Webinar Series on the Measurement of Child Protection

1. Presentation of the MICS Modules for Child Protection 13 February 2013 at 9am and 9pm NY/ET Webinar Series on the Measurement of Child Protection Claudia Cappa and Attila Hancioglu Statistics and Monitoring Section/DPS UNICEF HQ

2. Outline • Discuss some conceptual, methodological, ethical challenges related to the collection of data on child protection through household surveys • Provide an overview of the MICS survey program • Review existing Child Protection Modules in MICS

3. Some preliminary questions • Why do we need data/evidence? • What data/evidence do we need? • What data/evidence do we have? • How can we make be better use of what we have? • How should we get the data/evidence we need?

4. What data/evidence do we need? • Prevalence data on nature and magnitude of CP violations • Risk and protective factors • Evidence on how and why certain violations occur and persist • What works and what does not work for prevention and response • Data and information for the monitoring and evaluation of programmes

5. Main sources of data for CP • Nationally representative household surveys (part of international programs) • Relevant to obtain prevalence estimates; not suitable for understanding why • Use standard data collection methodology and questionnaires to allow for country/regional comparisons and trend analysis • Primary sources of disaggregated data • Typically, data are collected by countries every 3-5 years • “KAP surveys”= Problem with standardization and validation • School-based surveys = Population of children out of school • Administrative data, Census • Special methods are needed to capture certain populations

6. Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys

7. Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys • Household survey program, developed by UNICEF in the 1990s • to assist countries in filling data gaps on children’s and women’s well-being for tracking progress toward World Summit for Children Goals • Nationally representative household sample surveys • Face to face interviews, observations, measurements • Representative sample of households

8. MICS 1995-2014

9. MICS Implementation • Full government ownership • Use globally agreed-upon indicators as starting point, design survey tools around these indicators

10. MICS4 Surveys by Region

11. MICS4 Countries - Global • Low and middle/high income countries • Chad, Mali, Costa Rica, Serbia, Qatar, Argentina • Emergency or post-emergency settings • Somalia, Iraq, Sindh, Sudan • New to MICS (Bhutan, Mali), all MICS rounds (Serbia, Gambia), “returning” countries (Moldova, Afghanistan) • Single household survey data source on children in several countries

12. Questionnaires – Some Features • Factual questions, behavior – some attitude questions • Validated and tested questions/modules • All questions contribute to either the numerator or denominator of a well-defined indicator • Indicators are mostly those adopted and endorsed by the international community • MDGs, interagency indicator sets, other international commitments

13. Features

14. Questionnaires and Topics • Household Questionnaire • Usual members of households • Women’s Questionnaire (Age 15-49) • With Birth Histories • Without Birth Histories • Men’s Questionnaire (Age 15-49) • Usually for a sub-sample • Under-5 Questionnaire • Administered to mothers or primary caretakers of under-5s

16. MICS strategy for inclusion of new topics Global relevance UNICEF priority Programmatic relevance Validated, tested Economical and simple Maintain eligibility, general structure Avoid further sophistication

17. MICS 2013-2014

18. Timelines • Global Pilot Survey (Bangladesh, May-June 2012, 1000 households) • Official launch by UNICEF (October 2012) • Finalize survey instruments • …and supporting documents (by March 2013) • Workshops: March 2013 onwards • Survey implementation • 2013 - First quarter 2014 at the latest for surveys servicing MDG reporting • 2013 and 2014 for all other surveys

19. Timeline for Global Reporting on MDGs 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 MICS 4 MICS 5 Large number of countries expected to conduct surveys for MDG monitoring Data compilation and analysis Summer 2014 Submission of data for SG’s report March 2015 SG’s MDG Report launch September 2015

20. Child Protection Modules in MICS

21. MICS and Child Protection Largest source of internationally comparable data on Child Protection (countries covered, topics) Groups of children that out of the scope of a household survey: Children living in institutions, children living on the street, etc. Comparison with other surveys - other non-specialized household surveys (DHS, RHS) - thematic household surveys (SIMPOC, VAC) - school based-surveys (GSHS, HBSC)

22. Child Protection Modules in MICS • Birth Registration • Child Labour • Child Discipline • Child Marriage • Attitudes towards Domestic Violence • FGM Other relevant cross-cutting issues • Living arrangements • Child Disability • Children in Child-Headed Household

23. MICS countries that collected data on CP

24. Birth Registration

25. Questionnaire

26. MICS Indicator Numerator: • Number of children under age 5 whose births are reported registered Denominator: • Total number of children under age 5

