Protecting Vulnerable Children in Times of Crisis

In Times of Crisis: Protecting the Vulnerable and Investing in Children Gaspar Fajth UNICEF Policy and Practice New York 6 February, 2009

The structure of the presentation • Arguments: why children should get priority • Reality check: evidence on the impact of • structural poverty • economic shocks • Policy options: the need to focus on progress • outcomes • institutions

Why children should get priority in public policy? 1. Moral and legal commitments • Private and public support • 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child 2. High returns to investment • Childhood is the best opportunity to invest in human resources • Social rates of returns are particularly high among girls • Gains in social stability, social cohesion and economic growth 3. High risks that this investment will not happen, due to • Child and household poverty or social exclusion • Poor maternal nutrition, health • Lack of basic social services, shelter • Loss of parental upbringing, exposure to abuse, violence • Low awareness on children’s individual needs or discrimination (gender, disability) • Lack of early childhood support, youth support • Labour market discrimination, vulnerability to economic cycles • Economic and social crises 4. Short window opportunity • Vulnerability: permanently damaging effects of even temporarily lack of support

The case for investing in children is global and evidence-based… • Micronutrients for children • the most productive global investment (Copenhagen Consensus, 2008) • providing essential vitamins and minerals would cost $60 million per year and hold annual benefits above $1 billion: a 1500 per cent rate of return (Horton at al 2008) • Infant and maternal nutrition • shifting one low birth weight infant to non-low birth weight status would yield $580 in productivity and social gains in poor countries (Behrman at al 2004) • evidence in rural Guatemala suggests that that for every 100 gram increase in maternal birth weight, her infant’s birth weight increased by 29 grams (Ramakrisnan at al 1999) • Early childhood development • analysis of four early childhood and pre-school programmes indicates benefit-cost ratios range between 3.8-17.0 to one in the US (Schweinhart, L 2004) • Basic education • the estimated rate of return to one additional year of schooling is 10 per cent on average globally even without counting the social benefits of better education (Psacharopoulos at al. (2004) • Child protection • Children from socio-economically deprived families had a chance 700 times the average for placement in substitute care in the UK (Bebbington and Miles, 1989) … suggesting such investments yield high and long-lasting returns for both families and entire societies.

Global evidence on the impact of structural poverty on children • nutrition • water, sanitation, shelter • access to any health service • access to information, formal education • equal opportunity to participate

Severe nutrition deprivation prevalence% of young children below 3 standard deviation from norm (weight for age) Over 90 million under 5 year olds … up to 300 million children

Children exposed to severe sanitation, water, food and health service deprivation Between 570-260 million children…

Children exposed to shelter, information and education deprivation Between 600 and 130 million children

Child deprivations accumulate… and often overlap One out of two children is exposed to severe deprivation of human need

Inheriting income advantages: the extent fathers’ earnings determine the future earnings of their children (%) Equal opportunity?

Global evidence on the impact of economic shocks on children • survival, nutrition, health • access to health service • access to education • child protection, family upbringing

Examples: • Child survival: -1.0% GDP= +0.6% IMR • in 59 developing countries experiencing shocks in the past 1 % drop in per capita GDP was associated with 0.3-0.8 % increase in infant deaths • Access to health service: down by a third • the number of young children taken to health care centers fell from 47% to 28% between 1997 and 1998 in Indonesia during the financial crisis • Access to education: strong correlation • upper secondary enrolment rates have fallen in 18 out of 24 CEE/CIS countries in the 1990s showing correlation with falling output • Child protection: child abandonment rises • infant home placement rates have increased in 20 out of 26 CEE/CIS countries in the 1990s

The structure of the presentation • Arguments: why children should get priority • Reality check: evidence on the impact of • structural poverty • economic shocks • Policy options: the need to focus on progress • results - outcomes • institutions

Child sensitive social protection: proven results • reduced child poverty, improved family income stability (MDG 1) • improved preventive health care (MDG 4 and 5) • higher immunization rates (MDG 4) • better nutrition (MDG 1, 4 and 6) • reduced school drop-out (MDG 2) • higher primary and secondary school enrolment rates (MDG 2) • improved secondary attendance, especially for girls (MDG 3) • decline in child labour among children in rural areas (MDG 2, 8)

Social protection: the importance of institutions building • Is the social protection system • child and gender sensitive? • pro-poor? • efficient? • provide spillovers to social services? • Can it work • as anti-cyclical economic policy tool? • as rapid response tool in times of crisis (tsunami, food prices, income shocks etc)? • Will the next crises find countries and the international community better prepared?

Thank yougfajth@unicef.orghttp://www.unicef.org/policyanalysis/index.html

Protecting Vulnerable Children in Times of Crisis