Post on 14-Jun-2015
transcript
Child protection and social protection: policy perspectives
and issues
Enrique DelamonicaTACRO
September 2010, Mexico
Overview and objectives
• Introduction (context)• Child protection• Social protection• Policy issues
Understand the connection and distinctiveness of child and social protection
Discuss provocatively some policy issues
Why do we talk about social protection?
• Because current situation is problematic
• How do we know?
• Because without social protection policies we will not escape the problematic situation
• How do we know?
Objectives
Poverty reduction
Social developmentFulfillment
of rights
Economic growth
Overlap => Cohesive/inclusive societies
Current problematic situation
• 7 of the 12 countries with highest income inequality
• Other disparities
• Child Poverty
Defining child poverty
• Nutrition deprivation
• Water deprivation
• Deprivation of sanitation facilities
• Health deprivation
• Shelter deprivation
• Education deprivation
• Information deprivation
Gordon, Townsend et al (2003) commissioned by UNICEF to LSE and Bristol University
Continuum of Deprivation and Child Poverty
No Deprivation Extreme Deprivation
Mild Moderate Severe
E. g. : Children who have never been to school Children in dwellings with more than five people per room Children whose heights and weights are 3 SD below the norm
Child poverty and child rights
Child Poverty
Child right violations
NutritionEducationWater and Sanitation HealthHousingInformation
.
Child poverty in Latin America
0
25
50
75
100
Extreme or severe deprivation Child Poverty
U5MR geographic disparities
3.1
1.92.3
2.9 2.9
3.6
0
Brazil
Dom R
ep
Ecuad
or
Guate
mal
a
Nicar
agua
Peru
Rel
ativ
e g
ap r
atio
bet
wee
n w
ors
t-o
ff
and
bes
t-o
ff p
rovi
nce
s
Nutrition Disparities
20
11
35
24
0
10
20
30
40
Peru Belize
Urban Rural
About 15 points difference in each exampleRelative gap of 1.7 and 2.2 respectively
Completed six years of schooling (15-19 years old)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bolivia Brazil Colombia Dominican Rep Guatemala Peru
Poorest mid-80s Poorest mid-90s Richest mid-80s Richest mid-90s
Similar evidence for excluded populations
Some definitions
• Exclusion: Unfair social process whereby a group is not allowed to fully enjoy the benefits of participation in society (economic, social, political, cultural, or their combination) mainly due to their belonging to that group
• Vulnerability: risk of being affected by a threat (e.g. loss of income, flood, sickness) and not being able to cope with it or its effects
AIncome poor
BC
Combining different groups of people who could be eligible for social protection
Excluded
Vulnerable
Non-Income poor (rights)
But would this be all? .
What about the…
• Elderly• Unemployed• Widow(er)s• Sick• Orphans • And those who could eventually fall in these
categories?• Universal, integrated systems of protection
“Traditional” child protection
• Children in Especially Difficult Circumstances
• Birth registration
• Adolescents in conflict with the law
• Child labor
• Child soldiers
• Sexual exploitation
Social Policy, Social Work, Child Protection, Social Protection (I)
•Social Policy: Education, Health, Unemployment benefits, Pension, Housing
– More than mitigating economic risk, also redistribution (e.g. minimum wage, paid holidays) and family policy (breast-feeeding time, maternity and paternity leave, mandatory child support, non-discrimination on the basis of family structure)
•Traditional and non-traditional UNICEF “sectors”
Social Policy, Social Work, Child Protection, Social Protection (II)
•Social Work: Abuse, neglect, alternative care (e.g. orphans)
•Child Protection: Children in conflict with the law, child labor, trafficking
•Social Protection: all of the above
Defining Social protection“… enhance the social status and rights of the
marginalised; with the overall objective of reducing the economic and social vulnerability of poor, vulnerable and marginalised groups.” (Devereux & Sabates Wheeler, 2004)
• Protection• Prevention• Promotion• Distribution• Transformation
Brief typolgy of social protection• Poor laws (Elizabeth I)• Guilds and union based health insurance• Unemployment insurance (formal workers)• Social security/pensions• Safety nets (targeted, e.g. Mothers and soldiers)• Targeted income transfers• Universal Workfare• Beveridge• Scandinavian welfare state
Child protection, Social protection, Social policy
Education
Health
Social
Welfare
Child Welfarese
rvice
s
serv
ices
benefits
benefits
Violence
Violence
preve
ntion
preve
ntion
Referral
Referral
Pre
vent
ion
Pre
vent
ion
Iden
tific
atio
n
Iden
tific
atio
n
Ref
erra
l
Ref
erra
l
Children in
Children in
the justice
the justice
system
system
Social PolicySocial Policy
Social protectionSocial protection
Child protectionChild protection
Policy Continuum(child protection)
Birth
registratio
n
Child la
bor
Targe
ting
User f
ees
Cash
trans
fers
Pover
ty re
ducti
on st
rate
gies
Budge
t allo
catio
n
Taxe
sTr
ade
Policy
Policy Issues: Conventional wisdom
• Economic growth
• Limit government intervention
• (minimum) safety net
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
GNP per capita annual average growth rate, 1970-98 (%)
An
nu
al a
ve
rag
e U
5M
R r
edu
cti
on
ra
te, 1
99
0-
98
(%
)
There is no relationship between economic growth and U5MR reduction
Targeting
• What is it?
