Developing indicators for the Family for EveryChild Baseline on children without parental care (2012)

Developing indicators for monitoring the context & policy situation for children without parental care (2012)Carola Eyber & Maggie Brown (INTRAC) forCoalition Family for EveryChild1Sections of this presentation:Background & purpose of the reportMethodology: Process of identifying indicators & data collectionKey findings (brief)Key challenges: Methodological & context/policy related

2Section 1: Background & purpose of the report

Photo source: www.enca.com: South African grandmother with child

3BackgroundIn 2011 EveryChild together with partner organisations formed an international coalition Family for EveryChild. This Coalition is to transform into an Alliance in 2014 which will take on the advocacy role for children without parental care (CWPC).

Aims of the Coalition: to mobilise knowledge, skills and resources so that more children without parental care, or at risk of losing parental care, can grow up in caring families or in appropriate alternative care.

EveryChild as a member of this Coalition commissioned a context & policy study which would allow the Coalition and future Alliance to assess and monitor its progress and achievements in future.

4Purpose of the Context & Policy Analysis report1) To measure trends and progress in relation to outcomes and impacts for and with children over time

2) To inform advocacy targets such as:The situation on children under 3 in institutionsThe major gaps and issues in relation to compliance with the UN Guidelines for all groups of CWPCTo contribute to debates on the post MDG agenda

3) To provide comparative information across Coalition Member countries that will help with defining country and regional level priority issues

4) To identify data gaps at national level and to review national data systems.

5Countries for which baseline indicators were collectedEgyptEthiopiaSouth AfricaBrazilMexicoGuyanaIndiaRussian FederationTajikistanIndonesia

6Context & policy situation in relation to:Seven groups of children without parental/adequate care:Children in institutionsChildren in foster careChildren in kinship careChildren who are adoptedChildren in detentionChildren living on streetsChildren living with exploitative employers

+ policies for preventing separation

Focus on first 3 types of situations as well as on prevention. 7Section 2:Methodology: Process of identifying indicators & data collection

8Process of identifying indicatorsIdentified those categories of children for which established indicators existed: Better Care Network indicators for Formal Care and on the Juvenile Justice Indicators (UNICEF)Searched guidelines and policy documents for potential indicators and compiled these for each category Focused here predominantly on first 3 categories & indicators of risk of separationConsulted Coalition members on the proposed indicators and removed/added as per suggestions

Decided to focus on: country context indicators policy indicators and quantitative impact indicators9Country context indicators1) Poverty data by Coalition member country:Poverty (% of population living on less than $2,- a day)Under 5 mortality rateNet migration rateChild labour

2) Violence, abuse & neglect indicators by Coalition member country: Acceptance of violence against children, Justification of wife beating Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting

The UNICEF MICS has developed and tested a unit on disability but this has not yet been introduced into the MICS surveys. For future updates of this information the following factors that are related to separation of children and disability may be useful to collect but it is not anticipated that this information will be readily available over the next few years:The prevalence of disability of different types within children by age band in order to plan for appropriate servicesAttitudes towards disability as negative social perceptions about disability can be a major factor in placing children in institutions.The prevention of disability, mainly through effective pre and post natal care.

103) Disability:

Under 5s underweight (moderate and severe)% pregnant women who attend 4 ante natal appointments% skilled attendant at birth% fully immunized against polio (as example of prevention by vaccination)% exclusively breastfed (0-6 months)% Vitamin A supplement coverage rate

4) HIV/AIDS and maternal mortalityNumber people living with HIV (UNAIDS)Women aged 15 and over living with HIV (UNAIDS)% adult prevalence of HIV aged 15-49 years (UNICEF/ UNAIDS)% of eligible adults and children currently receiving ART (UNAIDS% known to be on ART treatment 12 months after initiating treatment (UNAIDS)Maternal mortality per 100,000 live births (UNICEF)

115) Access to good quality education

Pre-primary access (gross enrolment). Net attendance rate for enrolled children at primary school Survival rate to last primary grade (survey data)

6)Armed conflict and natural disastersNumbers of population affected by disasters in previous yearInternally displaced population in previous yearNumber of children under 18 years displaced or refugees within the country

Pre-primary access (gross enrolment). This indicator is referred to as Attendance at early childhood eduction in the MICS. (http://www.childinfo.org/education_preprimary.php)Net attendance rate for enrolled children at primary school (http://www.childinfo.org/education_netattendance.php)Survival rate to last

