1. Action research – to influence and advocate for reforms Hypothesis: separation of children from their families is an indicator of vulnerability of.

1

KEEPING FAMILIES TOGETHER

Making social protection more effective for childrenReflections on the results of a study in Albania, Kazakhstan and

Ukraine (CEE/CIS)

Anna Nordenmark Severinsson, Child Protection Specialist, UNICEF Regional Office for CEECIS at Seminar on Social Transfers and Child Protection, Florence, 19-20 March 2013

• Action research – to influence and advocate for reforms• Hypothesis: separation of children from their families is an indicator of vulnerability of a

family and can be prevented with a a combination of social assistance and social services (components of social protection).

• Research questions: What is the impact of current social assistance schemes and social services on the most vulnerable? What are the barriers to access of these (if any)?

• Timing: Research in 2011, in 2012 – global SP framework, repackage of findings• Methodology: Mixed methods (desk review, qualitative and quantitative data collection and

analysis)• Sources of information: Survey data, semi-structured interviews with key (30/country)

stakeholders, focus group discussions ( 4 groups w 10 participants each / country) with parents who are service users / receipients of SA and with services providers.

• Coverage: Albania (2 municipalities), Kazakhstan (3 regions) and Ukraine (2 regions): urban/rural

Focus of the study: «Keeping families together – making social protection more effective for children»

3

Rationale for the research

Reasons for the institutionalisation of

children below 3 years of age in Western Europe countries

parental abuseor neglect

orphans

disability

social reasons

Reasons for the institutionalization of

children below 3 years of age in Central and Eastern

Europe countries

parentalabuse orneglecttrue orphans

disability

socialreasons

Source: EU Daphné Programme (2004)

• 1.3 million children in alternative care, out of which 50% in large scale residential care – largest rate of alternative care placements in the world (?) – a result of the “pull-effect” of the system

• Increasing separation of children from families in spite of efforts to ” reform ” the system

Background on CEE/CIS

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Children in residential care and in the care of foster parents or guardians in 9 se-lected countries

Residential care Foster or guardian care Total in formal care

rate

per

100

,000

chi

ldre

n ag

ed 0

-17

Source: TransMONEE 2011 Database, UNICEF Regional Office for CEECIS, Genevaa. Children in residential care include children in infant homes, in orphanages, in boarding homes and schools for children without parental care or poor children, disabled children in boarding schools and homes, family-type homes, SOS villages, etc. Children in punitive institutions are normally excluded. Definitions may differ among countries. b. Foster parents are obliged to take care of the child personally. Guardian has the same rights as foster parents, but he is obliged to take care of the child personally and to replace fully the care of parents.

UNICEF Regional office CEE/CIS 5

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 -

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

Total no of children in residential care (17 countries in CEECIS)Total no of children with disability in residential care (17 countries in CEECIS)

Children w. disability over-represented in care and benefiting less from reforms

UNICEF Regional office CEE/CIS 6

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 -

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

Total no of children in residential care (in 15 countries in CEECIS)Total no of children under age 3 in residential care (in 15 countries in CEECIS)

Children under 3 in residential care – most vulnerable and not prioritized

UNICEF’s work in child protection in CEE/CIS

Cash transfers (including pensions, child benefits, poverty-targeted, seasonal)Food transfersNutritional supplementation; Provision of ARVsPublic works

Birth registrationUser fee abolitionHealth insuranceExemptions, vouchers, subsidiesSpecialized services to ensure equitable access for all

Family support servicesHome-based careAccessible Childcare services

Minimum and equal pay legislationEmployment guarantee schemesMaternity and paternity leaveRemoval of discriminatory legislation or policies affecting service provision/access or employmentInheritance rights

Social Transfers

Programs to access

services

Support and care

Legislation

REFORM OF EXISTING SERVICES

UNICEF Social Protection Work an overview

Show and Tell on Social Protection Bonn, 2011

SNAPSHOT OF FINDINGS- Access

- Barriers to access

- Impact

- Barriers to impact

Albania Ukraine Kazkhstan

Ndime economie:

Covers 33% of poorest and 67% of «non-poor»

Disqualifies landowners

Take into account no. of children in houshold

Guaranteed minimum income scheme:

Coverage: 85% of expenditure on 20% poorest

Other benefits are incl. in assessment of income

Take into account no of children in household

Targeted social assistance

86% of expenditures on 20% poorest

Other benefits are incl. in assessment of income

Employment certificate required

Take into account no of children in houseold

Means tested poverty allieviation schemes

Albania Ukraine Kazakhstan

Disability benefit Birth grants

0-3 years monthly child care allowance

0-18 years monthly child care alowance to single mothers

Disability benefit

Carer allowance for parents to child with disability

Birth grants

0-1 year monthly child care allowance

Child disability benefit

Carer allowance for parents to child with disability

Benefits for families with 4 or more children

Categorical benefits schemes

• Countries have various social assistance benefits that children and parents can access

• The infrastructure to administer them is extensive in all countries. • … but, the social benefits system is difficult to access and requiring a great deal of

effort for little reward (as experienced by parents interviewed).• … and a large proportion of the recipients are the non-poor. • Categorical benefits are reaching higher proportions of the poorest families than

means-tested schemes (especially the birth grants, 0-3 benefits and disability benefits)

ATTENTION!• Social assistance benefits are most often targeted towards poverty alleviation

and can only indirectly prevent family separation, dysfunctionality and disintegration.

• Multiple vulnerability often does not qualify for multiple supports… families often have to chose between benefits.

• Exclusion of certain groups limit impact: i.e. informal carers, landowners

Access to social assistance of most vulnerable

Gatekeeping and family support services

Albania Kazakhstan Ukraine

Statutory services CPUsGuardianship (courts)Medical commissions

Child Protection DepartmentsPsychological medical commissionsCommissions of Minors

Centers for social services

Family and child support services

CouncellingReferrals and facilitating access to benefits and services (by CPUs)Crisis sheltersSpec. Day care

Social work in materity hospitalsRehabilitation services

Outreach social workSocial work in maternity hospitalsMother and baby unitsDay careRehabilitation

• Social services remain over-relying on residential care, even if there are pilot initiatives for inclusive education, rehabilitation services, therapy and community based services for children with disability and children from vulnerable families.

• Embryonic case management and weakness of social work and the administrative and managerial infrastructure emerged as a key gap.

– There is a lack of understanding about what social work is, how it differs from social assistance and what the functions and roles of a social worker are within the social protection system.

– Tools of social workers, such as emergency social assistance, access to housing to respond to family crisis and acute risks of abandonment remain few.

– Social workers report facing “demeaning attitude towards their profession, and little appreciation”.

• Free legal aid exists in most countries, but is seldom used to challenge decisions made by the system on accessibility to social protection and decisions on placement of children in care

“People do not want to complain as it costs money. Besides, I think people do not trust and do not believe in positive consequences of complaints”

Parent, Ukraine

Access to social services of most vulnerable

“The mentality here is still very much related to money and not to different types of social services that they could have or would support them. There needs to be more public awareness of social services. This lack of understanding also impacts as a barrier to the approaches and work of the professionals”. Local government worker (after piloting professional social work for 18 months in one locality on the lack of demand for social work support, Albania

“I have absolutely no clue where I can refer for support for my disabled child. What other types of benefits I can additionally get”Mother of disabled child, Albania

Barriers to access 1: Lack of information about services, benefits

“The state institutions close the doors to Roma or Egyptian families, or do not provide the right information. When they finally manage to find the right office, the employer says; well I am sorry but you missed the deadline and you can not apply anymore. So those families do not have access because they lack information and do not know the rules, procedures and deadlines to apply to social benefits.”Frontline worker, Albania

“Institutions….that provide services or cash benefits are often aggressive and rude to families with disabled children” – "They come and check often; they even check children’s bed… it is so humiliating” Parent, Kazakhstan

Barriers to access 2: Stigma and discrimination against service users

• Number and types of documents that have to be gathered by applicants, often at some expense:

• Application involves travel, stay overnight, (i.e. legacy of Soviet registration system - families without registration are not eligible for benefits. Those who have migrated to cities have to return to the place where they are registered.)