• How does it work?
• Why is it implemented?
Target population
Programme
E mistake: excessive coverage (leakage)
F mistake: failure to reach target population
Targeting
Targeting has hidden costs Difficult to identify & reach the poor
F mistake, mostly women
Poor get bumped-off by not-so-poorE mistake, often women &
poorest
Administrative costs are highavoid F/E mistakes; oversight
Proving eligibility is costlydocuments, fees, fares, stigma, male-bias
Sustainability is underminedpoor’s voice weak to keep
scope/quality
How to avoid targeting when there are no sufficient resources?
Progressive realization
Allows to set criteria for priorities– Through time (long term plans)– At a point in time (short term budgets)
• Not an excuse to delay efforts
• GOAL: Cohesive/Inclusive societies
Progressive realization in practice
Means testing, targeting and conditionalities: Partial and transitory
0
20
40
60
80
100
period 1 period 2 period 3 period 4 period 5
0-5 '6-12 13-18
Cash transfers
• Birth grants
• Universal child allowances
• Conditional cash transfers
• Maternal or parental benefits
• Sick leaves, disability benefits
• Housing allowances
• Unemployment benefits
Conditional cash transfers
• What are they?
• How do they work?
• Why are they implemented?
Conditional cash transfers (ii)
• Targeted, not universal
• Conditionality may imply punishing the needy (punitive)
• Low impact/efficiency (e.g. high monitoring costs)
• Ethical issues (e.g. paternalistic/top down)
• Unintended consequences (e.g. discrimination, clientelism)
Conditional cash transfers (iii)
• Simple cash transfers can work
• No really good and systematic evidence that conditionality works
• Work?– To reduce poverty?– To increase access to services?
Methodological issues in assessing conditional cash transfers
• Reduce poverty or increase service access/utilization?• Reduce poverty now or in the future?
• Income or condition?• Condition or (previous) investment in services?• Even if they “work” in a carefully selected trial
experiment, would they work in a different context?
• Are we sure people did not want to satisfy condition?
Educational outcomes of primary school students participating in CCT programmes
Country Programme Attainment School attendance Dropout Enrolment
BrazilBolsa Escola (BE)
N/A 95% of boys in treatment and 92% in control group attended regularly. Girls showed similar results.
Dropout rates were lower for treatment than control group (0.3% vs. 6.1 %).
N/A
Colombia Familias en Acción
N/A N/A N/A No impact on primary school enrolment (ages 7- 13).
Guatemala Eduque a la Niña
2% of treatment and 11% of control group did not return to school the following year.
91% of treatment and 88% of control group had regular attendance.
Annual completion was similarly high (around 90%) for all pupils.
Inconclusive.
HondurasPRAF
N/A Scholarship recipients attended one day more per month than non-recipients.
Dropout rates for scholarship recipients decreased from 7.0% to 2.4%.
Beneficiary (ages 5-12) enrolment up by 17 percentage points from 2000 and 2001.
MexicoProgresa-
Oportunidades
Average increase from 6.8 years to 7.4 years.
Increased probability of boys’ attendance by 1.3 to 1.8 percentage points.
Girls’ dropout in Grade 3 fell by 17.9 % and boys’ by 14.0%.
No impact on primary school enrolment.
Nicaragua RPS
92% of treatment and 80% of control.
Increased average number of students attending regularly by 30 percentage points.
Dropout rates fell in Grades 1-4.
Increased from 69% to 93% for treatment vs. 72% to 75% for control group.
χ ٧χ
٧ χ χ χ
χ
χ χ
٧٧
Latin America and CaribbeanUneven situation: Fractured and
heterogeneous systems
•Create– If not there
•Expand– If parts of the population not included
•Strengthen– If haphazard or inefficient
Latin America and Caribbean•Several countries already have (e.g. Brazil, Chile) or are planning (e.g. Belize) the introduction of cash transfers•Modalities differ. Not all of them conditional•Tool for rights based analysis of analysis of cash transfers programs being developed. Tested in four countries (Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica and Mexico)
Latin America and Caribbean
•Data gathering to highlight specific issues of indigenous and afro-descendants
•Integrated early childhood development respecting indigenous values and traditions (Colombia)
•Legislation affecting children in conflict with the law and victims of violence (Bolivia)
Latin America and Caribbean (Cont.)
•Integrated early childhood development respecting indigenous values and traditions (Colombia)
•Integrated packages of education, health and water/sanitation interventions at municipal level (Brazil, Nicaragua)
•Single database of beneficiaries (Paraguay)
•Assessment of Social Safety Nets (with UNIFEM and WB)
Additional examples of child/social protection
• Birth registration and single beneficiary roster
• Special provisions to support children left behind by migrant parents, e.g. within pensions system for grandparents
• Interventions to prevent adolescents from dropping out of school NINIs
Conclusions
• Child protection and social protection are conceptually distinct areas of UNICEF work
• However, they complement and overlap each other: WORK TOGETHER
• Social protection well beyond CCTs or “economic insurance”
• Menu of experiences in the region• Both are crucial pieces of strategy to reduce
disparities
Thank you!