportingabusethatarechild-friendly(telephonehotline,complaintsmechanisms,focalpersons);

• Hasinter-agencyguidelinesinplaceandwhichconsistof:agencies’rolesandresponsibilities;directoryofservices;reportingmechanismsand practice; practices and procedures after reporting (case management, care and protection plans, case review); managing information in child protection; criminal proceedings; principles for working with children and families;

• Hasclearcriteriaandproceduresformakingdecisionsfordesignatedchildprotectionofficials;

• Ensuresprofessionalandpara-professionalsocialworkersandcivilsocietyserviceprovidersreceivespecialisttraining(childprotectionand family systems, child and family welfare system functioning, mechanisms and tools);

• Providesacontinuumofservicesbetweenfamilysupport,tertiaryinterventionandout-of-homecare.

The above guidelines necessarily outline many detailed measures for tertiary intervention and response. However, it must be emphasised overall that prevention and early intervention are essential to an effective system that builds a protective environment for all children. The role of families, community members and community leaders is essential and particularly relevant to the Pacific context.

context81. The UNICEF EAPRO toolkit is summarised in the box below. The checklist compliance tables which follow are divided into sections, each followed by a summary of relevant strengths and opportunities:

1. Whole of government

2. Social welfare / human service institutions

3. Hospitals and health centres

4. Schools and early education

5. Birth registration

6. Youth services

81 This simplified table has been adapted to the region and to fit the categories of the Institutional Stocktake component of the Pacific . That is, researchers considered child protection and justice systems at a whole of government level and then within different government departments and civil society organizations. This matrix does not go into specific areas of child protection such as trafficked children, children in street situations or child labour as the aim of the institutional stocktake is to look at systems as a whole to support children, encompassing groups such as these. These checklist compliance tables provide a basic sum-mary only and are designed to assist the reader gain an overview of each institution. It is recommended that the EAPRO Child Protection Toolkit and country / region specific factors be considered when developing similar tools for other baseline studies.


1. Whole of governmentThe below components constitute an ideal overarching child protection system at a whole of government level in the Pacific.


Part-compliant

Fully compliant

1 A national inter-sectoral body for children exists to advise government and address issues of child protection and child justice.

√

2 A national policy exists addressing child protection and referencing legislation, regulations and standards to protect children. Ideal components of a National Child Protection Policy include:

√ however, legislation not in existence so not referenced

3 • Definitionsofabuse,neglectandexploitation• Guidingprinciples(bestinterestsofthechild,childandfamilyparticipation,non-

discrimination)• Outlineschildprotectionoperationalareasandessentialservicesthatshouldbe

offered• Outlinesleadagencyorgovernmentfocalpointforchildprotection• Outlinesinter-agencycollaborationandannexesprotocolsagreedbetweendif-

ferent social welfare, health, education and justice agencies and non-government organisations

• Referenceslegislation,regulationsandstandardsforchildwelfare,childvictims/survivors and child offenders

• Outlinesanindependentsupervisoryormonitoringbodyandresponsibilitiessuchas a Children’s Commissioner or Ombudsman or Human Rights Office

• Outlinestherequirementstomaintaindataandconductresearchonchildprotec-tion

• Mandatesthatfinancingandstrategicplanningatanationallevelincorporatechildprotection and child justice services

√

4 A mechanism or agency is available to conduct research and gather data on child protection and child justice.

Χ

5 A registration and accreditation system exists for institutions and families providing out-of-home-care for children.

√ some available at University of South Pacific Suva and Port Vila; all tertiary training is outside SI

6 Social work and psychology tertiary training is available in the Pacific. Child protection and child justice training is available to law students within their degrees.

√

7 Government disaster planning incorporates child protection principles and the lead agency / focal point for child protection is cognizant of responsibilities for children in the case of a disaster.

Χ


Strengths in the Solomon Islands include: the National Advisory Committee on Children with members from Government departments and NGOs. Inter-agency protocols to advance child protection are also unique initiatives begun in 2008. The comprehensive Draft National Children’s Policy and Plan of Action for Children 2007-2012 sets out policy and actions for the area of child protection including the activities of Social Welfare Division and is a good starting point for raising the profile and importance of children and child protection. Disaster recovery and preparedness is also a strength in the Solomon Islands.

Some opportunities include: the chance to build more detail into the National Children’s Policy, particularly as legislative reform is progressed; and the establishment of a coordinated database / data expertise in Social Welfare Division, police and courts etc. An important step in protecting children in the Solomon Islands would be for the government to legislate for and establish an independent body such as Ombudsman or Children’s Commissioner to monitor services and receive complaints.


2. Social welfare / human service institutionsThe below components constitute an ideal situation for a social welfare / human service department in the Pacific.


Part-compliant

Fully compliant

1 A social welfare department exists with a legal mandate to provide child and welfare services.

√

2 The structure of the department situates child and family services within a broader social welfare services system and has a single section mandated to protect children. It has a clearly articulated structure for roles, responsibilities and accountabilities from the national level through all administrative levels. It coordinates and refers cases with other agencies and civil society organizations.

√

3 Policies and processAn ideal set of policies includes the following:• Mandateandresponsibilityofthedepartment• Guidingprinciples–i.e.solutions-focused,strengths-basedapproach• Integrationofservicesandcontinuumofservicessochildrenareabletoprogress

through services and are not lost in the system• Servicesthatareaccessibleandidentifiableatadistrictandsub-districtlevel• Informationmanagementsystems• Reportingsystems–considerationofmandatoryreporting• Complaintmechanismsandqualityimprovementincludingcommunicationand

feedback systems• Clearcriteriafordecision-makingaroundinterventions• Casemanagementpolicyandproceduresincludingcareandprotectionplansand

practice• Specialistqualificationsandtrainingforstaff,minimumperformancestandards,ongo-

ing and recurrent staff training linked to accreditation• Inter-agencyprotocolswithpertinentagenciesincluding:health,education,police,

courts, public prosecutions, youth divisions, and agreements with CSOs who provide services for children82

• Policythatremovalofchildrenfromfamiliesisalastresort• Out-of-homecareminimumstandards,regulationsandguidelinesincludeanempha-

sis on kinship and foster care and adoption as alternatives to institutional care• MinimumstandardstogovernservicesprovidedbygovernmentandNGOsincluding

defining types and quality of services, division and articulation of roles, responsibilities and accountabilities and compulsory accreditation and inspection of all child protection service providers

√

4 ServicesPrimary- prevention• Prevention,awarenessandearlyinterventionservices–particularlyinvillagesand

remote areas. (Some areas have had a good basis in knowledge of child protection from the former Pacific Children’s Programme).

• Adirectoryofservicesforchildprotectioncasesandjuvenilejusticemattersisacces-sible to all social welfare officers, CSOs and the public.

Χ directory of services

√ some awareness and a lot of work previously undertaken by NGOs

82 These should include agency-specific roles and responsibilities; reporting and referral mechanisms; practice and procedures after reporting (case management, care and protection plans, case review); managing information and sharing; principles for working with children and families.



Part-compliant

Fully compliant

5 Secondary - surveillance• Adesignatedsurveillanceservicetoreceivereportsofabuse,neglectorexploitation

from mandated officials and voluntary members of the public.83 Ideally this would be a centralised telephone hotline.84

• SocialWelfareOfficersinpartnershipwithNGOsprovideeducationandtrainingtoteachers and counsellors in schools to identify at-risk children and design appropriate interventions.

• Daycare,respitecare(includingforchildrenwithdisabilities)andsafehomeservicesexist (government or NGO).

• Facilitationofregistration,accreditation,inspectionandcomplianceofallchildprotection service providers.

Χ system still in its infancy

6 Tertiary – family support and intervention• Casemanagementforchildrenwhohaveexperiencedabuse-thatisaSocialWelfare

Officer who is able to visit the child and monitor his/her situation and help to plan for the future of the child and family. (This may include family group conferencing where the whole family is involved in decisions/actions relating to the children where there are no criminal charges).

• Supportserviceisinplaceforchildvictims/survivorswhocometotheattentionof the police or healthcare officials, i.e. they are assigned a Social Welfare Officer or trained volunteer to support them and a victim / survivor / witness support programme exists.

Tertiary - rehabilitation• Psychologicalorcounsellingservicesforchildrenandfamiliesor,ifthereisnot

sufficient training, a referral process to NGOs.

Χ system still in its infancy

7 Out-of-home care• Asystemofkinshipcareorfostercareasanalternativetoinstitutionalcarewouldbe

ideal in the Pacific. 85

• Wherethereareinstitutionssuchaschildren’shomes,hostels,transitionalaccommodation, or accommodation for children with disabilities in schools they are registered and accredited against standards and monitored by the dedicated agency.

• Thereisacareandprotectionplanforeachchildinaninstitution86 /out-of-home-care and some support to family whilst child is in care.

• Thereisaformaladoptionprocesscomplyingwithinternationallawforbothin-country and overseas adoptions.

Χ √ formal adoption process

8 Capacities (financial, human, physical)• Afinancingandimplementationorworkplanarticulatesthebudgetandpriorities

for child protection including provision for services and allocation to salaries, training, inspection, cross-programme areas and planning, reporting, monitoring and research.

• Professionalandpara-professionalsocialworkersandcivilsocietyprovidersreceivespecialist training in child protection, child justice and issues for children with disabili-ties.

• Professionalchildpsychologistsareavailableor,intheabsenceofthese,speciallytrained counsellors who have training in post-trauma stress and mental health for children.

• Adatasystemexiststhatrecordsinformationaboutreportsandismaintainedinanational database. The information system incorporates a primary prevention surveil-lance system at a local level capable of recording concerns by the public regarding instance of abuse, neglect or exploitation of children. The system should reference case files which are kept by name and birth date.

• SocialWelfareOfficersoperateatregionallevelsandformalrelationshipsexistwithlocal communities, villages and chiefs.

√

83 Current debate about the introduction and efficiency of mandatory reporting should be considered in relation to the Pacific region. Some arguments consider the impact on resources prohibitive (critics of the Australian system) and voluntary reporting (such as system in the UK) is more efficient. Other arguments articulate that mandatory reporting of cases of abuse and neglect of children is an essential responsibility of the State in protecting children. None of the States considered in the CPBR have mandatory reporting, Much of the benefit of a mandatory system is the awareness it generates and the presence of a penalty for not reporting a case of abuse or neglect. At least as a pilot system of mandatory reporting in the Pacific States considered in this report could have some very positive effects in the community.

84 When a report is made the service would include the recording and ranking of risk and urgency of each report and the subsequent investigation of each report by an official or, if resources are limited, trained volunteer / village leader or member of a CSO. The result of the investigation would then need to be fed back to the designated service and a recommendation made about whether to formally action the situation with case management. (This may now be accessible to many people in the Pacific due to the increased coverage of mobile telephones in 2008, particularly in Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands).

85 In the Pacific many children are placed with relatives or live with extended family (without birth parents present). Ideally these living arrangements would be registered with the SWD as kinship care.86 Care and protection plans, through the contribution of different support services, aim at: reconnecting the child with family members, friends and community members, fostering social connections and

interactions and normalizing daily life; providing a sense of competence and restoration and control of his/her life; and building on and encouraging the child’s resilience.



Policy

The Solomon Islands has a clearly mandated department for child protection, the Ministry of Health and Medical Services’ Social Welfare Division (SWD). A strength of SWD is its ‘Social Welfare Division Strategic Plan 2006-2011’. It is making progress in strengthening its capacity and ability to undertake the core responsibilities as set out in the Plan. A further strength was the work undertaken in 2008 to draft Service Protocols and Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) to assist 5 Emergency and Crisis providers to begin negotiation about a sector-wide referral system for managing child protection cases, investigation and collecting data. Also for the first time in 2008 a pilot Case Referral System was established to support research in the area of gender-based violence and child protection.

Opportunities to improve policy and direction include: a chance for SWD to promote itself as a ‘broker’ or coordinator of child protection provided by NGOs and the community87; and development of case management policies, procedures and practice directions. Opportunities to capitalize on the work done in 2008 include finalising the Service Protocols and MOUs with emergency crisis providers and the chance to document the pilot Case Referral System for the gender-based violence and child protection research. As legislation is drafted and the work of SWD is promoted, an opportunity also will present to define the relationship between SWD and the Ministry of Women, Youth and Children’s ‘Children’s Desk’ in terms of policy development for child protection. Ideally policy development and service delivery should be unified under one lead Ministry.

Services

In terms of prevention the Solomon Islands has a strong NGO sector that has been involved at the community level over a number of years, particularly the work of Save the Children, World Vision and the Family Support Centre. The work of these organizations provides a basis from which to continue to improve primary prevention programmes in the future.

SWD is still in its infancy in terms of service provision. Strengths to date include the intake system and the ability to allocate some cases.

87 UNICEF Child Protection Assessment on design of new Country Program Strategy, Shelly Casey, March – April 2007, p. 4.88 Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children and Child Sexual Abuse in the Solomon Islands, Christian Care Centre, RRRT and UNICEF, Honiara 2004. p. 58.

SWD also has recently developed a monitoring system for children in detention. Another strength is some of the regional links it has, particularly with the Community Welfare Volunteers in Choiseul who have been making a small number of referrals to SWD Gizo office.

There will be many opportunities for SWD to develop its services in the future. These include: services for child victims / survivors of crime; case management of diversionary sentencing by the courts of children in conflict with the law; psychological counseling; family group conferencing; a national reporting hotline for cases of child abuse; further collaboration with nurses and teachers in promoting awareness of child protection; development of a foster or kinship care system in the Solomon Islands; further collaboration with regional partners such as the Community Welfare Volunteers; and collaboration with other agencies such as hospitals, health clinics, police and courts so that children are better protected.

Capacities

Strengths include the establishment in 2008 of a Child Protection Unit (for child survivors of abuse) and Probation Unit (for children in conflict with the law / women and children in corrections) within SWD. Other strengths include some para-professional training available for Social Welfare Officers and some of the technical assistance to help establish the Child Protection Unit. Another strength of the unit is the dedicated Social Welfare Officers - including one professional social worker.

Many opportunities exist to build the capacity of SWD in the Solomon Islands. These include: continued para-professional training to the Social Welfare Officers; building capacity of Social Welfare Officers to provide counseling and improve the skills of others (particularly faith-based counselors); additional training and support of the Community Welfare Volunteers; and lobbying the government for a programme of scholarships for overseas study for Solomon Islanders for degree level training in Social Work.88 There is also the need and opportunity to increase the budget of the SWD and improve transportation at the district level. More resources could also be very beneficial to the effectiveness of the Community Welfare Volunteers.


3. Hospitals and health centresHospitals and health centres (State-run and NGOs) will see children who come following an instance of abuse or neglect and who need tertiary services. The following are some basic services for children that can be offered by hospitals and health centres in the Pacific.


Part-compliant

Fully compliant

1 Child Protection Policy including Code of Conduct and background employment checks for health professionals.

Χ

2 Formal collaboration protocols with the social welfare department and police articulating that a Social Welfare Officer or dedicated hospital social work professional is on call for child victims/survivors. The agreement will provide child victims/survivors with immediate child-sensitive medical treatment. The agreement will mandate that reports will be immediately provided to police for evidence and free of charge to the victim/survivor.

√

3 Health professionals have the knowledge, skills and motivation to identify and report suspected incidents of violence, abuse and exploitation to a dedicated reporting hotline overseen by a specialised agency / focal point for child protection.

Χ

4 Family planning and adolescent health services are available to children including child-friendly counselling and rehabilitation in case of health consequences of sexual and physical abuse.

√

5 Standard systematic primary prevention programmes which include child protection principles are carried out by health professionals/para-professionals (home visiting, new and prospective parents education/advice, alcohol and substance misuse reduction campaigns etc).

Χ


Strengths include some work in adolescent health services such as that by Save the Children, Australia. A positive step is the work of MHMS (Clinical Services) which is in the process of working together with the police to develop standard forms for collecting evidence of child sexual assault.

Many opportunities exist to improve policies, services and capacities to protect children in the health system. These include: the development of policies and protocols; finalise with police, Family Support Centre, Christian Children’s Centre and SWD the inter-agency protocol for referral of children who have received medical attention for assault, abuse or neglect; improvements in the quality of medical reports in sexual assault cases; improvements in the ethical behavior of health professionals (including confidentiality and children’s right to privacy); retention of disaggregated data of clients under 18 to be published and circulated annually; training for health professionals and students to identify and report cases of child abuse to SWD; and incorporation of counselling training by professional counsellors into the curricula of health worker training institutions.


4. Schools and early educationAt a primary prevention level, a school (outside of the family) can provide some of the best protection from abuse, neglect and exploitation for children. Universal free education is one of the best ways of ensuring children attend school and do not have to work in school hours. Welfare assistance for children to help them attend school including bus concessions and food is also ideal. Children who attend school can, however, be exposed to some forms of abuse including corporal punishment and bullying by teachers or other students. Within schools the following are some basic protections that can be offered:


Part-compliant

Fully compliant

1 Trained children, parents, teachers and school counsellors are able to educate the school community (including students) about child protection, effects and signs of abuse, acceptable behaviour by adults and other children, and referral points including how to get help.

Χ

2 A Child Protection Policy exists in all schools and daycare centres. This includes: the requirement for a signed code of conduct and background employment checks for teachers; anti-bullying policy (including through current technologies); and corporal punishment bans.

Χ

3 Trained, accredited counsellors (who are not teachers) are available for children to go to and make a confidential complaint about any abuse or neglect either at school or outside of school. Teachers are also equipped to advocate for children if approached by child.

Χ

4 Access for children at school to a reporting hotline provided by specialised agency for child protection.

Χ

5 Access for school children to the independent supervisory and monitoring body for child protection and child justice such as a Children’s Commissioner, Ombudsman or Human Rights Complaint Mechanism.

Χ

6 Parents, teachers, school volunteers and other staff have the knowledge, skills and motivation to identify and report suspected incidents of violence, abuse and exploitation to a dedicated reporting hotline overseen by specialised agency for child protection. Parents, teachers, school volunteers and other staff also have knowledge, skills and motivation to action or refer any suicidal threats or attempts by students.

Χ

7 Formal collaboration protocols exist with the social welfare department for reporting of cases and agreement about responsibilities where a child who attends the school is on a care and protection plan.

Χ


The education sector in the Solomon Islands presents many opportunities to introduce positive policies, services and capacities to protect children and prevent abuse. A strength is that currently corporal punishment is prohibited in schools. This policy presents opportunities to build positive discipline practices and capacities in schools.

Opportunities include: development of child protection policies; introduction of voluntary school counsellors with training in child protection practices; partnerships with SWD and NGOs such as Save the Children; and, education, awareness and training for the school community about the benefits of child protection and what to do in cases of suspected child abuse.

An opportunity also exists to utilize the distance learning centres project and Solomon Islands School Net (this is set up in 9 provinces in Rural Community High Schools89) for advocacy and training about child protection and child rights in communities. Opportunities also exist for the Ministry of Education (together with Ministry of Health), community services and agencies to develop and introduce into the curriculum information sessions on psychosocial dimensions of mental health in schools and their communities. Topics could include depression, reducing substance abuse, reducing bullying and violence and sexual abuse. This kind of initiative could also be supported by introducing youth counselling drop-in centres in schools and communities.

89 People First SI, http://www.peoplefirst.net.sb/DLCP/ accessed on 6/8/8.


5. Birth registrationBirth registration institutions and the process of registering a child at birth furthers a child’s protection from abuse and exploitation. Birth registration gives a child a legal persona including having a name and nationality and proof of age. The benefits of birth registration include the right to be treated as a child in justice processes, access to school with proof of age, and protection from child trafficking and exploitation under false names or identities.


Part-compliant

Fully compliant

1 A service exists which facilitates registration of identity at birth as articulated in law. This will usually take the form of a civil registration office and an inter-agency agreement so that the Ministry of Health, Education and courts are able to feed information to the office and obtain information about children’s identity from that office (for example in a criminal case where the child’s age is required).

√

2 Where birth registration does not routinely occur at birth (particularly in Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands and Kiribati) other services are required such as mobile centres for registration (these are effective with mobile immunisation centres) and registration facilities in conjunction with school enrolments.

Χ


The Solomon Islands faces a challenge to achieve universal birth registration. However, there are some strengths that can be built on. Firstly the National Advisory Council on Children is supportive of improvements to the system and has been actively advocating birth registration. Secondly, there is a designated office under the Ministry of Home Affairs (MOHA) for indigenous birth registration (the Civil Registry Office).

Opportunities for improvement include: creation of formal institutional protocols through a Birth Registration Reference Group; a partnership for data exchange (of newborn babies) between MOH statistics division and churches and the Civil Registry Office; decentralisation of Civil Registry services to the provincial level and to mobile birth registration; a protocol on the storage, issue and access to data; capacity building of relevant civil registry officials (including training and recruitment of new and existing staff, training existing provincial level government employees); and the purchase of adequate equipment (funding) in the Honiara Office (computers, software, printer, photocopier, server).

An opportunity also exists for Civil Registration to develop a communication programme for improving knowledge of the population on the importance of birth registration and how to register children (e.g. advocacy and social mobilisation programmes). Opportunities also exist for Civil Registration and NACC to promote integration of birth registration into ongoing basic service programmes such as immunisation, vitamin A campaigns, primary health care, child-friendly spaces and schools.

6.YouthservicesYouthservicesinthePacificaresometimesundertheumbrellaofsocialwelfaredepartmentsbutmoreoftenthannotareprovidedby separate divisions and NGOs which define ‘youth’ as anywhere from 15 to 35 years of age. Many youth services are provided by CSOs.Youthservicescanstrengthenandsupporttheprotectionofchildrenand/orprovidesomerehabilitationservicesduringprobation or following imprisonment.


Part-compliant

Fully compliant

1 Community programmes and services exist to support children and adolescents, particularly children at social risk (e.g.: peer and adult mentoring programmes, drop-in centres, recreational programmes, life skills programmes, employment programmes).

√

2 Where there are the above programmes Child Protection Policies exist and workers / volunteers have the knowledge, skills and motivation to identify and report suspected incidents of violence, abuse and exploitation to a dedicated reporting hotline overseen by specialised agency for child protection and to action or refer any need for counselling or rehabilitation or suicidal threats or attempts by young people.

√


The Solomon Islands has some extremely effective NGOs running youth programmes. These include the Solomon Islands Planned Parenthood Association (youth reproductive health programmes), Save the Children (various programmes including life skills), World Vision (substance abuse programme), Solomon Islands Development Trust (youth and governance programmes, radio and magazines to provinces), and Oxfam (youth programmes cut across all programme areas). The Solomon Islands also has a Youth Division in the Ministry of Women, Youth and Children’s Affairs.

Many of these NGOs have child protection policies and are skilled in advocacy for child protection. Opportunities exist for stronger partnerships with government services, including SWD, particularly in the areas of primary prevention, victim / survivor support and rehabilitation of offenders / diversion programmes. A significant opportunity exists for the development of a ‘services directory’, not only for youth programmes, which could be used by judges and police for the purposes of diversion, but also for child protection services to assist child victims / survivors of abuse.

The diagram on the following page shows the recommended social welfare / inter-agency collaboration in general.


solo

mon

isla

nds

soci

al w

elfa

re s

yste

m: i

deal

and

act

ual i

nter

agen

cy c

olla

bora

tion


Findings for Output 2.1 Social welfare officers are employed in all provinces and there is increased opportunity to in-service and pre-service training in social work (Provincial level)

Outcome 2: Children are better served by well informed and coordinated child protection social services which ensure greater protection against and responds to violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect

Output 2.1Social welfare officers are employed in all provinces and there is increased opportunity to in-service and pre-service training in social work (Provincial level)

Indicator 2.1.1Number of provinces with social welfare officers

Target: All provinces

Indicator 2.1.2Increaseinproportionofsocialwelfareofficerswhoarequalified

Comments Please note that the findings here have been extracted and summarised from a much broader more detailed ‘institutional stocktaking’ report which is available as a separate document. It is advisable to therefore read these findings and recommendations in the context of the full report. The full report examines the strengths and weaknesses of the different institutions which make up the child protection system and the effectiveness of inter-agency collaboration.

Research tools used

Desk reviewStakeholder workshop held on 03/09/08Email correspondence, 03/12/08, 04/12/08KIIS with: SWD 01/06/08, 05/08/08; UNICEF SI 01/06/08; Child Protection Technical Advisor, SWD/UNICEF 19/08/08 and 22/08/08

Quotation “Most of the cases we deal with are to do with sexual abuse or incest, and the victims are mostly young girls. Sometimes we are referred with cases of corporal punishment” (Linda Tupe, Child Protection Officer, SWD).

1. 4 out of 9 provinces in the Solomon Islands have a Social Welfare Officer (SWO) employed by the MHMS. In Choiseul and Maliata provinces the SWOs are awaiting mobilisation when office spaces become available.

Table2.1-A:Canyouindicatethequalificationsyouhadbeforeyou gained your position as a social welfare officer? [Based on KIIs with social welfare representatives in 4 locations in the Solomon Islands]

Typeofqualification Number of responses

No specific training - just on the job training

2

Secondary school education 1

Certificate in Social Work 1

Certificate in Education (primary teaching) 1

Total (responses) 5

2. There are no tertiary qualified social workers employed in the SWD. One SWO officer has a ‘Certificate in Social Work’ (not a tertiary qualification). See Table 2.1-A for the qualifications of social welfare ‘representatives’ interviewed as part of the CPBR field research. 90

3. There is a group of 29 Community Welfare Volunteers (CWVs) in Choiseul province. The CWV programme has some funding and logistical challenges, but where there is access to the SWD the system is working to some extent.

4. A consultant para-professional social worker was placed with SWD for a number of months in 2008 to build technical capacity in inter-agency collaboration and training of social welfare and prison officers. An Australian Youth Ambassador for Development with tertiary qualifications in social work was also placed in the SWD in 2008 to set up a case management system for the referrals arising from the Women’s Health and Life Survey. This survey was lead by another professional social worker.

90 Field research key informant interviews refer to ‘social welfare representatives’ in general. This may refer to any representative of the social welfare services, e.g. a Social Welfare Officer, Community Welfare Volunteer or other, depending on who was available for interview at each research location site.


Child protection in the Social Welfare Division 91

As Child Protection Officer in the Solomon Islands Social Welfare Division, Linda Tupe helps in ensuring the well-being of children referred to her office. Child protection cases are referred to the Social Welfare Division by police, the Christian Care Centre Safe Home run by the Church of Melanesia and the Oxfam-assisted Family Support Centre. “Most of the cases we deal with are to do with sexual abuse or incest, and the victims are mostly young girls. Sometimes we are referred with cases of corporal punishment,” says Linda.

The major challenges faced by SWD are awareness and accessibility. Cases occurring in rural areas are often unattended to, as there are no resources to fund travel from the SWD Office in Honiara to locations out in the provinces. At the moment, SWD does what it can with the two staff currently employed to cater specifically for child protection issues. Awareness programmes have been launched in communities in or near Honiara: “If communities request it and they are near Honiara, we visit them and do presentations on child abuse, laws relating to child abuse and the commercial sexual exploitation of children,” says Linda. “So far we have conducted three presentations over the past eleven months and we also hand out posters and leaflets about children’s rights and child protection at the presentations.”

Radio outreach has also proved effective for the SWD in making information available for the community at large: “There is a radio programme on child protection every day at a quarter to seven in the evening, sponsored by the Ministry of Health. There is also a programme on another station, ZFM, which is government-supported,” Linda says. “We get a positive response from listeners, who call to tell us they enjoy the programme and to enquire about our services.”

While resource constraints and other obstacles remain, awareness on child protection issues is slowly improving. With findings and recommendations from the CPBR, the SWD hopes to improve the scope of its work in child protection, by continuing awareness, training stakeholders and making its services more accessible for those in rural areas.


2.1-R.1 Social Welfare Division to instate the Social Welfare Officers for Choiseul and Malaita, who are currently waiting in Honiara. [Recommendation achieved at time of publication]

2.1-R.2 Social work should be promoted as a profession in the Solomon Islands and prioritized during the development of scholarship opportunities.

2.1-R.3 A national accreditation and ethical code should be introduced for social work para-professionals.

2.1-R.4 Encourage and support training and supervision for new and existing social welfare staff, moving towards professional qualifications where relevant. This should include training to the level where a course is approved by a professional body of social workers such as the Fiji Association of Social Workers.

2.1-R.5 Staff should receive ongoing training about child protection and family systems, child and family welfare system functioning, mechanisms and tools.

2.1-R.6 Social Welfare Division should encourage staff to better link with and support the Community Welfare Volunteers.

2.1-R.7 Social Welfare Division and NACC should advocate for professional psychological counselling so that cases can be referred to such services.