“They wrote a wrong letter in the name N., made a mistake. They said that I should redo it, so I had to come again, It is really hard, we save money for travel, we arrive and then we stay hungry all day. Just because of one wrong letter they force us to rewrite a document. We do the correction, we come again next day but the specialist is not there. Or, sometimes you give them a document, but they don’t know what to do with it. Because the person who is responsible is not informed enough. We also have to pay for all photocopies of these documents”.Parent, Kazakhstan

Barriers to access 3: Complexity to application process

“I am very satisfied with the support I received especially at the beginning. When I gave birth to my child they [social workers] helped me significantly. I did not have any money at all. They bought diapers even. Later they helped me to gather all the necessary documents to apply for social benefits. And now they also call me and ask whether any further assistance is needed.”Young mother with child under 1, Ukraine

“Social services help families, they help to assess situations in adequate manner, they make families to feel more secure, they help to find solutions”. Grandfather, guardian of his granddaughter, Ukraine

“If I did not receive this [service provided by NGO]…I would die or I would place haveto place my children into an orphanage”. Formal kinship carer, Albania

Impact 1: In spite of weaknesses – impact can be achieved

• Disintegration of social protection systems leads to limited impact to address other risks than most acute poverty.

• Lack of supply: Incl. types of services, equitable distribution, cost of services, quality of services and bureaucracy - limit the impact on vulnerable families of existing social protection mechanisms and services.

• Lack of outreach: Social assistance and social services systems tend to be reactive rather than pro-active. The services and benefits systems do not reach out to actively seek and engage with their target groups. Parents and carers therefore need to work really hard to access them.

• Lack of mechansims for creating synergies between policies and practical integration of the system (i.e. sharing information systems on beneficiaries, comprehensive assessments on needs and contexts to guide delivery of comprehensive set of interventions, multi sectoral coordination etc.)

Impact 2: Impact is not maximized for a number of reasons

• Multiple factors seem to contribute to greater vulnerability: poor, rural and disability – it requires an integrated response which is not the current practice (services and benefits)

• Families with children with disabilities have least access to appropriate, relevant and responsive services – being a group of children who are over-represented in care in CEE/CIS this is of course alarming

• Stumbling blocks to accessibility of services and benefits often multiply if you have a disability and reforms have not changed this.

Impact 3 – some people are more likely to miss out… - those who need it most…?

UNICEF Social Protection Work an overview

Show and Tell on Social Protection Bonn, 2011

CONCLUSION:

OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES

• Synergies, synergies and integration… of policies and systems for social assistance and social serfices

• Outreach (both assistance and services)

• Active recruitment of child protection cases (for benefits)

• Recognition of multiple factors to vulnerability: Net better than brut when deciding on entitlements

• Considerable investment at birth and early years

• Focus on disability

Implications for system design to achieve better impact

• Institutional – mandate for social assistance and child protection rests in many countries with the same ministry, BUT… “old” assistance and services still occupy the space and absorbs most budget

• Organizational – On the ground, the responsibility for determining eligibility for social assistance often rests with social welfare officers (social administartors etc.) BUT… these officers end up spending most of their time on gatekeeping and administrative duties related to social assistance, rather than case management for child protection. Re-profiling and emergence of social workers, expansion of this profession also through intro. Of modern social work university courses and re-training programmes, in parallel with reforms in social assistance programmes is a great opportunity.

• Objectives – As seen in CEE/CIS, gaps in social protection places burden on child protection system. In changing focus from poverty alleviation (minimum level of income) to minimum level of well-being there will be greater opportunities for synergetic effect (both to achieve poverty reduction and greater child protection outcomes). Should we also look North for some best practices in design of integrated SP systems?

• Target groups – Many households with children in need of protection will also be the ones who are vulnerable to poverty – so there might be an automatic synergetic effect. BUT only if poverty is the single cause, more complex cases (majority?) will need a combination of supports.

Opportunities for linkages