USING SOCIAL PROTECTION TO ENHANCE PSYCHOSOCIAL SUPPORT FOR CHILDREN

PSS FORUM 2015, 1 – 3 SEPTEMBERLOVE, CARE AND PROTECTION

By Fred Moonga Mulungushi UniversitySchool of social sciencesDepartment of social development

PRESENTATION LAYOUT Motivation Background The second coming of Social protection Studies in social protection Interest in social protection Understanding social protection Study focus Methods findings PSS How social protection can enhance PSS SP, Gender and PSS Children as participants Limitations of involving children Conclusions References

MOTIVATION The remergence of SP as a poverty

alleviation and developmental paradigm The potential of SP in enhancing PSS Limited interventions for (vulnerable)

children Southern africa is experiencing a unique type

of disaster – HIV/AIDS compounded with poverty

The effects are multiple Early and sustainable multi-pronged and

integrated interventions are needed The poverty cycle

THE POVERTY CYCLE

Adapted from Young, (2005)

Poverty line

Childhood

Young adult

Adult with young

children

Middle age

Old age

BACKGROUND Social protection has generated interest from

researchers and development experts over the years

Partly due to its effectiveness in alleviating extreme poverty

Its perceived contribution to social development

A case for its contribution to PSS among children

But is it a new concept? Or is it currently practiced differently?

THE SECOND COMING OF SOCIAL PROTECTION It dates back to the 1870s (Ramia, 2002) Informal social protection has also existed

since the dawn of human civilization The distinctive features of this current social

protection are the link to economic and social development in addition to preventing and alleviating extreme poverty using income (cash) transfers

This new development is grounded in poverty as being the basic lack of income or “managing income risks” (Holzmann & Jorgenson, 1999).

STUDIES IN SOCIAL PROTECTION The systematic study of social protection

only dates back to the first half of the 20th century (Midgley, 2013)

However, much of research on social protection has followed the risk management framework (Bailey, 2010), invariably a programme successor to the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP)

Lately there has been several studies starting with scooping studies

Main ones by: IDS, UNICEF, IMF, WB, ILO and many individual scholars

WHY ARE COUNTRIES EMBARKING ON SOCIAL PROTECTION? Intermittent economic prosperity and

recession (UNESC, 2015) Availability of resources Politics – Populism, contractualism, pro-poor? As a new development and aid paradigm The new practice of using cash Also changes in development practice

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PROTECTION What is social protection? “a mechanism that addresses poverty, risk and

vulnerability, but it can also contribute to social and economic development”

All those policies and institutions that shield individuals and certain classes of individuals from the socially detrimental effects of unchecked market forces (Ramia, 2002)

Three perspectives: Needs, rights and risks Traditionally concentrated in the wealthy nations

All public, private and voluntary institutions as well as formal and informal services and benefits meant to protect people against and prevent vulnerability and risk and promote social justice

Broader than child protection as it covers the entire child wellbeing trinity

STUDY FOCUS This study focused on social protection for

vulnerable children in terms of conceptualisation, functions, policies, programmes, benefits and services, and actors as perceived by welfare staff and carers in Zambia

METHODS A descriptive study design was employed Qualitative research methods were used to

collect and data The research questions for this study

required the lived experiences or stories told by people who experienced the phenomenon in terms of implementing social protection

Ethical clearance - Research Ethics Committee (REC) of Stellenbosch University

SAMPLING purposive sampling - Maximal variation

(Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011) Lusaka, Southern and Central provinces in

Zambia, firstly for their easy accessibility to the researcher, budgetary feasibility and being more informative on the subject

Four (4) key informants from each province (two from government departments and two from NGOs involved in social protection)

Three (3) typical carers of vulnerable children in each province

Five districts from each province (five (5)officers from each)

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Semi-structured interviews Data was analysed using ATLAS.ti Thematically derived from the research

questions

FINDINGS “[M]ost of the NGOs are in Lusaka, they are not in the

rural areas” Diversity in conceptualisation and history …very old in Zambia but only now called so. It started

after the Second World War as measures to support the war veterans through the Public Welfare Assistance Scheme (PWAS) in form of food rations, clothing and shelter. After independence, the programme could be modified to include the aged, widows and other...”

“[W]ell … new but interventions have been in place for a very long time [now] … And maybe it’s just the definitional issues that have changed because programs such as the public welfare assistance scheme … have been implemented from the 1960s and so it’s got a long history.”

FINDINGS CONT’D “I would say social protection is … one way that

provides … the basic needs for the poor” “[F]or me I understand social protection to be

services or activities that are implemented to … in order to alleviate the sufferings of the vulnerable people. Like for example the measures or the programs that can be put or be implemented [for] those people that can be helped to move out of their category and be able to do something for their lives”

“[P]rograms or interventions put in place by either government or stakeholders just to cushion the effects of you know hardships of the vulnerable members of society”

CONCEPTUALISATION “a system which is there to safeguard

certain people who cannot meet certain basic needs for instance”

“[A] set of policies, programmes or even actions with the objective of preventing and protecting against what I call the right for economic and social types of vulnerability and then vulnerability to poverty and deprivation”

FINDINGS CONT’D No legal and policy framework at the time Dominance of social cash transfer Rapidly scaled up 19 districts in 2013, covering 60 000

households, to 50 districts in 2014, covering 189 000 households, with a further more than 100 districts planned for 2015 (Ministry of Community Development Mother and Child Health, 2014).

Principles: accountability, decentralisation, participation, partnership, equity among others

TABLE 1.0: SCALING-UP SOCIAL PROTECTION IN ZAMBIA

Source: compilation by the researcher

2010 2011 2012 2013 20140

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

200000

Year

Hou

seho

lds

RISKS AND VULNERABILITIES “[J]uvenile delinquency … sexual [and]

gender based violence … early marriages [especially] for the girl child, drop[ing] out of school or don’t pass through school ….”

