120 likes | 128 Views
This discussion explores the current evidence and research gaps on the wellbeing of children left behind by migrant parents. It highlights the importance of a multidimensional perspective and the need for longitudinal data and child voices to inform policy actions. The discussion also examines the factors that contribute to positive outcomes for children left behind and identifies potential risk factors. It emphasizes the need for context-specific evidence and formal and informal child protection actions.
E N D
Evidence and gaps in research on children “left behind” Dr. Victor Cebotari UNICEF Office of Research Bucharest, 20 November 2018
Top 20 European migrant countries (IOM World Migration Report 2018)
The main outcome of migration The commonality of transnational families, that in which some members of the family migrate and some remain back home
Theory Money and time are crucial resources that parents and other family members can provide for children [Thomson, Hanson, & McLanahan, 1994] Migration is a family strategy to improve the wellbeing of family members (Stark & Bloom 1985) Along these lines, migration comes with benefits and costs for children
Most evidence confines migration to its effects on material resources Remittances in Europe and Central Asia 2017 (IMF and WB data)
Gaps in evidence on children left behind • We know little of this population of children! • Children live in complex family arrangements • Internal – international migration • Multidimensional perspective on child wellbeing • Longitudinal data and evidence • Adults report on children – no child voices • Context specific evidence
What are the current trends in terms of child wellbeing? • Education: performance, attainment, enrollment, years lag, school enjoyment • Health: subjective, objective • Psychological: Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire - SDQ, other • Perceptions of migration • Multidimensional • Comparing children in migrant and non-migrant families • Looking at child reports and caregiver reports compared • Children with different migration experiences • Complexity of care arrangements
Children left behind are doing rather well when… • One parent migrant, the other parent caregiver (especially when the mother is the caregiver) • Stability of care (child does not change caregiver) • Short duration of absence • Remittances, especially when they are used to invest in children • Good quality relationship between the child and migrant parent • Legal residence/work permit abroad • Use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) • Expectation of reunification
Risk factors • Migration + Divorce • Gender – i.e. girls • Child changes caregiver • The child’s primary caregiver is absent, or child is alone • Tension between migrant parent and the caregiver of the child • Child is a returnee
Current Policy Actions • Limited nationwide policy frameworks targeting specifically children left behind! • National action plans on migration (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Moldova, Albania, Serbia, others), State commissions on migration (Georgia), or inter-institutional working groups (Romania) have components on children left behind • Focus on strategic framework, migration management, and observance of children’s rights • Children left-behind are integrated in social protection systems • Small-scale actions by national and international stakeholders
Discussion • Bottom-up approach • Linking evidence and policy actions • Parental migration is not always a vulnerability for children • Dynamic process • Natural tendency among children and families to build resilience • Country and context specific • Relevant empirical evidence • Focus on gaps and risks • Formal and informal child protection actions
Thank you! vcebotari@unicef.org www.unicef-irc.org florence@unicef.org Connect with us on: