KEEPING FAMILIES TOGETHER Making social protection more effective for children

1. KEEPING FAMILIES TOGETHER Making social protection more effective for children Reflections on the results of a study in Albania, Kazakhstan and Ukraine (CEE/CIS) Anna NordenmarkSeverinsson, Child Protection Specialist, UNICEF Regional Office for CEECIS at Seminar on Social Transfers and Child Protection, Florence, 19-20 March 2013

2. Focus of the study: «Keepingfamiliestogether – making social protection more effective for children» • Action research – to influence and advocate for reforms • Hypothesis: separation of childrenfromtheirfamiliesis an indicator of vulnerability of a family and canbepreventedwith a acombination of social assistance and social services (components of social protection). • Research questions: Whatis the impact of current social assistance schemes and social services on the mostvulnerable? What are the barriers to access of these (if any)? • Timing: Research in 2011, in 2012 – global SP framework, repackage of findings • Methodology: Mixed methods (desk review, qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis) • Sources of information: Survey data, semi-structured interviews with key (30/country) stakeholders, focus group discussions ( 4 groups w 10 participants each / country) with parents who are service users / receipients of SA and with services providers. • Coverage: Albania (2 municipalities), Kazakhstan (3 regions) and Ukraine (2 regions): urban/rural

3. Rationale for the research Source: EU DaphnéProgramme (2004)

4. Background on CEE/CIS • 1.3 million children in alternative care, out of which 50% in large scale residential care – largest rate of alternative care placements in the world (?) – a result of the “pull-effect” of the system • Increasingseparation of childrenfromfamilies in spite of efforts to ” reform ” the system

5. Children w. disability over-represented in care and benefitinglessfromreforms UNICEF Regional office CEE/CIS

6. Childrenunder 3 in residential care – mostvulnerable and not prioritized UNICEF Regional office CEE/CIS

7. UNICEF’s work in child protection in CEE/CIS Social Transfers Programs to access services REFORM OF EXISTING SERVICES Support and care Legislation

8. UNICEF Social Protection Work an overviewShow and Tell on Social Protection Bonn, 2011 • SNAPSHOT OF FINDINGS • Access • Barriers to access • Impact • Barriers to impact

9. Meanstestedpovertyallieviationschemes

10. Categoricalbenefitsschemes

11. Access to social assistance of mostvulnerable • Countries have various social assistance benefits that children and parents can access • The infrastructure to administer them is extensive in all countries. • … but, the social benefits system is difficult to access and requiring a great deal of effort for little reward (as experienced by parents interviewed). • … and a large proportion of the recipients are the non-poor. • Categoricalbenefits are reachinghigher proportions of the poorestfamiliesthanmeans-testedschemes (especiallythe birthgrants, 0-3 benefitsand disabilitybenefits) ATTENTION! • Social assistance benefits are mostoftentargetedtowardspovertyalleviationand canonlyindirectlypreventfamilyseparation, dysfunctionality and disintegration. • Multiple vulnerability often does not qualify for multiple supports… families often have to chose between benefits. • Exclusion of certain groups limit impact: i.e. informal carers, landowners

12. Gatekeeping and family support services

13. Access to social services of mostvulnerable • Social services remain over-relying on residential care, even if there are pilot initiatives for inclusive education, rehabilitation services, therapy and community based services for children with disability and children from vulnerable families. • Embryonic case management and weakness of social work and the administrative and managerial infrastructure emerged as a key gap. • There is a lack of understanding about what social work is, how it differs from social assistance and what the functions and roles of a social worker are within the social protection system. • Tools of social workers,such as emergency social assistance, access to housing to respond to family crisis and acute risks of abandonment remain few. • Social workers report facing “demeaning attitude towards their profession, and little appreciation”. • Free legalaidexists in most countries, but isseldomused to challenge decisions made by the system on accessibility to social protection and decisions on placement of children in care “People do not want to complain as it costs money. Besides, I think people do not trust and do not believe in positive consequences of complaints” Parent, Ukraine

14. Barriers to access 1: Lack of information about services, benefits “The mentality here is still very much related to money and not to different types of social services that they could have or would support them. There needs to be more public awareness of social services. This lack of understanding also impacts as a barrier to the approaches and work of the professionals”. Local government worker (after piloting professional social work for 18 months in one locality on the lack of demand for social work support, Albania “I have absolutely no clue where I can refer for support for my disabled child. What other types of benefits I can additionally get” Mother of disabled child, Albania

15. Barriers to access 2: Stigma and discrimination against service users “The state institutions close the doors to Roma or Egyptian families, or do not provide the right information. When they finally manage to find the right office, the employer says; well I am sorry but you missed the deadline and you can not apply anymore. So those families do not have access because they lack information and do not know the rules, procedures and deadlines to apply to social benefits.” Frontline worker, Albania “Institutions….that provide services or cash benefits are often aggressive and rude to families with disabled children” – "They come and check often; they even check children’s bed… it is so humiliating” Parent, Kazakhstan

16. Barriers to access 3: Complexity to application process • Numberand types of documents that have to begathered by applicants, oftenatsomeexpense: • Application involvestravel, stayovernight, (i.e. legacy of Soviet registration system - familieswithout registration are not eligible for benefits. Thosewho have migrated to cities have to return to the place wherethey are registered.) “They wrote a wrong letter in the name N., made a mistake. They said that I should redo it, so I had to come again, It is really hard, we save money for travel, we arrive and then we stay hungry all day. Just because of one wrong letter they force us to rewrite a document. We do the correction, we come again next day but the specialist is not there. Or, sometimes you give them a document, but they don’t know what to do with it. Because the person who is responsible is not informed enough. We also have to pay for all photocopies of these documents”. Parent, Kazakhstan

17. Impact 1: In spite of weaknesses – impact canbeachieved “I am very satisfied with the support I received especially at the beginning. When I gave birth to my child they [social workers] helped me significantly. I did not have any money at all. They bought diapers even. Later they helped me to gather all the necessary documents to apply for social benefits. And now they also call me and ask whether any further assistance is needed.” Young mother with child under 1, Ukraine “Social services help families, they help to assess situations in adequate manner, they make families to feel more secure, they help to find solutions”. Grandfather, guardian of his granddaughter, Ukraine “If I did not receive this [service provided by NGO]…I would die or I would place have to place my children into an orphanage”. Formal kinship carer, Albania

18. Impact 2: Impact is not maximized for a number of reasons • Disintegrationof social protection systems leads to limitedimpact to address other risks than most acute poverty. • Lack of supply: Incl. types of services, equitable distribution, cost of services, quality of services and bureaucracy - limit the impact on vulnerable families of existing social protection mechanisms and services. • Lack of outreach: Social assistance and social services systems tend to bereactiveratherthanpro-active. The services and benefitssystems do not reach out to activelyseek and engage withtheirtarget groups. Parents and carersthereforeneed to workreally hard to accessthem. • Lack of mechansims for creating synergiesbetweenpolicies and practicalintegration of the system (i.e. sharing information systems on beneficiaries, comprehensiveassessments on needs and contexts to guide delivery of comprehensive set of interventions, multi sectoral coordination etc.)

19. Impact 3 – some people are more likely to miss out… - thosewhoneeditmost…? • Multiple factorsseem to contributeto greatervulnerability: poor, rural and disability– itrequires an integratedresponsewhichis not the current practice (services and benefits) • Families with children with disabilities have least access to appropriate, relevant and responsive services– being a group of children who are over-represented in care in CEE/CIS this is of course alarming • Stumbling blocks to accessibility of services and benefits often multiply if you have a disability and reforms have not changed this.

20. UNICEF Social Protection Work an overviewShow and Tell on Social Protection Bonn, 2011 CONCLUSION: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES

21. Implications for system design to achievebetter impact • Synergies, synergies and integration… of policies and systems for social assistance and social serfices • Outreach (both assistance and services) • Activerecruitment of child protection cases (for benefits) • Recognition of multiple factors to vulnerability: Net better than brut when deciding on entitlements • Considerable investment at birth and early years • Focus on disability

22. Opportunities for linkages • Institutional – mandate for social assistance and child protection rests in many countries with the same ministry, BUT… “old” assistance and services still occupy the space and absorbs most budget • Organizational – On the ground, the responsibility for determining eligibility for social assistance often rests with social welfare officers (social administartors etc.) BUT… these officers end up spending most of their time on gatekeeping and administrative duties related to social assistance, rather than case management for child protection. Re-profiling and emergence of social workers, expansion of this profession also through intro. Of modern social work university courses and re-training programmes, in parallel with reforms in social assistance programmes is a great opportunity. • Objectives – As seen in CEE/CIS, gaps in social protection places burden on child protection system. In changing focus from poverty alleviation (minimum level of income) to minimum level of well-being there will be greater opportunities for synergetic effect (both to achieve poverty reduction and greater child protection outcomes). Should we also look North for some best practices in design of integrated SP systems? • Target groups – Many households with children in need of protection will also be the ones who are vulnerable to poverty – so there might be an automatic synergetic effect. BUT only if poverty is the single cause, more complex cases (majority?) will need a combination of supports.