GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Research
    • Governance
      • Democracy & elections
      • Public sector management
      • Security & justice
      • Service delivery
      • State-society relations
      • Supporting economic development
    • Social Development
      • Gender
      • Inequalities & exclusion
      • Poverty & wellbeing
      • Social protection
    • Conflict
      • Conflict analysis
      • Conflict prevention
      • Conflict response
      • Conflict sensitivity
      • Impacts of conflict
      • Peacebuilding
    • Humanitarian Issues
      • Humanitarian financing
      • Humanitarian response
      • Recovery & reconstruction
      • Refugees/IDPs
      • Risk & resilience
    • Development Pressures
      • Climate change
      • Food security
      • Fragility
      • Migration & diaspora
      • Population growth
      • Urbanisation
    • Approaches
      • Complexity & systems thinking
      • Institutions & social norms
      • Theories of change
      • Results-based approaches
      • Rights-based approaches
      • Thinking & working politically
    • Aid Instruments
      • Budget support & SWAps
      • Capacity building
      • Civil society partnerships
      • Multilateral aid
      • Private sector partnerships
      • Technical assistance
    • Monitoring and evaluation
      • Indicators
      • Learning
      • M&E approaches
  • Services
    • Research Helpdesk
    • Professional development
  • News & commentary
  • Publication types
    • Helpdesk reports
    • Topic guides
    • Conflict analyses
    • Literature reviews
    • Professional development packs
    • Working Papers
    • Webinars
    • Covid-19 evidence summaries
  • About us
    • Staff profiles
    • International partnerships
    • Privacy policy
    • Terms and conditions
    • Contact Us
Home»GSDRC Publications»Primary and secondary prevention of child protection violations

Primary and secondary prevention of child protection violations

Helpdesk Report
  • Emilie Combaz
September 2016

Question

Identify literature on how effective the primary and secondary prevention of child protection violations have been in low- and middle-income countries. Specifically, which interventions have been successes or failures (especially on violence against children), and why?

Summary

While the knowledge base on the prevention of child protection violations in low- or middle-income countries (LMICs) is limited, there are robust, promising findings.

The majority of findings suggest that if the core elements of interventions are preserved, the translation of interventions from high-income countries (HICs) to LMICs can be effective. For instance, parenting training can change cultural references, but not the number of sessions or their essential content.

Key findings

  • A recent evidence review identifies seven strategies and associated interventions as having proven or promising effects: implement and enforce laws; strengthen norms and values for positive and gender-equitable relationships for all children; create and sustain safe streets and other environments where children spend time; support parents and primary caregivers, to reduce harsh parenting and create positive parent-child relationships; strengthen the incomes and economic situation of families or women; improve access to good-quality health, social welfare, and criminal justice for all children; and provide children with more effective and gender-equitable education, social-emotional learning, and training in life skills (Butchard & Hillis 2016).
  • There is limited good-quality evidence on parenting interventions. Emerging findings show that these have been feasible and effective at preventing child protection violations even in low-resource settings.
  • There is evidence of positive effects of child-focused interventions and locations, such as through schooling, (by increasing enrolment and establishing a safe and enabling school environment), and through life skills training for young people to prevent violence among adolescent intimate partners.
  • Larger programmes such as social protection have many direct and indirect effects on prevention, mostly positive – particularly when combined with other interventions, such as parent training. However, when social protection has no explicit objective to advance child protection, it leaves protection gaps unaddressed, especially for the most disadvantaged, such as children with disabilities.
file type icon See Full Report [PDF - 568 KB]

Enquirer:

  • DFID

Suggested citation

Combaz, E. (2016). Primary and secondary prevention of child protection violations (GSDRC Helpdesk Research Report 1391). Birmingham, UK: GSDRC, University of Birmingham.

Related Content

Increasing Birth Registration for Children of Marginalised Groups in Pakistan
Helpdesk Report
2021
Prevalence of health impacts related to exposure to poor air quality among children in Low and Lower Middle-Income Countries
Helpdesk Report
2020
Impact of COVID-19 on Child Labour in South Asia
Helpdesk Report
2020
Workplace-based Learning and Youth Employment in Africa
Literature Review
2020

University of Birmingham

Connect with us: Bluesky Linkedin X.com

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2025; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2025; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2025

We use cookies to remember settings and choices, and to count visitor numbers and usage trends. These cookies do not identify you personally. By using this site you indicate agreement with the use of cookies. For details, click "read more" and see "use of cookies".