2.1-R.8 Opportunities for Social Work training to be conducted by distance or on-line learning in the Solomon Islands should be explored and, if possible, implemented.


Findings for Output 2.2 Social workers, police, health care workers follow operational procedures ensuring immediate and professional handling of cases involving children (National level)


Output 2.2Social workers, police, health care workers follow operational procedures ensuring immediate and professional handling of cases involving children (National level)

Indicator 2.2.1Proportion of cases (male/female) reported (including from CWVs) and addressed (at national and provincial level) in accordance with established operational procedures

Target: 100% of cases in 2012

Indicator 2.2 Additional 1Proportion of key actors at community level who are aware of, and can use, institutional supports


Research tools used

Desk reviewStakeholder workshop held on 03/09/08KIIs with: UNICEF SI 01/06/08 and (technical consultant) 19/08/08, 22/08/08 (via phone and email); SWD 01/06/08, 05/06/08

Quotation “I am aware of my responsibility to report if I suspect a child has been abused but I don’t know which is a police case from a case which should be referred to social welfare or health.” (Education KII)

1. At the time of writing government departments including hospitals, schools and courts do not routinely refer children’s cases to SWD. However, in 2008 SWD drafted Service Protocols and Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) to assist 5 emergency and crisis providers to begin negotiation about a sector-wide referral system for managing cases, investigation and collecting data. It is planned that an Emergency and Crisis Service Providers protocol will link all the service providers. They will then develop the inter-agency response model and produce all relevant referral and case management systems relevant to each agency’s specific role and responsibilities (although it should be noted that if an agency does not have a Service Protocol or MOU with SWD that does not mean that no referral can be made). So far the MOU with Corrections has been finalised so that children in conflict with the law can now be case-managed by a SWO.

2. There are no SWD case management policies or procedures in place at this time. Technical assistance is required for this task.

3. SWD currently has an intake system, developed as a pilot for the Women’s Health and Life Survey. Referrals from this research were handled on a case by case basis with supervision by the Women’s Health and Life Survey Lead Researcher.

4. The CWVs were making a small number of referrals to SWD, Gizo office -some directly and others by people receiving information from the CWVs who then called into the office when they were in Gizo. Thus there were links that were made possible by the presence of SWD in Western Province. Presently, the SWD office is not operating in Gizo and there is no SWO there.

5. Presently there is not a national telephone hotline for reporting cases to SWD.

6. In order to gain a better understanding of how cases are currently being handled at community level, a series of questions was asked to key informants as part of the CPBR field research. The remainder of the findings in this section are based on the results from this field research.

Table 2.2-A: Number of cases of child abuse and neglect dealt with or witnessed by social welfare representatives over the past year [Based on social welfare KIIs in 4 locations throughout the Solomon Islands]

Dealt with Witnessed

Sexual abuse 10 1

Physical abuse 9 2

Emotional abuse 1 0

Neglect 1 0

Total 21 3

Social welfare representatives

7. The 4 social welfare representatives92 who were interviewed as part of the field research component of the CPBR stated that collectively they dealt with 21 cases of child abuse or neglect within the past year (average of 5.25 per respondent) and witnessed another 3 cases (average of 0.75 per respondent) – see Table 2.2-A. Of the 21 cases dealt with, only 8 were referred to another agency for help (7 sexual abuse cases and 1 physical abuse case). 2 of the 4 respondents recorded cases in writing under the child’s name and notified SWD; one of the 4 recorded cases in writing but did not notify SWD. In terms of follow-up to these cases, one respondent notified their boss and 2 respondents followed up to see how the child was doing within 3 months.

8. All 4 respondents state they are aware of reports they should make either by phone or in writing if they suspect a child has been abused or neglected but these reports were not specified. 3 of the 4 respondents could not name any standard operating procedures or documents from SWD that give guidance on how to deal with child protection cases. The fourth respondent stated they had a copy of a document but it was in the office and therefore not available at the time of interview. 3 of the 4 respondents stated they did not have

92 In line with children’s rights and global good practices.


an internal policy or Code of Conduct to regulate their behaviour and communications with children. One stated there was such a policy, but ‘could not remember the exact title’.

9. Of the 4 respondents, 2 had been working in their communities for less than one year; one had been working there for 1-2 years; and one had been working for 3-5 years. 3 of the 4 estimated that they spent 70%-100% of their time on child protection work (e.g. awareness-raising activities to keep children safe helping children and families in cases of abuse etc.); the remaining respondent estimated it was 50%-70% of their time.

10. 3 of the 4 respondents stated they did something to ‘help keep children safe from violence in this community’ such as: Talk about / explain what child abuse is (x3 responses); share information about how to keep children safe / prevent violence (x2); run workshops for the community (x2); provide posters and other visual aids (x1); and provide help if children are hurt (x1).

11. When asked whether they thought children in this community are safer as a result of them working here, 3 responded ‘maybe yes, maybe no’ and one responded ‘yes - a little’. Reasons why include: I give useful information (x4); people know / understand about child abuse (x1); people know what to do in case of child abuse (x1). Reasons why they are not sure if children are safer as a result of their work include: I am not here very often (x2); and I have too many other things to do (x2) (although allegedly all respondents are spending over 50% of their time - and most are spending over 70% of their time – on child protection work, according to previous responses).

12. One of the 4 respondents had received specific training in preventing or responding to child abuse and neglect. The training was for one week in 2008 on protecting children’s rights and was provided by SWD, UNICEF and ChildWise Australia. When asked what further training they need to help protect children, 2 asked for training on counselling, one wanted training on child rights and child protection, and one wanted training on ‘how to get children to speak out for themselves’.

13. One of the 4 respondents had received funding to run awareness or advocacy programs to stop abuse and neglect of children. The funding ($12,000 SBD) came from MWYCA and was used for ‘accommodation, venue, catering and participants’ allowance’.

14. As part of the child participation aspect of the CPBR, 22 children in Honiara gave input into specific questions they wanted to pose to key informants as part of the field research. These are the questions and responses for social welfare representatives:

a. How can you protect children from discrimination? Provide information and awareness to our community on how to protect children from discrimination (x2); I can lobby with policy makers to strengthen our laws relating to child abuse (x1).

b. How can you protect us when we become victims and are left homeless? Refer your case to the Christian Care Centre (x2); I can refer you to the main authorities for further

help and assistance (x1); Refer case to social welfare in Gizo (x1); lobby policy makers to really do something about it (x1)

c. How can you help street kids who become victims of broken families? I can refer you to the main authorities for further help and assistance (x1); refer case to social welfare in Gizo (x1); lobby policy makers to address the situation (x1); approach parents and talk to them on how we can get them back together (x1).

Healthcare workers

Table 2.2-B: Number of cases of child abuse and neglect dealt with or witnessed by healthcare representatives over the past year [Based on health KIIs in 13 locations throughout the Solomon Islands]


Sexual abuse 3 7

Physical abuse 3 2

Emotional abuse ‘Many’ (x1) 0

Neglect 2 0

Total +8 9

15. Of the 17+ cases either dealt with or witnessed by the 13 health representatives interviewed over the past year (see Table 2.2-B), only 3 cases of sexual abuse were referred to another agency for help.

16. 5 out of the 13 respondents said they were aware of reports they should make if they suspect child abuse, but no further information was provided. When asked about standard guidance documents on how to deal with child protection cases: 8 said that there were none or ‘there’s nothing like that I can remember’; one stated ‘it is a standard practice to report to social welfare’; one mentioned ‘Save the Children’; another cited ‘simple notes from workshops’; one said ‘counselling’; and one did not answer.

17. 3 out of the 13 health representatives (23%) interviewed stated that they had received specific training in preventing or responding to child abuse and neglect: one of these was in February 2008 from Aberdeen University in the form of video lectures on children’s behaviour; one was ‘human development’ as part of general 2-year nursing training; and the third stated that ‘mother trains own child at home’. When asked what further training they needed in order to better protect children: 3 respondents requested training on child rights; 3 requested training on how to tackle child abuse; 3 on counseling; 2 wanted awareness workshops from SWD or UNICEF; one requested training on child development and psychology; one on identifying child abuse; 2 did not know; and one stated they did not need any further training.

18. None of the 19 healthcare representatives who were interviewed as part of the field research component of the CPBR had received any funding to run awareness or advocacy programs to stop abuse and neglect of children.

19. As part of the child participation aspect of the CPBR, 22 children in Honiara gave input into specific questions they wanted to pose to key informants as part of the field research. These are the questions and responses for social welfare representatives:

a. How can doctors and nurses help children who are victims of violence? We can treat you and offer you counselling (x4); we can help you in the recovery process (x2); keep good records


and refer victims to responsible people, such as the police. (x1); through counselling they can help them from getting in to serious mental disorder (x1); examine victims and teat them and advise parents to report case to police (x1); doctors will help to intervene with serious cases (x1); we are not to be afraid of, just contact us (x1); through awareness/workshops on preventative health issues (x1); school visits by responsible authorities (x1).

b. How can doctors help sick children at home? We can always give you the help if transportation is available (x4); educate parents on what they should do to their sick children when they are at home (x2); educate parents about basic home care and the importance of attending health facilities for treatment (x1); nurses to visit remote villages occasionally (x1); doctors can visit remote areas once in a while and advise mothers on how to look after the sick child (x1); we can travel out to remote places (x1); we can have a satellite tour (x1).

Education representatives

20. 6 out of the 20 education representatives (30%) interviewed throughout the country stated that they had received specific training in preventing or responding to child abuse and neglect: 3 of these were part of a 2-3 year teacher education programme which included child development and child psychology (and one of these also included first aid training and ‘warden training’); another has had training from USP in 2006 on special needs; more specifically , one had received a 2-day training from the Ministry of Education and an NGO on child abuse, child rights and discipline; another had received a one-week training from Save the Children on child rights. When asked what further training they needed in order to better protect children: 8 respondents requested training on the UNCRC; 6 on recognizing child abuse; 3 on developing better rules to protect children; 2 on child protection in general; and one each on discipline, ‘correct child management’, counseling, child healthcare, law, early child development, ‘incorporation of western and traditional culture’ 93 and one was not sure.

