1.
Office of Research Innocenti, Florence
Measuring Child Poverty
UNICEF ECAR
17 April 2018
Lucia Ferrone
UNICEF Office of Research
lferrone@unicef.org

2.
2
Poverty: a multi-faceted concept
Monetary
Poverty
Psycho-
social well-
being
Deprivation
(MD
Poverty)
• Focus:
RESOURCES, the
MEANS TO ACCESS
to goods and services
necessary for the
household members.
• Usually measured by:
Household
income/consumption
• Focus:
REALIZATION and
FULLFILLMENT of
basic rights and
needs. In particular,
of the rights of the
child.
• Usually measured
by: actual access to
good and services
• Focus: Mental health
and SUBJECTIVE
PERCEPTION of
one’s condition of
living.
• Usually measured by
individual
perceptions—
’evaluative’ and
‘experienced’ well-
being

3.
3
How is child poverty different? Why
should we focus on child poverty?
• Different because
•Indicators of child well-being are different than those for adults
•Children are dependent on others and less mobile, their
environment is especially important
•Children do not control income, income may not be spent in ways
that benefit children, must therefore measure their welfare directly
• Important to focus on children because
•Poverty can have lasting effects, alter a child’s life forever
•Returns to investing in children occur in the future, but policy-
makers can be ‘short-sighted’ and focus on present, ignoring future

4.
4
SDG Target 1.2
• “1.2 By 2030, reduce at least by half the
proportion of men, women and children of all
ages living in poverty in all its dimensions
according to national definitions.”
WHAT is and HOW we
measure Child Poverty?

5.
5
UN Definition of Child Poverty
•“Children living in poverty are deprived of nutrition, water
and sanitation facilities, access to basic health-care
services, shelter, education, participation and protection,
and that while a severe lack of goods and services hurts
every human being, it is most threatening and harmful to
children, leaving them unable to enjoy their rights, to reach
their full potential and to participate as full members of the
society” (2007)
• “Child poverty is everyone’s problem and it should be a
national government’s priority” (Dr. Akousa Aidoo )

6.
6
WHAT can we measure
• Poor children: children in poor households
• Monetary Poverty lines
• Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI)
• Targeted measures of child poverty that center
the child as unit of analysis (MODA, Bristol, Child
specific MPIs)
• Globally / Regionally / Nationally

7.
7
Differences & Similarities between MODA
and MPI
• Uses a lot of the same indicators and base of data (DHS,
MICS)
• Base are binary (0-1) indicators of deprivation
• Unit of measure of MPI is household, not child
• Global MPI does not allow for life-cycle approach
• MODA is used as a more of flexible tool, adaptable to
context
• Some important technical differences
• Nested weights VS Union approach
• Units of MPI are indicators, for MODA it’s dimensions

8.
8
Technical differences: MPI Nested weights
Indicators Weight
Nutrition 1/6
Child Mortality 1/6
Years of schooling 1/6
School attendance 1/6
Cooking fuel 1/18
Improved Sanitation 1/18
Drinking Water 1/18
Electricity 1/18
Flooring 1/18
Asset Ownership 1/18
Health
Education
Living
Standard
1/3
1/3
1/3
Each dimension
has equal
weight, and each
indicator within
each dimension

9.
9
• A child is deprived in a dimension if she is deprived in ANY
INDICATOR within a dimension.
Technical differences: MODA Union Approach
Dimensions Indicators Deprived if
1. Nutrition
Fruit/vegetables No fruit or vegetable during a day
Protein meal
No protein meal (meat or equivalent) during
the day
Child Fruit/veg Protein Deprived in
nutrition
Joanne 0=not dep 0=not dep Not deprived
Lori 0=not dep 1=deprived Deprived
Lucia 1=dep 1=dep Deprived
The implicit weight of each indicator is 1!

10.
10
Technical differences: Implications
• MPI method more reactive to change in one
indicator
• Union aproach sets a higher bar to lower MD
poverty, because it treats deprivation as non-
tradable
• How to weight contextual deprivation such as
water, sanitation etc? Big differences between
MODA and MPI
• When using union approach the number of
indicators for each dimension is crucial

11.
11
Ideal Priciples for a MDCP measure.
• Defined and measured at individual child level
•Some household level indicators important (e.g water)
• Acknowledge different needs of children of different
ages
•Indicators, dimensions to be age specific
• Reveal the profile of the most disadvantaged
•guides the rights-based approach to programming, sheds
light on inequality

12.
12
Comparative Measures vs National
Measures
• Comparative Measures
•Standardized definition of indicators and deprivations,
same or harmonized base of data
• Global / Low-income countries / EU / Arab States
• National Measures
•Tailored to the specific country context
•Given data availability, indicators and dimensions are
defined according to national definitions
•Aswer specific questions regarding overlaps, drivers of
MDCP, groups of children more at risk etc.
•Respond to national programming priorities