Numbers of population affected by disasters in previous year. Thsi data is avaialbel from the International Disaster Database (EM-DAT) at: http://www.emdat.be/result-country-profileInternally displaced population in previous year. This data is available from the Internal Dispalcement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) at: http://www.internal-displacement.org/Number of children under 18 years displaced or refugees within the country (as a result of conflict). This data is available at the UNHCR website (often within a table titled - Demographic composition of populations of concern to UNHCR) and might require a calculation using the % figure given for population of concern under 18 and % per gender): http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49c3646c4d6.htmlAlso check recent UNHCR statistical yearbooks such as http://www.unhcr.org/4ef9c7269.htmlt primary grade (survey data) 127) Adolescent births, overcrowding and orphanhood

Adolescent birth rate which is defined as the number of births per 100,000 girls aged 15-19The percentage of households with 8 or more members indicating possible overcrowdingNumber of orphans due to all causesThe percentage of all children who are orphaned or one or both parents13Impact indicators1) Children living without parents in household

DHS surveys provide information: The percentage of children living without either parent in the householdThe percentage of children not living with either parent by age groupIMPACT INDICATORS These are quantitative indicators that measure the situation of children without parental care. They do not measure the quality of care as that will be assessed through audits against the policy indicators. We measured these in relation to children in residential care, children in alternative formal care & children in informal kinships care

14Impact indicators2) Children in residential care

INDICATORS CORE QUANTITATIVE INDICATORS SOURCE

Children entering residential care Number of children entering residential care during a 12 month period per 100,00 child population Admin data or purposive survey

Children living in Residential Care Number of children living in residential care on a given date per 100,000 child population. Admin data or purposive survey & census data15INDICATORS CORE QUANTITATIVE INDICATORS SOURCE Children leaving residential care for a family placement*

Proportion of all children (< 15 years) leaving residential care for a family placement, including reunification, in a 12 month period. Admin data or purposive survey

Ratio of children in residential versus family based care

Proportion of all children in formal care who are currently accommodated in residential care

Children under 3 years in residential care

Number of children under 3 years in residential care + percentage of children under 3 in relation to all children in residential care

163) Children in alternative formal careINDICATORS

CORE QUANTITATIVE INDICATORS SOURCE

Children entering formal alternative family care

Number of children entering formal family care during a 12 month period per 100,000 child population.

Admin data or purposive survey

Children living in formal alternative family careNumber of children living in formal foster care or guardianship on a given date per 100,000 child population

Children leaving alternative family care for a permanent family placement Proportion of all children < 15 years leaving formal alternative family care for a permanent family placement in 12 months periodDisaggregate by sex & age if possible17INDICATORS CORE QUANTITATIVE INDICATORS SOURCE Contact with parents family and community* Percentage of children in formal alternative family care who have been visited by family and friends (from community of origin) in last 3 months Survey of sample of children in formal alternative family care

Care plans

% of children who have a) passed through formal assessment process and b) have an individual care plan. Survey of sample of children in formal alternative care 184) Children in informal kinship careINDICATORS CORE QUANTITATIVE INDICATORS SOURCE Children cared for in kinship care % of children in all households surveyed whose parents are not present (by age & gender) % of children in kinship care whose mother and father have both died (by age & gender)Survey DHS Census, MICS

Social transfers % of HH providing kinship care with regular and predictable access to cash or kind transfers Purposive Survey or some DHS/MICS surveys

Social services % of HH providing kinship care have received family support services over past 12 months Purposive Survey or UNICEF HIV Stocktaking reports Social transfers: (e.g. foster/child care grants, fee waivers, vouchers, food baskets)

Social services: e.g. parenting skills, pre-school care, substance abuse treatment, conflict resolution.

The following indicators were used in the August 2012 report:% of households that include at least one child who is a relative and neither parent is present% of children in all households surveyed whose parents are not present (by age & gender)% of children in kinship care whose mother and father have both died (by age & gender)% of children in kinship care aged 5-17 who currently attend school% of households providing kinship care with regular and predictable access to social protection transfersThe data for this category of CWPC presents challenges for the Child context and Country information reports and data availability varies substantially from country to country: Data on kinshisp care is avaialbe in South Africa and Ethiopia, but hardly any for Mexicoa and Brazil (where childrne living with relatives are not ocnsidered ot be separated).It was difficult to find data for the two indicators that attempt ot measure the percentage of households as this is not usually recorded. While it is theorteicaly possibel to work this out from DHS data we would not advise this (please see Box XX on DHS data on page xx). The indicators on percentage of children in kinship care whose mother and father have died is often not available as it is not colelcted in relation to type fo care received.The relationship between social protection and kinship care is not recorded.

19Policy & legislation indicators on preventing separation

Policies on alternative care prioritise support for parents and extended families (over institutional care or foster care) Provision of family strengthening services (such as parenting skills, pre-school care, substance abuse treatment, conflict resolution). Provision for child sensitive social protection (such as predictable social transfers and programmes to ensure access to essential services) National disaster preparedness policies include reference to the importance of preventing family separation and providing alternative family based care for children without parental care.

