Gender and personal safety sensitization in schools: A qualitative inquiry into response practices to children’s disclosures of sexual abuse

Abstract

Background:

Schools provide opportunities to educate children on health and safety and encourage disclosures of difficult experiences. Policies and response mechanisms for disclosures are critical in the impact of preventive programs.

Aim:

To understand school policies and practices for disclosures of child sexual abuse (CSA).

Method:

A school-based program on gender, sexuality, and personal safety was implemented in 162 schools between June 2022 and February 2024. The program addressed health, safety, boundaries, help-seeking, gender, sex, love and attraction, and decision-making. It encouraged children to discuss difficult experiences. A standard operating procedure was followed for responding to health or psychosocial issues, focusing on emotional support, avoiding retraumatization, and activating child protection mechanisms. School response practices were observed through extensive field notes maintained during the program implementation.

Results:

The program reached 21,234 students. There were 44 instances of CSA disclosure. Fifteen were high-risk disclosures (recent/proximity to alleged perpetrators/poor psychosocial support). A report was shared with the school/child protection system for further action. There were challenges noted in organizing appropriate responses to children’s health and psychosocial needs at all levels. Schools lacked uniform policy and were unfamiliar with the state and national level provisions for child protection. Schoolteachers conveyed invalidating, disbelieving, and evasive attitudes toward children’s disclosures, and there was no existing coordination between schools and the child protection system.

Conclusion:

Despite national and state level child protection policies, ground realities of response to CSA are highly deficient. Implementation of sexuality education programs, planned in several national endeavors, would be contingent upon school readiness and intersectoral collaborations.

INTRODUCTION

Child sexual abuse (CSA) is involvement of children in sexual activities they cannot fully comprehend and consent to, which violate social norms.[1,2] The reported rates for CSA are in the range of 8–13% for girls and 3–17% for boys.[3] According to Indian National Crime Records Bureau in 2019 and 2021, 31–37% of documented crimes against children fell under Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 (POCSO).[4] CSA can occur across socioeconomic and cultural groups and across homes, schools, and any spaces that children visit.[5] Even though it can affect long-term development, health, and wellbeing, survivors often do not disclose CSA, resulting in undetected social and health issues.[6] Shame, self-blame, grooming by and attachment to perpetrators, and dysfunctional family communication pose barriers in disclosure.[7,8]

In India, POCSO mandates reporting of CSA, or a suspicion of CSA, to authorities, with noncompliance being punishable. However, besides legal offender management (registries, background checks, enhanced prison sentences), CSA prevention requires safe environments, educating children on personal safety, and empowering them to report abuse. Personal safety education makes children aware of unsafe situations and encourages disclosure. Immediate physical and mental health responses, with longer-term social interventions can mitigate long-term negative impact.

Schools can play a crucial role in ensuring safety, educating children about personal safety, and honing life skills.[9] In India, several national and state programs on child development and wellbeing, such as school health and wellness programs under Ayushman Bharat and Rashtriya Kishor Swasthaya Karyakram, identify the need to include sexuality and personal safety education in schools. Schools’ readiness and skills in implementing these programs and responding to challenges are important variables for program success.[10] Sensitive responding is critical in assisting a child’s safety and protection needs.[7] Guidelines from POCSO, the National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), and state-level policies outline responsibilities of educational institutions. In Karnataka, the 2016 Karnataka State Child Protection Policy (KSCPP) requires appointment of a Child Protection Officer (CPO) in schools to coordinate social, legal, and healthcare assistance for children.[11]

In context of the above national and state level provisions and mandates around sexuality and personal safety education and in light of emerging conversations around school readiness to implement sexuality education, the present study aimed to understand response practices to CSA disclosures in government schools of an urban Indian city. This was done during the implementation of a school-based sensitization program on gender, sexuality, and personal safety, conducted under a safe city program of the local legal administration.

METHOD

A school-based sensitization program was implemented between June 2002 and February 2024 in 162 government schools, reaching 21,324 children and adolescents. This was implemented by a team from a tertiary mental healthcare institution in an urban Indian city, under directions of the local legal administration, and in collaboration with the governmental education department. The program had four sessions for children and six sessions for adolescents, conducted once a week, each session lasting 90–120 minutes. The session topics and methods [Supplementary Tables 1a and b] were based on manuals (https://nimhanschildprotect.in/i-child-sexual-abuse-prevention-7-12-yrs/;https://nimhanschildprotect.in/i-life-skills-gender-sexuality-relationships/) developed by a Child and Adolescent Mental health service project at the same institution. Of a total of more than 2000 government schools in the city, the covered schools were prioritized for operational efficacy, in terms of proximity to the study center, and commuting viability. The sessions were conducted by a team of trained Project Officers (POs) with master’s degrees in social work/psychology, supervised by Project Coordinators (PCs) with PhD/MPhil degree in Psychiatric Social Work, and by project leaders – consultants from Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychiatric Social Work. Prior to implementing the program in a school, the PCs visited the school principal and conducted an orientation session for the teachers about the aims and content of the program. Even though the education department supported the program, given several local factors that could play a role (for example, teachers’ acceptability of the program content, available timeslots in the school calendar for sessions), in any given school, the program was implemented after the principal and teachers agreed and identified specific slots for the sessions to be conducted. Given the nature of the program to educate, sensitize, and thereby elicit difficult disclosures, a standard operating procedure (SOP) was established to address health-related or psychosocial concerns reported by children and adolescents during implementation. The SOP was shared with the schoolteachers during the orientation sessions. Since the focus in this paper is on CSA disclosures, Table 1 outlines the specific parts of the SOP with planned responses at various levels to CSA disclosures during the project. The SOP ensured emotional support to the child, preventing retraumatization, and activation of child protection mechanisms. Disclosures were considered high-risk if the alleged perpetrator was a family member living with the child or someone with regular access to the child, such as living in the same neighborhood or a relative visiting often.[12] In contrast, low-risk disclosures involved situations where the abuse was either a single incident in the past or the alleged perpetrator neither was any longer in the child’s life nor had access to the child.[12] Urgent systemic responses were to be activated in case of high-risk disclosures.

Supplementary Table 1.

Session, concepts and methods in classroombased sessions

a–Personal safety module for classes 6th and 7th
Sessions	I – Health	II – Safety	III – Boundaries	IV – Help
Concept	• Comfort with and appreciation of all parts of our bodies • Keeping our bodies healthy	• Protecting ourselves from strangers • Recognizing when people hurt us • Understanding good and bad secrets	• Safety triangle • Personal boundaries	• Sources of help • Identifying who we can tell if someone hurts us
Methods	Body games Free movement Body shapes Body mapping Charts & drawing Speed name game Group reflections Uses of different body parts Taking care of our health Group games Snakes & ladders for body safety Health quiz	Stories & reflective learning	Group games Matching activities Triangle hopscotch Reflection exercises Drawing our safety triangle Defining our boundaries	Film viewing Reflection exercises Identifying ‘my safe’ and ‘trusting’ person
b-Gender, sexuality and relationships module for classes 8th, 9th and 10th
Session	I – Gender	II – Real Man & Perfect Girl	III – Attraction & Love
Concept	• Sex & Gender • Gender stereotyping • Social perceptions and expectations	• Power • Gender-based violence • Understanding the meaning of being a man or a woman	• The nature of attraction • Understanding relationships • Understanding love • Recognizing & appreciating our needs & pleasures
Methods	Games Matching & sorting Film viewing Reflective exercises Sentence completion Poster making	Reflective exercises Pictures Films Narratives	Reflective exercises Movie – “Nadue antaraviralli” Listing and categorizing needs and pleasures Body mapping Speed name game
Session	IV – Boundaries	V – Safety	VI – Decision
Concept	• Personal boundaries • Recognizing coercion • Understanding consent	• Keeping ourselves safe in relationships • Recognizing abuse and getting help	• Understanding our social roles and expectations • Making safe & healthy decisions
Methods	Reflection exercises Listing & categorization Film viewing Activities Role plays Safety triangle	Reflection exercises Film viewing Activities Art work	Reflection exercises Film viewing Open discussion Games Boundaries hopscotch

Table 1.

