OPINION | After Joshlin and Cwecwe, South Africa must rethink how we protect children

When South Africans rallied behind the hashtags #FindJoshlinSmith and #JusticeForCwecwe, they were united by more than grief and outrage. They were demanding accountability for children who should never have endured such unimaginable harm. The calls for justice were immediate and justified, as people demanded answers, arrests and action from the relevant authorities.

But beneath the public anger lay deeper questions that continue to haunt us. How could Joshlin Smith simply disappear despite the many adults and institutions that should have protected her? How could a young girl allegedly be raped in a place that should have been among the safest in her life? And perhaps the most uncomfortable question of all is — why do we keep asking these questions only after children have already become victims?

We ask these after every heartbreaking headline, every court appearance and every public outcry. Then, once the outrage fades, we return to treating violence against children as isolated tragedies instead of recognising them for what they really are: symptoms of a child protection system that waits for children to become victims before it acts.

That is precisely why this research titled Communities of Practice for Child Wellbeing, done by the Centre for Social Development in Africa, based at University of Johannesburg is important — so that children like Joshlin and Cwecwe do not ‘fall through the cracks’.

The study brought together key stakeholders focused on child welfare. Conducted between 2020 and 2024 at public schools in Johannesburg and Moutse, Limpopo, the study did something remarkably simple but profoundly important. Instead of waiting until abuse was reported, researchers worked alongside teachers, healthcare workers, social workers and communities to identify children facing multiple vulnerabilities before those risks escalated into violence or neglect.

The premise was straightforward — if we can recognise the warning signs early enough, then perhaps we can prevent children from becoming tomorrow’s victims.

The findings should concern every South African.

Across the Johannesburg schools participating in the study, around 60% of children were consistently exposed to violence in their homes or communities. Half of caregivers worried about their children’s safety, while 8% of children had already experienced abuse.

In Moutse, almost half of children had been exposed to violence, 12% were victims of abuse and 40% of caregivers feared for their children’s safety.

These are not numbers describing a handful of vulnerable children. They describe an environment in which violence has become an ordinary part of childhood for far too many young South Africans.

One of the more important findings was not necessarily that more children became vulnerable over time but that more children were identified as being at risk. By the end of the study, the number of children classified as facing high safety risks in Johannesburg had increased from 38% to 62%, while almost half of the children assessed in Moutse were also identified as high risk.

Rather than suggesting that the programme worsened children’s circumstances, the findings point to something equally significant: as teachers, caregivers and practitioners became better equipped to recognise the warning signs, more children who may previously have gone unnoticed were identified and connected to support.

Perhaps the greatest lesson from this research is that preventing violence rarely makes headlines. We never hear about the child who was never abused because a teacher recognised something was wrong and we never celebrate the family that stayed together because a caregiver received parenting support before stress became neglect

That finding should fundamentally change how we think about child protection. Too often, public debate begins only after a child has already suffered unimaginable harm. We focus on police investigations, criminal prosecutions and sentencing, all of which are necessary. But they are also evidence that prevention has already failed.

The Communities of Practice research challenges us to think differently because it recognises that children do not experience their lives in government departments.

Yet our public institutions continue operating as though these challenges belong to separate departments. Schools focus on attendance and academic performance. Clinics treat illness. Social workers often become involved only after abuse has been reported. Police investigate once a crime has already taken place. Each institution performs its own mandate, but too rarely do they work together around the child.

The Communities of Practice model turned that approach on its head. Using a Child Wellbeing Tracking Tool, children were regularly assessed across different dimensions of wellbeing, allowing professionals to identify risks much earlier.

Families received support based on their specific circumstances, including home visits by social workers, referrals to health services, psychosocial support, parenting programmes, food assistance and statutory child protection interventions where necessary.

This was not simply another pilot project driven by good intentions. The research found measurable improvements among families receiving coordinated support. Children whose households received social worker home visits experienced better outcomes, while caregivers participating in parenting programmes reported lower use of harsh disciplinary practices.

That matters because it reminds us that violence is not inevitable. Families can be strengthened, risks can be identified earlier and harm can be prevented before it becomes irreversible.

Perhaps the greatest lesson from this research is that preventing violence rarely makes headlines. We never hear about the child who was never abused because a teacher recognised something was wrong and we never celebrate the family that stayed together because a caregiver received parenting support before stress became neglect.

Yet these are precisely the outcomes we should be investing in. South Africa has no shortage of policies on child protection, nor do we lack evidence about what children need to thrive. What we lack is a prevention system that functions in a coordinated manner, bringing schools, health services, social workers and communities together around the lives of children.

The real lesson from both #FindJoshlinSmith and #JusticeForCwecwe is not simply that perpetrators must be held accountable. Of course they must. But accountability after the fact will never be enough if we continue allowing vulnerable children to slip unnoticed through fragmented systems that only respond once irreparable harm has already occurred.

The Communities of Practice research reminds us that protecting children cannot begin in a courtroom. It must begin in classrooms, clinics, homes and communities, where warning signs first appear and where intervention is still possible. We also need a shared responsibility, where everyone is equipped to protect children and enhance child safety.

Every time another child becomes the centre of national outrage, we promise ourselves that this must never happen again. The question is whether we are finally prepared to invest in the systems that make those words mean something.

Because the greatest justice we can offer children like Joshlin and Cwecwe is not only punishing those who harmed them. It is building a country where fewer children ever have to become the next headline.

• Oliver Meth is strategic communications consultant at the Centre for Social Development in Africa, University of Johannesburg (UJ)
• Professor Sadiyya Haffejee is associate professor & director at the Centre for Social Development in Africa, UJ
• Professor Leila Patel is emeritus professor at the Centre for Social Development in Africa, UJ