Policy & legislation indicators20Policy & legislation indicators on preventing separation ctd.National Plans of Action for Orphans and Vulnerable Children should include reference to alternative care and the importance of family based care. Training and capacity building of social work professionals and para professionals in order to fulfil core functions of child protection, support to carers, gatekeeping, care planning and service management. Provision for the diversion of juveniles from court procedures and from detention, as well as provision for the after care of juveniles released from detention.

21On the quality of alternative care of children

Strategies for developing alternatives to large scale institutions

The development of a wide range of care options for CWPC and a specific policy that no under 3s should be in residential care

Orientation on care planning and standards for the regular review of care

Establish systems for the registration and regulation of foster carers at district and national levels 22On the quality of alternative care of children ctd.Establish systems for the registration/ regulation of all residential institutions and group homes

Acknowledge the importance of child participation in decisions regarding care

Make explicit reference to the importance of providing high quality care for children with disabilities.

Policies and standards on domestic adoption and ratification of the Hague Convention on international adoption.

23Process of data collection:Identifying trustworthy & standardised data sourcesAccessing DHS dataUndertook some calculation of DHS data (potential is there for this to be done for some of the variables/indicators)Key actors in-country as sources of data, including Coalition membersInvestigate relationship between policy, legislation & monitoring of implementation

24Sources of informationWhere possible one single source of information has been used:

UNICEF MICS country profiles: http://www.childinfo.org/mics.html UNICEF member country reports on specific issues (various websites)Periodic reports to the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC Report): http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/DHS data: (usually in the form of Country reports : http://www.measuredhs.com/Data/ National census data (various websites)Child Rights Information Network: http://www.crin.org/Better Care Network: http://www.crin.org/bcn/Country-specific Ministries on child, youth, welfare, development, women, health, education (various websites)UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre: http://www.unicef-irc.org/TransMonEE for Central & Eastern Europe: http://www.transmonee.org/25Information that was difficult to find:Child participation in decision-makingChildren who are orphans in formal care, CHH etc.Violence & abuse of childrenChildren under 3 in residential careQuality of care Contact with parentsChildren living with exploitative employers

26Section 3: Key findings

27Key findingsReasons for children losing parental care are complex, context specific and interactive Rates of children living in institutions: no linear relationship with poverty statistics Disability appears to be a much more significant factor in losing parental care, especially to institutions, in some countries than others. The country that has the highest percentage of children living without both parents, South Africa at 23%, also has an extensive system of grants to foster carers, the majority of whom are relatives. In relation to children under five years in institutions, rates are especially high in Brazil, Egypt and Mexico, all of which feature within the groups of countries with the lowest overall rates of children in institutions.

Some of the interesting and sometimes surprising findings are: 28Key findings ctd.Kinship care was by far the highest for children living away from parents (greatest proportion with grandparents). In Ethiopia, 19% of all households include at least one child with no parent present.

The percentage of children in kinship care increases with age band in all countries but the total varies considerably between societies. In Tajikistan only 3% of 15-17 year olds were living without either parent and of these 11.5% had been orphaned of one or both parents. By comparison, 29.4% of children aged 12-17 in South Africa were living without either parent and, of these, only 4.6% were orphaned of both parents.

The development of policy and the implementation of foster care systems has been unequal across different regions and countries.

29Key findings ctd.Child headed households: South Africa & Guyana had the highest number. Census data shows that 88% of children in CHH are aged 15 years or over and 44% of CHH in South Africa consist of only one childThe Russian Federation followed by Guyana had the highest rates of children in detention. Children living on the streets: statistics are very weak -only Brazil had conducted a census. For India and Brazil, estimates of children actually sleeping on the streets are much lower than those working on the streets. For children with exploitative employers, data is extremely sparse. Policies to prevent children losing parental care: the strongest policy frameworks are in Brazil, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia and Guyana - have recently passed new legislation or strong guidelinesCHH: although statistics were not available for most countries.

Policies to prevent separation: Brazil has had a robust framework through the Childrens Statute since 1990. 30Key findings ctd.Social protection to prevent separation through poverty, the strongest are Brazil (Bolsa Famlia), Indonesia (Family Hope), Mexico (Oportunidades), the Russian Federation (Children of Russia), South Africa (Child Support Grants and Care Dependency Grants).In most countries no clear statement about prioritising family care over institutions: Guidelines exist for care planning and standards in seven out of ten countries and systems for the registration of foster carers were found in all countries. Guidelines and systems were found for the registration of residential institutions in all but one country (Egypt) but in some countries they are not working effectively and many unregistered institutions continue to function (South Africa, Mexico).In most countries no clear statement about prioritising family care over institutions: only Indonesia has new guidelines that specify children under 3 cannot be placed in institutions. Guidelines exist for care planning and standards in seven out of ten countries and systems for the registration of foster carers were found in all countries. Guidelines and systems were found for the registration of residential institutions in all but one country (Egypt) but in some countries they are not working effectively and many unregistered institutions continue to function (South Africa, Mexico).