27. Child Labour

28. Questionnaire New module developed in consultation with ILO Background data analyses to establish sensitivities of questions to CL prevalence Progress towards harmonization of data collection tools, but significant differences remain with SIMPOC and ILO estimates New age group 5-17 Three components: economic activities, hazardous working conditions and household chores

29. Child Labour – MICS Indicators • Percentage of children 5-17 years of age involved in child labour Age 5–11 years: At least 1 hour of economic work or 28 hours of domestic work per week Age 12–14 years: At least 14 hours of economic work or 28 hours of domestic work per week Age 15-17: At least 43 hours of economic work or domestic work per week • Percentage of children 5-17 years of age working under hazardous conditions

30. Child Discipline

31. Child Discipline Module • Questions addressed to family relatives/mothers or primary caregivers of one randomly selected child aged 2 to 14 years old • The questionnaire asked whether any member of the household had used any of various disciplinary practices with that child during the past month • 8 violent disciplinary practices: 2 psychological (such as shouting and name calling); 6 physical (such as shaking, spanking and hitting with an implement) • 3 non-violent disciplinary practices (such as taking away privileges and explaining why something is wrong) • Assesses respondents’ attitude toward physical punishment

32. Violent Discipline Indicator • Numerator: Children age 2-14 years who experienced any violent discipline (psychological aggression or physical punishment) during the 30 days preceding the survey • Denominator: Children age 2-14

33. Child Marriage

34. MICS Indicators • Marriage before age 15: Proportion of women age 15-49 years who were first married or in union by the exact age of 15 • Marriage before age 18: Proportion of women age 20-49 years who were first married or in union by the exact age of 18 • Young women age 15-19 years currently married or in union • Polygyny: Proportion of women age 15-49 years who are in a polygynous union • Spousal age difference: Proportion of women currently married or in union whose spouse is 10 or more years older (a) for women age 15-19 years, (b) for women age 20-24 years

35. Attitudes towards domestic violence

36. Background • Collecting and analyzing information on the reasons why wife beating is justified makes it possible to under gender attitudes towards the female roles of wife, mother, and domestic partner • Measurement of practices of violence against women, although possible, raise ethical and methodological issues • Positive attitudes towards domestic violence have been found to be associated with the prevalence of domestic violence; still many women justify domestic violence even if they have not been victims • Positive attitudes do not necessarily signify approval by women of wife-beating, but they signify women’s acceptance of such norms

37. MICS Indicator Percentage of women aged 15-49 who state that a husband/partner is justified in hitting or beating his wife in at least one of the following circumstances: • (1) she goes out without telling him • (2) she neglects the children • (3) she argues with him • (4) she refuses sex with him • (5) she burns the food

38. Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting

39. Innovations in data collection • Change in the questionnaire for daughters: new questionnaire allows for calculating prevalence for age group 0-14 • Most surveys conducted before 2010 and some of the 2010 surveys asked women about the FGM/C status of only one daughter, either the first born, or the most recently cut • Changes introduced in MICS 4 (2010-2011) and adopted by DHS surveys as well

40. Rationale and methodological considerations • Prevalence rates can provide an enhanced understanding of FGM/C among the youngest age groups where recent intervention efforts would, in many settings, show the most impact • However, girls 0-14 may still be exposed to the risk of being circumcised depending on the age at which FGM/C is generally performed (censored observations) • Importance of taking age at cutting into account • As age at cutting varies in different settings, the amount of censoring will vary • Caution is needed when comparing across age cohorts and across surveys

41. Module Three sets of questions: 1) Questions for women 15-49 years of age: • Knowledge of the practice • If FGM/C has happened to her • Type of procedure: if flesh was removed, nicked without removing flesh, sewn closed • Age of circumcision • Performer: traditional performer, health personnel 2) Questions for FGM/C for daughters (0-14): • Circumcision status of all daughters below age 15 • Type of procedure • Age of circumcision • Performer: traditional performer, health personnel 3) Attitudes regarding the continuation of the practice

42. MICS Indicators • Approval for FGM/C Number of women age 15-49 years favouring the continuation of female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C)/Total number of women age 15-49 years who have heard of FGM/C • Prevalence of FGM/C among women Number of women age 15-49 years who report to have undergone any form of female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C)/Total number of women age 15-49 years • Prevalence of FGM/C among girls Number of girls age 0-14 years who have undergone any form of female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C), as reported by mothers/ Total number of girls age 0-14 years

43. THANK YOU