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!