21. 9 of the 20 stated that they were aware of reports they needed to make if they suspected child abuse but these were not specified apart from one who said ‘both at school and in the community’. Specific comments made by respondents reveal the need to clarify reporting systems and procedures: ‘reports, rumours of child abuse and I was really disturbed’; ‘If the child is my student, yes, if not, I’m not sure’; ‘I am aware of my responsibility to report if I suspect a child has been abused but I don’t know which is a police case from a case which should be referred to social welfare or health.’

22. Of the 20 education representatives who were interviewed as part of the field research component of the CPBR have received any funding to run awareness or advocacy programmes to stop abuse and neglect of children.

Police

[See Output 1.2 regarding number of cases dealt with]

23. 3 out of the 8 police representatives (38%) interviewed throughout the country stated that they had received specific training in preventing or responding to child abuse and neglect. One respondent had 2 weeks’ training on sexual assault in 2007 at the

93 “One man’s food is another man’s poison.”

Police Academy; one had a week’s training on child abuse and child rights at the Family Support Centre; one had a 2-week public service workshop on child abuse covering child abuse and gender equality. When asked what further training they needed in order to better protect children, answers included: child rights and how to protect them (x3); child abuse and child protection (x2); women’s rights and gender equality (x2); law (x1); and one respondent said ‘UNICEF needs to implement and start training on the things the research is trying to find out’.

24. Only one of the 8 had received funding to run awareness or advocacy programmes to stop abuse and neglect of children. This was from Save the Children but no further details were given.

25. Only one of the 8 representatives stated their station has a schools awareness programme. This is on ‘general crime’ and reaches out to 29 primary and 4 community high schools. A reason given for the lack of programmes in other areas was ‘poor logistics and no funds to do so’.

26. As part of the child participation aspect of the CPBR, 22 children in Honiara gave input into specific questions they wanted to pose to key informants as part of the field research. One of these questions was: ‘If I was walking to the shop after dark by myself, what would the police do to protect me?’ Responses: ‘We can accompany you’ (x4) - but a fifth respondent stated that this ‘depends on the police himself - if he cares and is willing to give up his time to do so’; we can give you a torch (x3); the police can assist on transporting the child (x1); assist when asked for help (x1); ‘get an adult to accompany the child’.

CSO representatives

27. None of the 6 CSO representatives who were interviewed as part of the field research component of the CPBR had dealt with or witnessed any case of child abuse in the past year.

28. 4 said they are aware of reports they should make if they suspect a child has been abused or neglected. 3 stated they had an internal policy or Code of Conduct regulating behaviour and communications with children. These apply: ‘to all workers’; ‘to youths - guidance on proper conduct and what to do. We discipline our children. Discipline and punishment are totally different things’; ’it applies to me; I can’t say anything at the moment as I haven’t got a copy with me’.

29. One out of the 6 CSO representatives (17%) stated that they had received specific training in preventing or responding to child abuse and neglect but no further details were given. When asked what further training they needed in order to better protect children, 2 respondents requested training on child rights, 2 on child protection, 2 on child abuse, one on early childhood development and one on law.

30. One out of the 6 had received funding relating to child protection: SBD$900,000 from AusAID for ‘reconstruction and rehabilitation’.

Religious leaders

31. Of the 81 cases of child abuse and neglect dealt with collectively by the 18 religious leaders interviewed throughout the Solomon Islands (see Table 2.2-C), only 8 were referred to another agency for help: 4 cases of neglect, 3 cases of sexual abuse and one case of physical abuse.


Table 2.2-C: Number of cases of child abuse and neglect dealt with or witnessed by healthcare representatives over the past year [Based on religious leader KIIs in 18 locations throughout the Solomon Islands]


Physical abuse 4 8

Sexual abuse 3+ 2

Emotional abuse 22+ 23+

Neglect 8 11

Total 37+ 44+

32. 10 out of 18 did not know of any system in place to respond to child abuse but 5 mentioned an ‘unwritten duty of care’ and 3 mentioned a ‘written protocol’. 8 out of 18 said there were aware of reports they should make in cases of child abuse but no details were given.

33. 4 out of the 18 religious leaders (22%) interviewed throughout the country stated that they had received specific training in preventing or responding to child abuse and neglect. This included: a general priest’s 4-year training programme which included ‘Christian marriage’; a 3-month CYP youth programme on counselling of abused young people; 2-3-week block courses on children’s spiritual protection; 3-day theological seminar in 2006 on the importance of the child based on scriptures. When asked what further training they needed in order to better protect children: 8 respondents requested training on recognizing and addressing child abuse; 4 on child rights and helping children to achieve these rights; 3 on raising awareness on children’s rights, child abuse and parental responsibilities; 2 on child development; one on legal aspects of children’s rights ‘from the government’; one on HIV/AIDS programmes; and 2 did not know.

34. 8 out of 18 agreed that they incorporate training on parenting or prevention of abuse or neglect in their religious teaching. Topics include specifically: value of family and marriage (x3); roles and responsibilities of parents (x3); child rights (x1); obedience, love and sharing with parents and others (x1); respect for one another (x1); and one respondents said they teach ‘during Sunday services, the Sunday school programme and group discussions’.

35. As part of the child participation aspect of the CPBR, 22 children in Honiara gave input into specific questions they wanted to pose to key informants as part of the field research. These are the questions and responses for religious leaders:

a. If I am a victim of child abuse what could you do to help me? Counsel the child and accommodate him/her at Christian Care Centre (x3); offer you a prayer (x3); assist you in whatever way possible to address your specific needs (x3); I will make sure your problems are solved and try to get you back to your normal life (x2); provide care, help and support to make the child feel good, happy and wanted (x2); keep children like you in the family until you feel safe to return home (x2); seek advice from social welfare and the police (x1); call in responsible authorities to handle the situation (x1); I will get the community and the government to support you (x1); report the perpetrator to the police (x1); identify your problem and address it accordingly (x1).

b. What can you do to help our family reunite? Provide counselling to parents who have family problems / assist with reconciliation (x13); pray for them (x5); advise parents to support children if they cannot re-unite (x1); make parents see the value of marriage as a precious gift and come up with some compromise (x1).

Youth leaders

36. The 11 youth leaders interviewed stated that, collectively, they had witnessed ‘many’ cases of child neglect, 3 cases of emotional abuse and one case of sexual abuse over the past year. None of them had actually dealt with or referred any case of child abuse in the past year.

37. 2 out of the 11 religious leaders (18%) interviewed throughout the country stated that they had received specific training in preventing or responding to child abuse and neglect. This included a one-week government-run workshop and a 3-day workshop in 2006 by World Vision and the Red Cross on personal hygiene and first aid. When asked what further training they needed in order to better protect children: 3 respondents requested training on child abuse and how to respond to it; 3 on child protection; 2 on child rights / the UNCRC; 2 on trauma counseling; and one each on parenting, social work and ‘dealing with homeless children’.

38. 3 said they are aware of reports they should make if they suspect a child has been abused or neglected but no further details were given

39. One out of the 11 had received funding relating to child protection, but this may be for more general youth programme work (SBD$10,000 twice a year from the Church of Melanesia Board of Mission for youth programme stationary, food and participants’ transportation).

Responding to child protection issues

86% of key informants state they are either very confident or confident about knowing what to do if a child is badly hurt in their community. Only 1 respondent is not very confident (education representative) and only one ‘does not know’ (a chief ).

Table 2.2-D: If a child in your community was badly hurt by someone, how confident are you about what to do? [KII responses combined]

Number of responses

% of responses

Very confident 46 49%

Confident 34 37%

OK 2 2%

Not very confident 1 1%

Don’t know 1 1%

Refused 1 1%

No answer 8 9%

Total (respondents) 93 100%


Table 2.2-E: What would you do if you suspect or if someone tells you about a child being abused or neglected? [KII responses combined]

Number of responses % of responses

Ask the child what happened 55 30%

Talk to the parents 44 24%

Deal with the matter myself as community leader 21 11%

Report the incident to the police 18 10%

Ask for advice from community elders 10 5%

Report the incident to the social welfare department 8 4%

Report the incident to a religious leader 7 4%

Report the incident to another community leader 5 3%

Confront the perpetrator 4 2%

Talk informally to someone I trust 4 2%

Report the incident to a community organisation 3 2%

Other 2 1%

Report the incident to a teacher 1 1%

Report the incident to another authority 1 1%


The majority of respondents would ask the child what happened, talk to the parents, deal with the matter themselves or report it to the police. Together these make up 75% of all responses. ‘Informal’ responses94 make up 72% of the total. Responses which specifically mention the involvement of government services95 make up 16% of the total, but this does not take into account ‘deal with the matter myself’ which may constitute either formal or informal response.

Table 2.2-F: Apart from yourself what other services are there in this community to help children? [KII responses combined]

Number of responses % of responses

Doctor / nurse / health service 42 24%

Religious leader 36 20%

Police 27 15%

Traditional leader 20 11%

Social welfare / social worker 14 8%

Teacher / Head Teacher / school 13 7%

Community organisations 10 6%

Nothing 4 2%

Other 4 2%

Magistrate / judge 3 2%

Lawyers / legal aid 2 1%

Don’t know 2 1%


Apart from themselves key informants identified other services in their communities that could help children. The top five include: health services, religious leaders, police, traditional leaders and social welfare representatives. Approximately 57% of these services are ‘formal’ (government) compared with 37% which are ‘informal’. This indicates that there are more formal services available to key informants than they would actually make use of ‘if a child in their community was badly hurt by someone’. The overall preference is recourse to informal or ‘traditional’ interventions.