Standard operating procedure for responding to CSA disclosures during the school-based sensitization program

Responder	Goal	Actions
Project Officer	• Immediate psychological support • Information gathering on a checklist* • Minimize retraumatization	• Talk to the child privately • Empathic validation • Reassure about support • Inform the child that they will be connected to persons (child protection services) who can ensure their safety and any other assistance they may need • Acknowledge the child’s courage in sharing difficult experiences • Avoid too many questions, rather patiently listen and note down the details the child spontaneously discloses • Check and respond to the child’s emotional state through observation and asking open questions • Avoid hurrying the child in their disclosure
Project coordinator	• Liaising among school authorities, child protection agencies, and project leadership to effect processes for child’s safety • Maintaining detailed field notes**	• Gather disclosure details from the Project Officer • Communicate with the teacher-designated as Child Protection Officer (CPO) at the school or the principal • Documentation, including details of disclosure and shared information with the CPO/Principal. • Coordinate referrals for mental health care wherever needed • If the school does not have designated CPO/mechanisms for assisting the child – Share disclosure report with the District Child Protection Officer (DCPO) and coordinate their meeting with the child
Principal/Co-principal investigator	•Training, monitoring and supervision of first-level responses by the project officer and project coordinator •Reporting to authorities •Consultation and follow-up for children with mental health care needs	•Organizing training, at the beginning of the project and through periodic boosters in weekly team meetings, for the Project officers and coordinators in the field response processes •Follow up with school authorities/DCPO, as the case may be, in actions taken in response to the disclosure. •If no action is taken, especially in cases where there is imminent/ongoing danger to the child’s safety, take proactive steps towards reporting to the police, as per the mandatory reporting clause of POCSO. •A copy of the documentation, disclosure details and steps initiated for child’s protection and sociolegal actions, made by the Project Coordinator shared with Police •For children referred for mental health care needs, organize consultation and mental health interventions and follow-up

*The project officer’s checklist for gathering disclosure details included the child’s name, age school grade, gender, contact details of parents/caregivers, residential location, a verbatim record of disclosure, nature of abuse, relation with the alleged perpetrator, risk assessments, child’s understanding of abuse, previous disclosures and action taken, evident impact of CSA on child (emotional, behavioral, academic) in cross-sectional evaluation, and child’s assent for further action. **The PC’s observations were recorded like a daily diary – where was the program implemented that day, what was the school infrastructure like in terms of support to the program implementation, what was the number of students and teachers in the schools, how did the program implementation go on, were there any challenges in implementation, if any disclosures came up what steps were taken, how did the school respond, and verbatim notes of what teachers shared.

Data were recorded on the PO’s checklist, field observations made by the PC, and weekly team debriefing led by the project leaders. The PO’s checklist and PC’s field notes comprised specific information as listed under Table 1. In the weekly team debriefings, the checklist and field notes were reviewed and supplemented by a record of troubleshooting suggestions, steps taken to facilitate work with the school/child protection systems, and planning school visits for any necessary liaison with the school authorities. Data from these three sources – the PO’s checklist, the PC’s field notes, and the weekly debriefing records – were reviewed for qualitative synthesis presented in this paper. We specifically looked at data pertaining to CSA disclosures that happened through the course of implementation of the school-based program.

All data were deidentified (removing the child’s and school’s name and caregiver/parent details) after due reporting procedures had been conducted and before the data were used for qualitative analysis. The documents were read and reread and discussed several times. Data were summarized descriptively. A qualitative synthesis of the observations made regarding school and systemic responses was done using thematic analysis.[13] Thematic analysis is a theoretically flexible method for identifying patterns within the data. It follows six steps – familiarization with the data through repeated reading, assigning initial codes to identified topics, collating codes as potential themes, reviewing potential themes to validate defined themes, rereading defined themes to ensure a comprehensive coverage of the data, and finally organizing and reporting the findings in appropriate summary phrases. Quotes used to support the themes have been translated from the local Kannada language to English, remaining as close to the original as possible. For rigor, first, corroboration across the PO checklist and PC field notes was done. Second, peer debriefing was done with other consultants in the mental healthcare institution, with their inputs incorporated in theme synthesis.

The school-based program and a protocol for its implementation evaluation were approved by the institutional ethics committee (vide letter no. NIMHANS/33^rd IEC (BEH.SC.DIV.)/2021, dated 11.01.2022). Administrative approvals from the education department were taken prior to school-based implementation. We have followed the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research guidelines in preparing this manuscript.[14]

RESULTS

The project covered 162 schools over 21 months (June 2022 to February 2024), reaching 21,324 children and adolescents. There were 44 CSA disclosures, that is, a reported CSA prevalence of 0.21%. A majority were from girls [42 (95%)]. Thirty-one (70.4%) children were 11–13 years old, and 13 (29.5%) were 14–16 years old. Thus, most disclosures were from girls aged 11–13. About a third of the disclosures were high-risk [15 (34%)], and the remaining low-risk [29 (66%)]. A majority (72.7%) of disclosures occurred in the last session, which was the fourth session with the younger group (11–13 years age) and the sixth session with the older group (14–16 years age). The last sessions in both groups provided information to the children and adolescents about seeking help and making safe and healthy decisions. We came to these last sessions after opening up windows over a few weeks that introduced children to concepts of health, safety, gender roles, privacy, boundaries, and relationships.

Lack of school policy in responding to children’s disclosures

During the orientation session, teachers agreed for program implementation and generally denied prior reports of CSA from children. During the program, when CSA was disclosed by a child, following the SOP, after gathering information from the PO, the PC attempted to share the disclosure with the designated CPO or school principal. However, there was inconsistent implementation of the child protection policy (KSCPP) across the 162 schools. One specific school had established a Makkala Rakshna Samithi (child protection committee) to address children’s safety issues. This committee, chaired by the principal, included three teachers, four parents, and two student representatives. They maintained a logbook to document activities and regular meetings. If a child raised safety concerns, a teacher interacted with the child to understand the issues in depth, and subsequently, parents were called for detailed discussion to determine appropriate actions. This school had also installed a complaint box next to the principal’s office, which was opened weekly to review and respond. If a teacher on the committee was transferred to another school, a replacement was appointed at the earliest. A few other schools had similar child committees, named “Meana Thand”, “Child Rights Committee”, and “Child Safety Committee”. These committees met as required to address children’s grievances and organized awareness programs on topics like menstrual hygiene, “good touch” and “bad touch”, and child rights. Notably, these initiatives were generally organized for girls.

The school systems and response preparedness described above were absent in the larger majority of schools covered under the program. Notably, more than 80% schools did not know about the state’s child protection policy. More than 90% had not implemented its provisions. This posed significant challenges in not only implementing a sexuality and personal safety sensitization program but also following the SOP in responding to children’s CSA disclosures. While sensitive to children’s difficulties and agreeable to program implementation, school administrations were not prepared to handle children’s disclosures.

In certain instances, schools were able to initiate proactive responses, for example, when the alleged perpetrator was a local shopkeeper, a middle-aged male known for making inappropriate comments to passerby girls and boys, and children expressed that they felt ‘unsafe’ walking toward school or passing that particular street; the specific school took action by reporting him to authorities or guiding children how to avoid that street. However, in other instances of even high-risk disclosures, when the alleged perpetrator was a family member or a close neighbor or relative, targeting a single child, schools lacked established policies to respond. Over the course of our work in schools, supported by circulars from the education department, a Child Protection Officer (CPO) could be appointed in a few schools, as mandated by the KSCPP. This information was displayed on school notice boards for children’s awareness.

Responses from schoolteachers [Box 1]

Box 1.

Observed concerns in responses of the school to children’s CSA disclosures

Concerns in response from the school
• Disbelief and invalidation of children’s reports
• Difficulties in taking initiatives for child support and protection due to concerns about family attitudes, societal norms, and school’s ‘reputation’
• Lack of awareness about availing support from legal and child protection systems
• Lack of awareness or implementation of state child protection policy

Teachers expressed the need for – SOPs on Child Abuse and Safety, formation of a Child Protection Committee (CPC) and to increase awareness in the school community about child safety. Therefore, the concerns noted above are in the background of a conducive intention to establish supportive and child-friendly environment in the school

Disbelief and invalidation

In the instance of a child’s disclosure, the principal/teachers often insisted on speaking with the child to ‘understand the truth’ as they felt that ‘sometimes children mislead or manipulate’. In a few interactions we observed, the principal/teachers questioned the child with minimal attention to the child’s privacy or comfort. There were questions like ‘Did this really happen?’, ‘Who have you told at home?’, and ‘Why are you telling this now?’. Such responses conveyed disbelief and invalidation and lack of sensitivity and support and often discouraged children from sharing difficult experiences.

Evasive attitudes from a perceived lack of skills and support

The principal and teachers supported children in talking with their parents but were concerned about reporting to the police even in high-risk cases. They said ‘We would observe their behavior and support the child’, ‘If we report parents will not cooperate’, ‘End of the day child needs to be with the family’, and that there was ‘lack of support from the parents’. Sometimes, teachers were evasive of responsibility stating ‘We will not be responsible if it happens outside schools’, ‘Such an incident has never previously been reported in our school’, ‘We find it difficult to handle such children and need training’, and ‘we discuss and try to solve it by ourselves’. Teachers also expressed ‘We don’t want to put (expose) our school name’, ‘(We are) under pressure from the local politicians’, ‘You (Facilitating team) should not take this to any other authorities without bringing it to our notice’, and ‘Try to sort it at your (Facilitating team) level and do not escalate to higher authority’. Teachers seconded these challenges with their burdened schedules and pressures to complete the curriculum, citing these as reasons for why they could not take up any additional tasks, especially those involving reporting or coordination with external agencies, such as the child protection systems.

