ACCOUNTABILITY TO CHILDREN · In January 2012, The African Child Policy Forum (ACPF) organised a roundtable meeting of experts to solicit feedback on the theme, structure and content

ACCOUNTABILITY TOCHILDREN

A compilation of selected papers

ACCOUNTABILITY TOCHILDREN

A compilation of selected papers

3

_____________________________________________________________________________________ A compilation of background papers

This report was made possible with financial support fromInvesting in Children and their Societies (ICS) and Plan International.

THE AFRICAN CHILD POLICY FORUM (ACPF)ACPF is an independent, not-for-profit, pan-African institution of policy research and dialogue on the African child.

ACPF was established with the conviction that putting children first on the public agenda is fundamental to the realisation of their rights and wellbeing, and to bringing about lasting social and economic progress in Africa.

ACPF’s work is rights-based, inspired by universal values and informed by global experiences and knowledge. ACPF’s work is guided by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, and other relevant regional and international human rights instruments. Specifically, ACPF aims to contribute to improved knowledge on children in Africa; to monitor and report progress; to identify policy options; to provide a platform for dialogue; to collaborate with governments, intergovernmental organisations and civil society in the development and implementation of effective pro-child policies and programmes; and to promote a common voice for children in Africa.

The African Child Policy Forum (ACPF)

P.O. Box 1179, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Tel: +251 116 62 81 96/97Fax: +251 116 62 82 00Email: [email protected] Website: www.africanchildforum.org www.africanchildinfo.net

i


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSNumerous experts within and outside The African Child Policy Forum (ACPF) have contributed to the production of these papers. First and foremost, we sincerely thank the authors for their contributions and their professionalism in delivering high quality work. We thank Professor Asher Ben-Arieh, Nigussie Dejene, Maricar Garde, Daphna Gross-Manos, Sarah Hague, Yehualashet Mekonen and Dr Shimelis Tsegaye.

A special word of thanks goes to Dr Hamid Tabatabai, member of the International Board of Trustees of the ACPF, for his support in reviewing the articles, drafting the introduction, and providing overall feedback to refine the content of the compilation. We would also like to thank Annalies Borrel for her support in reviewing and editing this compilation, as well as her overall assistance in the production of this document.

Many staff members of ACPF also contributed in various ways to the production of these working papers and our thanks go to all of them. We thank especially Théophane Nikyèma, Sarah Guebreyes and Ashenafi Tesema for their support at various stages of production.

We also thank Mark Nunn for copy-editing this compilation.

TABLE OF CONTENTSACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................................ i

PREFACE ...................................................................................................................................................... ii

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS ............................................................................................................................ vii

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... v

POLITICAL COMMITMENT TO CHILDREN: ACCOUNTING FOR WORDS AND DEEDS ........................... 5

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 12. Political commitment: Definitions, elements and scope ................................................................. 1

2.1 Defining political commitment .................................................................................................... 12.2 Elements of political commitment ............................................................................................. 22.3 Scope of political commitment ................................................................................................... 42.4 Political commitment and accountability for action .................................................................. 42.5 Co-ordination mechanisms and accountability mechanisms that demonstrate political commitment .................................................................................................................. 7

3. Political commitment: Can it be measured? ....................................................................................... 84. Concluding remarks ............................................................................................................................. 13

CHILD WELLBEING MONITORING FRAMEWORKS: SYNTHESIS AND ANALYSIS .................................. 17

1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 172. Existing global goals and benchmarks ................................................................................................ 173. Efforts to measure and monitor children’s wellbeing ...................................................................... 19

3.1 The UNICEF Index of Children’s Wellbeing ................................................................................ 203.2 An Index of Child Wellbeing in the European Union ................................................................... 203.3 The Foundation for Child Development (FCD) Child and Youth Wellbeing Index ...................... 213.4 The KIDS COUNT Data Book ........................................................................................................... 213.5 The Child Development Index ...................................................................................................... 223.6 An Index of maternal and child health in Least Developed Countries of Asia .......................... 223.7 The ACPF Child-Friendliness Index ................................................................................................ 23

4. Criteria for better indices of children’s wellbeing ............................................................................... 235. Promoting accountability to children ................................................................................................... 256. Validity observation in the African context ......................................................................................... 267. The impact of child wellbeing indices and recommendations for the future ................................ 278. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................ 30

THE CHILD-FRIENDLINESS INDEX: A TOOL FOR MONITORING ACCOUNTABILITY TO CHILDREN ...... 43

1. Background .............................................................................................................................................. 432. The rationale for developing the CFI framework ............................................................................... 443. The approach, dimensions and indicators .......................................................................................... 45

3.1 Indicators for child protection ....................................................................................................... 46 3.2 Indicators for provision of basic needs ........................................................................................... 47

4. Methodology ............................................................................................................................................ 494.1 Standardisation of indicators ....................................................................................................... 494.2 Weighting and aggregation of score values ................................................................................. 504.3 Capturing efforts towards gender equality ................................................................................... 50

5. Impact of the Child-Friendliness Index ................................................................................................ 516. Challenges on access to data for CFI .................................................................................................. 527. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 55

MEASURING CHILD WELLBEING AND HOLDING GOVERNMENTS TO ACCOUNT: THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT INDEX .............................................................................................................. 59

1. Why a Child Development Index? ......................................................................................................... 592. Methodology and Indicators ............................................................................................................... 603. Data availability ....................................................................................................................................... 624. Constructing the index ............................................................................................................................ 625. Strengths and limitations ....................................................................................................................... 65 6. Reaction and Impact of the CDI’s Launch ............................................................................................ 657. Updating the Index in 2012 ................................................................................................................. 668. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 67

ii

PREFACEIn January 2012, The African Child Policy Forum (ACPF) organised a roundtable meeting of experts to solicit feedback on the theme, structure and content of the 2013 African Report on Child Wellbeing. Numerous papers relating to the theme of the Report, ‘Accountability to Children’, were presented and discussed.

This compilation, entitled Measuring and Monitoring Accountability to Children, contains the updated and revised versions of the papers presented at the meeting. The papers focus specifically on measuring and monitoring accountability from child rights and wellbeing perspectives. This compilation provides a menu of child-focused measuring and monitoring frameworks that can be adapted at national level, with a view to encouraging their application in order to enhance monitoring and implementation efforts and expedite the progressive realisation of children’s rights.

Compliance with the principles and obligations set forth in regional and child rights instruments is increasingly taking centre stage in human rights and the overall development agenda. This has placed central importance on monitoring implementation efforts and measuring the performance of the primary duty bearers – governments – especially with respect to the rights of the most vulnerable groups in societies, such as children. However, as evidenced in the states parties reporting and various concluding observations of the treaty bodies for child rights instruments, efforts at continuous monitoring of the implementation of children’s rights are currently limited, especially in Africa.

Further, major barriers to promoting child rights include a lack of appropriate national level monitoring frameworks that are relevant to local contexts, and the absence of an organised system for generating and compiling adequate data on all aspects of child rights and wellbeing. This compilation of reports aims to fill the gap by creating better understanding of the relevant child-focused monitoring and measurement tools. It presents detailed descriptions of the conceptual underpinning, scope and overall approach of selected frameworks, as well as the indicators used and the methodology for measuring and monitoring accountability for child wellbeing at global, regional and national levels. It also examines the strengths and limitations of these frameworks, to encourage their utilisation in enhancing monitoring efforts and promoting accountability.

We believe these papers will serve as a useful reference for statisticians, policy practitioners and researchers, for use in further refining existing tools to enhance monitoring of child wellbeing, developing new ones, and improving the performance of governments in achieving better child wellbeing outcomes.

We hope that these papers, along with the other background papers prepared to inform the 2013 African Report on Child Wellbeing, will promote accountability to children and inform initiatives to improve their lives.

Théophane NikyèmaExecutive Director, the African Child Policy Forum (ACPF)

iii

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORSProfessor Asher Ben-Arieh

Director, Haruv Institute; Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Child Indicators

Mr Nigussie DejeneSenior Programme Officer, the African Child Policy Forum (ACPF)

Ms Maricar Garde, Head of Research, Evaluation and Advocacy, UNICEF Uganda

Ms Daphna Gross-ManosManaging Editor, Journal of Child Indicators

Ms Sarah Hague, Chief of Social and Economic Policy, UNICEF Ghana

Mr Yehualashet MekonenHead, African Child Observatory, the African Child Policy Forum (ACPF)

Dr Shimelis TsegayeHead, Children and the Family Programme

v

INTRODUCTIONDr Hamid TabatabaiMember, International Board of Trustees of The African Child Policy Forum (ACPF)

Rights are only effective when they are enjoyed. This is particularly important with regard to the rights of children, who – even if they are aware of them – are unable to claim their rights on their own.

A major impediment to ensuring respect for children’s rights, as they are enshrined in international and regional instruments and national laws, is the absence of adequate systems for monitoring implementation and assessing progress. In recent years, a number of institutions have sought to develop the methodologies and tools needed to fill this gap. In some countries, monitoring systems have been put in place, with varying effectiveness. Various statistical tools have also been developed to allow inter-country comparisons. As a result, there is now a fair amount of experience, both nationally and internationally, which can inform future efforts, and which includes a better appreciation of the challenges that remain to be overcome.

A multiplicity of rights, limited enforcement, weak political commitment and institutions, capacity constraints, conceptual ambiguity, and lack of appropriate and timely data are only some of the more common factors hampering effective monitoring and assessment of outcomes. Given such constraints, devising appropriate methodologies and tools is a key challenge facing those concerned with tracking the state of children’s wellbeing and compliance with child rights standards.

One of the boldest initiatives in this regard has been the development by ACPF of the Child Friendliness Index (CFI). The Index is three things: a measure of government commitment to children; a measure of the closely associated concept of political commitment to children’s wellbeing; and a measure of accountability to children. The introduction of the CFI in the first edition of the African Report on Child Wellbeing series, the African Report on Child Wellbeing in 2008: How child-friendly are African governments?, helped shed light on how public policies succeed or fail in fulfilling responsibilities towards children. The third edition of the Report offers an update of the Index, thereby allowing a more dynamic picture to emerge of the extent of progress in recent years.

This compilation brings together four of the background papers prepared to informthe2013 African Report on Child Wellbeing: Towards greater accountability to Africa’s children. Their focus is on accountability to children, from both the conceptual standpoint and that of measurement. The compilation is a complementary resource to the Report that may also serve as reference material for practitioners engaged in monitoring progress in implementing child rights instruments. It considers a variety of existing monitoring frameworks in a comparative context, and provides detailed discussions of the strengths, weaknesses and inter linkages of various child-focused measurement tools. The insights it offers should help in identifying possibilities for further improvement in current practices, to improve monitoring of compliance with child rights standards and accountability to children.

The compilation begins with a piece by Dr Shimelis Tsegaye on the concept of political commitment and its measurement. His review of the literature brings out the difficulties of pinning down the concept, as he discusses the variety of elements that characterise political commitment, from its shallowest versions to those that go much deeper. He also considers options for measurement. Such analysis underpins the development by the ACPF of a composite index –the CFI –that captures the multiple aspects of government commitment through indicators relating to the existence of legal and policy frameworks, provision of basic education and healthcare, and budgetary allocations.

vi

MEASURING AND MONITORING ACCOUNTABILITY TO CHILDREN __________________________________________________________

The next paper, by Asher Ben-Arieh and Daphna Gross-Manos, focuses on an analysis of a number of existing child wellbeing monitoring frameworks covering developed and developing countries. Of particular interest is the comparative analysis of seven typical indices of child wellbeing in current use. The tabular analysis in the paper lists and assesses a large number of characteristics of these indices and merits close study. The paper contains a wealth of advice on how child wellbeing monitoring frameworks, indices and indicators may be designed and implemented for greater impact.

In terms of their relevance for Africa, the most important indices in Ben-Arieh and Gross-Manos’s paper are the ACPF’s Child friendliness Index (CFI) and the Save the Children’s Child Development Index (CDI). The remaining two papers in the compilation cover these indices separately in greater detail.

Yehualashet Mekonen and Negussie Dejene then provide an overview of the CFI as a tool for monitoring accountability to children, and highlight data-related challenges affecting comparisons across countries. The CFI is concept-driven and comprehensive. Firmly grounded in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACRWC), it brings together the fundamental rights of children under a single umbrella. It is a composite index combining several component indices, each of which captures a particular category of child rights: Protection, Provision (itself composed of two subcomponent indices dealing with budgetary commitment and achievement of child wellbeing outcomes), and Participation– the “three P’s”. This systematic conceptualisation helps highlight the extent of commitment and accountability to children in complementary domains, and the areas in which they might be falling short.

The paper also highlights the fact that data limitations impose a variety of choices and compromises (exclusion of child participation from the CFI, for example). However, beginning with the big picture and narrowing down as necessary to what is quantifiable is an insightful way of proceeding – though not a common one.

In the final paper, Sarah Hague and Maricar Garde present the Child Development Index (CDI). As with the CFI, the purpose of the CDI is to capture the state of child wellbeing and to rank countries accordingly, but in this case at global level. It aims to hold governments to account for their efforts in ensuring child wellbeing. In contrast with the CFI, the CDI is designed to be relatively simple, so as to be widely understood and used, particularly for advocacy purposes. Launched in 2008 and recently updated, the CDI comprises only three indicators, covering three essential dimensions of child wellbeing: health (under-five mortality rate); nutrition (prevalence of underweight children); and education (percentage of children not enrolled in primary school). These indicators are then standardised and added together with equal arithmetic weight to derive the index.

A comparison of CDI and CFI according to various criteria (see the tabular summary in the paper by Ben-Arieh and Gross-Manos) can be instructive in assessing choices that often need to be made in developing appropriate tools for monitoring.

The four papers in this compilation cover a wide range of issues that arise in the construction of appropriate tools for monitoring progress on child wellbeing and associated concepts such as accountability to children. For these tools to become increasingly useful, they need to be improved whenever possible and applied more widely. In what follows, some such possibilities are mentioned. I have used the CFI as an example with which to make my points. I hope this may also provide insight into further improving the other tools and maximising their application in enhancing monitoring and accountability to children, particularly at national level.

vii

Further development of the CFI: So far, the main use of the CFI has been to enable ranking of African governments by their overall performance scores, as well as by those for the component indices. Despite some inevitable shortcomings, such as the exclusion of child participation, the underlying indicator set is well suited for its purpose. But as a measure of governments’ performances in realising child rights and wellbeing, it may be desirable to rely more on indicators of outcomes or results relative to the input indicators that now tend to dominate the Index. In the legal and policy dimensions in particular, lack of data on indicators for enforcement and implementation has been a major limitation. Ratification of laws without enforcement, for example, gives an inadequate picture of government efforts to ensure the legal protection of children from abuse and exploitation. In further developing the Index, a fruitful area for research could be the exploration of possibilities for shifting the balance in favour of outcome indicators, and those related to enforcement of laws and implementation of public policies and programmes.

Another possibility, given the large number of indicators used, is to explore the scope for evolution towards a more restricted set of indicators with higher explanatory power. Simplification is desirable if it comes at little or no cost. It could make the Index less data intensive, more comprehensible and more appealing – in short, “friendlier,” if one may put it that way! The significant rank correlations found between the CFI and CDI, while indicative of some commonalities between these indices in measuring child wellbeing, also suggest that it may be possible to enhance measurement efficiency through achieving a better balance between comprehensiveness and simplicity. This calls for further analysis to assess the sensitivity and possible redundancy of indicators.