31Section 4: Key Challenges

32Gaps in the data & information systemData not collected:

Throughput statistics on children in formal care (except Russian Fed & Tajikistan)Data on different types of residential careData on children leaving formal care for a family placementData on prevalence of disability by age & gender & relationship to separation (except Russian Fed, Brazil & Tajikistan)

Data not collected Throughput statistics on children in formal care. These were not available for any country except the Russian Federation and Tajikistan through Transmonee. Data on children leaving formal care (residential and foster care) for a family placement. Standardisation of data collection by age group: it was not possible to consolidate data across countries on children under three in residential care. Data on the distinction between types of residential care: large institutions, small group home, childrens villages. Data on children in formal non-family foster care separated out from information on guardianship with families. There is also sometimes an overlap in data which does not allow for more nuanced analysis of child well-being outcomes for the different categories of formal foster care10. Information on the extent to which children in formal care are in contact with family, have formal assessments and individual care plans. Most countries are not collecting data on violence but more indicators of this nature could be included in the MICS. Information on the prevalence of disability by age and gender and how it links to child separation. This is almost entirely missing with the exception of Brazil, Russian Federation and Tajikistan. Data on child separation in the context of exploitation employment. There are major gaps in children in detention: most of the formal indicators are not available. Census data on street children is largely missing, but Brazil succeeded in undertaking a census.332) Data not analysed:

DHS data on the relationship of children living without parents to the head of household: this is collected but not included in the analysis in reportsDHS data could provide analysis on children living with kin as head of household and basic welfare data (access to school, last class achieved etc.). DHS data could also provide information on child headed households if these indicators were included at the time of analysis; the data is collected.

34Key methodological challengesIt was not possible to analyse the effect of universal social protection systems on the loss of parental care as those countries with the most effective systems, Brazil and Mexico, did not have statistics on children living without both parents. However, this would be interesting to review through census statistics. Kinship care: the exact breakdown of relationship to the head of household and the total percentage of households was not available for all countries. This may be data that could be relatively easy to obtain from DHS surveys if it was included as an indicator from the beginning. Data at times was weak and incomplete: entry into foster care; contact with birth families etc.

The only countries systematically recording entry into foster care are Brazil, South Africa, the Russian Federation and Tajikistan. For Russia and Tajikistan the TransMonEE data is relevant: http://www.transmonee.org/. In South Africa data is available on foster care grants at the website of the Childrens Institute: http://www.childrencount.ci.org.za/ . In Brazil thsi data was available from teh Ministrio do Desenvolvimento Social e Combate a Fome. Foster care is currently included in the system being established in India but was not available for the August 2012 report. Even in countries that are registering information, there is no recording of the flux of entry into foster care per 12 months and on the extent to which children have maintained contact with birth families. The information on this website is based on data of the SOCPENadministrative data system of the South African Social Security Agency

35Key policy challengesNeed broad agreement on core indicators for children without adequate care amongst key actorsFormal care indicators need to include children under 3Collecting high quality data for policy making requires strong technical capacity and political will by the State to establish systems for data collection and collation through government departments or national statistics offices Although various household surveys are already undertaken and data collected that could provide information on children in kinship care, in informal non-relative foster care and in child headed households, most are not currently analysed against those variables.Census systems could also provide that data if those indicators were included in the design stage of the censusEstablishing state systems for data collection: Where that exists, for example in Brazil where the government is promoting the UN Guidelines, systems have been established from unit level (i.e. from each residential care centre, local foster care systems, adoption agencies, detention institutions) upwards and to undertake surveys to collect and collate data for policymaking and strategic decision making. In India, an on-line system has been established for data entry at unit level and for collation at State level.

Existing data not analysed or sufficiently collected: Census data, multiple indicator cluster surveys (UNICEF/Government MICS surveys) and demographic and health surveys (Government DHS surveys often promoted by USAID) could provide further information on the numbers of children in alternative family care, relationship to the head of household and on their health and education situation compared to the general population of children. However, those indicators would need to be established beforehand and included in the analysis.

in some countries, census systems could also provide that data if those indicators were included in the design stage of the census. In Ethiopia, for example, a strong census system that includes collecting data from citizens in institutional care and registers disability could serve as an important source of data on separated children if new indicators were introduced 36Key challenges ctd.Technical capacity in qualitative research and especially the political will to engage children systematically in research is present. To ensure that data is used for policymaking and strategies, national bodies such as national councils for childrens rights, that typically bring different government ministers together with civil society representatives, need to demand and analyse the data for policy making. National data systems on CWPC (like India & Brazil) need to be developed37Thank you

Photo source: SOS Villages.38