Author
Madeeha Ansari
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The principle of “centrality of protection” in humanitarian action emphasizes the achievement of meaningful protection outcomes as part of a shared mandate for humanitarian actors, even while they are delivering sector-specific activities. For children, protection and well-being lie at the heart of a holistic response. There is already an established rationale for coordination between Child Protection (CP) and Education in Emergencies (EiE), to achieve joint outcomes for children’s learning and well-being. These outcomes can be achieved through mainstreaming child protection within education programming or collaborating across sectors through joint and integrated programming.
Several efforts are underway to determine and document the processes through which collaboration between Education in Emergencies and Child Protection actors can take place. This evidence review aims to add value to ongoing global efforts and inform the current discourse by extracting lessons from country- and local-level practice across diverse contexts. The objectives were to collate outcomes of education programs that did – or did not – intentionally incorporate child protection concerns in their design and implementation. Where possible, the focus is on what works at the level of the school or learning space.
While considering how education can reinforce both physical and psychosocial well-being outcomes, two main streams emerged from the literature that helped frame the evidence review: schools (including both formal and informal learning environments) as “spaces of safety” and as “spaces of healing.” The section on schools as “spaces of safety” explores the importance of proactively preserving the sanctity of the school space, by preventing violence against schools and taking measures to address violence within schools. The section on “spaces of healing” explores the potential of learning environments to aid recovery from the trauma of displacement, loss, or violence, while also building the resilience to cope with ongoing or chronic stressors. Here, several promising practices are showcased that illustrate how well-being outcomes can be achieved and what successful joint and integrated programming can look like. This includes examples of referral mechanisms for children to access both education and protection services; an exploration of how mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS), socioemotional learning (SEL) and playful practices can be effectively embedded in education; and how programs can be designed to address specific vulnerabilities. Some common threads running through these examples are the importance of community and children’s participation.
The challenges section touches upon the gaps articulated by practitioners. There is still a need to define the scope of a “child protection-sensitive response” in education, and to determine how to effectively articulate impact in terms of well-being outcomes. There are still challenges when translating concepts like SEL and MHPSS across cultures, and a need to listen to and incorporate local priorities in humanitarian response. While global guidance now emphasizes integration, practitioners need concrete examples for contextualizing and operationalizing this on the ground. The recommendations section therefore sets out some of the work that still needs to be done at the programming, cluster, and global levels, in order to ensure better outcomes for children.