The “nationalisation” of the CFI: As the 2013 Report proposes, the establishment of national child rights observatories is an important priority. For the ACPF to be in a position to provide technical assistance in such an endeavour, there is a need to adapt the CFI to fit a context altogether different from that of inter-country comparisons. Many of the indicators that comprise the CFI are only relevant at national level and cannot be disaggregated to a lower level (for example, ratification of a Convention). In some cases it may be possible to replace these to advantage with indicators relating to the implementation of particular national laws or policies at lower levels, using administrative data or survey results, if readily available; but this may be difficult or impossible in other cases. Nonetheless, a number of CFI indicators do lend themselves to disaggregation to lower administrative levels or population groups, and such possibilities need to be considered. In this regard, national statistical agencies can play a crucial role in the further exploitation and analysis of data from national surveys and censuses to generate indicators at more disaggregated levels.

It is also important to undertake detailed and comparative studies of existing experiences with national child rights observatories or similar initiatives in Africa (for example, in Egypt, Mauritius, South Africa and Tunisia) and beyond. The diversity across countries will no doubt militate against one-size-fits-all recipes, but the key elements of prototype models can be identified and developed to serve as practical guides to national practitioners, for adaptation to the specific conditions of their countries. Such an exercise needs to be carried out in close collaboration with appropriate national institutions and research centres.

The “globalisation” of the CFI: As a framework for monitoring child wellbeing and accountability of governments to children, the CFI is potentially available for use beyond Africa. The Post-2015 Development Agenda monitoring framework is ideally suited to the purpose. The ACPF has been making substantive contributions to the Post-2015 Agenda, most notably through its recent publication Towards an African Position on Children and the Post-2015 Development Agenda, which emphasised the centrality of children’s palace in development. A more specific effort may be needed to encourage the integration of the CFI, with suitable adaptation, into the Agenda’s monitoring and evaluation framework.

viii


One would hope that this effort will bear fruit; but even if this were not to be the case in a formal sense, the CFI could still be adapted to the point of serving to assess progress on commitment to child wellbeing more globally on a regular basis.

It is hoped that this compilation will prove a useful complement to the 2013 Report and its follow-up actions in terms of strengthening accountability systems and monitoring mechanisms. It is particularly hoped that the practitioners concerned with monitoring the wellbeing of children will find it helpful in fostering a greater appreciation of the issues and challenges involved, and the ways in which they might be addressed.

1

POLITICAL COMMITMENT TO CHILDREN: ACCOUNTING FOR WORDS AND DEEDSShimelis Tsegaye, PhDHead, Children and the Family Programme, ACPF

1. Introduction

The term ‘political commitment’ is frequently invoked in political and governance deliberations, and is often associated with politicians during election campaigns. It is also increasingly used in relation to accountability for human and children’s rights.

The term ‘political commitment’ is fraught with ambiguity. Experts agree that the concept of political commitment and its determinants have been grossly under-analysed (Woocher 2001). Some call political commitment “the slipperiest concept in the policy lexicon” (Hammergren 1998:12). Others deplore the fact that most discussions surrounding political commitment spend more time lamenting its absence than analysing what it means (Evans 2000). The term has been significantly under-analysed in relation to children’s rights.

This paper aims to explore the term ‘political commitment’ in relation to child rights and child wellbeing.

2. Political commitment: definitions, elements and scope

2.1 Defining political commitment

The Oxford English dictionary defines the term ‘commitment’ as: the state or quality of being dedicated to a cause or policy or a pledge. The French equivalent of the term, ‘engagement,’ has a stronger connotation. It is defined as a situation which creates responsibilities and entails [making] certain choices. Hence political commitment is not only about demonstrating commitment to a cause, but also implies making choices as well as identifying the central elements that inform the measurement of that cause.

UNDP (2008: 230) defines the term political commitment as the “demonstrated credible intent of political actors.” This definition draws attention to the fact that political commitment is not an ordinary intent – it must be a credible intent, and one that is practically demonstrated. The term is also defined as “the commitment of political leaders and bureaucrats to undertake actions to achieve a set of objectives and to sustain the costs of those actions over time” (Malena 2009:18). This definition stresses the centrality of action coupled with a commitment of resources.

The term ‘political commitment’ originated from international law to refer to legally non-binding obligations of states to human rights instruments or laws, including normative parameters defined in the political (or moral) context. Therefore, in its legal sense, what is expected of political commitment is compliance with the political norm, which “can presage or supplement legal agreements” (Hollis and Newcomer 2009:512). Does this mean that the state will not be held accountable if it violates that (political) norm? No. In fact, experience has shown that states that violate their (legal) political commitment might face more direct and at times highly damaging political sanctions. From this perspective, political commitment is not legally mandatory, but rather it implies moral obligations

1

2


and normative imperatives. Therefore, the non-binding nature of political commitment makes it more attractive to governments than treaties (in the legalistic sense). The latter involve a greater level of accountability and action.

Political commitment to children is also seen as a broader commitment made to enhance the human condition, and a demonstration of a greater commitment to coming generations and to social justice (Martin 2000).

In the specific context of HIV/AIDS, the Futures Group International (2000a) defines political commitment as “the creation of a supportive environment for HIV/AIDS programs”, involving not only the formulation of appropriate policies and the allocation of resources, but also the mobilization of a broad political consensus that such programmes are necessary for the wellbeing of society. In this sense, political commitment is about the ability and the will to mobilise political consensus (the Futures Group International 2000a).

2.2 Elements of political commitment

From a participatory governance perspective, Malena (2009) identifies the following indicators of political commitment:

• Efforts on the part of the state to initiate or actively support participatory governance practices

• Actively seeking to understand underlying problems and issues related to lack of participatory governance

• Introduction of legal and regulatory reform to facilitate participatory governance

• Creation of platforms and mechanisms for participatory governance

• Allocation of adequate resources for the purposes of participatory governance

• Mobilization of stakeholders in support of participatory governance

• Enforcement of sanctions for non-compliance with participatory governance principles.

This perspective introduces new elements of political commitment, such as the importance of multi-stakeholder engagement through explicit platforms, putting in place legal and regulatory frameworks, enforcement, and penalties for non-compliance.

ACPF defines political commitment in the context of children’s rights as follows:

…politicians’ application of their power, influence and personal involvement to push for the development of child-focused programmes and to ensure the visibility and collective acceptance of the same by the larger bureaucracy, and to influence the budget process so that it gives priority for children’s issues; and to give ongoing political backing to the implementation and enforcement of those programmes (ACPF, 2012, p. 5).

3

The definition highlights three elements, highlighted in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Elements of political commitment to children

Source: ACPF 2012, p. 5.

Malena (2009) suggests that political will or commitment has three elements: political want, political can, and political must.

Political want refers to those in authority wanting to undertake a given action because they understand the benefits and support the relevant principles and practices.

Political can is about those in authority being confident that there is the necessary capacity in place to implement related programmes successfully.

Political must is about the compelling force or pressure that instigates action and which renders inaction politically costly, either in terms of Constitutional and/or legal requirements, or in terms of citizen advocacy and public mobilisation (Malena 2009).

Figure 2: The triangle of political commitment

Source: Adapted from Malena (2009)

Political want

Political can Political must

4


2.3 Scope of political commitment

Political commitment can range from a symbolic form of commitment that may be synonymous with making promises (not necessarily accompanied with deeds), to a much deeper political commitment associated with sustained dedication and demonstrated action. Figure 3 elaborates on the characteristics of varying degrees of political commitment to children.

Figure 3: Typology of political commitment to children

Symbolic commitment Wavering commitment Expanding commitment Deep commitment

Low level of government support

Commitment may be real, but it is shallow and accompanied by weak efforts

Heavy reliance on symbolism (words substituting deeds)

Government authorities are ambivalent about a course of action (positive and enthusiastic at certain times, but doubtful or hesitant or forgetful at others)

Efforts are made in spurs and are weak or modest

Efforts tend to be initiated and taken when faced with obstacles

Initial commitment shallow or wavering but intensifies with time

Strengthening efforts to overcome obstacles and achieve results

Increasing range of government activities

Efforts ebb and flow, but clear progress on most or all fronts

Government authorities maintain a high level of commitment

Commitment is strong and sustained to achieve results on all fronts

Determined efforts to overcome challenges

Efforts lead to positive outcomes widely recognised and appreciated by the child rights community

Adapted from Howe (2007).

2.4 Political commitment and accountability for action

Political commitment is fundamental to the implementation and success of a policy or programme: “the stronger the support and political consensus behind a programme, the greater the likelihood that programme managers will work in a favourable environment” (Paul 1990:24). Where there is political commitment, obstacles are more likely to be overcome; on the other hand, where there is limited political commitment, programmes and policies face greater challenges in areas such as the allocation of adequate funds for implementation (Ibid.). Figure 4 illustrates the close association and positive impact that political commitment can have with and on policy and programme implementation (Ibid.).

Political commitment therefore narrows the gap between policy and its implementation (bridging the goal-means dichotomy). It is often said that “people who establish goals and tasks …commonly fail to understand implementation problems and those who implement often fail to understand the goals” (Paul 1990:22). Deep political commitment forces politicians to go beyond goal-setting, into ensuring that what they have sown will bear fruit.

5

Figure 4: Links between political commitment and programme implementation

Source: adapted from Paul 1990:26

The sources of political commitment define the modalities of accountability; so what are the sources of political commitment?

Political commitments can exist within a treaty; they can presage legal commitments (those derived from existing international legal norms or regimes) or they may exist completely independent of legal norms or regimes. Examples of significant commitments that are not embedded within a treaty include the Abuja Declaration on HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Other Related Infectious Diseases and the Dakar Declaration on Education for All. First, these declarations stand as ‘promises’ or ‘pledges’. For instance, paragraph 24 of the Abuja Declaration gives a clear sense of the political commitment of those making the pledge:

We ourselves to take personal responsibility and provide leadership for the activities of the National AIDS Commissions/Councils. We therefore resolve to lead from the front in the battle against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Other Related Infectious Diseases by personally ensuring that such bodies were properly convened in mobilising our societies as a whole and providing focus for unified national policy making and programme implementation, ensuring coordination of all sectors at all levels with a gender perspective and respect for human rights … [emphasis added].

The essential elements of political commitment are contained in this paragraph: the link between policy-making and implementation; personal involvement; leadership; and establishment of coordination and accountability mechanisms.

Despite the pledge made in the Abuja Declaration to, among other things, “[s]et a target of allocating at least 15% of our annual budget to the improvement of the health sector”, so far, only six countries (Rwanda, Liberia, Malawi, Zambia, Togo and Madagascar) have met the Abuja target. On average, African governments spent about 11% of their budgets on health – five percentage-points lower than the Abuja commitment. Although lack of funds has been the main reason for the failure of most countries to live up to this commitment, the fact that the Abuja declaration is only a pledge may also have contributed.

6


There has also been very limited progress made in realising the commitments of the Dakar Framework on Education for All, which is referred to as a ‘collective commitment to action’ as well as an obligation of Governments (UNESCO 2000, para 1). It is a collective commitment made, inter alia, to ensure that by 2015 all children have access to complete, free and compulsory primary education of good quality (UNESCO 2000, para7(ii)). One envisaged strategy, in the context of sub-Saharan African governments, is to allocate at least seven per cent of GDP to education within five years and nine per cent within ten years (UNESCO 2000). This has notbeen achieved by almost all African countries, for a number of reasons.

Firstly, the phrasing “collective commitment” used in the Framework is not only ambiguous but also weakens the possibility of individual commitments by nation states to ensuring Education For All. Secondly, instead of being committed themselves, the governments, organizations, agencies, groups and associations signed up to the Framework promise to “mobilize strong national and international political commitment for education for all” (para 7(i)). So, unlike the Abuja Declaration, where the participants committed themselves, in the Dakar Framework the participants apparently made a commitment to mobilize the commitment of others. Thirdly, it is a commitment to be realized based on a further commitment from funding agencies (UNESCO 2000, paras 49 & 50).

As a function of all these factors that apparently dilute the level of political commitment that could have been invested in realising the Declaration of Education for All, only one country – Lesotho – has met the Dakar minimum commitment of spending nine per cent of GDP on education in over ten years since the Declaration was made (UNESCO Institute for Statistics 2013).

Chart 1: Comparing expenditure on education with the Dakar minimum commitment

Source: Based on data from UNESCO Institute for Statistics 2013

At times, political commitments are compromised by lack of co-ordination between those in power. The implication is that political commitment demands political consensus. A popular example of this dynamic is the separate existence in some countries of ministries of planning and finance. The result of this structure can be that planners make plans and set goals with limited knowledge of the resources at their disposal to implement those plans. As rightly put by a Ghanaian politician: “governments and politicians have to realise that there really is no free lunch, and political promises have to be paid for” (Jalulah 2012).

7

2.5 Co-ordination mechanisms and accountability mechanisms that demonstrate political commitment

Political commitment to children’s rights finds expression through the position accorded to child-focused government organs within the overall government hierarchy. First of all, a well-staffed government mechanism or structure has to be in place to co-ordinate and implement children’s programmes, which often cut across different sectors and ministries. Where this is lacking, and where children are not given a distinct and ongoing focus in government efforts and priorities, there is a greater likelihood that issues of children’s rights will be ignored or marginalized (Howe 2007).

Children’s issues are often allocated to under-resourced, low-visibility ministries, or even departments within larger ministries. In Benin, for instance, children’s issues are dealt with by the Ministry of Youth, Sports and Leisure; in Lesotho, by the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare (Tagwireyi 2012).

In some situations, children are given higher status and their issues are the responsibility of a unit under the President’s/Prime Minister’s or Vice-President’s/Deputy Prime Minister’s office. It is reported that there is not a single country in Africa with an entire ministry devoted to children’s affairs; it is more common for children’s issues to be appended to family, welfare, youth or maternal issues (Tagwireyi 2012).

In some countries, however, there are multiple – and highly specialized – structures to address children’s issues. As shown in Table 1, countries such as Burkina Faso, Chad, Kenya and South Africa not only have ministries responsible for children’s issues, but also have additional councils and commissions, such as Burkina Faso’s Parliamentarians’ Commission for Child Rights. These structures potentially facilitate greater accountability and political commitment to children.

Table 1 Countries where there are multiple child-focused government structures

Country Child focused government institution/body

Burkina Faso

- Ministry of Social Action and National Solidarity- Ministry for the Promotion of Human Rights- Parliamentarian Commission for Child Rights- National Council for the Promotion of Children

Chad- General Secretariat of the President’s Office- Ministry for Women, Children and Social Affairs- National Committee for the Coordination and Implementation of the Objectives of the National Programme of Action for Chadian Children (PRONAFET)

Ghana- Ministry of Women and Children’s Affairs– Department of Children- Ghana National Commission on Children

Guinea- Ministry of Social Affairs and Promotion of Women’s and Children’s Rights- Guinean Committee for Monitoring, Protection and Defence of the Rights of Children- Committees on Children (Comités pour l’enfance U) at local level- Mayors’ Defenders of Children (Maires défenseurs des enfants U) at the municipal level

Kenya- The Department of Children’s Services (Children’s Department) in the Office of the Vice President- Ministry of Home Affairs- Secretary of Children’s Affairs under the Ministry of Gender and Children’s Affairs. - National Council of Children Services (NCCS)

continued to next page ...

