Violence against children damages the health and well being of children, families, communities and nations. Half of all children suffer some form of violence each year and, along with its immediate health impacts, experiencing violence can have lasting impacts on children’s life opportunities, including educational attainment, employment, financial security, social relationships, and physical and mental health. Accordingly, violence against children can impose immense costs and lost opportunities, making its prevention essential for the well-being of people and nations. 

Countries can do much to prevent and respond to violence against children, and a range of evidence-based strategies has been set out in INSPIRE: seven strategies for ending violence against children. However, the risks of such violence are also affected by social determinants of health, including the conditions in which people are born, grow, work, live and age, and the wider set of forces and systems shaping the conditions of daily life. Thus, children are at increased risk of violence if they live in poor material circumstances (e.g. with poverty, food insecurity, housing instability and inequality), experience behavioural or psychosocial challenges in their family (e.g. low parenting skills, caregiver substance use or mental illness) and have poor access to health care services. The policies and legislation that governments enact can shape these social determinants and can therefore play a critical role in preventing violence against children. 

Based on a global systematic review of evidence, this report presents a set of seven policy and legislative strategies that can support the prevention of violence against children. Each strategy includes multiple approaches for implementation (see Table E.1). The strategies and approaches have been selected based on evidence that they either directly prevent violence against children, or positively influence intermediary determinants that affect children’s risk of violence, including material circumstances (e.g. living and working conditions), psychosocial factors (e.g. mental health), behavioural and biological factors (e.g. diet) and the health system itself. For each strategy, the report presents a rationale for inclusion, and a summary of the evidence available for each approach, focusing where possible on those with a greater level of evidence.

P.9 5. Reduce exposure to health-harming influences
Alcohol control strategies including alcohol taxation, minimum alcohol pricing and alcohol sale restrictions have been associated with reduced child maltreatment.
The availability and use of certain products, such as alcohol and firearms, can increase the risk of children experiencing violence. Alcohol use by caregivers has been associated with child maltreatment, while alcohol use among young people has been associated with youth violence. Equally, a high prevalence of firearms has been linked with increased violent crime, a risk factor for youth violence. The use of firearms in acts of violence also  increases the risk of death. Legislation and policies that reduce exposure to health-harming influences aim to limit access to products that are harmful to health, and discourage their use. Approaches that have shown benefits in preventing violence against children or its intermediary determinants include firearm control legislation, prohibition of alcohol sales to minors, and policies restricting population access to alcohol.

P.64 Policies that require child-friendly justice services can help to protect children exposed to violence from duress and further harm. Evidence: Evidence is mainly from the USA and focuses on the use of juvenile drug courts in comparison to existing juvenile justice systems or the use of measures to divert children away from the juvenile justice system (such as teen courts13 or police cautions). Police-initiated diversion strategies for youth as an alternative to court processing (e.g. police warning, cautioning schemes and counselling) have been found to reduce future misconduct for low-risk youth (304). However, there is mixed and unclear evidence for the use of teen courts in reducing recidivism (305). In addition, juvenile drug courts have proven no more effective than traditional juvenile court processing in reducing recidivism (306), or have resulted in only small improvements (307).