94 Following responses combined: ‘Ask the child what happened’, ‘talk to the parents’, ‘ask advice from community elders’, ‘report the incident to another community leader / religious leader / community organisation’ ‘confront the perpetrator’, and ‘talk informally to someone I trust’.

95 Police, social welfare, teacher and ‘another authority’ (which is assumed to be formal)



2.2-R.1 Continue to progress the Memoranda of Understanding (between SWD and government agencies) and Service Protocols (with NGOs). These should align with any policy and process documents (below).

2.2-R.2 The NACC should support and encourage SWD to develop regulations, standards and good practice guidelines for case management (including in other government agencies and NGOs). These policy and process documents should include:

- roles and responsibilities;

- a directory of services;

- guidelines on managing information (cross-referencing of files, confidentiality guidelines and sharing of information, standardised recording and disaggregated data collection);

- precise definitions of abuse, neglect and exploitation that are accepted across legal, medical, and social welfare sectors;

- practices and procedures after reporting (case management, care and protection plans, case review – explicit guidelines should be given to staff in relation to necessary procedural steps96).

2.2-R.3 Assess the pilot case referral system being developed by SWD for the Family Health and Safety/Gender Based Violence Survey and the CPBR and ensure that lessons learned are incorporated into practice.

2.2-R.4 Reinstate a SWO in Gizo (Western Province). This person should have a role in training and liaising with the CWVs.

[Recommendation achieved at time of publication]

Findings for Output 2.3 Relevant Annual Workplans, Corporate Plans and Strategies are informed by disaggregated data on child protection (National level)


Output 2.3Relevant Annual Workplans, Corporate Plans and Strategies are informed by disaggregated data on child protection (National level)

Indicator 2.3.1Proportion of Annual Plans, Corporate Plans and Strategies (at national and provincial levels) that incorporates child protection

Target: 100% of plans and strategies


Research tools used

Desk reviewStakeholder workshop held on 03/09/08KIIs with: UNICEF SI 01/06/08 and (technical consultant) 19/08/08, 22/08/08 (via phone and email); SWD 01/06/08, 05/06/08; MWYCAA (Children’s Desk) 01/06/08 and 07/08 (via email); RSIP (Community Police) 04/06/08; SI Correctional Services – Prisons: 05/06/08

Quotation “SWD is making good progress in strengthening its capacity and ability to undertake the core social welfare responsibilities of government as set out in their 5-year strategic plan” (CPBR findings)

1. In 2005 SWD embarked on a strategic planning process with the support and assistance of the RAMSI Law and Justice Program and SCA.

The planning process identified areas of present and future service delivery, the strengths of SWD staff and future areas of operational and programme development. The process produced the document Social Welfare Division Strategic Plan 2006-2011 (from Strategic Directions for the Social Welfare Division, Ministry of Health and Medical Services, Solomon Islands Government, December 2005).

2. SWD is making good progress in strengthening its capacity and ability to undertake the core social welfare responsibilities of government as set out in their 5-year strategic plan. In 2008 SWD has employed additional staff, established a Child Protection Unit and is in the process of establishing social welfare offices and staff in four Provinces. SWD has a formal partnership with UNICEF Pacific (Child Protection Programme) with a signed 5-year plan of action. SWD is also implementing a short term project funded by AusAID on child protection, specifically related to the commercial sexual exploitation of children.

96 Including standardisation of contents of reports, timescales etc. Procedural steps should be shared with other agencies, including articulating the role of other agencies. As a minimum two processes are needed: one for the management of concerns, including regular review of such, and a parallel process relating to services being provided for care and protection (including out of home placement) and review of this. In UNICEF EAPRO, Social Welfare Systems, Technical Notes, DRAFT 1 2008, p. 7.


3. The amended Social Welfare Division Operational plan for 2008 (yet to be approved by MHMS) sets out the programme activities that will be implemented throughout this year with the financial and technical support of UNICEF. The amended SWD Operational Plan 2008 is also aligned with the current and future responsibilities of SWD as suggested in the draft National Children’s Policy and Plan of Action for Children 2007 – 2012.

4. Pertinent agencies who do not have child protection components in their Strategic Plans include Ministry of Finance, RSIP, MHMS (apart from Social Welfare Division), Ministry of Home Affairs (Civil Registration Office), Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Education.

5. There is a lack of disaggregated data on children in the Solomon Islands. SWD instituted a file record keeping system in 2008 from which disaggregated data can be extracted.

Recommendations for output 2.3National Advisory Committee for Children

2.3-R.1 Finalise the National Children’s Policy and Plan of Action for Children 2007 – 2012 as per Recommendation 1.1R.1.1

2.3-R.2 Ensure that pertinent agencies such as Ministry of Women, Youth and Children Affairs, Ministry of Finance, Royal Solomon Islands Police, Ministry of Health and Medical Services, Ministry of Home Affairs (Civil Registration Office), Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Education include child protection as part of their strategic and corporate planning.

2.3-R.3 NACC to progress the issue of collecting disaggregated data for children in a coordinated way for use in national planning, advocacy, budget justification and reporting on the UNCRC. Agencies should be encouraged to report disaggregated data about children (and child protection) to the NACC annually and as part of annual reports.

Findings for Output 2.4 A consolidated and easily accessible birth registration system is operational in at least 4 provinces (Provincial level)


Output 2.4A consolidated and easily accessible birth registration system is operational in at least 4 provinces (Provincial level)

Indicator 2.4.1Proportion of children (boys and girls) under 5 years registered in at least 4 provinces

Target: 70% of children registered in at least 4 provinces

Comments Findings and recommendations are extracted directly from the most recent assessment of the birth registration system in the Solomon Islands conducted by UNICEF in September 2008.

Research tools used

Desk review Field research AHHQs and KIIs

Quotation “Lack of proper services provided by health clinics” (AHHQ respondent on why they have not registered their child under age 5)


Table 2.4-A: Summary of CPBR field research findings in relation to birth registration in the Solomon Islands

Data from AHHQ respondents with children aged under 5 in or outside the household

Data from KIIs97

Rates of birth registration

Proportion of children under 5 living within the respondent’s household or belonging to the respondent but living outside the household who have been registered:• Registered:88%[N=213(120girls&93boys)]• Notregistered:12%[N=28(14girls&14boys)]

Percentage of under-5 children in the community registered according to key informants:11-20%registered:accordingto3%ofKIs[N=2]21-30%registered:1%ofKIs[N=1]31-40%registered:1%ofKIs[N=1]61-70%registered:1%ofKIs[N=1]71-80%registered:1%ofKIs[N=1]81-90%registered:42%ofKIs[N=31]91-100%registered:38%ofKIs[N=28]Noanswer:11%ofKIs[N=8]

80%ofthekeyinformants[N=59]thinkthatover80%of under-5 children in their community had their births registered.

Proof of birth registration

Proportion of respondents with children under 5 who are allegedly registered who are able to show birth certificates:• Yes-ChildHealthRecordorBook/BabyClinicBook:48%• Yes-BirthCertificate:32%• Yes-CivilRegistration–RegisterofBirths:4%• Other:4%• Yes-BaptismCertificate:3%• No:8%• Refused:1%

N/A

Cost of birth registration

Proportion of respondents who had to pay to register children under 5:• Yes-ChildHealthRecordorBook/BabyClinicBook:50%• No:22%• Yes-BirthCertificate:20%• Yes-CivilRegistration–RegisterofBirths:5%• Donotknow:3%• Refused:1%

Whether people have to pay to register children under 5:• Yes 22%[N=16]• No 33%[N=24]• Don’tknow 37%[N=27]• Noanswer 8%[N=6]

Place of birth registration

Where relevant respondents registered children currently under 5:• Hospital:50%[N=75]• Healthclinic:45%[N67]• Church:3%[N=4]• MinistryofHealth:1%[N=1]• Refused:1%[N=1]• Donotknow:1%[N=1]

Where people in the community can register children under 5:• Healthclinic:51%[N=48]• Hospital:32%[N=30]• Church:13%[N=12]• Nurse’spost:3%[N=3]• Donotknow:1%[N=1]

How easy respondents think it is to register children

• Easy:44%[N=63]• Veryeasy:29%[N=41]• Ok:18%[N=26]• Difficult:4%[N=6]• Donotknow:3%[N=5]• Refused:1%[N=2]

• Veryeasy:42%[N=31]• Easy:41%[N=30]• OK:4%[N=3]• Verydifficult:1%[N=1]• Don’tknow:4%[N=3]• Noanswer:7%[N=5]

97 Data from 13 chiefs or deputy chiefs, 18 religious leaders, 11 youth leaders, 14 social welfare representatives, 8 police, 13 health and 6 CSO representatives.