8


Country Child focused government institution/body

Mali- The Ministry of Women’s Empowerment, the Child and the Family: National Directo rate for the Promotion of the Child and the Family- The National Department of Promotion of the Child and the Family (DNPEF)

Mauritius- Ombudsperson for Children’s Office (OCO)- Ministry of Women’s Rights, Child Development, Family Welfare and Consumer Protection

Niger- Ministry for the Promotion of Women and the Protection of Children: National Committee for the Survival, Protection and Development of Children (CNSPDE)- National Commission on Human Rights: Department for the Promotion of the Rights of Women and Children

Rwanda- Observatory on the Rights of the Child- Office of the Ombudsman- National Programme for Children under the Ministry of Gender and the Family

South Africa- Ministry of Women, Children and People with Disabilities- National Children’s Rights Committee (NCRC)- South African Human Rights Commission: Director of Children’s Rights

Sudan- National Council for Child Welfare (NCCW)- Ministry of Social, Women and Child Welfare

Tanzania- Ministry for Community Development, Gender and Children: Department of Children’s Development- Special Desk for Children’s Affairs within the Commission for Human Rights and Good Governance

Tunisia- The Ministry for Women, Family, Children and Elders- The Prime Minister’s Office - The Higher Council for Childhood- The National Council for Children

Zambia- Ministry of Youth, Sports and Child Development- Ministry of Community Development, Mother and Child Health- Office of the Commissioner for Children: Zambian Human Rights Commission

Source: Tagwireyi (2012)

3. Political commitment: can it be measured?Many agree on the need to measure political commitment in order to assess it and track changes over time. The same experts agree that political commitment, as a multidimensional concept, is difficult to measure. From the analysis so far, political commitment is both about what politicians and leaders declare and promise to do, and the practical demonstration of how they ensure their commitment leads to action.

What are the current approaches for measuring political commitment, and what are their limitations?

One approach to measuring political commitment uses political statements made by leaders, as reported in national newspapers, to measure political commitment – which in this sense is mainly symbolic, without the necessary evidence of concrete action. Some experts argue that the personal

9

credibility of such ‘public’ commitments may be high. Others argue that without deep internal reflections, public commitments frequently fail to lead to concrete action. Experts warn that political speeches – having the functions of information, persuasion or manipulation (Imbeau 2009:3) – cannot necessarily be taken to reflect political commitment. This is because of what experts call “policy dissonance”, which is defined as “a discrepancy or lack of harmony between what policy makers say or publish and what they do in terms of finance, regulation, administration, or coercion” (Imbeau 2009:3).

Politicians speak not just to convey information, but also to persuade: to induce their listeners rhetorically “to act in some way they would not otherwise act” (Dahl 1963:40), and to act in a certain way even without persuasion: i.e. they seek to manipulate (Riker 1986: ix). Policy dissonance, therefore, is an indicator of a lack of political commitment; on the other hand, policy consonance– the correspondence between speech and action– is a sign of political commitment.

A second approach is to rely on quantitative indicators for actions that result from political commitment, including the existence of a national policy, strategic plan, or highly placed government programme. The limitation of this approach is that it provides little or no information about the quality of the policy, plan, or programme.

The third approach is to examine governments’ relative focus on efforts to address the needs of the most vulnerable groups of children, such as orphans, child-headed households, children with disabilities and street children. Given that politicians more frequently echo or reflect the interests of dominant, high-visibility socioeconomic groups, this approach shifts the focus towards political commitment to addressing inequalities – for example, by a commitment to child-sensitive social protection.

The fourth approach examines the quantity and quality of funding committed to investing in children, including through national programmes such as education and health. Funding is recognized as a credible barometer of political commitment as it reflects government priorities, often in the context of scarce resources. However, for assessing political commitment, a deeper analysis of budgetary allocations is required, particularly in relation to governments using their own funds versus external, donor funds. According to this approach, the greater the budgetary contributions governments make to basic health and education services, the greater their level of political commitment.

Where funding is used as an indicator of political commitment, budgetary contributions from external grants, aid and loans should not necessarily be included. In fact these may even be considered a measure of lack of political commitment. For example, Vyder (2001:7) notes:

From a children’s point of view, there are few things that are as harmful as unsustainable foreign indebtedness. From a short-term perspective, foreign credit may appear to be a conformable option for a nation’s political leaders, and if the borrowed money is invested wisely, it may even be good in a longer-term perspective. But taking up foreign loans irresponsibly also implies a mortgaging of the future, and borrowing today often boils down to theft from today’s children and adolescents who will have to repay the debts tomorrow.

On the other hand, some argue that loans should be included because they entail a commitment of national resources to repayment (The Futures Group International 2000a). It is also equally important to recognise that “…the seriousness of political intent can… affect the volume of resources that the donors are willing to commit in a country” (The Futures Group International 2000b).

10


The ACPF introduced the Budgetary Commitment Index as a measure of political commitment as incarnated in budgetary commitments to the sectors of education and health. The Index aims to capture the proportions of national budgets that are allocated to sectors benefiting children. In 2006, external sources accounted for more than 30% of health budgets in many African countries (ACPF 2008). Countries such as Malawi, Eritrea, Tanzania and Rwanda depend heavily on external largesse to fund their health services; for instance, Malawi depends on external resources for 80% of its health expenditure, raising serious concerns about sustainability. However, as pointed out by Petersen, “the global resource reality is that the resources simply are not there, and are likely to decline” (Petersen 2008:34). Besides the high unpredictability of external funding, societies that depend on external largesse to meet their basic health and education needs are not sustainable, democratic or equitable (Martin 2000).

Chart 2: External resources for health as percentage of total health expenditure, 2009

Source: WHO 2008

ACPF included governments’ contributions to their national Expanded Programmes of Immunization as an indicator in the Budgetary Commitment Index. Countries such as Chad, Ethiopia, Mali and Guinea-Bissau, with very little or no government financial contribution to EPI, have some of the highest numbers of unimmunized children in Africa.

Chart 3: Immunization coverage versus percentage of government financial contribution to EPI, 2010-2011

Source: Based on data from UNICEF 2013

11

In 2011, for instance, only 15 countries in Africa made 100% of financial contributions to their immunization programmes from government coffers. Most countries contributed less than half of their total budgets for national EPI programmes. Nine countries make very little or no financial contribution to this important programme (UNICEF 2013).

As an indicator of the significance of political commitment even where there are resource shortfalls we made comparisons between wealth and budgetary commitment. Countries such as Mozambique, Rwanda and Tanzania, with relatively low GDP per capita, were on top of the Budgetary Commitment Index, while relatively wealthy countries such as Equatorial Guinea, Angola, Mauritania and Cameroon found to be among the least committed in terms of budgetary allocations.

Figure 5: Relationship between per capita revenue and budgetary commitment

Source: ACPF 2011

According to the 2011 Budgetary Commitment Index, Tanzania was the most committed African country in terms of budgetary allocations to healthcare and education, while Sudan was the least committed.

12


Table 2: Top and bottom performers in budgetary commitment for children, 2011

Country Rank CategoryTanzania 1

Mos

t Com

mitt

ed

Mozambique 2Niger 3Gabon 4Senegal 5Tunisia 6Seychelles 7Algeria 8Cape Verde 9South Africa 10Guinea 44

Leas

t Com

itted

Angola 45Sierra Leone 46Comoros 47Dem. Rep. Congo 48Burundi 49Eritrea 50Guinea-Bissau 51Sudan 52

Source: ACPF 2011

A fifth approach to measuring political commitment is to use a composite index that attempts to measure multiple aspects of political commitment by using different indicators, ranging from the existence of law and policy frameworks to provision of basic education and healthcare services to budgetary allocations. The assumption is that these elements are a manifestation of promises and declarations as well as a reflection of demonstrated actions, and hence constitute markers of political commitment.

ACPF has attempted to measure the level of political commitment to children through another index called the Child-Friendliness Index (CFI). Child-friendliness is here defined as:

“…a manifestation of the political will of governments to make the maximum effort to meet their obligations to respect, protect and fulfil children’s rights and ensure their wellbeing” (ACPF 2008:6).

The CFI measures governments’ efforts (and hence real commitment) to meet their international and continental commitments to children’s rights and wellbeing. This measurement includes:

• The adoption of laws and policies for the protection of children

• Government spending for the provision of children’s basic needs and achievements of child-related outcomes

• Willingness to allow children’s participation in the decisions that affect them.

13

Therefore, the more politically committed a government is, the more friendly that country is to its children, and vice versa. Details of the Child-Friendliness Index are described in one of the working papers in this compilation.

4. Concluding remarks

“…what finally matters [as a political leader] is not power but ‘decency, reason, responsibility, sincerity, civility and tolerance’.” ~ Václav Havel (quoted in Wall 1997, p. 62)

While it is well recognized that there is no magic bullet to solve the problem of a lack of political commitment to children, experts do concur that fulfilling obligations to children’s rights and improving their wellbeing implies a political commitment. Therefore, in better understanding the scope of what is meant by political commitment to children, we can further develop and use composite indices that measure it, quantifying its multi-faceted nature. Children’s rights and their wellbeing are political, and we should not undermine them by keeping them out of the political discourse.

Of course, it is easy to apoliticise the cause of children, given that children do not vote, have little money and resources, and are seldom involved in organizational and lobbying activities (Howe 2007:8). Consequently, efforts of child rights advocacy groups become important, and these efforts imply understanding which stakeholders are important. More often than not, it is the political leaders.

Furthermore, initiatives such as children’s parliaments that provide opportunities for children themselves to engage in the political discourse are important too. Children’s parliaments are one of the mechanisms for involving children in governance and political issues, and in directly influencing and reaching out to the political establishment on behalf of children.

14


REFERENCESACPF (2012). The African Report on Child Wellbeing 2013: Concept and Structure. Paper presented at the Roundtable Meeting of Experts on the African Report on Child Wellbeing 2013 in January 2012. Unpublished. Addis Ababa: The African Child Policy Forum (ACPF).

ACPF (2011).The African Report on Child Wellbeing 2011: Budgeting for Children in Africa. Addis Ababa: The African Child Policy Forum.

ACPF (2008).The African Report on Child Wellbeing 2008: How child-friendly are African governments? The African Child Policy Forum, Addis Ababa.

Bennet, S., Gilson, L. and Mills, A. (2008).Conclusion: From evidence to action. In Bennett, S., Gilson, L. and Mills, A. (eds.). Health, economic development and household poverty: From understanding to action (pp. 225-230). New York: Routledge.

Dahl, R. (1963).Modern Political Analysis. A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Evans, G. (2000). Preventing and containing violent conflict: Mobilising political will. Introductory statement to Ministry of Foreign Affairs. International Seminar on Preventing Violent Conflict: The search for political will, strategies and effective tools. Krusenberg: Sweden.

The Futures Group International (2000a). Measuring Political Commitment. HIV/AIDS Toolkit.

The Futures Group International (2000b). Building Political Commitment at Sub-national Levels. The Policy Project.

Hammergren, L. (1998). Political will, constituency building, and public support in rule of law programs. Washington, DC: USAID.

Hollis, B. and Newcomer, J. (2009). Political Commitments and the Constitution. Virginia Journal of International Law. Vol. 49, No. 3.

Howe, R. (2007). A question of commitment: children’s rights in Canada. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.

Imbeau, M. (2009). Dissonance in Policy Processes: An introduction. In Imbeau, M. (ed.). Do They Walk Like They Talk? Speech and Action in Policy Processes. New York: Springer.

Jalulah, W. (2012). Ghana: Political Promises Have to Be Paid for – Dr Bawumia. An article issued at the Ghanaian Chronicle on 13th June 2012. Accessed in December 2012 at: http://allafrica.com/stories/201206140718.html

Malena, C. (2009). Building political will for participatory governance: An introduction. In Malena, C. (ed.). From Political Won’t to Political Will: Building Support for Participatory Governance. Sterling: Kumarian Press, pp. 3-30.

Martin, M. (2000). Financing Poverty Reduction in Heavily Indebted Poor Countries: Beyond HIPC II. London: Debt Relief International.

Paul, S. (1990). Strategic management of development programmes. Geneva: ILO.

15

Tagwireyi, G. (2012). Child Focused Government Institutions for Selected African Countries. Unpublished compilation. Addis Ababa: The African Child Policy Forum (ACPF).

UNDP (2008). Tackling corruption, transforming lives: Accelerating human development in Asia and the Pacific. Colombo: UNDP, HDR Unit.

UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2013). Data Centre. Montreal: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Accessed in July 2013 at: http://stats.uis.unesco.org/unesco/TableViewer/document.aspx?ReportId=143&IF_Language=eng

UNESCO (2000).The Dakar Framework for Action, Education for All: Meeting our Collective Commitments. Adopted by the World Education Forum Dakar, Senegal, 26-28 April 2000. Accessed in January 2010 at: http://www.unescobkk.org/fileadmin/user_upload/efa/DakarFrameworkEnglish.pdf

UNICEF (2013).State of the World’s Children 2013: Children with Disabilities. United Nations Plaza, New York: United Nations Children’s Fund.

de Vylder, S. (2001). “A macroeconomic policy for children in the era of globalisation.”In Cornia, G.A.(ed). “Harnessing Globalisation for Children: a Reportto UNICEF”.

Wall, J. (1997). Hidden Treasures: Searching for God in Modern Culture. Chicago: The Christian Century Press.

WHO (2008). World Health Statistics 2008. Geneva: World Health Organization.

Woocher, L. (2001). Deconstructing political will: Explaining the failure to prevent deadly conflict and mass atrocities. Princeton Journal of Public and International Affairs, 12(10).

17

CHILD WELLBEING MONITORING FRAMEWORKS: SYNTHESIS AND ANALYSISAsher Ben-Arieh and Daphna Gross-ManosThe Haruv Institute, Jerusalem, Israel

1. IntroductionEfforts to measure and monitor children’s wellbeing are not new. While they date back to the early 1940s, it is well argued that the roots of current efforts can be traced back to the social indicators movement in the 1960s and growing efforts to set development and social welfare goals and benchmarks for the global community.

Over recent years, there has been a number of associated global initiatives to set goals for a better society and a better life for children, families and communities. While not primarily directed at children, these initiatives have benefited children enormously in terms of drawing attention to their wellbeing and creating an enabling environment in which child focused efforts flourish. We begin by describing a few examples of these global efforts where benchmarks for monitoring progress have been developed and used, including the Human Development Index (HDI), which can be seen as a bridge between an overall monitoring effort and those that focus on children. This is followed by description of several other initiatives at national, regional and international levels that aim to track progress and use lessons learnt to enhance efforts further and improve results for children.

2. Existing global goals and benchmarksThe World Education Forum

The 2000 World Education Forum was held in Dakar. Government representatives from 164 countries committed themselves to the Dakar Framework for Action, which aims to provide high-quality basic education to all children, youth and adults by the year 2015, along with six other specific goals designed to help ensure Education For All (EFA) (UNESCO 2000). The Dakar Framework for Action mandated UNESCO, in cooperation with the four other conveners of the Dakar Forum (UNDP, UNFPA, UNICEF and the World Bank), to coordinate the global effort by all stakeholders (governments, development agencies, civil society and the private sector) to reach the EFA goals.

In line with this mandate, UNESCO has aligned its activities to policy dialogue, monitoring, advocacy, mobilization of funding and capacity development in order to sustain the political commitment to EFA and accelerate progress towards the 2015 targets. One of the tools used for this purpose is the EFA Global Monitoring Report and its accompanying series of publications. The EFA Global Monitoring Report (GMR) serves as the prime instrument for assessing global progress towards achieving these goals, and is a good example of a global monitoring effort focussed on a goal that mainly benefits children.1

Millennium Development Goals

In September 2000, 189 countries signed the United Nations Millennium Declaration, committing to, among other things, eradicate extreme poverty in all its forms, reduce child and maternal mortality and ensure universal primary education by 2015. To help track progress toward these commitments, a set of time-bound and quantitative goals and targets were developed, called the Millennium Development

1 See more on this at: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading-the-international-agenda/education-for-all/

2

18


Goals (MDGs). The goals focused on combating poverty in its many dimensions, including through reducing income poverty, hunger, disease, environmental degradation and gender discrimination. The MDGs include eight goals, 21 targets and 60 indicators for measuring progress between 1990 and 2015, when the goals are expected to be met (UN 2003).2 Most of the targets relate directly to children and have contributed to generation of data and information on various aspects of child wellbeing at national and global levels.

The Abuja Declaration

In April 2001, African governments met in Abuja, Nigeria. Their main pledge was to increase health financing to at least 15% of government expenditure (UN 2009). Today, only six African countries have reached that target (WHO 2013a). Overall, 26 countries in Africa have increased the proportion of government expenditure allocated to health and 11 have reduced it since 2001. In the other nine countries, there is no obvious trend up or down. Health financing in Africa depends heavily on external sources, but the amount of expenditure varies significantly by country. Current donor spending per country in Africa ranges from US$115 to less than US$5 per person (WHO 2013b).

The UN Resolution on Universal Birth Registration

The United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution entitled Birth registration and the right of everyone to recognition everywhere as a person before the law seeks action for universal registration at birth of all individuals. WHO estimates that 40 million births – one third of all births – are not registered each year due to inhibitive legal, administrative and attitudinal factors (WHO 2012). This is especially problematic in many African countries where the coverage of civil registration is very low.

In 2011, the goal was set for 2015 that “all countries [would] have taken significant steps to establish a system for registration of births, deaths and causes of death”. WHO and partners are currently facilitating a series of intercountry workshops on the accountability framework in which country teams start planning for national roadmaps to follow up on the recommendation. Strengthening civil registration systems is a key component of this effort (WHO 2012).

The Human Development Index

While not the result of a single summit or a declaration, the annual global Human Development Report (HDR) has been published by UNDP since 1990. The HDR is empirically grounded in analyses of global development issues, trends, progress and policies. The Human Development Index (HDI)is an integral component of the HDR, and is used for comparing the relative human development status of countries. The HDI is a composite measure composed of four indicators: life expectancy, literacy, education, and standards of living (Anand and Sen 1994). It aims to assess three major dimensions of human development: longevity, knowledge and access to resources (UNDP1990).The HDI ranks and categorises countries into four human development categories: “very high human development”, “high human development”, “medium human development”, and “low human development”.

The HDI, as a standard means of measuring human welfare, has strong association with and impact on child wellbeing. It is also used to measure the impact of economic policies on quality of life. The HDI is being used at national level to assess and track progress in development at regional, city and local government levels.3

2 See also other related materials at: http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/default.aspx.3 See http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2009/05/against_the_hum.html

19

__________________________________________________________ Child wellbeing monitoring frameworks: synthesis and analysis

3. Efforts to measure and monitor children’s wellbeing

We have described above a number of global efforts to set goals and benchmarks for human development in general, with no direct focus on children. It is time now to move on to efforts focusing specifically on children. The contemporary focus on measuring and monitoring children’s rights and wellbeing is rooted in the shift toward accountability-based public policy, which calls for reliable information and accurate measures of the living conditions of children as well as the outcomes of programmes and services primarily targeting children.

The field has changed and the current focus is wider and more inclusive than earlier efforts. This evolution of efforts to measure and monitor children’s wellbeing has occurred virtually all around the globe, though at varying pace in different contexts (Ben-Arieh 2002; 2006).

Earlier methodologies measure and monitor children’s wellbeing focused on children’s survival and their access to basic services, whereas recent efforts are more inclusive of children’s wellbeing and quality of life. Contemporary indicators have shifted from being primarily focused on negative outcomes to being focused on positive outcomes, and the ‘old’ emphasis on ‘well-becoming’ (i.e. indicators that predict subsequent achievement or wellbeing), has been complemented with indicators of current wellbeing. Furthermore, while early measurement efforts focused on adults’ perspectives, new efforts include children’s views on their situation and their own perception of their wellbeing.

Contemporary efforts to measure and monitor children’s wellbeing are clear in their goal to influence policies and services, which requires that indicators be devised and used in ways that extend their impact beyond simply building knowledge (Hood, 2007). In the past, some indicators and measurements have led to new policies and programmes for children, and some have not. Moreover, the same indicators have led to desired outcomes when used in some contexts, but not in others (Ben-Arieh and George, 2006). One example is the use of child poverty indicators and their changing impact in the UK (Bradshaw, 2006).

Recent years have brought to the forefront yet another phenomenon– that of growing attempts to develop various indices for children’s wellbeing (Bradshaw, Hoscher, and Richardson, 2007; Lippman, 2007). The increasing supply of information has led to a call for a single summary measure that can be used to present children’s wellbeing. It is thought that such a measure would facilitate the assessment of whether or not children’s lives are getting better, as it would be easier for the general public and the media to follow and monitor summary measures than dozens of indicators (Kunkel et al., 2002). Moreover, it could be easier to hold policy-makers accountable for a single measure than a complex one with numerous indicators pointing at different issues (Little, 2006). In addition, it is simpler to compare trends across demographic groups using such concise measures of child wellbeing than by using complex approaches (Moore et al., 2007).

The conceptualization and creation of an overall index of child wellbeing does, however, present several challenges (UNICEF, 2007).What domains should be assessed? What measures should be included in each domain? How should each aspect of wellbeing be weighted in relation to other aspects? How should different measures on varied metrics be coded? What cut-offs should be established to determine good or bad outcomes? And what can be done about gaps in data, particularly for domains for which little information is available? (Bradshaw et al. 2007). Concerns have also been raised about the averaging effect of an index in which trends heading in different directions essentially cancel one another out. In addition, there is concern about the sensitivity of such an index to the items that are

20


included in or omitted from it (Land, Lamb, Meadows, & Taylor, 2007). In other words, the cases both for and against an index are strong. So the main question we are left with is: do composite indices of children’s wellbeing have a greater potential to affect policy?

To answer this question we will present a comparison of seven indices of children’s wellbeing that are used in developed and developing countries. This comparison will enable us to elaborate on the strengths and limitations of composite indices at large, and suggest on ways to improve them and maximise their use in monitoring child wellbeing and promoting accountability to obligations relating to children.

3.1 The UNICEF Index of Children’s Wellbeing

This index was prepared for and reported in the UNICEF IRC Report Card #7 (UNICEF-IRC 2007). It provides a comprehensive assessment of the lives and wellbeing of children and young people in 21 industrialized nations. It attempts to measure and compare child wellbeing in six different dimensions:

1. Material wellbeing2. Health and safety3. Education4. Peer and family relationships5. Behaviours and risks6. Young people’s subjective sense of wellbeing.

The index draws on 40 separate indicators relevant to children’s lives and rights (UNICEF-IRC 2007). Although heavily dependent on available data, the assessment is guided by a coherent conception of child wellbeing that is in turn guided by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

3.2 An Index of Child Wellbeing in the European Union

The Index of Child Wellbeing in European Union (EU) follows a rights-based approach that recognises the multi-dimensional nature of child wellbeing. Initially, the index analysed available data for the 25 member states of the EU from comparative surveys of children and young people. It compares the performance of EU Member States on eight clusters with 23 domains and 51 indicators. The clusters include topics that matter to children from their own point of view, as well as those that address adults’ responsibility for the wellbeing of children. Wherever possible indicators represent children’s own experiences as expressed in surveys with young people. The eight clusters (Bradshaw et al., 2007) are:

1. Material situation2. Housing3. Health4. Subjective wellbeing5. Education6. Children’s relationships7. Civic participation8. Risk and safety.

The full list of the indicators of each domain is shown in Table 1, which is presented at the end of this article.

21

__________________________________________________________ Child wellbeing monitoring frameworks: synthesis and analysis

In the second round of assessment using this index, a few changes were made. The civic participation domain was dropped, as no data could be gathered about it, and four more countries were added to the list of nations covered (Bradshaw and Richardson, 2009).

3.3 The Foundation for Child Development (FCD) Child and Youth Wellbeing Index

The Child and Youth Wellbeing Index (CWI) is an evidence-based composite measure of trends over time in the quality of life of children in the United States of America from birth to age 17. It comprises 28 indicators organized into seven quality-of-life domains that have been found in numerous social science studies to be related to an overall sense of subjective wellbeing or satisfaction with life (Kenneth, Vick and Sarah 2001). The CWI tracks the wellbeing of children annually using data from 1975 to the present. The seven domains (Kenneth, Vick and Sarah 2001) are:

1. Family economic wellbeing2. Health3. Safety/behavioural concerns4. Educational attainment5. Community connectedness6. Social relationships7. Emotional/spiritual wellbeing.

3.4 The KIDS COUNT Data Book

The Annie E. Casey Foundation has published its KIDS COUNT Data book since 1990, assessing child wellbeing in each state in the United States based on 10 key indicators. The 10 indicators of child wellbeing are used to build an overall index of child wellbeing in each state and used to rank states. The KIDS COUNT Data Book provides information and data trends on the conditions of children and families (The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2011; O’Hare and Bramstedt, 2004).

The 10 indicators (The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2011) are:

1. Percentage of low-birth weight babies2. Infant mortality rate (deaths per 1,000 live births)3. Child death rate (deaths per 100,000 children of ages 1–14 years)4. Teen death rate (deaths per 100,000 teens ages 15–19)5. Teen birth rate (births per 1,000 females ages 15–19)6. Percentage of teens not in school and not high school graduates (ages 16–19)7. Percentage of teens not attending school and not working (ages 16–19)8. Percentage of children living in families where no parent has full-time, year-round employment9. Percentage of children in poverty

10. Percentage of children in single-parent families.

While the indicators represent a combination of negative outcomes and risk factors, the fact that all reflect problems facilitates interpretation. For each indicator, a lower value signifies a better child outcome for a state. The 10 KIDS COUNT measures are claimed to possess three important attributes:

1. They reflect several important areas of a child’s wellbeing including health, material wellbeing, educational attainment, behavioural concerns, and social relationships

2. They reflect experiences across a range of developmental stages– from birth through to early adulthood

3. They are consistently measured over time, permitting legitimate comparisons (O’Hare and Bramstedt, 2004).

22


3.5 The Child Development Index

In 2008 Save the Children UK introduced a globally representative, multi-dimensional tool to monitor and compare the wellbeing of children. It has been used for 137 developed and developing countries across the world (Save the Children UK, 2008). The Child Development Index (CDI) is made up of indicators that capture three areas of child wellbeing. These are:

1. Under-five mortality rate expressed on a scale of 0 to 340 deaths per 1,000 live births (used to capture progress in the area of health)

2. The percentage of children under five years of age who are moderately or severely underweight (used to capture progress in nutrition)

3. The percentage of primary school-age children who are not enrolled in school (used to capture gaps in access to education).

These indicators were chosen because they are easily available, commonly understood, and clearly indicative of child wellbeing. Each indicator is expressed in deprivation form, i.e., as the lack of a basic human capability. The three CDI indicators are normalized to range from 0 to 100, and then combined together with equal weights to form the composite Index. This simple method of aggregation implies that achieving progress in each dimension is absolutely essential: progress in the two other dimensions cannot be a substitute.

The CDI is the subject of one of the articles in this compilation: detailed descriptions of its approach and other methodological considerations have been provided there. In brief, the CDI is designed to be a simple, transparent and easily understandable index for global comparisons of progress across countries and regions. Hence, it contributes to global advocacy for promoting child wellbeing and helps in identifying broad policy priorities.

3.6 An Index of maternal and child health in the Least Developed Countries of Asia

This index aims to measure maternal and child health in the least developed countries (LDCs) of Asia, which are particularly affected by poverty and inequality and which are considered to require the highest degree of attention by the international community (Rodríguez and Salinas,2011). The index was designed to include the relevant MDG indicators and integrates variables of maternal and child health that allow territorial ranking of the LDCs in terms of these indicators. The initiative was supported by the Ministry of Science and Innovation of the Spanish Government.

The index indicators are related to two of the MDG targets:

• Indicators relating to MDG 4, which focuses on the reduction of child mortality. There are three indicators of this type used to assess progress in child survival and access to essential health services: mortality rate among children under five years of age; infant mortality rate; and the percentage of children fully immunised.

• Indicators relating to MDG 5, which focuses on improvement of maternal health. There are six indicators under this category: deliveries attended by skilled health personnel; contraceptive prevalence among married women; maternal mortality rate; antenatal care coverage; adolescent birth rate; and unmet need for family planning.

23


3.7 The ACPF Child-Friendliness Index

The Child-Friendliness Index (CFI) was developed by the African Child Policy Forum (ACPF) to assess the performance of African governments in realizing the rights and wellbeing of children (ACPF 2008). The index provides a quantitative measure of the extent to which governments live up to their commitments, by scoring and ranking the performances of African governments with respect to their obligations to children (Mekonen 2011).

The CFI is also the subject of one of the articles in this compilation. There, details are provided on the approach, indicators and methodology for constructing the Index. It can briefly be said that the concept of child-friendliness builds on three central pillars of child rights and wellbeing: protection, provision and participation. Each of these main components is composed of several indicators to measure effort made to fulfil these rights.

• Indicators for child legal protection are used to assess the legal and policy framework put in place to protect children against abuse and exploitation. These include ratification of international and regional legal instruments relating to children; national laws, policies and mechanisms; child justice systems; National Plans of Action and coordinating bodies for the implementation of children’s rights; and child rights protection bodies.

• Indicators for provision of basic needs to children, including budgetary expenditure on sectors benefiting children; access to health, education and other services; and child-related outcomes showing nutritional status and child mortality.

• It is currently impossible to come by indicators for child participation that capture effort at national level; child participation is therefore not currently included in the assessment.

As with any other index or effort to measure and monitor children’s wellbeing, the ACPF index has some limitations. One concern is the use of the rate of expenditure on defence as anindicator negatively related to child-friendliness. Higher expenditure on military and defence-related matters may not necessarily be associated negatively with child wellbeing; indeed, at times it could have a positive association with children’s wellbeing, such as in times of external threat and other crises. Moreover, the Child-Friendliness Index is based on numerous indicators, and further addition of extra indicators that are not unique, or which do not bring “new” perspectives to the index, might have a negative effect by overcomplicating the index and reducing the chance the public will understand it.

4. Criteria for better indices of children’s wellbeingSeveral guidelines or criteria for reviewing and improving indicators and indices of children’s wellbeing have been suggested (Ben-Arieh and George, 2006; Moore, 1997; Raphael, Renwick, Brown and Rootman, 1996). Studies have shown that the impact of child wellbeing indicators and indices is enhanced if such criteria are used to create them and guide their use (Corbett, 2006). Other studies have argued the same for educational indicators (Beller, 2005). Moreover, indices based on such criteria are valid and useful for improving our knowledge about children’s lives and wellbeing (Moore and Brown, 2006). The following 11 criteria are often mentioned in the literature as criteria for enhancing the impact of indices in achieving intended objectives (Little, 2006; Ben-Arieh et al., 2001):

1. Significance for the wellbeing of children: Indices should be comprehensive in their coverage and relate significantly to children’s wellbeing.

24


2. Applicability: Indices should measure the current wellbeing of children and establish a base for monitoring future trends and analysing the consequences of existing policies or programmes.

3. Clarity: Indices should avoid complex statistical measures. To gain credibility, they must be clear and easily understood.

4. Conceptual validity and accuracy: The lack of consensus on the meaning of wellbeing or a theoretical framework for the study of child wellbeing highlights the importance of solid conceptual ground that is not compromised by vague and oversimplified estimations.

5. Impartiality: Indices should be perceived by critics in the research community and by decision-makers across the political spectrum as fair, accurate, and unbiased. If not, debate is likely to focus on the indicator rather than the knowledge gained from its use.

6. Relationship to cause and outcomes: Indices should relate to both the causative factors for the current status of children and the outcomes of existing policies and programmes.

7. Relevance to policy: Indices should be oriented towards recognized policy variables.

8. Appeal for decision makers: Indices should be compelling to decision-makers at all levels and across social and political institutions.

9. Appeal for media and advocacy groups: Indices should be understandable and compelling to the media and to advocacy groups. This helps ensure that the collected data will enter the public debate.

10. Accessibility: Indices should be collected by and be available to responsible agencies in the public and private sectors and at all levels.

11. Degree of challenge to assumptions: Indices must challenge uninformed beliefs and stereotypes (such as the assumption that children are incapable and that poor people are lazy and neglect their children) that prevent policy changes which could potentially improve the lives of poor children.

These criteria enhance the validity and usefulness of indices of child wellbeing. A comparison of the different indices by these and other criteria can be found in Tables 1 and 2at the end of this article. The analyses in the table show strengths and limitations of the various indices and provide useful input to strengthen existing monitoring frameworks and develop new and refined approaches. As can clearly been seen from the different indices, the ability to cover broad perspectives on children’s wellbeing enables focus on several important aspects of child wellbeing that go beyond survival related indicators. Indeed, a number of them (especially those that focused on only 10 indicators or less) are primarily measuring children’s survival or access to basic needs. Others, especially the more complex ones, are including more positive aspects of children’s lives, and taking into account contextual realities within which the children live.

All the indices considered above are multi-dimensional in the sense that they look at children’s wellbeing through a number of life domains. Once again some are narrower in their perspective and others are very broad. Yet the mere construction of an index enables us to cover multiple aspects of children’s wellbeing. Here the issue of the number of indicators included becomes relevant: on the one hand too many indicators (even if combined into one index) can be too complex to grasp, or can confuse understanding of their interrelationships; on the other hand, using too few indicators runs the risk of omitting important aspects of children’s lives and wellbeing, and hence compromising the accuracy of the measurement.

25


Indices, by putting forward a single composite measurement, enable comparison and ranking of countries (or localities);thus they are attractive to media and those working on advocacy, as they can help draw public attention and influence policy action. Some indices try to classify ranked countries into groups. However, while ranking is very important in order to create a full picture and help put accountability pressure on governments, division into groups can be more risky and problematic. This is largely because the cut-off points for categorisation in many cases are not clear or precise, despite the fact that the categorical labels can have strong effects on a country’s image.

The measurement of children’s situations in the different sub domains of different indices (and the overall composite index) is crucial, as it helps us to understand the complex situation of children and therefore devise appropriate policies and programmes targeting them. One of the main advantages of composite indices is their ability to showcase the status of children in a simple and attractive format. The impact of indices is greater when accompanied with clear recommendations that outline actions required at various levels of influence and specify responsible actors. In such cases, the indices become more effective policy communication tools and contribute to influencing change.

An index should have a clear target audience right from the beginning, as this helps in developing substantive content and tailoring recommendations to ensure relevance and maximise utilisation.

5. Promoting accountability to childrenOne of the main purposes of using indices is to promote accountability, by holding governments accountable for their policies and implementation efforts and the results they achieve in terms of concrete child wellbeing outcomes. Yet the ability to track and measure the impact of policies on children is relatively weak. One of the reasons for this is scarcity of evaluation research that examines and reveals the impact of various socio-economic policies on children.

The other challenge relates to attribution and establishment of causal relationships between changes that occur on the ground and their level of influence on the index, as several other factors may also have contributed to any observed change. For example, the preoccupation of the UK government a few years ago with child poverty might be attributed to the publication of the UNICEF Index of Children’s Wellbeing, which ranked the UK very low, and the resulting media coverage. Yet it can also be argued that the growing economy and falling unemployment rates contributed just as much to the decision of the labour government to tackle poverty. Moreover, it has been argued that the UK government’s interest in the topic had started a number of years before the publication of the Index (Walker, 1999).

Studies have showed that attracting the attention of the media is an essential first step in promoting accountability. A quick exercise using Google enabled us to count the news items that appeared in the first four pages of the Google search results when searching for the different indices,as well as to analyse the types of online newspapers in which they were published.

The most widely publicised index was The UNICEF Index of Children’s Wellbeing. The index got extensive coverage in print and web media services. It got virtually global coverage and was addressed by almost all major media services on all continents. The report was downloaded approximately 40,000 times in the first month, and received wide coverage in editorial columns and blogs. The wide coverage was attributable first and foremost to a thoroughly planned UNICEF communication strategy. In view of the success of the report in attracting media, the following elements of the advocacy strategy are worth highlighting:

• Publishing the report in many languages including English, French, Spanish, Italian, Korean, Portuguese and Russian

• Multiple launches of the report in different countries

26


• Granting a series of interviews with newspaper, TV, radio, and other media outlets• Creating links to websites• Partnership with UNICEF Country Offices, relevant national agencies, academia and NGO’s• A joint planning of the launch and dissemination with other relevant agencies • Preparation of information kits and focus on strategic audiences• Advance distribution of the report.

It was noted that coverage given to the report varied across countries. In the UK, the report was covered widely, mainly because British children were at the bottom of the league table. In Germany, it was the fact that German kids were merely mediocre, and in the USA the index got the most critical media reception – questioning the low ranking of the US as well as the relevance of the inequality measures in the assessment. In the Netherlands and the Nordic countries, high rankings spurred media coverage. In Poland, media coverage was higher due to the fact Poland got higher scores in the index, ranking better than the US and UK despite its economic status when compared to the two economic giants. In many other countries, the media focused on rankings, methodology and individual component scores.

The media coverage brought some interesting reactions. Parker (2007) reported that France and the US questioned some of the indicators included in the index, and that Canada used its publication to promote the idea of a Children’s Charter. The European Parliament issued follow-up statements by both socialist and conservative groups. The EU and the European Commission (EC) used it to support existing movement towards a multi-dimensional approach to child wellbeing and to draw public attention to child poverty and social exclusion.

The other indices have also attracted media coverage from various media outlets at various levels of influence. For example, ACPF’s Child-Friendliness Index, although relatively new and focusing on developing countries, got references in the international, regional and national news channels. At the international level, for instance, the BBC published an article about the new index, and several other African media also reported on it.

6. Validity observation in the African contextThis review up to now has compared indices according to different criteria, discussed their media coverage, and looked at their contribution to drawing public attention to children’s issues. There is a need for further analysis of the validity of these indices. One way of doing this is to compare and contrast the results of the indices using selected countries as references.

As this report focuses on Africa, we have chosen nine African countries in order to make such comparison. The countries were chosen based on their placing in the 2008 ranking of the ACPF’s Child Friendliness Index. Three countries from each of the Index’s categories of performance in realising children’s rights – top (“most child-friendly”), middle (“fairly child-friendly”) and bottom (“least child-friendly”) – were chosen for the analysis. For these nine countries, we looked at their respective rankings in two other indices for the same year: the CDI and the HDI(as these were the only ones in this review that also included African countries). The results are presented in Table 3. To further illustrate the comparison, they are also presented in a graph (Figure 1).

27


Table 3: Child wellbeing in nine African countries according to three indices (2008)

CountryHDI CDI CFI

Score Rank Score Rank Score RankMauritius 0.728 77 8.03 55 0.711 1Namibia 0.625 120 21.82 89 0.706 2Tunisia 0.698 94 4.54 27 0.701 3Mozambique 0.322 184 31.76 116 0.571 25Togo 0.435 162 25.88 96 0.569 26Zambia 0.43 164 30.11 112 0.567 27Cen. Afr. Republic 0.343 179 44.93 129 0.445 50Eritrea 0.349 177 38.29 124 0.442 51Guinea-Bissau 0.353 176 44.37 128 0.366 52

Sources: Based on data from ACPF 2008; Save the Children UK 2008; UNDP 2008

Figure 1: Comparison of results of the three indices in nine African countries

Sources: Based on data from ACPF 2008; Save the Children UK 2008; UNDP 2011

The fact that countries have similar places (i.e. the ratio of rank to the total number of countries covered by the index) across the different indices, especially when using three different measures reinforces the validity of the indices, and the argument that they do measure what they are intended to measure.

7. The impact of child wellbeing indices and recommendations for the futureResearch shows that there are a number of associated conditions and factors that interact with indicators and their usage (Aber, 1997; Frazer, 1998; Habib, 1997; Tardieu, Lopez and Tardieu, 1998). This section describes such conditions and factors and suggests how they may be used to facilitate improvements in children’s wellbeing.

28


Agents of change as mediators – Research found that when agents of change, such as advocacy groups, opinion leaders, or high ranking bureaucrats, are involved in the process of measuring and monitoring children’s wellbeing, they tend to act as mediators between the producers of the data and decision makers. When placing themselves as mediators they are making a commitment not only to the cause but also to making good use of the power of information.

Accompanying the index by analysis and data relevant to appropriate responses – When releasing data, it is advisable to be ready to take advantage of the opportunity to capture public attention and suggest appropriate responses to the current situation as reflected by the data (in this case the index). Too many times, those who use indexes make strong cases using their data, but are not successful at explaining and arguing for appropriate policy changes. Using the released data and analysis to recommend policy reforms will enhance the likelihood that the index will be used in the policy making process.

Accompanying the index with efforts to address criticisms and doubts about its validity – In a similar way, when an index is used to measure and monitor children’s wellbeing, a natural and expected response would be criticisms of the index. Defending the validity of the index is a key step in ensuring it serves its purpose and brings about an impact on policy and practice.

Consensus about how to respond – In many cases, there is a common agreement on the status of children’s wellbeing among child rights communities and academia, but disagreement on the appropriate strategies for improving it. Consensus needs to be reached on how to proceed in bridging the gap between policy and practice, and how to enhance the utilisation of available data in maximising the impact of policies targeting children.

Integrated strategic communications campaign – Influencing policies and their implementation requires well-developed strategies. Constructing the best indices for children’s wellbeing is a key step in promoting accountability to children. Equally importantly, emphasis must be given to making the most of these indices and maximising their impact in achieving the intended objectives. For this, a strategic and integrated campaign must be planned, making use of local knowledge and available media connections. Such a campaign should involve the main stakeholders, including advocacy groups and other influential bodies.

Preparedness for long-term and sustained efforts – Finding good and accurate indices for children’s wellbeing is a long and tedious process. Influencing policies and making a difference in children’s wellbeing is likely to be an even longer and more challenging task. Long-term planning and sustained effort and commitment to implementing the plans are crucial to making a difference in the policy arena. Without such efforts and commitment, it would not be possible to influence policies and contribute meaningfully to realising the rights and wellbeing of children.

Alliance of interested political forces - Even when all the criteria and conditions appear favourable for making a desired change in children’s lives, such a change is not assured. This is largely because policymaking is a complicated political process influenced by various players and interests. Building an alliance is usually beneficial because it allows a stronger voice. Indices serve as instruments with which such alliances can make their case and suggest policy measures that need to be taken to improve the life situation of children.

The importance of a local perspective – Research has shown the importance of knowledge of local context and the various social, economic, political and cultural factors that affect the wellbeing of children. Experience in many countries has shown that focus on a sub-national level enables a better

29


understanding of the factors at play, and helps identify policy options that have greater impact on those groups of children that are at most risk. Therefore, it is beneficial to include indicators at sub-national levels that improve understanding and inform the formulation of better polices and implementation strategies.

Favourable economic conditions and ideological atmosphere – Policymaking is always contingent on the existing economic conditions. In many cases, when resources are scarce, the chances of influencing policies are lower, even with very persuasive indicators and data. On the contrary, when resources are abundant, the same data can be very useful for changing policies. Similarly, ideological conditions can foster or impede the use of good indicators and data to influence policies.

Three additional questions about the impact of children’s wellbeing indices

To further enrich the discussion and trigger more reflections, we have come up with three questions relevant to the issue under consideration, and offered views on each of the questions – with a view to adding to the discussion, and helping maximise the influence of the child focused indices in promoting child wellbeing and improving accountability to children.

1. How important are international comparisons? Data on this issue are mixed. We know that in a number of important areas international comparisons were found to be extremely useful in bringing about change (Bottani and Tuijnman, 1994; Gottschalk and Smeeding, 1995). Using international comparisons, this review has shown that different indices have had an impact in different areas. Yet the impact was not universal and did not occur with the same intensity in different countries. It seems that – especially in the United States –international comparisons have not always been proved significant (Aber, 1997).

2. How much information is needed? In some cases too much information may desensitize the public. Even in an information era, too much information can be less effective. The paradox is that we are in a period when the public is educated and able to accumulate large amounts of sophisticated information, but because the information is presented in a fragmented and dramatized way (usually by the media), relevant and useful information is in short supply.

3. Are indicators universal and timeless, or time - and place - specific? Once again, this is probably an issue of avoiding the extremes. We have argued for indicators that can be used consistently and would enable the monitoring of trends. We have also argued on the importance of policy-relevant indicators that are applicable within the particular political context. This issue is related to the perspective, duration, and desired impact of the index, and the answer lies in the specific index, the context within which it is developed and the desired objective.

30


8. ConclusionsResearch has served us well in the effort to compare and contrast various guidelines and criteria for developing indices on children that will ultimately improve their life situation. However, the set of guidelines and criteria presented above –as with any other set mentioned in the literature –is not enough. Here we need to refer to our opening remarks and the discomfort among researchers and policy makers regarding the usefulness of indices in the policy making process. Social science has a clear role in dismantling this discomfort. However, in the meantime advocates, researchers and policy makers who are concerned with promoting children’s wellbeing must make the most of existing knowledge. Incompleteness of existing knowledge should not serve as an excuse for unplanned or unguided efforts to use indices of children’s wellbeing to influence policy.

Accordingly, we stand behind the collective wisdom and experience that formulated the guidelines described above, and we urge their usage in a manner that will further expose the state of children and promote their wellbeing.

This review compared different child wellbeing indices and highlighted the importance of some criteria in the construction of an index. As mentioned earlier, constructing an index is not a simple task, as many questions arise and many decisions need to be taken. In order to construct a robust and policy-relevant index, special attention needs to be made of the appropriateness of the indices, their clarity and applicability, and their vulnerability to criticism. Yet, for indices to serve policy makers and advocates better, the qualities mentioned above are not in themselves enough. Special emphasis is therefore needed on conditions and factors in the social, economic and political environment. Inclusion of these perspectives could make the difference between constructing indices that remain “in the drawer”, and those that are in everyday use.

Item

sTh

e Ch

ildDe

velop

men

tIn

dex

The

UNIC

EF In

dex

of C

hildr

en’s

Well

being

Kids

Cou

ntTh

e Ch

ild a

ndYo

uth

Well

being

Inde

x (CW

I)

An In

dex o

f Chil

dW

ellbe

ing in

the

Euro

pean

Unio

n

ACPF

’s ch

ild-

frien

dline

ss In

dex

(CFI

)

Inde

x of m

ater

nal

and

child

hea

lth in

LDCs

of A

sia

Mai

ndo

mai

ns/

indi

cato

rs

3 m

ain

indi

cato

rs:

(1) h

ealth

(i.e

.un

der-f

ive

mor

talit

yra

te);

(2) n

utrit

ion

(i.e.

the

per-c

enta

geof

und

er fi

ves

who

are

mod

erat

ely

orse

vere

lyun

derw

eigh

t; (3

)ed

ucat

ion

(i.e.

the

perc

enta

ge o

fpr

imar

y sc

hool

-age

child

ren

who

are

not

enro

lled

in s

choo

l).

40 s

epar

ate

indi

cato

rsfro

m s

ix m

ain

dim

ensi

ons:

(1) m

ater

ial

wel

lbei

ng; (

2) h

ealth

and

safe

ty; (

3)ed

ucat

ion;

(4

) pee

r and

fam

ilyre

latio

nshi

ps;

(5) b

ehav

iour

s an

dris

ks; a

nd

(6) y

oung

peo

ple’

ssu

bjec

tive

sens

e of

wel

lbei

ng.

The

10 in

dica

tors

are

:(1

)per

cent

age

of lo

w-

birt

h w

eigh

t bab

ies;

(2)

infa

nt m

orta

lity

rate

; (3)

child

dea

th ra

te; (

4) te

ende

ath

rate

; (5)

teen

birt

hra

te; (

6) p

erce

ntag

e of

teen

s no

t in

scho

ol a

ndno

t hig

h sc

hool

grad

uate

s; (7

)pe

rcen

tage

of t

eens

not

atte

ndin

g sc

hool

and

not

wor

king

; (8

) per

cent

age

of c

hild

ren

livin

g in

fam

ilies

whe

re n

o pa

rent

has

full-

time,

yea

r-rou

ndem

ploy

men

t; (9

)pe

rcen

tage

of c

hild

ren

in p

over

ty; a

nd (1

0)pe

rcen

tage

of c

hild

ren

in s

ingl

e- p

aren

t fam

ilies

28 in

dica

tors

orga

nize

d in

to s

even

qual

ity-o

f-life

dom

ains

: (1)

fam

ilyec

onom

icw

ellb

eing

; (2)

heal

th; (

3)sa

fety

/beh

avio

ural

conc

erns

; (4)

educ

atio

nal

atta

inm

ent;

(5)

com

mun

ityco

nnec

tedn

ess;

(6)

soci

al re

latio

nshi

ps;

and

(7) e

mot

iona

l/sp

iritu

al w

ellb

eing

.

51 in

dica

tors

from

seve

n cl

uste

rs:

(1)

mat

eria

l situ

atio

n; (2

)ho

usin

g; (3

) hea

lth;

(4) s

ubje

ctiv

ew

ellb

eing

; (5)

educ

atio

n; (6

)ch

ildre

n’s

rela

tions

hips

; (7)

risk

and

safe

ty.

Prot

ectio

n of

child

ren

by le

gal

and

polic

yfra

mew

orks

; effo

rts

to m

eet b

asic

need

s, a

sses

sed

inte

rms

of b

udge

tary

allo

catio

n an

dac

hiev

emen

t of

outc

omes

; and

the

effo

rts

mad

e to

ensu

re c

hild

ren’

spa

rtic

ipat

ion

inde

cisi

ons

that

affe

ctth

eir w

ellb

eing

(latte

r not

cur

rent

lym

easu

red

beca

use

of th

e la

ck o

f dat

a).

MD

G 4

(red

uce

child

mor

talit

y): (

1)m

orta

lity

rate

inch

ildre

n ag

ed le

ssth

an 5

; (2)

infa

ntm

orta

lity

rate

; (3

) chi

ldre

n im

mun

ized.

MD

G 5

(im

prov

em

ater

nal h

ealth

): (1

)de

liver

ies

atte

nded

by

skill

ed h

ealth

pers

onne

l; (2

) co

ntra

cept

ive

use

amon

g m

arrie

dw

omen

; (3)

mat

erna

lm

orta

lity

ratio

;(4

) ant

enat

al c

are

cove

rage

; (5)

adol

esce

nt b

irth

rate

;(6

) unm

et n

eed

for

fam

ily p

lann

ing

Num

ber o

fpa

rtic

ipat

ing

coun

tries

137

2152

5027

/29

5210

Dev

elop

men

tst

ate

Dev

elop

ed a

ndde

velo

ping

cou

ntrie

sD

evel

oped

Dev

elop

edD

evel

oped

Dev

elop

edD

evel

opin

gD

evel

opin

g

The

year

itst

arte

d20

0820

0719

90D

ata

is tr

aced

sin

ce19

7520

0720

0820

08

No.

of t

imes

publ

ishe

d2

times

Once

so

far (

in th

isex

act f

orm

at)

Annu

alAn

nual

2 tim

es2

times

Once

so

far

Sour

ce: C

ompi

led

by th

e au

thor

s fro

m th

e va

rious

sou

rces

list

ed in

the

refe

renc

es

Tabl

e 1:

Chi

ld w

ellb

eing

indi

ces

com

paris

on b

y ge

nera

l crit

eria

Cont

inue

d to

nex

t pag

e ...

Item

sTh

e Ch

ildDe

velop

men

tIn

dex

The

UNIC

EF In

dex

of C

hildr

en’s

Well

being

Kids

Cou

ntTh

e Ch

ild a

ndYo

uth

Well

being

Inde

x (CW

I)

An In

dex o

f Chil

dW

ellbe

ing in

the

Euro

pean

Unio

n

ACPF

’s ch

ild-

frien

dline

ss In

dex

(CFI

)

Inde

x of m

ater

nal

and

child

hea

lth in

LDCs

of A

sia

Mai

ndo

mai

ns/

indi

cato

rs

To m

onito

r how

coun

tries

are

perfo

rmin

g in

rela

tion

to th

ew

ellb

eing

of t

heir

child

ren,

and

hel

p to

ensu

re th

atgo

vern

men

ts a

rehe

ld to

acc

ount

for

the

impa

ct o

f the

irpo

licie

s an

dpr

iorit

ies

onch

ildre

n.

To e

ncou

rage

mon

itorin

g, to

per

mit

com

paris

on, a

nd to

stim

ulat

e th

edi

scus

sion

and

deve

lopm

ent o

fpo

licie

s to

impr

ove

child

ren’

s liv

es.

To s

erve

as

an o

ngoi

ngbe

nchm

ark

that

refle

cts

a w

ide

rang

e of

fact

ors

affe

ctin

g ch

ild w

ellb

eing

that

can

be

used

to s

eeho

w s

tate

s ha

vead

vanc

ed o

r reg

ress

edov

er ti

me.

Allo

ws

com

paris

on o

f the

stat

us o

f chi

ldre

nin

eac

h st

ate.

To m

easu

re h

owch

ildre

n ar

e fa

ring

in th

e US

.

To m

onito

r the

wel

lbei

ng o

f chi

ldre

non

a E

urop

ean

leve

l.

To re

view

, ana

lyse

and

mea

sure

gove

rnm

ent

perfo

rman

ce in

real

izin

g ch

ild ri

ghts

and

child

wel

lbei

ng.

To c

reat

e a

synt

hetic

indi

cato

r of m

ater

nal

and

child

hea

lth th

atal

low

s co

mpa

rison

sbe

twee

n th

e le

ast

deve

lope

d co

untri

es(L

DCs)

of A

sia.

Qual

ity o

f dat

a

As th

e in

dex

colle

cts

data

from

man

yco

untri

es th

e qu

ality

of th

e da

ta is

not

clea

r, th

ough

it h

asbe

en im

prov

ing

inth

e la

st d

ecad

e. T

heso

urce

s of

dat

a ar

eno

t sta

ted.

Com

para

ble

surv

eyfin

ding

s fro

m a

wid

eva

riety

of s

ourc

es h

ave

been

ana

lysed

toge

ther

. The

qua

lity

depe

nds

on th

eco

untri

es a

ndfo

r som

e co

untri

es it

was

not

fully

ava

ilabl

e.

The

defin

ition

s an

d da

taso

urce

s of

eac

h on

e of

the

10 in

dica

tors

are

stat

ed c

lear

ly so

dat

a is

likel

y to

be

of g

ood

qual

ity. A

ll in

dica

tor d

ata

com

es fr

om U

Sgo

vern

men

t age

ncie

s.M

ost o

f the

dat

a ha

veal

read

y be

en p

ublis

hed

or re

leas

ed to

the

publ

icin

som

e ot

her f

orm

at.

As it

is b

ased

mos

tlyon

dat

a fro

mdi

ffere

nt s

tatis

tics

orga

niza

tions

,m

ostly

nat

iona

l, it

shou

ld b

e of

hig

hqu

ality

(esp

ecia

llyfo

r rec

ent y

ears

).

Com

para

ble

surv

eyfin

ding

s fro

m a

wid

eva

riety

of s

ourc

esha

ve b

een

anal

ysed

toge

ther

. The

qua

lity

depe

nds

on th

eco

untri

es a

nd fo

rso

me

coun

tries

dat

ait

was

not

fully

avai

labl

e.

The

data

cam

em

ostly

from

diffe

rent

inte

rnat

iona

lso

urce

s. F

or s

ome

coun

tries

it is

sta

ted

that

the

qual

ity o

fda

ta, e

spec

ially

for

olde

r yea

rs, w

as n

otso

goo

d.

High

. Mos

t ind

icat

ors

are

com

mon

ly us

edan

d th

e da

ta is

bas

edon

the

Mill

enni

umDe

velo

pmen

t Goa

lsre

port

of t

he U

nite

dN

atio

ns.

Nat

ure

of

indi

cato

rsse

lect

ion

Data

driv

en

Guid

ed b

y a

conc

ept o

fch

ild w

ellb

eing

that

isin

turn

gui

ded

by th

eUn

ited

Nat

ions

Conv

entio

n on

the

Righ

ts o

f the

Chi

ld b

utal

so v

ery

muc

h da

tadr

iven

.

Very

muc

h da

ta d

riven

.Ve

ry m

uch

data

driv

en.

Sear

chin

g fo

r the

data

was

gui

ded

byth

e co

ncep

t of c

hild

wel

lbei

ng a

s m

ulti-

dim

ensi

onal

, how

ever

in th

e en

d th

e in

dex

has

been

dat

a dr

iven

.

Conc

ept d

riven

–af

fect

ed b

y th

esp

ecifi

c fra

mew

ork

of c

hild

frie

ndlin

ess.

Data

driv

en –

adju

sted

to s

ocia

l ind

icat

ors

esta

blis

hed

by th

eM

DGs

(by

the

Unite

dN

atio

ns).

Item

sTh

e Ch

ildDe

velop

men

tIn

dex

The

UNIC

EF In

dex

of C

hildr

en’s

Well

being

Kids

Cou

ntTh

e Ch

ild a

ndYo

uth

Well

being

Inde

x (CW

I)

An In

dex o

f Chil

dW

ellbe

ing in

the

Euro

pean

Unio

n

ACPF

’s ch

ild-

frien

dline

ss In

dex

(CFI

)

Inde

x of m

ater

nal

and

child

hea

lth in

LDCs

of A

sia

Met

hod

of

aggr

egat

ion

The

3 CD

I ind

icat

ors

are

norm

aliz

ed to

rang

e fro

m 0

to 1

00an

d th

en c

ombi

ned

toge

ther

with

equ

alw

eigh

ts to

form

the

com

posi

te.

A co

untr

y’s

over

all

scor

e fo

r eac

hdi

men

sion

is c

alcu

late

dby

ave

ragi

ng it

s sc

ore

for t

he th

ree

com

pone

nts

chos

en to

repr

esen

t tha

tdi

men

sion

. Thi

s gi

ves

equa

l wei

ghtin

gto

the

com

pone

nts

and

to th

e in

dica

tors

that

mak

e up

eac

hco

mpo

nent

. Sco

res

have

bee

n ca

lcul

ated

usin

g th

e ‘z

sco

res’

met

hod.

Not

cle

arly

sta

ted

in th

ere

port

.Th

e ba

se y

ear v

alue

of th

e in

dica

tor i

sas

sign

ed a

val

ue o

f10

0 an

dsu

bseq

uent

val

ues

of th

e in

dica

tor a

reta

ken

as p

erce

ntag

ech

ange

s in

the

CWI.

The

dire

ctio

ns o

f the

indi

cato

rs a

reor

ient

ed s

o th

at a

valu

e gr

eate

r (or

less

er) t

han

100

insu

bseq

uent

yea

rsm

eans

the

soci

alco

nditi

on m

easu

reha

s im

prov

ed (o

rde

terio

rate

d). E

qual

wei

ghtin

g is

use

d to

com

posi

te th

edi

ffere

nt d

omai

ns.

Equa

l wei

ghts

wer

eus

ed in

this

Inde

x, b

utin

som

e ca

ses,

the

zsc

ores

wer

e us

ed. F

orex

ampl

e, c

hild

hea

lthbe

havi

our i

s th

eav

erag

e of

the

zsc

ores

for f

ive

indi

cato

rs, b

utin

form

ing

the

heal

thdo

mai

n, c

hild

hea

lthbe

havi

our o

nly

coun

tsfo

r 1/3

tow

ards

the

heal

th d

omai

n.

All o

f the

indi

cato

rva

lues

wer

eeq

uiva

lent

ly s

cale

dto

adj

ust f

ordi

ffere

nces

in ra

nge.

Apar

t fro

m th

eim

plic

it w

eigh

tge

nera

ted

whi

lesc

alin

g va

lues

, all

indi

cato

rs w

ithin

adi

men

sion

are

treat

ed e

qual

ly.

The

dim

ensi

onal

indi

ces

that

form

the

over

all C

hild

-Fr

iend

lines

s In

dex

also

hav

e eq

ual

expl

icit

wei

ght.

The

met

hodo

logy

empl

oyed

was

bas

edon

the

cons

truct

ion

ofa

synt

hetic

inde

xof

the

Pena

dist

ance

met

hod

(DP2

). Th

eD

P2 is

sup

pose

d to

fulfi

l the

follo

win

gpr

oper

ties:

exi

sten

cean

d de

term

inat

ion,

mon

oton

y,un

ique

ness

, gra

deon

e ho

mog

enei

ty,

trans

itivi

ty a

ndne

utra

lity.

Item

sTh

e Ch

ildDe

velop

men

tIn

dex

The

UNIC

EF In

dex

of C

hildr

en’s

Well

being

Kids

Cou

ntTh

e Ch

ild a

ndYo

uth

Well

being

Inde

x (CW

I)

An In

dex o

f Chil

dW

ellbe

ing in

the

Euro

pean

Unio

n

ACPF

’s ch

ild-

frien

dline

ss In

dex

(CFI

)

Inde

x of m

ater

nal

and

child

hea

lth in

LDCs

of A

sia

Sign

ifica

nce

for t

hew

ellb

eing

of

child

ren

The

3 co

mpo

nent

sof

the

inde

x ar

e ve

ryba

sic,

eac

h co

verin

gan

impo

rtan

t asp

ect

of o

ne o

f the

thre

edo

mai

ns o

f hea

lth,

nutri

tion

and

educ

atio

n. T

hey

are

all p

art o

f the

MD

Gs.

Com

preh

ensi

ve in

its

cove

rage

of c

hild

ren’

sw

ellb

eing

dom

ains

and

incl

usiv

e of

indi

cato

rsth

at h

ave

prov

ensi

gnifi

cant

in c

hild

ren’

sliv

es.

