Social Protection


Published on

Published in: Health & Medicine
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • What do we mean by the child protection system? The CP system per se - does not exist as distict « entity », however, we can envision it if we map-out the obligations for child protection within the whole social sector and the justice system. These represent the petals of our child protection system flower! The red circle in the middle illustrates, that only some parts and some aspects of each sector bare specific obligations for child protection. For example, although t he social welfare system has the main accountability for child protection, its mandate includes also provisions for vulnerable adults and elderly. Or within the Justice –it is juvenile justice part that has specific mandate for children, or within education it is about provisions for inclusive education and for protection from violence, etc. None of the sectors in isolation can deliver results if other systems have not assumed their obligations for child protection. Hence, the interaction and coordination between sectors as well as at the national and sub-national levels is a MUST. So, in a long run – our strategic aim is to help establishing a child protection system that is intersectoral and cross- sectoral in nature and consists of a network ( continuum) of measures, structures and services – which are are guided by a common policy framework – rooted in children`s rights. Such system is able to prevent violations, identify them early, report, refer, address/treat individual cases of rights violations and of course it is able to provide all necessary and good quality services to eligible families and children. . In addition to this: It is essential to envision the child protection system so that our interventions are strategic and help building it. It is also essential to understand how the existing « systems » work and how are they organized, what obligations and accountabilities belong to different levels or what is regulating and governing the functioning of different parts (what role are playing the finances, mandates, or the standards for services or for professionals, what role play supervision, inspection and monitoring system etc.) And lastly – we need to keep in mind, that the network or the continuum of services is not compsed necesarily only of public services. Often there are also private service providers which need to be brough in within the common policy framework and guided by the same standards.
  • Social Protection