Data from AHHQ respondents with children aged under 5 in or outside the household

Data from KIIs

Why respondents think it is easy or ‘OK’ to register children

• Couldregisterthemlocally:22%[N=33]• Somebodyelsediditforme:17%[N=26]• Processwaseasytounderstand:14%[N=21]• Somebodyhelpedme:13%[N=19]• Didnotcostanymoney:10%[N=15]• Processwasclearlyexplainedtome:9%[N=14]• Other:6%[N=9]

• Easytoaccesstheregistrationoffice:6%[N=9]• Donotknow:3%[N=4]• Easytoaccesstheregistrationoffice:54%[N=46]• Couldregisterthemlocally:20%[N=17]• Didn’tcostanymoney:9%[N=8]• Processwaseasytounderstand:6%[N=5]• Itistheroleofthehealthworker:5%[N=4]• Processwasclearlyexplainedtome:2%[N=2]• Childrenareregisteredatbaptism:2%[N=2]• Somebodyhelpedme:1%[N=1]

Why respondents think it is difficult to register children

• Expensive:71%[N=5]• Hadtoaskrelativesforfinancialhelp:14%[N=1]• Donotknow:14%[N=1]

• Processwasnoteasytounderstand:50%[N=1]• Noteasytoaccesstheregistrationoffice:50%[N=1]

Table 2.4-B: Why children under 5 are not registered according to relevant AHHQ respondents

Number of responses Percentage of responses

Do not know 6 38%

Other98 3 19%

Process is too complicated 1 6%

Too expensive 1 6%

Too far to travel 1 6%

Refused 1 6%

Not necessary or important 1 6%

Not necessary until they go to school 1 6%

Not my decision someone else is responsible 1 6%



Findings99

1. The coverage of birth registration in the Solomon Islands is unknown. It is estimated that coverage is the lowest in the Pacific. 41% of the population are under the age of 15 (223,603 of total population of 533,672100). 42% of children live in rural areas. 13% of the population in general live in Honiara where there is the only available civil registration service. 14% of children are not enrolled in primary school. 18% of children are enrolled in secondary school. 83% of children aged under 1 year old are fully immunised.101

2. There are two Civil Registration Offices in the Solomon Islands working in isolation of each other and operating under separate legislation. The office under the Ministry of Land Affairs deals with foreign birth registration. The office under the Ministry of Home Affairs (MOHA) deals with indigenous birth registration.102

3. Major challenges to birth registration are as follows:

• MHMSdataisnotsharedwithCivilRegistryOffice(MOHA)

• There is amisconceptionby all levels of government and thecommunity that birth notification is in fact birth registration. Birth notification in the Solomon Islands consists of a document issued by MHMS or the health facility stating birth occurrence. It has limited legal effect. The situation is confused because the ‘birth notification’ document is in fact titled ‘birth certificate’.

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

34

4

10

5

56

1

6

2

3

2 2

2

3

2

1

3

4 2

1

4

43

1

4

1

2

1

2

37

2

1

34

18

1

2

3

96

38

1

1 7

2 2

3

1 1

3

1 12

1

3

1

3

54

1

5

1

5

1

4

1 1 1

4

7

2

4

2 2 2

num

ber o

f chi

ldre

n un

der 5

yea

rs

Choiseul Western Isabel Central Guadalcanal Malaita Makira/Ulawa

Honiara Town Council

RennelBelona

Solomon Islands AHHQ 12d: Proportion of children under 5 registered - by sex and location(households with children under 5)

Boys registered Boys not registered Girls registered Girls not registered

Taro

Wag

ina

Sasa

mu

ga

Giz

o

Titi

ana

Mad

ou

Mu

nd

a

Pien

un

a

Von

un

u

Bu

ala

Tata

mb

a

Tula

gi

Yan

din

a

Tin

go

a

Tasi

mb

oko

Wan

der

er B

ay

Mar

au

Au

ki

Bu

ma

Ro

hin

ari

Sulu

folo

a

Fan

alei

Takw

a

Dal

a

Kir

akir

a

Nu

kuka

isi

Wh

ite

Riv

er

Vura

Poin

t C

ruz

• Thereisalackofinformationandawarenessontheimportanceof birth registration. Mainly people apply for a birth certificate when they are in need of it for a specific purpose such as passports, adoption of children or overseas study.

• There is no civil registration unit at the provincial level in theSolomon Islands.105

• The capacity of the Civil Registration Office (MOHA) is notadequate in terms of trained staff to face challenges and follow up on a nationwide birth registration programme. In addition, resources are required to fully computerise the birth registration system.106

• Hardcopyrecordsarenotstoredorretained.

• Thereisalackofinter-ministerialcollaborationandstrategiestoimprove birth registration coverage.107

• Thebareminimumlegalrequirementsforfreeandcompulsorybirth registration are in place. However, examining this area in more detail, there is room for much improvement to get the existing legal provisions to meet the requirements, standards and provisions of modern civil registration law.108

4. NACC is active in advocating for birth registration but lacks resources to implement projects.109

99 All information in the first section of the findings is from Assessment on the Current Status of Civil Registration with a Focus on Birth Registration in the Solomon Islands, Joao Mendes, UNICEF Pacific September 2008, unless otherwise stated. Contact UNICEF Pacific for a full copy of this report.

100 Solomon Islands Department of Statistics, Ministry of Planning, February 2007 in Mendes, Op cit. p.3.101 UNICEF 2008, Mendes, Op cit. p. 3.102 Mendes, p. 7103 Mendes, p. 7104 Mendes, p. 9105 Mendes, p. 10106 Mendes, p. 11107 Mendes, p. 12-13108 Mendes, p. 14109 Birth Registration in the Pacific, Dr Chris McMurray, UNICEF Pacific, Suva, 2005, p. 47.


Opportunities

1. At Honiara central hospital there is an accurate registration system. Data is forwarded to the statistics division of the MHMS. However, data is not forwarded by MHMS to the Civil Registry Office (MOHA) and as a consequence full birth registration of babies born at the hospital is not currently taking place [as of 2008].110 A simple partnership could dramatically increase the number of registrations from this source.

2. Churches are attended by almost all the community. Most children are baptised and receive a baptism certificate. The church records on baptism contain the necessary information to facilitate birth registration. If a partnership between the civil registry and churches was formed information could be transferred and the majority of children registered.111


Civil Registry Office, MOHA

2.4-R.1 Continue to pursue a stronger partnership between the churches and Civil Registry Office so that information about baptisms is shared and children are officially registered.

2.4-R.2 Lobby for adequate equipment in the Civil Registration Office in Honiara (e.g. computers, server, software, printer, photocopier).

2.4-R.3 Establish and approve a protocol on the storage, issue of and access to civil registration data.

2.4-R.4 Create opportunities for capacity building of relevant civil registry officials (including training and recruitment of new and existing staff and training existing provincial level government employees).

2.4-R.5 Proceed with the decentralisation of the civil registration service to the provincial level. Consider mobile birth registration.

2.4-R.6 Correct the title on the notification form issue by the MHMS so it reads ‘birth notification’ rather than ‘birth certificate’ and to include a note on the form that the document is not the actual birth certificate. Accompany with awareness amongst health workers and the community on the significance of a formal birth certificate and what this physically looks like.

2.4-R.7 In conjunction with the follow-up to the Government/UNICEF CPBR develop a communication programme for improving knowledge to the population on the importance of birth registration and how to register children (e.g. advocacy and social mobilisation programmes).

2.4-R.8 Integrate birth registration into ongoing basic service programmes such as immunisation, vitamin A campaigns, primary health care and child-friendly spaces and schools.

2.4-R.9 Sign MOUs between pertinent agencies and create formal institutional protocols through a Birth Registration Reference Group by the Ministry of Home Affairs

2.4-R.10 As per Recommendation 1.1-R13.1, adopt a new uniformed modern comprehensive civil registration law such as the UN Model Law for Civil Registration in order to improve on existing basic provisions.

110 UNICEF 2008, Mendes Op cit. p. 6111 Mendes, p.6


3.4.3 Detailed findings for outcome 3

Important note on the use of statistics in this section

• Percentages have been rounded up or down to the nearest whole number to make the report more user-friendly. Therefore in some cases the figures shown may not tally exactly to 100%.

• Numbers and percentages refer either to ‘respondents’ or ‘responses’ depending on whether there are one or multiple answers per respondent. For example, “7% of AHHQ respondents state that there is a CWV in their community” means that each respondent had only oneoptionfortheirresponseandthereforethetotalnumbershown[N=273]referstothetotalnumberofrespondentswhoansweredthequestion. On the other hand, “10% of AHHQ responses mention that they would report the matter to the police” means that respondents were free togivemultiple answers to the samequestion. In this case the total number shown [N=381] refers to the total number ofresponses logged for the question, not the number of respondents. Care should be taken when citing statistics from this report not to confuse the two.

• Whenstatisticsreferto‘relevant’respondentsthismeansonlythoserespondentsforwhomthequestionisrelevant. For example, “5% of relevant AHHQ respondents mention that the CWV provides posters and other visual aids”: not all AHHQ respondents said they were CWVs. The statistic of 5% therefore applies only to responses from AHHQ respondents who said there was a CWV. It does not apply to all AHHQ respondents.

• ToensurethesafetyofCHHQrespondentsduringthesurvey,CHHQ and AHHQ respondents are from the same locations but not from exactly the same households. It must therefore be remembered that where CHHQ and AHHQ answers are juxtaposed, they are not direct correlated, but they nonetheless provide an interesting comparison of answers from 16-17 year-olds and adult caregivers of children within the same locations.

• ItmustalsoberememberedthatCHHQ respondents are aged 16-17 years. Findings cannot therefore be extrapolated for the experience of younger children. Younger children’s views are expressed through the group activities. See Section 2.4.3 of this report for more details of the methodology used to gather data for Outcome 3.

• Tables are numbered using the RRF ‘Output’ followed by letters in alphabetical order. For example, ‘Table 3.1-A’ is the first table relating to Output 3.1. Where there are more than 26 tables per output the lettering continues –ZA, -ZB, -ZC etc.

• To avoid confusion, charts and graphs for CHHQs, AHHQs and KIIs are labelled according to their CD-Rom index number as they are taken from the full range available on the CD-Rom which accompanies this report.