The

indi

cato

rs in

clud

ese

vera

l im

port

ant a

reas

of a

chi

ld’s

wel

lbei

ng.

They

als

o re

flect

expe

rienc

es a

cros

s a

rang

e of

dev

elop

men

tal

stag

es, f

rom

birt

hth

roug

h to

ear

lyad

ulth

ood.

Com

preh

ensi

ve in

its c

over

age

ofch

ildre

n’s

wel

lbe-

ing

dom

ains

and

incl

usiv

e of

indi

cato

rs th

at h

ave

prov

en s

igni

fican

t in

child

ren’

s liv

es.

The

inde

x co

vers

man

y in

dica

tors

indi

ffere

nt a

ndim

port

ant c

hild

dom

ains

. It i

s a

thor

ough

and

bro

adin

dex.

The

inde

x is

com

preh

ensi

ve,

incl

udin

g co

mm

only

used

, wel

l-acc

epte

din

dica

tors

as

wel

l as

som

e m

ore

unus

ual

ones

suc

h as

gove

rnm

ent

expe

nditu

re,

ratif

icat

ion

ofde

clar

atio

ns a

ndth

e ex

iste

nce

of la

wan

d po

licie

s.

The

indi

cato

rs a

reve

ry b

asic

for c

hild

(and

mot

her)

wel

lbei

ng, a

s th

ey a

real

l MD

Gs.

Appl

icab

ility

The

inde

x m

easu

res

curr

ent w

ellb

eing

and

esta

blis

hes

aba

se fo

r fut

ure

effo

rts.

Mea

sure

s ar

e af

fect

edby

the

avai

labi

lity

ofin

tern

atio

nally

com

para

ble

data

.H

owev

er it

doe

s m

ange

to p

rese

nt a

sol

id b

asis

for m

onito

ring

futu

retre

nds.

The

inde

x al

low

stra

ckin

g of

the

diffe

rent

trend

s af

fect

ing

USch

ildre

n fo

r tw

ode

cade

s, a

t nat

ion

and

stat

e le

vel.

It al

low

sm

easu

ring

of th

e ef

fect

of p

olic

ies

and

prog

ram

mes

suc

h as

the

Tem

pora

ry A

ssis

tanc

efo

r Nee

dy F

amili

es(T

ANF)

pro

gram

me.

An e

vide

nce-

base

dap

proa

ch w

as u

sed,

thus

mea

sure

sar

e af

fect

ed b

y th

eav

aila

bilit

y of

dat

a.H

owev

er th

e CW

Ido

es m

anag

e to

pres

ent a

sol

idba

sis

for m

onito

ring

futu

re tr

ends

.

The

inde

x is

ver

ybr

oad

and

incl

udes

stro

ng fo

cus

onm

easu

ring

the

stat

eof

chi

ldre

n to

day.

How

ever

it is

not

yet

afo

rmal

inde

x of

the

EU, s

o m

onito

ring

trend

s ac

ross

the

year

s is

stil

lpr

oble

mat

ic.

The

inde

x m

easu

res

man

y as

pect

s of

curr

ent c

hild

wel

lbei

ng a

ndcr

eate

s a

base

for

the

mea

sure

men

t of

futu

re tr

ends

.M

oreo

ver,

the

time

serie

s he

lps

show

past

tren

ds a

s w

ell.

The

inde

x m

easu

res

curr

ent w

ellb

eing

in a

min

imal

and

bas

icco

ntex

t. It

does

esta

blis

h a

base

for f

utur

e ef

fort

s;ho

wev

er it

has

bee

npu

blis

hed

only

onc

eso

far,

so it

cur

rent

lypr

ovid

es n

oin

form

atio

n ab

out

trend

s

Sour

ce: C

ompi

led

by th

e au

thor

s fro

m th

e va

rious

sou

rces

list

ed in

the

refe

renc

es

Tabl

e 2:

Chi

ld w

ellb

eing

indi

ces

com

paris

on b

y12

crite

ria

Item

sTh

e Ch

ildDe

velop

men

tIn

dex

The

UNIC

EF In

dex

of C

hildr

en’s

Well

being

Kids

Cou

ntTh

e Ch

ild a

ndYo

uth

Well

being

Inde

x (CW

I)

An In

dex o

f Chil

dW

ellbe

ing in

the

Euro

pean

Unio

n

ACPF

’s ch

ild-

frien

dline

ss In

dex

(CFI

)

Inde

x of m

ater

nal

and

child

hea

lth in

LDCs

of A

sia

Clar

ityTh

e ch

oice

of o

nly

thre

e co

mpo

nent

scr

eate

s a

very

cle

arin

dex

Com

posi

te in

dice

spr

ovid

e cl

ear m

odel

sfo

r com

plex

mea

sure

men

t for

man

yin

dica

tors

. The

use

of

man

y in

dica

tors

can

,ho

wev

er, m

ake

unde

rsta

ndin

g th

ein

dex

mor

e co

mpl

ex.

The

use

of 1

0 in

dica

tors

bala

nces

the

cove

rage

of d

iffer

ent a

spec

tsw

ithou

t bei

ng to

oco

mpl

icat

ed, a

nd th

usth

e in

dex

is c

lear

and

unde

rsta

ndab

le.

Clea

r, es

peci

ally

as

data

is fo

cuse

d on

the

natio

nal l

evel

.

The

inde

x is

qui

teco

mpl

ex, b

ut th

ere

isan

atte

mpt

to m

ake

itas

cle

ar a

s po

ssib

leth

roug

h th

e us

e of

dom

ains

and

sim

ple

stat

istic

alpr

oced

ures

.

The

dim

ensi

ons

are

clea

r, bu

t the

use

of

man

y in

dica

tors

of

diffe

rent

focu

s an

dna

ture

mak

es it

mor

e co

mpl

ex.

It us

es li

mite

din

dica

tors

, all

of w

hich

are

soci

al in

dica

tors

used

by

the

Unite

dN

atio

ns in

the

MD

Gs–

thus

it is

cle

ar a

ndsi

mpl

e. T

he m

etho

d of

aggr

egat

ion

is m

ore

com

plex

.

Conc

eptu

alva

lidity

and

accu

racy

Whi

le it

mig

ht b

ecl

aim

ed th

at th

enu

mbe

r of i

ndic

ator

sis

so

smal

l tha

t it

does

not

allo

w a

real

gras

p of

the

situ

atio

nin

a s

peci

fic fi

eld,

the

thre

e in

dica

tors

chos

en a

re d

efin

itely

amon

g th

em

ost i

mpo

rtan

t in

each

fiel

d.

Accu

rate

and

val

id,

thou

gh th

e so

urce

sva

ry. S

till s

uffe

rs fr

omso

me

vagu

enes

s in

conc

eptu

aliz

atio

n. T

his

is b

ecau

se o

f the

lack

of a

vaila

ble

data

The

inde

x w

as te

sted

by a

com

pres

sion

of i

tspe

rform

ance

to th

e 28

-in

dica

tor F

CD-L

and

Inde

x of

Chi

ld a

nd Y

outh

Wel

l-bei

ng, a

nd a

n in

dex

base

d on

the

annu

alAm

eric

a’s

Child

ren

repo

rt.

It w

as c

oncl

uded

that

it p

rovi

ded

anad

equa

te m

easu

re o

fov

eral

l chi

ld w

ellb

eing

.

Accu

rate

and

val

idas

it u

ses

com

mon

indi

ces

from

natio

nal s

tatis

tical

sour

ces.

Ther

e is

a s

trong

theo

retic

al b

ase

for

the

indi

cato

rs th

atw

ere

chos

en.

Stro

ng c

once

ptua

lgr

ound

ing,

bas

ed o

nth

e ai

m o

f hol

ding

gove

rnm

ents

toac

coun

t for

thei

rch

ildre

n’s

wel

lbei

ngin

the

term

of c

hild

frien

dlin

ess.

As m

ost o

f the

indi

cato

rs a

re b

asic

and

com

mon

ly u

sed,

thei

r val

idity

sho

uld

not b

e do

ubte

d.H

owev

er th

edi

men

sion

s de

alt w

ithin

the

inde

x ar

e qu

itelim

ited

and

mig

htig

nore

man

y ot

her

aspe

cts

of c

hild

wel

lbe

ing.

Tabl

e 2:

Chi

ld w

ellb

eing

indi

ces

com

paris

on b

y 12

crit

eria

Item

sTh

e Ch

ildDe

velop

men

tIn

dex

The

UNIC

EFIn

dex o

f Chil

dren

’sW

ellbe

ingKi

ds C

ount

The

Child

and

You

thW

ellbe

ing In

dex

(CW

I)

An In

dex o

f Chil

dW

ellbe

ing in

the

Euro

pean

Unio

n

ACPF

’s ch

ild-

frien

dline

ss In

dex

(CFI

)

Inde

x of m

ater

nal a

ndch

ild h

ealth

in L

DCs o

fAs

ia

Impa

rtia

lity

The

thre

e co

mpo

nent

sar

e we

ll est

ablis

hed

and

robu

st. H

owev

er,

the

met

hod

ofco

mbi

ning

them

has

been

crit

icize

d fo

rpr

esup

posi

ng th

at th

eva

riabl

es a

reco

mpa

rabl

e to

one

anot

her w

hile

not

bein

g on

the

sam

esc

ale.

Gen

eral

ly a

ccep

ted

as fa

ir, a

ccur

ate,

and

unbi

ased

. The

imag

ean

d st

atus

of U

NIC

EFas

an

orga

niza

tion

cont

ribut

es to

its

rece

ptio

n.

As th

e in

dica

tors

are

know

n an

dfre

quen

tly u

sed

they

are

not

likel

y to

becr

itici

zed.

The

rese

arch

that

was

don

eon

it a

lso

help

sto

gro

und

thei

rus

e.

Gen

eral

ly a

ccep

ted

asfa

ir, a

ccur

ate,

and

unbi

ased

.

Mos

t of t

he in

dex

uses

wel

l-est

ablis

hed

indi

cato

rs. S

ome

are

mor

e un

usua

l, bu

t as

the

inde

x w

as b

uilt

byse

nior

exp

erts

in th

efie

ld it

is n

ot li

kely

todr

aw s

trong

crit

icis

m.

Mos

t of t

hein

dica

tors

are

wel

lkn

own

and

acce

pted

. Som

em

ay h

ave

a le

ssw

ell-e

stab

lishe

dba

se in

use

and

mig

ht d

raw

som

ecr

itici

sm.

The

indi

cato

rs a

re w

ell

esta

blis

hed

and

robu

st. T

hem

etho

d of

agg

rega

tion

was

used

in s

ome

othe

r stu

dies

.

Rela

tions

hip

to s

ourc

es

and

outc

omes

All 3

com

pone

nts

mea

sure

the

outc

omes

of p

olic

ies

that

are

sup

pose

d to

deal

with

the

stat

usof

chi

ldre

n.

Pres

ents

dat

a on

child

ren’

s re

sour

ces

and

outc

omes

, but

pays

mor

e at

tent

ion

to o

utco

mes

.Fo

cuse

s m

ore

on th

ene

gativ

e ou

tcom

es in

child

ren’

s liv

es th

anon

the

posi

tive

ones

.

Ther

e is

ast

rong

er fo

cus

on o

utco

me

mea

sure

s.

Pres

ents

dat

a on

child

ren’

s re

sour

ces

and

outc

omes

but

pay

sm

ore

atte

ntio

n to

outc

omes

.Fo

cuse

s m

ore

on th

ene

gativ

e ou

tcom

esin

chi

ldre

n’s

lives

than

on th

e po

sitiv

e on

es.

Ther

e is

a re

lativ

ely

good

bal

ance

bet

wee

nso

urce

indi

cato

rs a

ndou

tcom

e in

dica

tors

(mos

tly in

hea

lth a

ndsu

bjec

tive

wel

lbei

ngdo

mai

ns) a

s w

ell a

sbe

twee

n ne

gativ

e an

dpo

sitiv

e ou

tcom

es in

child

ren’

s liv

es.

Outc

ome

and

sour

ce in

dica

tors

are

com

bine

d; o

ther

kind

s of

indi

cato

rs(s

uch

as s

core

s fo

rth

e ra

tific

atio

n of

cert

ain

rele

vant

lega

l dec

lara

tions

)ar

e ad

ded.

Ther

e is

a s

trong

er fo

cus

onou

tcom

e m

easu

res,

ver

ym

uch

on th

e su

rviv

al le

vel.

Rele

vanc

e to

polic

yTh

e in

dex i

dent

ifies

broa

d po

licy p

riorit

ies

and

thus

sui

ts g

loba

lad

voca

cy. I

t als

om

easu

res

whe

ther

aid

is a

lloca

ted

in th

erig

ht w

ay. M

oreo

ver i

tco

mpa

res

coun

tries

'in

com

e an

d th

uspo

ints

to im

porta

ntin

sigh

ts fo

r pol

icy

advo

cacy

.

Rank

ing

the

coun

tries

for a

llin

dica

tors

may

allo

wea

ch c

ount

ryto

und

erst

and

itssi

tuat

ion

bette

r, an

dto

und

erst

and

wha

tpo

licy

step

s ne

ed to

be ta

ken.

The

indi

cato

rsm

easu

re m

any

aspe

cts

that

are

targ

ets

of p

olic

y

By v

irtue

of i

ts a

ttem

ptto

ass

ess

child

ren’

sov

eral

l wel

lbei

ng it

isle

ss re

leva

nt to

spe

cific

polic

ies

or e

ven

field

sw

ithin

gen

eral

pub

licpo

licy.

Beca

use

it is

natio

nal i

n fo

cus,

its

use

is re

stra

ined

. How

ever

,it

pres

ents

dat

a by

dom

ains

or s

peci

ficin

dica

tors

, thu

sen

hanc

ing

rele

vanc

e to

spec

ific

polic

ies.

The

indi

cato

rs a

rere

leva

nt to

man

y po

licy

aspe

cts

of e

ach

coun

try.

The

rank

ing

bydo

mai

ns a

llow

s ea

chco

untr

y to

kno

w w

hat i

tsh

ould

focu

s on

The

inde

x is

ver

ypo

licy-

focu

sed,

as

ther

e is

a s

trong

atte

mpt

to h

old

gove

rnm

ents

toac

coun

t for

thei

rch

ildre

n’s

situ

atio

n;th

us th

e st

eps

for

polic

y ar

ehi

ghlig

hted

.

Thes

e in

dica

tors

are

def

ined

in th

e G

oals

of t

heM

illen

nium

Dec

lara

tion,

whi

ch a

re g

ener

ally

cons

ider

ed to

det

erm

ine

coun

tries

’ lev

els

ofun

derd

evel

opm

ent,

and

this

mig

ht b

e im

port

ant i

n th

epo

licy

cont

ext.

It al

so h

asim

plic

atio

ns fo

r the

deve

lopm

ent o

f the

aid

stra

tegi

es o

f int

erna

tiona

lor

gani

zatio

ns, e

spec

ially

the

Unite

d N

atio

ns.

Item

sTh

e Ch

ildDe

velop

men

tIn

dex

The

UNIC

EFIn

dex o

f Chil

dren

’sW

ellbe

ingKi

ds C

ount

The

Child

and

Yout

h W

ellbe

ingIn

dex (

CWI)

An In

dex o

f Chil

dW

ellbe

ing in

the

Euro

pean

Unio

n

ACPF

’s ch

ild-

frien

dline

ss In

dex

(CFI

)

Inde

x of m

ater

nal

and

child

hea

lth in

LDCs

of A

sia

Impa

rtia

lity

The

inde

x su

ms

up in

afo

cuse

d w

ay th

ree

very

diffe

rent

mai

n fie

lds.

