Children are more vulnerable to malnutrition, disease and abuse than adults, and are overrepresented among the poor (UNICEF & World Bank, 2016). Three elements of child vulnerability are: (1) biological and physical needs; (2) strategic needs (children’s limited levels of autonomy and dependence on adults); and (3) institutional invisibility and lack of voice in policy agendas (Roelen & Sabates-Wheeler, 2012). There is a window of opportunity for investing in children, with diminishing rates of return the older they get (UNICEF, 2012).
The purpose of social protection targeted at children is to help meet their basic needs, build their human capital, overcome barriers to access services, and strengthen families’ capacity to care for children (UNICEF, 2019a). Social protection supports caregivers, who may be parents, grandparents or other guardians, to meet children’s needs and to support children’s access to health, education and care services. The Joint Statement on Advancing Child-Sensitive Social Protection (DFID et al., 2009) outlines the appropriate design, implementation and evaluation of child-sensitive social protection programmes.
The vast majority of children still have no effective social protection coverage, with only 35% of children globally receiving social protection benefits (ILO–UNICEF, 2019: 2). There is great regional variation: 87% of children in Europe and Central Asia and 66% in the Americas receive benefits, but only 28% of children in Asia and the Pacific and 16% in Africa do so (ibid.). A positive trend is the expansion of cash transfers for children, with countries such as Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Mongolia moving to universal coverage (ibid.).
Social protection has wide-ranging impacts for children (ibid.: 12). Evidence shows social assistance programmes (cash transfers, public works programmes and food transfers/vouchers) can improve household economic security, including increased food security, with direct impact on child poverty (UNICEF–ESARO/Transfer Project, 2015; Bastagli et al., 2016). Impacts of cash transfers on nutrition outcomes such as stunting are less clear (de Groot et al., 2015) (see Nutrition). In child and maternal health, social protection can reduce cost-related barriers to services, including transport costs, user fees and costs of medicines, but three reviews of cash transfers found no measurable impacts on fertility, or maternal or infant mortality (ILO–UNICEF, 2019). The UNICEF–ESARO/Transfer Project (2015: 25) highlights the impact of UCTs on HIV outcomes, particularly HIV prevention among adolescents, drawing on emerging evidence from the South Africa Child Support Grant and the Kenya Cash Transfer for Orphans and Vulnerable Children. Impacts include reducing risky behaviour and sexual exploitation and delaying sexual debut (ibid.).
Meanwhile, there is significant evidence that cash transfers in various countries have had positive impacts on school enrolment and attendance, while fewer studies have addressed learning outcomes, perhaps due to the complex dynamics behind them (UNICEF–ESARO/Transfer Project, 2015; Bastagli et al., 2016) (see Education). Long-term evidence on the impact of conditional cash transfers in Latin America finds that programmes help children to achieve better grades and enable completion of higher levels of schooling (Molina Millán et al., 2019: 141). The relationship between poverty, cash transfers and child protection issues is also complex, and under-researched (ILO–UNICEF, 2019). Three possible channels through which social transfers can influence child protection outcomes are: ‘direct effects observed where the objectives of social transfers are explicit child protection outcomes; indirect effects where the impact of social transfers on poverty and exclusion leads to improved child protection outcomes; and potential synergies in implementation of social transfers and child protection’ (Barrientos et al., 2013: 4).
ILO–UNICEF’s 2019 summary reminds us that while social protection and cash transfer programmes in particular offer opportunities for addressing child poverty, ‘expanding cash transfer programmes must not come at the expense of good-quality services, which are essential for families to use transfers to support the success of their children’ (ibid.: 12).
ILO–UNICEF. (2019). Towards universal social protection for children: Achieving SDG 1.3. ILO–UNICEF Joint Report on Social Protection for Children. New York & Geneva: UNICEF and International Labour Office.
This joint report reflects recent developments in social protection for children living in poverty and expands on child poverty information by providing data on monetary and multidimensional child poverty. Building on Chapter 2 of the World Social Protection Report (ILO, 2017) and research from UNICEF, this update has a specific focus on recent developments related to universal child grants (UCGs).
UNICEF–ESARO/Transfer Project. (2015). Social cash transfer and children’s outcomes: A review of evidence from Africa. New York: UNICEF.
This study summarises the evidence of the impact of social cash transfers in Africa. It concludes that these transfers ‘have demonstrated an impact on a wide range of outcomes for children… in terms of human capital… as well as on economic development and on community and social dynamics’ (pp. vi–vii). It identifies operational lessons, noting that the range of results across countries is affected by: (i) size of transfer; (ii) predictability of payments; (iii) profile of beneficiaries; (iv) conditionality; and (v) national ownership.
Roelen, K., & Sabates-Wheeler, R. (2012). A child-sensitive approach to social protection: Serving practical and strategic needs. Journal of Poverty and Social Justice, 20(3), 291–306.
Child-sensitive social protection (CSSP) has gained considerable momentum, particularly in a developing country context. CSSP requires a critical perspective and for context to guide its design and delivery. Claims about what makes social protection child-sensitive are often based on (widely agreed) assumptions rather than sound evidence about what works for children in a particular situation. There are no universal truths about how to design and deliver child-sensitive social protection. CSSP need not be a separate form of social protection; all types of interventions have the potential to carry a degree of child-sensitivity, although no current set of interventions can be considered child-sensitive across the board.
Sanfilippo, M., Martorano, B., & De Neubourg, C. (2012). The impact of social protection on children: A review of the literature (Working Paper 2012-06). Florence: UNICEF Office of Research.
Reviewing evidence on the impact of social protection programmes in the developing world, this paper assesses which channels can maximise the benefits of social protection for the different dimensions of children’s wellbeing. The analysis concludes that cash transfers can have a substantial impact on reducing the monetary poverty of children as well as compensating for the foregone income from child labour.
Machado, A., Bilo, C., Soares, F., & Osorio, R. (2018). Overview of non-contributory social protection programmes in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region through a child and equity lens. Brasília & Amman: International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth and UNICEF Middle East and North Africa Regional Office.
Peterman, A., Neijhoft, A., Cook, S., & Palermo, T. (2017). Understanding the linkages between social safety nets and childhood violence: A review of the evidence from low- and middle-income countries. Health Policy and Planning, 32(7), 1049–1071.
Pozarny, P. (2016). Impacts of social protection programmes on children (GSDRC Helpdesk Research Report 1381). Birmingham: GSDRC, University of Birmingham.
Barrientos, A., Byrne, J., Villa, J. M., & Pena, P. (2013). Social transfers and child protection (Working Paper 2013-05). Florence: UNICEF Office of Research.