Findings for Output 3.1 Community Welfare Volunteers (CWV) in at least 4 provinces are working effectively for the prevention of child protection abuses and notify relevant authorities as per referral guidelines (Provincial level)

Outcome 3: Children in selected geographical areas grow up in home and community environments that are increasingly free from violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect

Output 3.1 Community Welfare Volunteers (CWV) in at least 4 provinces are working effectively for the prevention of child protection abuses and notify relevant authorities as per referral guidelines (Provincial level)

Indicator 3.1.1Proportion of village committees in 4 provinces that have community protection plans

Target: 100% of village committees in at least 4 provinces involved in the CWV scheme

Indicator 3.1.2Communities report significant change in relation to the protection of children as a result of Social Welfare Volunteers

Indicator 3.1.3Increase in cases referred as per guidelines

Indicator 3.1 Additional 1Proportion of village committees in 4 provinces that implement community [child] protection plans

Indicator 3.1 Additional 2Proportion of community members who feel that the existence and implementation of child protection plans helps to keep children safe

Comments Output 3.1 has been interpreted by cross-referencing field research data from CHHQs, AHHQs and KIIs to respond to the following questions:

a. What proportion of communities have a Community Welfare Volunteer and what do they do to help keep children safe?

b. Are children safer as a result of the work of Community Welfare Volunteers?c. What proportion of communities have child protection plans?d. What proportion of communities with child protection plans are actually implementing them?e. Was the process of developing plans to help keep children safe in communities participatory? f. Do these plans actually help to keep children safe from violence in communities?

Findings are grouped below according to these questions. In many places the key informant interview data has been amalgamated to simplify comparisons with CHHQs and AHHQs but detailed data is available, per type of key informant, on the CD-Rom which accompanies this report. ‘Key informants’ consist of community leaders (traditional or administrative), religious leaders, youth leaders, social welfare, health, education, police and CSO representatives unless otherwise stated.

Research tools used

AHHQ: Q1-20CHHQ: Q1-20KII: Chiefs, religious leaders, youth leaders, health, police, CSOs Q1-20; social welfare Q1-13

Quotation • “The CWV reminds the community to realise the importance of children” (CHHQ respondent)• ‘How does the [existing] plan help to keep children safe?’ – “It helps us to understand the impacts of logging on

humans and children” (CHHQ respondent); “By discouraging children being involved in bad social activities like videos” (AHHQ respondent).

• Why would it be a good idea to develop a plan to help keep children safe?’ – “So that our children can have a good future” (CHHQ respondent); “To respect children’s’ rights and safeguard their development” (AHHQ respondent).

a. What proportion of communities have a Community Welfare Volunteer and what do they do to help keep children safe?

AHHQ, CHHQ and KII respondents were asked whether they was a Community Welfare Volunteer (CWV) working in their community (this was defined as ‘someone employed by the Social Welfare Division’) and if so, how long they had been working there and the kinds of tings (if any) that they do to help keep children safe from violence.

Table 3.1-A: Whether there is a Community Welfare Volunteer working in this community according to CHHQ, AHHQ and KII respondents 112

AHHQ CHHQ KII Total

No 206 75% 187 68% 32 46% 425 69%

Do not know 47 17% 53 19% 21 30% 121 20%

Yes 19 7% 33 12% 9 13% 61 10%

Refused / no answer 1 0% 1 0% 7 10% 9 1%


112 All KIIs for questions relating to CWVs exclude education and social welfare representatives as other questions were prioritised for these two groups within the limited time available for interviews. No questions about CWVs were asked of these two groups of KII respondents but see findings for Output 2.2 for detailed information regarding the work of the 4 social welfare representatives interviewed.


Table 3.1-B: Communities with Community Welfare Volunteers: breakdown per location - number of positive responses [Shaded locations are in Western & Choiseul provinces where the CWV scheme is in currently in operation]

AHHQs CHHQs Total

Auki 1 1

Buala 2 3 5

Gizo 5 4 9

Kirakira 3 6 9

Madou 3 3 6

Munda 0 0 0

Pienuna 1 1

Sasamuga 5 2 7

Taro 1 1

Tatamba 2 2

Tingoa 1 1

Titiana 1 1

Tulagi 2 2

Vonunu 1 1

Wagina 2 2

Wanderer Bay 2 2

Yandina 2 2

Total positive responses 19 33 52

Overall, only 10% of respondents indicated that there is a CWV in their community. This is not surprising given that the CWV scheme is still in the relatively early stages and currently limited to certain areas of the country. The communities with the greatest corroboration that CWVs work there are: Gizo, Kirakira, Sasamuga, Madou and Buala. In theory, of these locations, the CWV programme is currently active only in Western and Choiseul provinces. Therefore we would expect to see respondents reporting the existence of CWVs only in the locations shaded in Table 3.1-B. However, very few CHHQ and AHHQ respondents (only one or two out of a possible 20) reported the existence of CWVs in Pienuna, Taro, Titiana, Vonunu and Wagina where there actually are CWVs. Also, CWVs were reported in other locations – notably Kirakira, (Makira / Ulawa), Sasamunga (Choiseul) and Buala (Isabel) – where there are no SWD CWVs in operation. SWD hopes to extend the programme to Makira and Honiara provinces within the next year, but it appears that in the meantime some respondents may have misinterpreted the question. A possible explanation for this is that Save The Children also have community volunteers working to promote child protection issues and these volunteers may be operating in these ‘additional’ communities.

113 Data from KIIs is not broken down per location.114 See http://www.unicef.org/pacificislands/reallives_9339.html for more details on the establishment of the CWV programme.

Table 3.1-C: How long the Community Welfare Volunteer has been working in this community according to relevant CHHQ, AHHQ and KII respondents

AHHQ CHHQ KII Total

Less than 1 yr 6 32% 8 24% 5 56% 19 31%

Do not know 5 26% 12 36% 1 11% 18 30%

1-2 yrs 5 26% 8 24% 13 21%

5+ yrs 1 5% 3 9% 3 33% 7 11%

3-5 yrs 2 11% 2 6% 4 7%

Total (relevant respondents) 19 100% 33 100% 9 100% 61 100%

The majority of responses overall (52%) indicate that the CWVs have been working for less than 2 years – and mostly for less than one year. This is to be expected given that the CWV Programme is relatively new: it was set up in May 2007 under the Social Welfare Division, post-tsunami.114 The 18% of respondents who state that the CWV has been active for longer than this must therefore be referring to different individuals.

Table 3.1-D: Whether the Community Welfare Volunteer does anything to help keep children safe in this community according to relevant CHHQ, AHHQ and KII respondents

AHHQ CHHQ KII Total

Yes 10 53% 22 67% 7 78% 39 64%

No 5 26% 7 21% 1 11% 13 21%

Do not know 4 21% 4 12% 1 11% 9 15%

Total (relevant respondents) 19 100% 33 100% 9 100% 61 100% 64% of relevant respondents state that the CWV does things to help keep children safe in the community but 21% state that they do not.


Table 3.1-E: What sort of things the Community Welfare Volunteer does to help keep children safe in this community according to relevant CHHQ, AHHQ and KII respondents

AHHQ CHHQ KII Total

Shares information about how to keep children safe / prevent violence

7 37% 10 33% 3 25% 20 33%

Runs workshops for the community 4 21% 5 17% 6 50% 15 25%

Talks about / explains what child abuse is 4 21% 6 20% 1 8% 11 18%

Provides help if children are hurt 1 5% 2 7% 1 8% 4 7%

Provides posters and other visual aids 1 5% 2 7% 1115 8% 4 7%

Do not know 2 11% 2 7% 4 7%

Activities for children 2116 7% 2 3%

Parental classes on child abuse 1 3% 1 2%

Total (relevant responses) 19 100% 30 100% 12 100% 61 100%

Of those CWVs who are said to be doing child protection work, the majority of activities mentioned (85%) are centred around awareness-raising (sharing information, workshops, explanations, posters and parenting classes). 3% of responses mention activities for children and 7% direct help for children who are hurt.

Summary: Overall, only 10% of respondents indicated that there is a CWV in their community and this CWV has been working there for less than 2 years. This is consistent with the fact that the CWV scheme has only been in operation since May 2007 and is so far limited to Western and Choiseul provinces – although some respondents are reporting CWVs in other areas as well. 64% of relevant respondents state that the CWV does something to help keep children safe from violence. 85% of responses indicate these activities are related to awareness-raising and only 7% to responding directly to child protection cases.

b. Are children safer as a result of the work of Community Welfare Volunteers?

Relevant respondents were asked whether the work of the CWVs had had an impact on the safety of children in communities and if so why / if not, why not.

Table 3.1-F: Whether relevant respondents think children in this community are safer as a result of the Community Welfare Volunteer working here according to relevant CHHQ, AHHQ and KII respondents

AHHQ CHHQ KII Total

Yes - a little 4 21% 12 36% 4 44% 20 33%

Yes - a lot 5 26% 6 18% 2 22% 13 21%

No - not really 4 21% 4 12% 1 11% 9 15%

Maybe yes, maybe no 2 11% 4 12% 1 11% 7 11%

No - not at all 3 16% 4 12% 7 11%

Do not know 1 5% 2 6% 1 11% 4 7%

Refused 1 3% 1 2%

Total (relevant respondents) 19 100% 33 100% 9 100% 61 100%

54% of relevant respondents overall state that children are safer as a result of the work of the CWVs, of which the majority (33%) say ‘a little’ compared to ‘a lot’ (21%). KII respondents are more optimistic than AHHQ and CHHQ respondents and AHHQ respondents are more pessimistic than CHHQ and KII respondents. A further 11% overall think that maybe there has been an impact. 26% overall state that children are not safer (of which 15% said ‘not really’ compared to 11% ‘not at all’). In general these results are encouraging as the positive change outweighs the ‘no change’, although there is obviously a lot of scope for improvement.

115 ‘Consults police if problems arise.’116 ‘Including sport activities’ (x1).

Documents

A Baseline Report for creating love and care · Protect me with love and care • A BAseline RepoRt foR tHe soloMon islAnDs • 2008 IX foreword The Solomon Islands Baseline Report