percent described crying loudly to attract attentionor hiding to avoid <strong>the</strong> immediate violence. Onlyone in five, mostly younger <strong>children</strong>, said <strong>the</strong>y didnothing when violence was committed <strong>against</strong><strong>the</strong>m.When asked what should be done to preventviolence <strong>against</strong> <strong>children</strong>, most <strong>children</strong> preferredcaution and sensitivity. They urged for a nonpunitiveresponse, such as engaging parents (79.4percent) and teachers (73.9 percent) in a dialogueabout how to relate more equitably with <strong>children</strong>.They suggested engaging a broad cross section<strong>of</strong> adults in a similar dialogue through communitywideactions. They recommended <strong>the</strong> creation <strong>of</strong>local response mechanisms that would meet <strong>the</strong>needs <strong>of</strong> <strong>children</strong> when violence was perpetrated<strong>against</strong> <strong>the</strong>m. Relatively fewer <strong>children</strong> suggested<strong>the</strong> involvement <strong>of</strong> police (56.9 percent).Most adults (90 percent) agreed that in <strong>the</strong>ircommunities, <strong>children</strong> were deliberately beaten,shouted at, and denied food or basic needs, yet<strong>the</strong>y hesitated to label <strong>the</strong>se acts as “violence.”They preferred <strong>the</strong> word “punishment,” explaininghow adults use <strong>the</strong>se acts to guide <strong>children</strong>. Theadults conceptualised punishment as moderateand acceptable acts and described violence asexcessive and inappropriate punishments, which<strong>the</strong>y preferred calling “mistreatment.” Althoughmany adults insisted that <strong>the</strong>y knew <strong>the</strong> differencebetween punishing a child and mistreating a child,almost half (46.8 percent) said <strong>the</strong>y would withdrawbasic needs from a child as a form <strong>of</strong> punishment.Thirty seven percent <strong>of</strong> adults said that <strong>children</strong> in<strong>the</strong>ir communities were “frequently mistreated,”and a fur<strong>the</strong>r 55.1 percent said that <strong>children</strong> were“sometimes mistreated.”Most adults (91.3 percent) described using acombination <strong>of</strong> physical and emotional punishmentto control <strong>children</strong>, most commonly caning,shouting, and assigning physical work (above andbeyond normal chores). When compared to reportsfrom <strong>children</strong>, adults consistently under-reported<strong>the</strong> extent <strong>of</strong> punishment <strong>the</strong>y inflicted on <strong>children</strong>(with <strong>the</strong> exception <strong>of</strong> caning and glaring). Manyadults discounted ad hoc incidents <strong>of</strong> shouting,pinching, or slapping, not even considering <strong>the</strong>mpunishment.When asked why <strong>the</strong>y punished <strong>children</strong>, manyadults claimed that <strong>the</strong>y did it to make <strong>children</strong>compliant, obedient, and respectful <strong>of</strong> traditions.However, many adults doubted whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>ircurrent methods <strong>of</strong> punishment would ensure thisoutcome. Although 87.9 percent <strong>of</strong> adults said<strong>the</strong>y punished <strong>children</strong> to guide <strong>the</strong>m on how tobehave, only 32.6 percent firmly believed that <strong>the</strong>punishment would change <strong>the</strong> child’s behaviour.Many adults disapproved <strong>of</strong> holding adultsaccountable for <strong>the</strong>ir actions <strong>against</strong> <strong>children</strong>,believing that this accountability cultivateduncontrollable behaviour in <strong>children</strong>. They resented<strong>the</strong> dialogue on <strong>children</strong>’s rights especiallyabout “prohibition <strong>of</strong> corporal punishment” andcomplained that it was preventing <strong>the</strong>m fromdischarging <strong>the</strong>ir duty as adults. However despite<strong>the</strong>se sentiments, 81.7 percent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se adults said<strong>the</strong>y punished <strong>the</strong>ir own <strong>children</strong>, and 57.9 percentsaid <strong>the</strong>y felt comfortable punishing o<strong>the</strong>r <strong>children</strong>in <strong>the</strong> community. Clearly, adults have reacheda critical juncture regarding <strong>the</strong>ir relationshipwith <strong>children</strong>. The rhetoric <strong>of</strong> <strong>children</strong>’s rights asperceived by adults, particularly discussions about<strong>the</strong> usage <strong>of</strong> corporal punishment, has introducedvixixix Part Executive IntroductionOne Research SummaryDesign
a new dimension to <strong>the</strong> adult-child relationship.It has provoked anxiety and misunderstandingamong adults at <strong>the</strong> expense <strong>of</strong> <strong>children</strong> who bear<strong>the</strong> brunt <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> backlash.Cumulatively, <strong>the</strong> findings from this study pointto an urgent need for a multi-layered responsein Uganda. Firstly <strong>the</strong>re is a need to develop acomprehensive policy framework that addresseswithin all policy initiatives, <strong>the</strong> detriment <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>current power-based model <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> adult-childrelationship and its manifestations within homes,schools, and communities. While several childcentricpolicy initiatives are already in place,none <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m address <strong>the</strong> fundamental issue <strong>of</strong><strong>children</strong>’s lack <strong>of</strong> power in <strong>the</strong>ir relationships withadults. Secondly <strong>the</strong>re is a need to develop nonpunitive,practical, and creative outreach programsthat skilfully dispel <strong>the</strong> antagonism ga<strong>the</strong>ringmomentum within <strong>the</strong> adult-child relationship.These programs would promote an alternativemodel for <strong>the</strong> adult-child relationship; one thatfosters mutual respect and encourages childengagement ra<strong>the</strong>r than mere compliance within<strong>the</strong> relationship. Finally <strong>the</strong>re is a need to establishcommunity-based mechanisms that proactivelyrespond to <strong>children</strong> experiencing violence.Subsequent layers <strong>of</strong> response would build on<strong>the</strong>se foundational layers to consolidate a longtermstrategy <strong>of</strong> promoting equity in <strong>the</strong> adult-childrelationship.between actions and intentions, experiencesand perceptions. The first part will describe <strong>the</strong>methodology or how those <strong>voices</strong> were engaged.The second part will report on <strong>the</strong> dialogue with<strong>the</strong> <strong>children</strong> and <strong>the</strong> third part on <strong>the</strong> dialogue withadults. The final part will draw toge<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> findings<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> study to suggest recommendations foractions aimed at various duty-bearers.This report’s central aim is to present <strong>the</strong> <strong>voices</strong><strong>of</strong> <strong>children</strong> and adults as <strong>the</strong>y were captured in<strong>the</strong> study. The presentation and layout is aimedat bringing as many <strong>of</strong> those <strong>voices</strong> to a wideraudience as possible in <strong>the</strong>ir clarity and unanimity.It also aims to draw attention to <strong>the</strong> disconnectionPart One Executive Research Summary Designvi