Achieving and implementing prohibition of all corporal punishment of children Riga, February 2018

Non-violent childhoods: Moving on from corporal punishment in the Baltic Sea Region Overall objective: promote full implementation of legal bans on corporal punishment through collaborative, multi-stakeholder planning and action Lead partner: CBSS Expert Group on Children at Risk and national partners; Ministry of Social Affairs, Estonia; Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Finland; Ministry of Welfare, Latvia; Coordination on the Rights of the Child, Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, Sweden; Ombudsman for Children’s Rights, Poland Global partner: The Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children Involves representatives/experts from all countries in the Baltic Sea Region and other EU countries, including children and Ombuds-offices for Children’s Rights Guidance reports on parenting, awareness-building/campaigns, service providers (health, education, social) and on implementing the ban in the home The Guidance builds on national consultations, expert meetings, other information

Baltic Sea Region The Council of the Baltic Sea States was established in 1992 as a regional inter-governmental entity. The Baltic Sea Region is almost a no-corporal-punishment zone for children with 10 out of 11 countries having prohibited corporal punishment. Sweden was the first country in in the world to do so in 1979; Finland achieved prohibition in 1983, Denmark in 1997, Estonia in 2015, Germany in 2000, Iceland in 2003, Latvia in 1998, Lithuania in 2017, Norway in 1987 and Poland in 2010. Russia has taken a step back limiting its previously strong child protection legislation. Comparable research and statistics on the prevalence of/attitudes towards, corporal punishment before and after law reform is available in some of the countries. When different questions and samples have been used in research it is not possible to compare and evaluate progress of implementation in a systematic manner

Positive impact of prohibition Sweden (1979): Half of children regularly smacked in 1970s; a few per cent in 2000s. Finland (1983): Adult acceptance of corporal punishment 47% in 1981; 15% in 2014. Germany (2000): 30% of young people had been “thrashed” in 1992; only 3% in 2002. Poland (2010): Between 2008 and 2017, the approval of beating as a way of upbringing children has dropped by 14% whereas the disapproval has risen by 19%. Latvia (1998): In 2010, 42% of surveyed adults were of the opinion that corporal punishment in the home should be forbidden, in 2017 it was 51%. In 2015, 33% of children stated that they had been smacked with a hand or some kind of object. Estonia (2014): In 2012, 25% of surveyed parents did not consider physical punishment of children a form of violence; 33% of parents stated that corporal punishment of children is necessary and justified in some circumstances.

Lessons learned from the Baltic Sea Region It is possible to change attitudes and behaviour! In most countries in the region, the legal ban and change in attitudes and behaviour were the results of a lengthy process of socio-political developments, law reform and an evolving understanding of children as rights holders In Sweden and the other Nordic countries, the process took place through decades In Estonia, actors campaigned against corporal punishment of children since 1997 and achieved the ban in 2015. Previously, very few parliamentarians supported the ban – now almost all are in support. A step by step process led by joint efforts by many important actors including students, youth organisations, NGOs, the Chancellor’s office and ministries and politicians. Media attention was important. Political support, law reform and action plans have shown to be important tools to progress in implementing the ban on corporal punishment of children. National action plans and strategies work better when roles and responsibilities are clarified and funded at local and national level

Lessons learned from the Baltic Sea Region Law reform clarifying reporting obligations and proactive reporting and referral. The decision on whether or not criminal action shall be pursued against caretakers is informed about the severity of the act and by a best interests determination. Good data collection mechanisms were useful to monitor the progressive implementation of the law/ policies, such as periodic health surveys / child victim surveys. Public information campaigns targeting different population groups Universal screening services provide good opportunities to ask clients specifically about violence and corporal punishment, and facilitate identification (health/social) Family support services and a diversity of parenting training programmes to meet the specific needs of each family Collaboration between state and non-state actors for dissemination and implementation of the law – includes active civil society, academia, Ombudspersons and other independent institutions, media. Multidisciplinary and interagency cooperation is essential for early identification, referral and follow-up to cases (e.g. Barnahus)

Lessons learned - Obstacles Political situation and political groups may argue that corporal punishment is not a huge issue Countries may still be impacted by the transition from an authoritarian regime to a democratic state and struggle with low trust in state services and a fear-driven understanding of authority Conservative traditions may constitute serious obstacles when children are regarded as the property of the parents. This tradition includes corporal punishment as a necessary means to discipline children Faith based groups may prioritise the role of family values and non-interference in the family. However, religious organizations are also promoting positive parenting and some are active partners in supporting the implementation of the legal ban

Children’s voices (Estonia): Children are victims of more physical punishment at a younger age, while emotional punishment becomes more dominant as children grow older. There is a perception that the use of corporal punishment has gone down but it is still used. Children feel they have few adults to turn to when victims of violence and corporal punishment. They don’t trust teachers, social workers or psychologists in school to keep personal information confidential. Children talk to friends about violence. Children feel ashamed and are afraid of being placed in children’s homes. “Children victims of corporal punishment loose their childhood. Violence is not the solution. Children recommend that adults should try to imagine how it would feel if someone would smack, beat or carry out emotional punishment against them”. Good teachers solve conflicts and tension with humour.

Children’s voices (Poland): We don’t talk about violence. Neighbours may hear the violence but they will not interfere, teachers do not see the signs and we feel ashamed that mum or dad are beating us. We need campaigns that shows what is happening – not dry campaigns – people need to see how violence is harming us and be moved by it. Adults need to know what violence does to children. Parents need to understand that spanking is also beating and violence. You should not talk about children without children present. Nobody teaches us on how to manage our emotions. Children need to be taught that violence from caregivers in home or institutions is not ok. Children are afraid to tell about violence as they risk being sent to an institution. Helplines should be visible in schools.

Thank you! WWW.childrenatrisk.eu Turid.heiberg@cbss.org