13.
13
1 - Global Extreme Poverty Numbers (1.90$
poverty line)
9.2
19.5
21.5 21.5
18.7
14.6
49.8 50.2
15.9 15.4
12.9
6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0
5
10
15
20
25
Adults 18+ Children 0-
17
Children 0-4Children 5-9Children 10-
14
Children 15-
17
Shareofthepoor
Povertyrates
Poverty rate Share of poor

14.
14
2 - Gloabl multidimensional CP numbers
using the global MPI
37
21
37.2
41.5
37.5
30.1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
All children Adults 18+ Children 0-4 Children 5-9 Children 10-14 Children 15-17
MPI-poor Children
Source: OPHI Briefing 46, Alkire, Jindra, Robles, Vaz: Children’s Multidimensional Poverty:
disaggregating the global MPI

15.
15
3 - Multdimensional child poverty in the Arab
States (MODA) – innovation: use of 2 measures,
acute and moderate

16.
16
4 - Multidimensional child poverty in the
EU
Lowest rate:
Norway 5%
Highest rate:
Romania 85%
Children deprived in 2+ dimensions, based on the EU-SILC
2014 child needs module.

17.
17
- 67% of all children below 18 experience 2-5 deprivations, equal to 247 millions of children
- Large differences in multidimensional deprivation incidence across countries, ranging from 30% in Gabon
and 90% in Ethiopia
- Deprivation intensity highest in Chad, Ethiopia, Congo DR, Niger, CAR, and Mozambique
5 - Multidimensional deprivation incidence and
intensity among children in SSA (30 countries)
67.1%
2.6
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Averagedeprivationintensity
Multidimensionaldeprivationrate
% of children deprived in 2-5 dimensions
Average number of deprivations among children with 1-5 deprivations

18.
18
N-MODA Armenia: dimensions and
indicators
Dimension Indicator
0-5 years
old
6-14 years
old
15-17 years
old
Nutrition
Exclusive breastfeeding for at
least 6 months
X
ECEC
ECEC attendance (3-5-year-
olds)
X
Education "Place to do homework" X
"Stationary necessary for school"
X
Not in employment or education
X
Leisure "Space to play outside" X X
"Recreation items (toys; bicycle)"
X
"Books" X
Social Interactions "Friends" X X
Clothing "Shoes" X X
Information No computer at home X X X
No internet at home X X X
Utilities
Water (proteced source less than
8hrs per day or 20 days a month)
X X X
Heating (no or wood) X X X
Housing Overcrowding X X X
Housing problems X X X

19.
19
12.4
23.9
27
20.3
7.9
4.6
2.5
1.4
0
10
20
30
40
Deprived in
0
Deprived in
1
Deprived in
2
Deprived in
3
Deprived in
4
Deprived in
5
Deprived in
6
Deprived in
7
National Urban Rural
N-MODA Armenia: Distribution of
deprivation, all children
64%

20.
20
Relationship between n. of deprivation and
consumption (Armenia)
Big rural/urban
divide
Poverty line
Weak
relationship
Stronger
relationship

21.
21
What dataset to choose?
Has detailed info on
young children (esp.
nutrition and health)
• MICS
• DHS
Has monetary poverty,
more detailed info on
education and labour, can
have child needs module.
• Income and Living
conditions survey
• HBS
Remember: the information needs to come from
ONE dataset. Administrative sources, while rich,
cannot be used for this analysis

22.
Office of Research Innocenti, Florence
Using child poverty data to influence
policy
UNICEF ECAR
17 April 2018

23.
23
We have the measure, now what? Using
MDCP measure for good
• MDCP as a targeting tool for policy
• How are social policy doing in targeting deprived
children?
• Geographical disaggregation for programming
•Poverty Mapping
• Include MDCP in evaluation designs of Social
Security
•Evaluation of Cash Trasfers or other interventions
• Link MDCP to fiscal analysis and PF4C
• CEQ4C

24.
24
Examples of engagement and use of
MDCP
• Armenia:
•Included in routine Social Snapshot by Statistical Service
(http://www.armstat.am/file/article/poverty_2017_english_2.pdf)
•Inclusion of child indicators in household survey
• Tanzania:
• Mapping of MDCP for programming, engagement at local level.
• Update of measurement with new wave of survey
• Arab Child Poverty: first child poverty measure of any kind
for the region, strong advocacy tool
•https://theforum.erf.org.eg/2018/02/13/multidimensional-poverty-
poorest-parts-mena-agenda-action/