Affirmative but inadequate actions toward children’s safety

In a few schools, teachers shared steps they had taken for children’s safety in schools. They said that in ‘every class we tell children about abuse’, ‘(We) conduct parents meeting and sensitize’, ‘(We take) separate session for girls on abuse and reproductive health’, ‘(We) keep a watch on girl child behavior and correct it’, and ‘We scold children (if they have undesirable or sexualized behaviors)’. In the schools that had formalized child protection committees, there were responses like ‘We check the suggestion box every week for any complaints or suggestions given by the child’, ‘We talk to children separately and sensitively clarify the details’, ‘We call the parents to school and sensitize them on the care of the child’, ‘We do home visits if required’, and ‘We discussed with the child committee meeting for further suggestions (on a case-to-case basis)’.

Lack of awareness and coordination with child protection systems

For each CSA disclosure, the PC shared detailed reports with the project leads. If the child was considered at high risk and the school lacked policy to ensure safety measures, the District Child Protection Officer (DCPO) was informed. However, there were concerns in the DCPUs’ work in the schools. While getting into the details of those concerns would be out of scope of the present paper, we would like to note that when DCPU staff visited schools, independent of the project implementation team, and met the concerned child, abuse was often denied. Children were ambivalent about seeking an ‘external’ system’s help, uncertain of its impact on their families. Schools were unaware of the child protection system, and the teachers themselves viewed the DCPU as ‘external and unfamiliar’. Through the course of the program, multiple discussions were organized among stakeholders (police, DCPU officials, public instruction department, teachers, and project team) to modify the school-based implementation. Following these discussions, a DCPU member joined at least one of the program sessions to familiarize teachers and children with the existing support system, aiming to reduce apprehensions and discomfort with reporting and seeking safe interventions. During the session, the DCPU staff shared their role and available resources for children in distress. This aided DCPU interventions in a few high-risk disclosures. In one instance, a child who was being abused at home was rescued and was shifted to a place of safety, and legal processes were initiated through the DCPU’s intervention.

DISCUSSION

Educating children on personal safety and protection from sexual abuse empowers them to express unsafe experiences and seek help. In our study, a prevalence of 0.21% CSA disclosures is seemingly low, compared to earlier systematically gathered prevalence reports, suggesting that many cases perhaps remain unreported and disclosed CSA may be the ’tip of the iceberg’.[15,16] Nevertheless, the program facilitated disclosures, given that in the orientation sessions teachers had often claimed that there had not been CSA reports in their respective schools. On the contrary, several reported cases revealed ongoing CSA for substantial time. The program helped children identify, acknowledge, and report their adverse experiences.

National and state level policies in India not only mandate the inclusion of sexuality and personal safety education but also list specific measures that must be in place to enable and support its implementation. The KSCPP is explicit about the role of safe school environments… to prevent abuse and neglect… by prioritizing children’s best interests, considering their views, and mechanisms for quick response to safety violations within clear procedures.[11] Nationally, the NCPCR mandates a zero-tolerance policy toward sexual abuse of students and has recommended grievance committees to address CSA disclosure in schools, emphasizing confidentiality for survivors and staff-training.[9] As good as these documents and provisions read, it was hard to find implementation on the ground, other than a few instances where schools had child protection committees. Even there, redressal mechanisms were far from being long-term or comprehensive. The state and national policies seemingly lack monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to ensure ground level compliance.

The main finding in our study was that schools, often considered protected environments, had inadequate implementation of child protection policies and were poorly prepared to respond to CSA disclosure. When children disclose difficult experiences, they require a support system that can monitor and respond to their healthcare, emotional, and systemic needs over the long term. The lack of implementation of a child protection policy made it difficult to coordinate immediate and long-term support during the course of the implemented project. Schools feared negative outcomes such as lack of support, reputational damage, and sociocultural stigma.[17,18,19,20] The responses of the school teachers were often invalidating and disbelieving. Instances of proactive, affirmative action were rare and limited to situations when larger local community support could be gathered. It seemed that despite agreeable attitudes, teachers lacked skills and were handicapped from a lack of support from the community and higher authorities in adequately responding to such, rather complicated, difficulties that children shared. It was interesting to note that steps to promote child safety consisted largely of archaic strategies of didactic information to girls on behavioral control.