    1. 1. Social protection Child Rights Spring 11
    2. 2. Risk and Vulnerability <ul><li>Broad characteristics of childhood poverty and vulnerability: </li></ul><ul><li>Multidimensionality – related to risks to children’s survival, development, protection and participation; </li></ul><ul><li>Changes over the course of childhood – life cycle; </li></ul><ul><li>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.); </li></ul>
    3. 3. Risk and Vulnerability cont. <ul><li>Discrimination – suffer by them and by their family / community </li></ul><ul><li>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 </li></ul>
    4. 4. Why broad social protection systems <ul><li>Conclusion from longitudinal studies </li></ul><ul><li>Economic growth will not by itself solve the problem of childhood poverty and it can worsen inequality </li></ul><ul><li>Living conditions experienced in very early life life cast a long shadow. Long-term implication of early damage </li></ul>
    5. 5. W hy broad social protection systems <ul><li>Conclusion from longitudinal studies cont. </li></ul><ul><li>Education need to go well beyond enrolment. Increases in access say nothing about quality, attendance, latte drop-out. </li></ul><ul><li>There is a real potential for social protection schemes to improve children’s well being. But design matters </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Jo Boyden and others Young Lives Project , QEH, Oxford, UK </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(Ethiopia, India (Andrhra Pradesh, Peru and Vietnam) </li></ul></ul>
    6. 6. Defining Social protection <ul><li>“… 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) </li></ul><ul><li>Protection </li></ul><ul><li>Prevention </li></ul><ul><li>Promotion </li></ul><ul><li>Distribution </li></ul><ul><li>Transformation </li></ul>
    7. 7. Defining Social protection <ul><li>Policy Instruments: </li></ul><ul><li>Social Transfers (cash or kind) </li></ul><ul><li>Social Insurance: health care for children, pensions. </li></ul><ul><li>Social services: youth employment, alternative care, support for excluded from education,… </li></ul><ul><li>Legislation and regulation: maternity/paternity leave, antidiscrimination legislation, … </li></ul>
    8. 8. Policy Continuum (child protection) Birth registration Child labor Targeting User fees Cash transfers Poverty reduction strategies Budget allocation Taxes Trade Policy
    9. 9. 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) Mounting risks Support requirement A B C Low risk level Medium risk level High risk level Absence of parental care
    10. 10. Half of key expected outcomes are closely related to social protection, e.g. <ul><li>Improved family and community care practices for child survival, growth and development </li></ul><ul><li>Reduce gender and other disparities in education </li></ul><ul><li>Community and government services to reduce marginalization of vulnerable children </li></ul><ul><li>Quality family, community and government support for children orphaned or made vulnerable by HIV/AIDS </li></ul><ul><li>Justice systems which ensure greater protection for children as victims, witnesses and offenders </li></ul>
    11. 11. Types of Social Protection <ul><li>Protective: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Social assistance: Cash transfers, universal benefit </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Social services: Local services, shelters for women, child foster systems </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Preventive: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Social Insurance: unemployment, health, … </li></ul></ul><ul><li>‘ Promotive’: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Microfinance, agricultural inputs/subsides </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Transformative: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Social justice legislation, affirmative action </li></ul></ul>
    12. 12. ‘ Classic’ family support programmes and issues: <ul><ul><li>Programmes: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>child day-care services </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>maternity and parental leaves </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>family/child allowances </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>child sick pay and disability supports </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>social/orphan pensions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Issues: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>equity, disparities (rich/poor, urban/rural, gender) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>targeting: universal, conditional, means-tested </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>care for 0-2 year old children </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>low uptake and/or benefit levels (employment record, employer/public attitudes, other factors) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>public-private mix </li></ul></ul>
    13. 13. 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
    14. 14. Child protection, Social protection, Social policy Education Health Social Welfare Child Welfare services benefits Violence prevention Referral Prevention Identification Referral Children in the justice system Social Policy Social protection Child protection
    15. 15. Cash transfers <ul><li>Birth grants </li></ul><ul><li>Universal child allowances </li></ul><ul><li>Conditional cash transfers </li></ul><ul><li>Maternal or parental benefits </li></ul><ul><li>Sick leaves, disability benefits </li></ul><ul><li>Housing allowances </li></ul><ul><li>Unemployment benefits </li></ul>
    16. 16. Conditional cash transfers <ul><li>What are they? </li></ul><ul><li>How do they work? </li></ul><ul><li>Why are they implemented? </li></ul>
    17. 17. Conditional cash transfers (ii) <ul><li>Targeted, not universal </li></ul><ul><li>Conditionality may imply punishing the needy (punitive) </li></ul><ul><li>Low impact/efficiency (e.g. high monitoring costs) </li></ul><ul><li>Ethical issues (e.g. paternalistic/top down) </li></ul><ul><li>Unintended consequences (e.g. discrimination, clientelism) </li></ul>
    18. 18. Methodological issues in assessing conditional cash transfers <ul><li>Reduce poverty or increase service access/utilization? </li></ul><ul><li>Reduce poverty now or in the future? </li></ul><ul><li>Income or condition? </li></ul><ul><li>Condition or (previous) investment in services? </li></ul><ul><li>Even if they “work” in a carefully selected trial experiment, would they work in a different context? </li></ul><ul><li>Are we sure people did not want to satisfy condition? </li></ul>
    19. 19. Issues for debate: conceptual <ul><li>Universal vs only for marginal groups </li></ul><ul><li>Stand alone vs part of macroeconomic, distributive justice, and development policies </li></ul><ul><li>Mandatory vs voluntary contributions </li></ul><ul><li>Formal vs informal </li></ul><ul><li>Guaranteed minimum vs uncertain benefits </li></ul><ul><li>State vs NGO delivery </li></ul>
    20. 20. Uruguay Program ‘Plan Ceibal’ <ul><li>One personal PC by primary public school kid </li></ul><ul><li>Universal </li></ul><ul><li>Social tool, don’t intent to replace teachers </li></ul><ul><li>Adding value to public school </li></ul><ul><li>Closing the ICT gap </li></ul><ul><li>Family impact </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul>
    21. 21. Dilemmas <ul><li>Cash or kind? </li></ul><ul><li>Conditional or unconditional? </li></ul><ul><li>Universal or targeted? </li></ul>
    22. 22. Cash Transfers Latin America and Caribbean <ul><li>Bolsa escola/Bolsa Familia: Brazil </li></ul><ul><li>“ Bridge” Program (Solidarity): Chile </li></ul><ul><li>“ Chile Crece Contigo”: Chile </li></ul><ul><li>Health, nutrition and family allowances from social development Investment Fund: Costa Rica </li></ul><ul><li>Oportunidades/Progresa: Mexico </li></ul><ul><li>‘ Universal’ Child Benefit: Argentina </li></ul>
    23. 23. Cash Transfers Africa <ul><li>South Africa Social Grant: unconditional, target by household income, over 10 millions </li></ul><ul><li>South Africa Child Support Grant: created 1998 children under 7 now expanded 14 </li></ul><ul><li>Malawi ‘Zomba’ to stay in school: girls poor families </li></ul><ul><li>Zambia pilot target to household with children </li></ul>
    24. 24. Some results <ul><li>Cash transfers and low wages in public work programs may not be sufficient to lift people out of (income) poverty. </li></ul><ul><li>No evidence of dependency. On the contrary, needed support and empowerment provided. </li></ul><ul><li>The transfers need to be predictable, reliable, and regular. </li></ul><ul><li>Conditionality should be handled carefully. </li></ul>
    25. 25. Targeting <ul><li>What is it? </li></ul><ul><li>How does it work? </li></ul><ul><li>Why is it implemented? </li></ul>
    26. 26. Target population Programme E mistake: excessive coverage (leakage) F mistake: failure to reach target population Targeting
    27. 27. Targeting has hidden costs <ul><li>Difficult to identify & reach the poor F mistake, mostly women </li></ul><ul><li>Poor get bumped-off by not-so-poor E mistake, often women & poorest </li></ul><ul><li>Administrative costs are high avoid F/E mistakes; oversight </li></ul><ul><li>Proving eligibility is costly documents, fees, fares, stigma, male-bias </li></ul><ul><li>Sustainability is undermined poor’s voice weak to keep scope/quality </li></ul>
    28. 28. How to avoid targeting when there are no sufficient resources? <ul><li>Progressive realization </li></ul><ul><li>Allows to set criteria for priorities </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Through time (long term plans) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>At a point in time (short term budgets) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Not an excuse to delay efforts </li></ul><ul><li>GOAL: Cohesive/Inclusive societies </li></ul>
    29. 29. Cost recovery: caution <ul><li>User fees generate modest amounts. </li></ul><ul><li>But they reduce access, esp. for poor. </li></ul><ul><li>Exemption & waivers perform poorly. </li></ul><ul><li>User fees deepen gender bias. </li></ul><ul><li>Price signals do not always lead to optimal use. </li></ul>
    30. 30. International Child Benefit <ul><li>Who is responsible for ensuring that child policies are universal? Governments + trans-national corporations + international agencies </li></ul><ul><li>Trans National Corporations’ increasing power: ‘corporate social responsibility’ children are involved in extreme forms of labour by TNC sub-contractors and subsidiaries </li></ul>
    31. 31. International Child Benefit
    32. 32. International Child Benefit <ul><li>Currency Transfer Tax: new resource for child benefit: a CTT of 0.2% would raise U$280 billons </li></ul><ul><li>Peter Townsend </li></ul>