The National Child Protection Authority (NCPA) is synonymous with hope in Sri Lanka. The victims who approach NCPA look to have their complaints, concerns, and fears addressed by competent, trained personnel who are sensitive to what the victim has undergone. The work rate of those on the ground at NCPA is generally commendable; dedicated officers that look to ensure parents and children live violence free lives. Yet, periodically, the actions of some taint the actions of all as seen recently with the quick succession of leadership, claims of political interference and the lapses at NCPA and what they represent earlier this year.
The controversies around NCPA are not new. Since it was established in 1998, NCPA has always sought to justify its existence in the face of opposition, sometimes from as close as the Department of Probation and Childcare Services who arguably continue to view NCPA as a superfluous entity. Since 2014 Grassrooted has worked with officers from both NCPA and the Department of Probation and Childcare Services who generally disparage each other; both entities being under the purview of the Ministry of Women and Child Affairs appears to have done little to fuel a common purpose.
Yet with the publicizing of 1929 as the child line the NCPA is generally the go to agency. Earlier this September, Daily News reported that there have apparently been over 500,000 calls logged and 64,000 written complaints received since 2011, and according to the current chairperson H M Abhayaratne, the “majority of these complaints have been received from Colombo, Kurunegala, Gampaha and Kaluthara administrative districts.” The current chairperson also stated that he has recruited an addition 116 Childcare Officers to meet the shortage of the NCPA, thereby indicating the need for a more rapid response to the complaints. It is interesting to note that these 116 officers were central to the political kerfuffle indicated above earlier this year.
Childcare officers of the NCPA and Child Rights Promotion Officers (CRPO) of the Department of Probation and Childcare Services, often sit in the same Divisional Secretariat, and a turf war bubbles under the surface. Both sets of officers tend to pour recrimination on the other. For example, during a training session a CRPO indicated how he instructed a victim of child abuse to call 1929 and report the incident for a rapid response, given that there were no NCPA Childcare officers available, and he felt he didn’t have the skills or knowledge to respond, and that he then received a call from NCPA asking him to respond to the call he helped the victim make.
This incident is indicative of the expectations placed on the operators of 1929,i.e. a rapid response. The reality is that the operators will do their best to identify the most sensible way forward, which may also include law enforcement, and it may take as long as it takes – there is no magic bullet. This incident also points to the cyclical bureaucratic processes that are in place, which can unnecessarily delay a child receiving the help she/he needs. The protocols therefore need constant review to ensure that 1929 operators have the latest most up to date information on potential responses available when referring a case.
Our recommendation to victims vis a vis NCPA is to call and request a meeting with the nearest Childcare officer or NCPA designate. If the victim is from the Colombo district then we encourage the victim and a trusted adult to go and make a complaint in person at the NCPA HQ in Madiwela. Not ideal, but our intention is to help the victim get support as soon as possible. During the recent picketing at NCPA, which necessitated the transition of power to the current chairperson, victims reported back that their experience at NCPA was less than positive as they had to negotiate their way through picketers a.k.a. child protection professionals.
Our standard response to victims who show concern about NCPA is currently – this is our system and we need to use it as effectively as we can.
We were part of the NCPA Task Force on cyber exploitation in 2015 and 2016 when it was under the leadership of Natasha Balendra and Sajeeva Samaranayake. This experience allowed us insight into what was possible despite the bureaucracy. Government, non-government, and private sector stakeholders were involved, and paid heed. Action was taken – Dr Balendra initiated a comprehensive online child protection platform for parents and teachers called YouThink in all three languages. Today this platform lies dormant and incomplete since development stalled when the administration changed in 2017. Examples were made – arrests of perpetrators were made public so as to help serve as deterrents for would be perpetrators. Beyond this, the Deputy Chairperson (Sajeeva) held sessions on mindfulness with the teams and did his best to reorient them in putting the interest of the child first, above all else, including the polices they were governed by – most often his sessions/meetings began with meditation. No one escaped. We all focused our mind on what it meant to protect our children.
We need a place of hope, of action, of justice for children. We need to move beyond institutions of civil servants who are largely self-serving. NCPA has the potential to be this place. Yet, if the current head of NCPA speaks of the need for abortions and choice in one breath and marrying off pregnant victims under 16 in another, purportedly within the same press meet, as reported earlier this September, this is indicative of our problem i.e. the lack of clarity in terms of approach and also availability of redressal mechanisms.
For example, we need policy/law makers to have a clear frame of reference when discussing abortion, especially in terms of victims of rape and incest and in the event of foetal abnormality, not wonder if it is appropriate to marry off children under the age of 16 so as to avoid abortions and further the family unit argument. Where are we going to find the men and boys to marry these pregnant girls? Will we regress and suggest they marry their rapists? What if their rapists are their fathers, brothers and uncles? What of the family unit then?
We need NCPA to have a vision that transcends politics and policies. We need to bring all stakeholders on board, and ensure a holistic sensible approach to child protection. As Sajeeva stated in February –
“A policy for child protection must give ownership to all public services relating to child protection and make space to facilitate their working together and developing a common agreement and a pool of expertise on the subject in the long run. This must be a seriously worked out process that builds the learning capacity and professionalism of direct service providers. No single document can do this. However, the Human Rights Action Plan 2017-21 has outlined a process to attain this objective. That Plan should not be confined to paper”
Until this transpires, the rest of us must continue to hold NCPA, and institutions like it, accountable. Too many people depend on them for us to allow them to relinquish their responsibility to hope and action.
HB