“HIV/AIDS pandemic, climatic changes (resulting in poor harvests) which affects farming … [resulting in hunger and poverty].”

“[C]hild labour, illiteracy, child trafficking.” “poverty, child abuse, human trafficking”

EXPERIENCES “[G]ood and bad experiences. It makes us officers

feel that we are working. You feel good to see lives improve, to assist others, to see children get educated. But when you fail to meet the demands due to limited resources, it’s not a good experience. SCT has caused suffering of other services like orphanages, child protection at the hands of social protection. It’s like that’s the main thing we do now.”

“… there is a noble cause out there in terms of vulnerability and the poor people. It’s there, its existing, it’s something you can’t run away from and government is doing its best to address eeh this effect, the effect of poverty and whatever, so you find it puts in whatever it can.”

IS IT AFFORDABLE? ILO simulation to indicate the resources required for a

basic social assistance package, including a universal pension covering old age, disability and child benefit, for low-income countries in Africa and Asia established that it would require 2–3% of GDP (cited in Barrientos & Hulme, 2009).

The World Bank database estimation of Zambia’s GDP in the year 2010 was $16 190.2 million. Three percent of this is approximately $485.7 million

Expenditure on social protection for the year 2010 was approximately $7.4 million on social cash transfer only. For that year, according to the 2010 budget, social protection constituted 2.7% of the total budget of $3.55 billion (Ministry of Finance and National Planning, 2009).

AFFORDABILITY CONT’D In the year 2012, Zambia’s GDP stood at

$20.68 billion. Three percent of this would be approximately $6 177 million, but expenditure on social cash transfer alone was approximately $11 200 at the exchange rate of $1 = K5 000 then.

Therefore, social protection is affordable because even if we put into effect 19 other interventions targeting different people but costing the same amount, the country would have spent approximately $224 thousand) to provide varied but adequate social protection interventions to a substantial number of poor people. This is still far less than the 3% of GDP figure of $6 177. But where is the problem?

PSYCHOSOCIAL SUPPORT A combination of psychological and social

aspects (PSYCH – mental and SOCIAL – environmental

Psych – thought processes, emotions, feelings

Social – culture, relationships, customs and traditions

The uniqueness of each child is therefore recognised and emphacised in this paper

But there is also recognition that a child comes from a family, household, community, culture and has some kin-relations

So how can social protection help PSS welbeing of child?

HOW SOCIAL PROTECTION CAN ENHANCE PSS When implemented well, social protection prevents and

responds to protection risks faced by children (UNICEF, 2008) By addressing risk and vulnerability especially among children

more especially co-variate risks such as HIV/AIDS and poverty “The foundation for well-being is via the meeting of a person’s

basic needs and rights for security, adequate governance, and essential services such as food, clean water, health care and shelter” (UNICEF, 2009:12)

Enabling access to resources for meeting basic needs Addressing social equality in society Enhancing income security among the vulnerable Historically, social protection has formed the core of social

policy. It comprises social insurance, social assistance and the central element of family care and solidarity (Noyoo, 2015)

Reducing social exclusion – promoting participation

SOCIAL PROTECTION, GENDER AND PSS There is a close relationship between gender

and poverty and vulnerability and ultimately social protection

Most recipients of social protection benefits tend to be women (CASE, 2000)

women tend to be the majority of caregivers, especially to OVCs and even chronically ill people

A case for the effectiveness of SP when the recipient is female

HOW CHILDREN’S PARTICIPATION IN DECISION-MAKING CAN ENHANCE PSS Are children objects? incompetent Are they subjects? compentent Are they both? “Children should not be treated merely as objects of

important decisions (guised in their best interests) but should actually be regarded as subjects of their own, as reformers in society” (Moonga, 2007)

Can they contribute to their own welfare? If so, how? “A shift in emphasis from children’s vulnerabilities

to a view of children as active agents” (UNICEF, 2009).

“Supporting children’s and youth’s voice and full participation in all phases of child protection [and social protection] programming” (UNICEF, 2009)

LIMITATIONS OF CHILD PARTICIPATION Culture and practices Age “Yes, they should be allowed to express

their points and feelings but not provide the last word .Their age should be taken into account and perhaps the type of decision”.

Sex Needs Situations e.g emergencies, illness Knowledge

CONCLUSIONS Conceptually, social protection – varies among different

people and context entails combating risks and vulnerabilities that affect

vulnerable people including children but that in practice this is rarely the case

Resource constraints in most developing is no longer a good excuse - Politics is key

Need for sound macro-economic base SP can enhance PSS for children by providing basic

needs, averting risks and vulnerabilities When combined with children’s participation, SP can

better enhance children’s welbeing Poverty limits the parents’ abilities to love, care and

protect the child – social protection removes this limitation by alleviating poverty

REFERENCES Barrientos, A. & Hulme, D. 2009. Social protection for the

poor and poorest in developing countries: Reflections on a quiet revolution. Oxford Development Studies, 37(4):439-456.

Community Agency for Social Enquiry. 2000. Social security for children: an investigation into the child support grant and the state maintenance grant. Johannesburg: CASE.

Moonga, F. 2007. Children’s participation in decision-making: Perspectives from Social Workers in Gothenburg

Noyoo, N,. 2015. Linkages between principles and practice in social protection: Some reflections, Conference presentation

UNECS, 2015. Statement on social protection floors: an essential element of the right to social security and of the sustainable development goals

UNICEF, 2009. Guide to the Evaluation of Psychosocial Programming In Emergencies

END

Thank you!