Salıncak Association is one of the civil society organizations working with the goal of conducting rights-based, ethical, and sustainable initiatives in the field of children and youth.
Established in Diyarbakır in 2019, the association actively worked in the field with its volunteers during the pandemic and after the earthquakes centered in Kahramanmaraş. Since December 2025, due to most of the team members living in Şanlıurfa, Salıncak Association moved its headquarters to Şanlıurfa and continues its activities there.
You try to apply ethical principles not only theoretically but also in practice in your work on children's rights. How would you define Salıncak Association’s ethical approach when working with children? What main principles does this approach rely on?
We clearly define our ethical approach as rights-based and child-centered. For us, this is not just a project proposal phrase; it is a deliberate choice shaped over years of experience in the field.
We come from the “kitchen” of civil society and carry the sense of responsibility that comes from working with children, youth, and families for many years. Therefore, we do not accept the language and practices that position children as “objects of help.” For us, a child is not a passive figure to be protected, but a subject who has rights, can participate in decision-making processes, and has the authority to speak for themselves.
We live in an age of visibility. There is an expectation to publicize, share, and report the work done. However, we consciously choose not to turn children’s stories into showcase items. Privacy, dignity, and safety of the child come before any promotional need.
You stated that you see the child not as a passive recipient but as an active partner in the process. So, from this perspective, how is it practically possible in the field to produce together with children while respecting their rights?
We base this on 4 main principles. Namely;
- Right to participate: Children are not just participants in activities, but individuals who have a say in designing the process.
- Bodily and emotional consent: No child is forced to share anything they don't want to. Thus, explicit consent is our fundamental principle.
- Dignified representation: Avoiding a language of victimhood and building a narrative that empowers the child.
- Empowerment focus: Instead of a helper–recipient relationship, we base ourselves on a side-by-side production relationship. The issue for us is not to “protect” children, but to create together with them while respecting their rights.
Our Compass: The Best Interest of the Child
How do you concretize the principle of the best interest of the child in your daily field practice?
For us, “the best interest of the child” is not just a concept in reports; it's the compass of our daily decisions.
We understand how civil society works. Funders and grant providers usually support in line with their own strategic priorities, and this is understandable. However, these priorities may not always match the urgent needs of local children. This is where we choose to center the child’s needs, not the direction of the funding.
Resources in the field are dwindling; especially when funds and resources decrease, how do you continue your work?
When our project applications were unsuccessful, we did not suspend our work. We met with our child participants and shared the process transparently. We said, “This project didn't get support, but we can still produce together.” We may not have large budgets, but we have shown that production is possible with our labor, experience, and a few basic materials.
Sometimes our venues were a park in Diyarbakır, sometimes a museum garden, sometimes a public space. But our unchanging question was always: “What is best for the child under these circumstances?”
We focused more on building safe and respectful spaces than on comfortable ones. If we have to make a choice, we choose authenticity.
The balance of visibility and privacy is critical
You have a particularly sensitive approach to photography and visibility. What policy do you follow regarding sharing images of children?
We can say our biggest challenge in the digital world has been about “visibility.” Together with our child committee and families, we made a clear decision: We will not share children’s faces.
We choose to make the child’s production, not themselves, visible. We can share a drawing, a text, a sculpture, or an idea; but we don't find it ethical to use a child’s face for “likes.”
The internet never forgets. Today’s consent does not guarantee a child’s future digital footprint. Children have the right to grow, change, and redefine themselves.
The energy we could spend on recognition, we spend on understanding the changing needs of children working in seasonal agriculture, in disaster areas, and in rural regions. This silence is not a deficiency; it is a sign of our loyalty to the principle of “the best interest of the child.”
We choose ethics over interaction
How do you balance visibility and ethical responsibility on social media?
We are not in a place that completely rejects visibility; however, the boundaries of visibility are set by ethical responsibility.
Our basic question is: “What does this sharing bring to the child, and what does it take from them?”
If a piece of content only provides institutional recognition but puts the child’s privacy or safety at risk, we don’t share it.
We establish the balance on three principles:
- Production instead of faces
- Process instead of story
- Participation instead of just consent
Interaction numbers are temporary, but trust is permanent. When forced to choose between interaction and ethics, we choose ethics.
Good intentions or the right method?
What are the toughest ethical dilemmas you face in the field?
The toughest dilemma usually stems from the tension between “good intentions” and the “right method.” When there’s an urgent need, you want to act quickly. But being fast doesn’t always mean being rights-based.
Another difficult area is the lack of resources. “Should we reach more children, or work more deeply with fewer children?” is a question we often encounter. In such cases, we follow a three-step decision process.
- Questioning whether it serves the “best interest of the child”
- Collective evaluation within the team
- Thinking about the long-term impact
Sometimes the most ethical decision is the most invisible one. And sometimes, the hardest decision is to be able to say “no.”
What’s the difference between “good intentions” and “ethical responsibility”?
Good intentions alone are not enough. Sometimes, they may even violate the child’s boundaries. Ethical responsibility, on the other hand, is a professional standard. Therefore, there is a difference between saying, “I can do it” and asking, “Should I do it?” We leave the attitude of “we are helping” outside the door. We walk side by side.
The key to trust: not pretending
How do you build a relationship of trust with children?
We don’t pretend. We treat children not as pedagogical project participants, but as individuals. Trust starts with small consistencies: keeping promises, truly listening, and being able to say “I don’t know” when we don’t know something.
Our master key that opens every door is: “Never do to a child what you didn’t like done to you as a child.”
Every child has two voices: the outer voice they use with adults, and the true voice that comes from within. When a child starts speaking with that inner voice, it means trust is built.
The most valuable thing when working with children is not speed, but reliability
What would you suggest to other CSOs working with children?
With the Child Committee that we will establish in our new center in Şanlıurfa, we want to further deepen this ethical journey. We have three recommendations for other organizations:
- Break down hierarchies.
- Measure success not by appearance, but by fieldwork.
- Put your ethical principles in writing.
Ethics should be based not on individual good will, but on institutional culture; and the most valuable thing when working with children is not speed, but reliability.
Lastly, we would like to share this. In the world of visibility and projects, CSOs may sometimes be forced to act within a structure similar to companies.
However, we think there is a fundamental difference here. While companies naturally exist with the aim of continuity and growth, civil society organizations are founded to respond to a need stated in their statutes. So the purpose is not always to grow; sometimes it is to solve a problem, and to be able to withdraw when there is no more need in that area.
Grant and funding mechanisms make many works possible; we value this. However, at times, this system can lead to the rapid growth of some organizations and cause processes to be run entirely by professional staff. This can push the culture of volunteerism to the background or weaken the ability to produce local solutions. Yet, in the field, lasting impact is often built more through relationships than budgets.
Similarly, attempting to solve every issue only through areas of expertise can also narrow the context. We sometimes see, for instance, that a topic requiring trainer skills is handled as psychological intervention, or vice versa. Every discipline is valuable; but it’s important to match the right issue with the right method.
We also believe the relationship between national/international organizations and local structures should be based on mutual learning. Local knowledge, experience, and intuition are often the strongest guides. While collaborations with municipalities and local administrations are valuable, we believe it is always important to proceed by listening to the local context.
The most important reminder for us is this: Not every quick solution is permanent. Not every large structure can best read the field.
The true strength of civil society lies in relying on local knowledge, voluntary solidarity, and a culture of thinking together.