Social protection

Child Rights Spring 11

Risk and Vulnerability

Broad characteristics of childhood poverty and vulnerability:

• Multidimensionality – related to risks to children’s survival, development, protection and participation;

• Changes over the course of childhood – life cycle;• Relational nature – given the dependence of children

on the care, support and protection of adults are often compounded by the vulnerabilities and risks experienced by their caregivers. Impact of adversities and ‘misfortune’; (owing to their gender, ethnicity, spatial location, etc.);

Risk and Vulnerability cont.

• Discrimination – suffer by them and by their family / community

• Voicelessness – although marginalised groups often lack voice and opportunities for participation in society, voicelessness in childhood has a particular quality, owing to legal and cultural systems that reinforce their marginalisation

Why broad social protection systems

Conclusion from longitudinal studies

• Economic growth will not by itself solve the problem of childhood poverty and it can worsen inequality

• Living conditions experienced in very early life life cast a long shadow. Long-term implication of early damage

Why broad social protection systems

Conclusion from longitudinal studies cont.• Education need to go well beyond enrolment.

Increases in access say nothing about quality, attendance, latte drop-out.

• There is a real potential for social protection schemes to improve children’s well being. But design matters

Jo Boyden and others Young Lives Project, QEH, Oxford, UK

(Ethiopia, India (Andrhra Pradesh, Peru and Vietnam)

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

Defining Social protectionPolicy Instruments:• Social Transfers (cash or kind)• Social Insurance: health care for children,

pensions.• Social services: youth employment, alternative

care, support for excluded from education,…• Legislation and regulation: maternity/paternity

leave, antidiscrimination legislation, …

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

Children: continuum of risk and protective factors

Family and personal assets

(Family cohesion, parental health, skills, jobs,Child health, ability, etc.)

Family and child support measures

A Universal family and child benefits and services

B Specialized family support services

C Substitute care services (adoption, foster care, residential, care)

Mountingrisks

Supportrequirement

AB

C

Low risk level

Medium risk level

High risk level

Absence of parental care

Half of key expected outcomes are closely related to social protection, e.g.

• Improved family and community care practices for child survival, growth and development

• Reduce gender and other disparities in education

• Community and government services to reduce marginalization of vulnerable children

• Quality family, community and government support for children orphaned or made vulnerable by HIV/AIDS

• Justice systems which ensure greater protection for children as victims, witnesses and offenders

Types of Social Protection• Protective:

– Social assistance: Cash transfers, universal benefit– Social services: Local services, shelters for women,

child foster systems

• Preventive:– Social Insurance: unemployment, health, …

• ‘Promotive’:– Microfinance, agricultural inputs/subsides

• Transformative:– Social justice legislation, affirmative action

‘Classic’ family support programmes and issues:• Programmes:

• child day-care services

• maternity and parental leaves

• family/child allowances

• child sick pay and disability supports

• social/orphan pensions

• Issues:

• equity, disparities (rich/poor, urban/rural, gender)

• targeting: universal, conditional, means-tested

• care for 0-2 year old children

• low uptake and/or benefit levels (employment record, employer/public attitudes, other factors)

• public-private mix

A few examples of social protection and insurance schemes

Priority area

Conditional cash transfers

Universal pensions

Minimum nutrition vouchers

Day care services

Child survival

If child immunized

Income for medicines

Increased nutrition

Hygiene training

Education If child sent to school

Income for school supplies

Increased school attendance

Developmental readiness

HIV/

AIDS

If child orphaned

Income for caring for orphans

Assist in caring for orphans

Protection If child not sent to work

Reduce marginalization

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

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)

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?

Issues for debate: conceptual

• Universal vs only for marginal groups

• Stand alone vs part of macroeconomic, distributive justice, and development policies

• Mandatory vs voluntary contributions

• Formal vs informal

• Guaranteed minimum vs uncertain benefits

• State vs NGO delivery

Uruguay Program ‘Plan Ceibal’

• One personal PC by primary public school kid

• Universal

• Social tool, don’t intent to replace teachers

• Adding value to public school

• Closing the ICT gap

• Family impact

• http://vimeo.com/6640846

Dilemmas

• Cash or kind?

• Conditional or unconditional?

• Universal or targeted?

Cash Transfers Latin America and Caribbean

• Bolsa escola/Bolsa Familia: Brazil

• “Bridge” Program (Solidarity): Chile

• “Chile Crece Contigo”: Chile

• Health, nutrition and family allowances from social development Investment Fund: Costa Rica

• Oportunidades/Progresa: Mexico

• ‘Universal’ Child Benefit: Argentina

Cash Transfers Africa

• South Africa Social Grant: unconditional, target by household income, over 10 millions

• South Africa Child Support Grant: created 1998 children under 7 now expanded 14

• Malawi ‘Zomba’ to stay in school: girls poor families

• Zambia pilot target to household with children

Some results

• Cash transfers and low wages in public work programs may not be sufficient to lift people out of (income) poverty.

• No evidence of dependency. On the contrary, needed support and empowerment provided.

• The transfers need to be predictable, reliable, and regular.

• Conditionality should be handled carefully.

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

Cost recovery: caution

• User fees generate modest amounts.

• But they reduce access, esp. for poor.

• Exemption & waivers perform poorly.

• User fees deepen gender bias.

• Price signals do not always lead to optimal use.

International Child Benefit

• Who is responsible for ensuring that child policies are universal? Governments + trans-national corporations + international agencies

• Trans National Corporations’ increasing power: ‘corporate social responsibility’ children are involved in extreme forms of labour by TNC sub-contractors and subsidiaries

International Child Benefit

International Child Benefit

• Currency Transfer Tax: new resource for child benefit: a CTT of 0.2% would raise U$280 billons

Peter Townsend