Our study highlighted polar responses from teachers in schools with and without child protection committees revealing systemic failures in protecting children. These failures stem from a lack of protocols, uncertainty about contacting authorities, and poor coordination among education and child protection sectors that would lead to inadequate support and exacerbated trauma.[21] Additionally, teachers often cited the constraints of rigorous curriculum and busy schedules, resulting in rather mechanical interaction with students hindering their ability to support children effectively. Encouragement from educators (parents, teachers, or external agencies) creates a safe environment for discussion and encourages children to share their concerns. Facilitators who are empathetic and understanding instill a sense of security, and discussing safe and unsafe situations increases children’s awareness and willingness to share experiences. A confidential, reassuring environment, along with alternatives like writing down experiences, further encourages to share when they are comfortable.

Systemic barriers from poor coordination among stakeholders in education, child protection, mental health, and law enforcement sectors align with the ecological system model, highlighting the need for a holistic, intersectoral approach to address CSA.[6,22] The District Child Protection Unit (DCPU), established under section 106 of JJ Act, 2015, is meant to ensure child protection measures in a district. Chaired by the district magistrate or Zila Parishad chairman, it coordinates and implements child rights and protection activities at the district level.[23] In this project, their intervention resulted in children being rescued and provided with safe living arrangements in a childcare institution or with family, relatives, or Nirbhaya centers based on child’s preference and safety needs. According to UNICEF guidelines, the DCPO can play a crucial role in assisting and training stakeholders and facilitating communication between children and their environment. However, without intersectoral coordination, these efforts are often ineffective. Our program required multiple inter-and multisectoral meetings over 2 years, resulting in a revised SOP for responding to CSA disclosures.

Our program demonstrated that children aged 11–15 years engage with a sensitization program on gender, sexuality, and personal safety, facilitating disclosures of their difficult experiences. However, without adequate systemic and long-term support, these disclosures can cause significant distress and social difficulties. Our findings highlight a lack of teacher preparedness, school policies, and insufficient intersectoral collaborations. Protecting children from sexual offenses requires a multisectoral approach, involving trained teachers to respond, active child protection committees, and coordinated child protection systems. Prioritizing social-emotional safety is essential to avoid further victimization or retraumatization. Recent research endeavors acknowledgement of the mismatch between policies and ground realities, specifically in the context of implementing sexuality and personal safety education. They suggest the use of formal assessment of school readiness spanning knowledge, attitudes, practices, and intersectoral coordination, prior to implementation.[10]

We acknowledge limitations in our work. The observations made regarding disclosures and schools’ responses are through engagement with schools during the specified school-based sensitization program. Longer-term engagement with the school system, taking into account not just responses to CSA disclosure but other practices vis-à-vis academics, co- and extracurricular activities, and so on, could help uncover more underpinnings of the school’s policies and response mechanisms. Since disclosures happened and school responses were evaluated only over the course of the implemented project, findings may not entirely be representative of pre-existing response practices. The study findings have implications for more emphasis, in the school settings, on creating opportunities and safe spaces for children to disclose their difficult experiences, in a manner that ensures safety, protection, and wellbeing.

Declaration regarding the use of generative AI

The author(s) attest that there was no use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) technology in the generation of text, figures, or other informational content of this manuscript.

Ethical approval

The project titled “Implementation evaluation of ‘Gender, sexuality and personal safety: a school-based sensitization programme’ ” was reviewed and received ethical approval from the Institutional Ethics Committee of NIMHANS, Bengaluru (vide letter no. NIMHANS/33^rd IEC (BEH.SC.DIV.)/2021, dated 11.01.2022).

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Funding Statement

This study was carried out as part of the project titled “Implementation evaluation of ‘Gender, sexuality and personal safety: a school-based sensitization programme’ ”. This project was carried out by a team at the Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, NIMHANS, Bengaluru, with funding support from Government of India’s Nirbhaya scheme, through the Officer of the Commissioner of Bengaluru City Police, under their Safe City Project. The funders did not have any role in the designing, implementation or the analysis of the findings presented in the paper.