25.
25
• Policies that deal with child poverty should look at the complexity of
the picture depicted by the interrelation of both multidimensional and
monetary measures of poverty as complementary tools.
• Policies that aim to reduce child poverty should, on the one hand,
support household economic empowerment, both through transfers
and the labour market; and, on the other hand, implement targeted
programmes aimed at reducing a specific deprivation, in particular,
more structural ones that can be addressed at the same time (such
as utilities and housing).
• Policies should concentrate on closing the rural/urban gaps in
infrastructure. Also, social safety nets need to be strengthened in
rural areas to have a positive impact on general household welfare.
• Social protection for families with children need to be expanded to
cover more children, coupled with targeted sectorial interventions.
Reflections from Armenia

26.
26
Armenia dissemination brochure

27.
27
Reflections from Tanzania
• Child poverty analysis has informed, and is now embedded in, the
National Social Protection Framework
• TASAF III/Productive Social Safety Net (PSSN) has the potential
to reduce multidimensional child poverty amongst the poorest
households, especially if linked to social services → child report
triggered the creation of linkages between PSSN and stunting
reduction programmes.
• Discussions are on-going to include child poverty in the baseline for
the SDGs and M&E plan of the Second 5-Year Development
Plan.
• More emphasis on child poverty by routine surveys: child
module added to the HBS questionnaire (in order to enable a
measurement of multidimensional poverty) and dedicated chapter on
child poverty in Zanzibar HBS report.
• Child Poverty report as entry point for enhanced social sector
budget analysis (MoFP/UNICEF budget briefs are now routinely
produced)

28.
28

29.
29
Strategic considerations for national studies
• Over-arching objective of the exercise
•SDG: track child poverty in all its forms
•Get child MD poverty into NDP-open the space for policy
dialogue
•Not necessarily to pinpoint specific interventions
• What measure to pick? Policy vs technical opportunities
• Advocacy/Policy interventions/Programming
•May be hard to define very specific policy rec.
•Uncover the most disadvantaged children
•Interests in specific populations groups

30.
30
Issues and Strategic Choices (1)
• Choice of data set: MICS/DHS vs Household
Income/Expenditure surveys
•MICS/DHS have more detailed info on young children
•BUT they don’t have monetary poverty and other
detailed info such as child labour and education
• We want monetary and MD poverty to get the full picture
• Lets get child indicators into the HIES!!
•Geographical disaggregation: level of
representativeness (sample size)

31.
31
Don’tsDos
Lessons learnt: dos and don’ts
• Encourage
partnership with
national counterparts
• Set a clear goal for
the study
• Disseminate the study
as much as possible
• Include Child Poverty
in National reporting
• Include specific further
analysis according to
national priorities
• Start the process
without national
ownership
• Expect too much: trust
the technical experts!
• Be too optimistic on
timeline
• Leave the study to
dust

32.
32
Key Elements of a National Report
• Analysis for all children, with one number for child MD poverty
•Show entire distribution of deprivations
•Need this single number to simplify message
• Monetary poverty and overlap with deprivation
•The ‘four groups’: deprived and poor, deprived only, poor only, not
poor and not deprived
•Alternative is to use quintiles of asset index, show overlaps with
bottom quintile or bottom two quintiles

33.
33
Key Elements of a National Report
• Drivers or ‘profiling’ of deprivation (especially by region)
•Important to help identify areas of further research, policy ideas
• Who are the most deprived?
•From inequality perspective, would be important to see
of this group has unique profile
• Overlap between dimensions
•Potentially hundreds of overlaps – what to do?
• Policy recommendations: not easy to define specific policies.

34.
34
CEQ4C: An equity tool for children
• Framework that integrates PF4C (child-related budgets);
child poverty measurement; and fiscal policy analysis
• Improve evidence base on child specific distributional
effects of fiscal policies
• Vision: UNICEF has a recognized, rigorous tool to
generate evidence, participate in country policy dialogue,
improve programming
• Proof of concept Country applications UNICEF-CEQ
tool (global public good)

35.
35
What questions can we answer:
• What share of public spending in a given country do
multidimensionally deprived children benefit from?
• Are targeted social transfers benefiting the most deprived
(highly MDP) children?
• How tax burdens are borne across households with MD
poor children?
• To what extent public spending on children redress
inequalities of consumption/income /wealth?
• What are the expected effects of changing the
composition and scale of public spending or a proposed
fiscal reform into child poverty?
• Do fiscal policies (spending and taxation) in a country reduce child poverty?

36.
36
CEQ4C: Towards an integrated approach

37.
37
Example: Uganda, using MDCP as filter
to analyze budget
Source: Author analysis based on UBS 2014. Transfer 1 refers to the Public Work Program; Transfer
2 to the Household Income Support Program; Transfer 3 to the Senior Citizen’s Grant; and Transfer 4
to the Vulnerable Family Support Grant.

38.
38
• MDCP can be a strategic tool in shaping policy at
many levels
• Targeting and evaluating social policy, interventions
• It is crucial to engage with goverments and
statistical offices from the start to ensure buy-in
and commitment
• Strategy: if the country already has a measure of
MD poverty, better to ensure that one is child-
friendly than push for a new one
Concluding