It m

ight

ther

efor

e be

attra

ctiv

e to

dec

isio

nm

aker

s in

its

supp

lene

ss.

The

inde

x w

asde

sign

ed w

ith th

ekn

owle

dge

that

polic

y-m

aker

s w

ould

be th

e pr

imar

yus

ers.

The

rank

ing

ofea

ch c

ount

ry b

ydi

men

sion

and

indi

cato

rs m

aybe

use

ful f

orde

cisi

on m

aker

s.

The

use

of a

n in

dex

that

rank

s al

l sta

tes

base

d on

onl

y 10

mea

sure

s is

sim

ple

and

attra

ctiv

e to

polic

y-m

aker

s.

From

the

begi

nnin

g,th

e CW

I was

des

igne

dw

ith th

e kn

owle

dge

that

pol

icy-

mak

ers

wou

ld b

e its

prim

ary

user

s. H

owev

er, i

npr

actic

e th

e In

dex

was

too

broa

d th

atco

uldn

’t be

use

d to

pinp

oint

per

form

ance

of re

leva

nt a

ctor

s in

such

a w

ay th

at p

olic

y-m

aker

s w

ante

d.

The

broa

dnes

s of

indi

cato

rs h

elps

crea

te a

ver

y de

eppi

ctur

e of

the

situ

atio

n of

chi

ldw

ellb

eing

in e

ach

coun

try.

The

use

of d

iffer

ent

dim

ensi

ons

and

man

yin

dica

tors

, as

wel

l as

the

fact

that

the

inde

xre

port

s on

the

situ

atio

n of

eac

hco

untr

y in

diff

eren

tdi

men

sion

s, m

ight

appe

al to

dec

isio

nm

aker

s, h

elpi

ng th

embe

tter u

nder

stan

d th

est

rong

and

wea

k ar

eas

in th

eir c

ount

ry.

As th

ese

are

impo

rtan

t mea

sure

sfo

r est

imat

ion

ofun

der-d

evel

opm

ent,

they

mig

ht b

eim

port

ant f

or d

ecis

ion

mak

ers.

Appe

al fo

rm

edia

and

advo

cacy

gro

ups

The

inde

x is

sum

med

up in

a c

lear

way

,m

entio

ning

tren

ds in

the

wor

ld a

nd th

eim

port

ant s

teps

that

need

to b

e ta

ken.

Ital

so ra

nks

the

best

and

wor

st c

ount

ries,

whi

ch m

ight

dra

wm

edia

atte

ntio

n.

It w

as d

evis

ed a

ndpu

blis

hed

with

ast

rong

orie

ntat

ion

tow

ards

the

med

ia,

and

was

ver

y w

ell

acce

pted

.

The

rank

ing

of th

est

ates

can

hel

pad

voca

tes

in e

ach

coun

try

in th

eir w

ork.

The

indi

cato

rs w

ere

chos

en o

n th

e ba

sis

of c

larit

y to

the

publ

ic.

It w

as d

evis

ed a

ndpu

blis

hed

with

ast

rong

orie

ntat

ion

tow

ards

the

med

ia,

and

was

wel

lac

cept

ed.

The

rank

ing

of E

Uco

untri

es is

attra

ctiv

e fo

r the

med

ia. T

he in

dex

prov

ides

dat

a on

the

situ

atio

n of

each

cou

ntry

indi

ffere

nt d

omai

nsan

d is

use

ful f

orlo

cal a

dvoc

ates

.

The

coun

try

rank

ing

and

divi

sion

into

thre

eca

tego

ries

of p

rogr

ess,

as w

ell a

s th

esu

mm

ariz

ed re

port

s,ar

e at

tract

ive

to th

em

edia

. It i

s al

so u

sefu

lfo

r cou

ntry

adv

ocat

es,

as it

refle

cts

the

situ

atio

n of

eac

hco

untr

y in

diff

eren

tar

eas

of c

hild

wel

lbei

ng.

The

rank

ing

ofco

untri

es in

the

spec

ific

cont

ext o

fLD

Cs in

Asi

a is

attra

ctiv

e fo

r the

med

ia.

Acce

ssib

ility

The

data

can

be

acce

ssed

free

lyth

roug

h th

e Sa

ve th

eCh

ildre

n w

ebsi

te.

The

data

and

rela

ted

publ

icat

ions

are

freel

y ac

cess

ible

.

The

data

can

be

acce

ssed

free

lyth

roug

h th

e w

ebsi

tein

a v

ery

com

fort

able

and

attra

ctiv

ein

terf

ace.

It is

als

opo

ssib

le to

cre

ate

new

adj

uste

dre

port

s fro

m th

eda

ta.

The

data

and

rela

ted

publ

icat

ions

are

free

lyac

cess

ible

.

Dat

a ca

n be

acce

ssed

free

lyon

line.

All t

he d

ata

for t

here

port

is in

clud

ed a

san

nexe

s in

the

repo

rt.

The

data

is a

vaila

ble

in th

e Un

ited

Nat

ions

MD

Gs

repo

rt.

Item

sTh

e Ch

ildDe

velop

men

tIn

dex

The

UNIC

EF In

dex

of C

hildr

en’s

Well

being

Kids

Cou

ntTh

e Ch

ild a

ndYo

uth

Well

being

Inde

x (CW

I)

An In

dex o

f Chil

dW

ellbe

ing in

the

Euro

pean

Unio

n

ACPF

’s ch

ild-

frien

dline

ss In

dex

(CFI

)

Inde

x of m

ater

nal

and

child

hea

lth in

LDCs

of A

sia

Deg

ree

ofch

alle

nge

toas

sum

ptio

ns

The

inde

x ch

alle

nges

assu

mpt

ions

by

itsth

orou

gh a

naly

sis.

For

exam

ple,

the

last

repo

rt p

rovi

ded

evid

ence

cha

lleng

ing

the

assu

mpt

ion

that

incr

ease

s in

hou

seho

ldin

com

e w

ill im

prov

ew

ellb

eing

, and

that

thes

e im

prov

emen

tsw

ill b

enef

it al

l fam

ilym

embe

rs, i

nclu

ding

child

ren.

It ch

alle

nges

uni

form

belie

fs, e

spec

ially

thos

e co

ncer

ning

the

stat

e of

chi

ldre

n’s

wel

lbei

ng in

diff

eren

tco

untri

es.

Repo

rtin

g at

US

stat

e le

vel m

ight

help

cha

lleng

eso

me

assu

mpt

ions

. For

exam

ple,

it w

assh

own

that

mos

tst

ates

are

sign

ifica

ntly

stat

istic

ally

diffe

rent

from

the

natio

nal v

alue

for

each

mea

sure

, so

natio

nal v

alue

for a

mea

sure

doe

s no

tte

ll yo

u m

uch

abou

t mos

tin

divi

dual

sta

tes.

It ch

alle

nged

unifo

rm b

elie

fs,

espe

cial

lyre

gard

ing

trend

s in

diffe

rent

dom

ains

.

As th

e cl

uste

rs o

fth

e in

dica

tors

incl

ude

topi

cs th

atm

atte

r to

child

ren

from

thei

row

n po

int o

f vie

w,an

d w

here

ver

poss

ible

indi

cato

rsre

pres

ent c

hild

ren’

sow

n ex

perie

nces

,th

e in

dex

chal

leng

esal

read

y kn

own

and

com

mon

indi

ces.

The

inde

x ch

alle

nges

man

y as

sum

ptio

ns in

its in

dica

tors

and

its

anal

ysis

. The

use

of

budg

etar

yco

mm

itmen

t and

the

inte

ntio

n to

mea

sure

child

par

ticip

atio

n ar

ein

nova

tive.

It al

so p

rovi

des

chal

leng

ing

evid

ence

–fo

r exa

mpl

e, s

how

ing

that

nat

iona

lco

mm

itmen

t to

the

caus

e of

chi

ldre

n is

not n

eces

saril

y re

late

dto

nat

iona

l inc

ome.

The

inde

x do

esm

anag

e to

cha

lleng

eas

sum

ptio

ns. F

orex

ampl

e, it

foun

dsi

gnifi

cant

diffe

renc

es in

mat

erna

l and

chi

ldhe

alth

acr

oss

coun

tries

and

this

sugg

ests

that

prog

ress

in re

duci

ngch

ild m

orta

lity

and

in in

crea

sing

ski

lled

birt

h at

tend

ance

isve

ry u

neve

n am

ong

the

LDCs

of A

sia.

Tran

sfer

abili

tyof

dat

a to

actio

n

The

inde

x re

port

incl

udes

a s

ectio

n on

"the

polic

y re

spon

se",

prop

osin

g a

few

ste

psth

at s

houl

d be

take

n.H

owev

er, d

ue to

the

broa

d an

d gl

obal

nat

ure

of th

e in

dex,

a lo

t of t

here

com

men

datio

ns a

reve

ry b

road

and

mig

htno

t hav

e a

big

impa

ct in

the

coun

try

leve

l.

The

data

is p

rovi

ded

in a

det

aile

d m

anne

rfo

r eac

h di

men

sion

.Th

e ra

nkin

g of

eac

hco

untr

y fo

r all

the

diffe

rent

indi

cato

rs o

fea

ch d

omai

n in

sepa

rate

and

uni

fied

tabl

es m

ight

hel

pea

ch c

ount

ry a

sses

sw

hat n

eeds

to b

edo

ne.

The

repo

rt d

oes

not i

nclu

dere

com

men

datio

ns.

As th

e in

dex

isre

port

ed o

n th

ena

tiona

l lev

el it

mig

ht b

e le

ssef

fect

ive

inpr

omot

ing

actio

nsat

sta

te le

vel.

Som

e ge

nera

lpo

licy

step

s ar

em

entio

ned.

Ther

e ar

e no

reco

mm

enda

tions

; a

few

exa

mpl

es a

repr

ovid

ed to

dem

onst

rate

how

coun

tries

sho

uld

use

the

inde

x re

sults

.

Ther

e ar

e m

any

wel

l-ar

ticul

ated

reco

mm

enda

tions

for

gove

rnm

ent a

ctio

ns.

Ther

e ar

e no

reco

mm

enda

tions

for

polic

y bu

t the

resu

ltsof

the

inde

x m

ight

be u

sefu

l in

setti

ngpr

iorit

ies

for

inte

rnat

iona

lor

gani

zatio

ns a

ctiv

ein

Asi

a.

Item

sTh

e Ch

ildDe

velop

men

tIn

dex

The

UNIC

EF In

dex

of C

hildr

en’s

Well

being

Kids

Cou

ntTh

e Ch

ild a

ndYo

uth

Well

being

Inde

x (CW

I)

An In

dex o

f Chil

dW

ellbe

ing in

the

Euro

pean

Unio

n

ACPF

’s ch

ild-

frien

dline

ss In

dex

(CFI

)

Inde

x of m

ater

nal

and

child

hea

lth in

LDCs

of A

sia

Vuln

erab

ility

tocr

itici

smTh

e th

ree

indi

cato

rs a

reve

ry c

omm

only

use

dan

d ba

sic

and

are

unlik

ely

to d

raw

criti

cism

. Som

e cr

itics

mig

ht p

oint

at t

he lo

wnu

mbe

r of i

ndic

ator

san

d th

e ab

ility

of o

nein

dica

tor t

o ac

coun

t for

a w

hole

dim

ensi

on.

Incl

udin

g m

any

dim

ensi

ons

and

indi

cato

rs m

ight

be

less

com

preh

ensi

ble

to th

e pu

blic

, as

itris

ks fl

oodi

ng th

eau

dien

ce w

ithex

cess

ive

deta

il.

The

rese

arch

done

by

the

foun

datio

n,co

mpa

ring

the

inde

x to

oth

erin

dice

s ba

sed

onm

ore

indi

cato

rs,

help

s de

fend

the

inde

x an

d th

ech

oice

of t

he 1

0in

dica

tors

in it

.

The

inde

x m

ight

be

criti

cize

d fo

r not

show

ing

data

at

stat

e le

vel.

Mor

eove

r the

relia

bilit

y of

the

olde

r dat

a m

ight

be in

que

stio

n, a

s it

is u

sed

as th

ere

fere

nce

poin

t for

mea

sure

men

ts in

subs

eque

nt y

ears

.

Som

e of

the

indi

cato

rs a

re le

ssco

mm

only

use

d,es

peci

ally

thos

e th

atfo

cus

on s

ubje

ctiv

ew

ellb

eing

. Thi

s m

ight

draw

som

e cr

itici

sm.

One

aspe

ct th

at m

ight

be c

ritic

ized

is th

eus

e of

exp

endi

ture

on

defe

nce

as a

n in

dica

tor.

Such

a m

easu

re m

ayno

t nec

essa

rily

link

ascl

early

to c

hild

ren’

sw

ellb

eing

as

sugg

este

d.An

othe

r is

that

whi

le it

is s

tate

d th

at in

dica

tors

stro

ngly

cor

rela

ted

with

othe

rs w

ere

rem

oved

,th

ere

is s

till a

dan

ger

that

som

e in

dica

tors

are

dupl

icat

ed.

The

indi

cato

rs a

reco

mm

only

use

d an

dba

sic,

and

, as

they

are

part

of t

he M

DG

s, a

reun

der c

onse

nsus

.H

owev

er it

can

be

clai

med

ther

e is

too

muc

h fo

cus

on c

hild

surv

ival

, and

som

eas

pect

s of

chi

ldw

ellb

eing

are

negl

ecte

d (s

uch

asch

ildre

n’s

subj

ectiv

ew

ellb

eing

, for

exam

ple)

.

40


REFERENCESAber, L. (1997). Measuring child poverty for use in comparative policy analysis. In: A. Ben-Arieh and Wintersberger, H. (Eds). Monitoring and Measuring the State of Children: Beyond Survival. Eurosocial Report, No. 62 (pp. 193–207). Vienna: European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research.

African Child Policy Forum (2008).The African Report on Child Wellbeing: How child-friendly are African governments? Addis Ababa: The African Child Policy.

Anand, S. and Sen, A. (1994). Human Development Index: Methodology and Measurement, New York: Human Development Office.

Beller, M. (2005).What are Educational Indicators and Indicator Systems? http://cms.education.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/78F792E6-7AA4-4CEA-98BE-F3E7CF3EC234/26861/EducationalIndicatorsandIndicatorSystems1.pdf.

Ben-Arieh, A. (2002). Evaluating the outcomes of programs versus monitoring wellbeing: A child-centered perspective. In Vecchiato, T. Maluccio, A. and Canali, C. (Eds). Evaluation in Child and Family Services: Comparative Client and Program Perspective. NewYork: Aldine de Gruyter.

Ben-Arieh, A. (2006). Is the study of the ‘State of Our Children’ changing? Revisiting after five years. Children and Youth Service Review, Vol. 28, No. 7, pp. 799–811.

Ben-Arieh, A., Kaufman,N., Andrews, A., Goerge, R., Lee, J. and Aber, L. (2001). Measuring and Monitoring Children’s Well Being. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.

Ben-Arieh, A. (2008). The child indicators movement: past, present, and future. Child Indicators Research, No. 1, pp. 3–16. Springer.

Ben-Arieh, A. and George, R. (2001). Beyond the numbers: How do we monitor the state of our children? Children and Youth Service Review, Vol. 23, No. 8, pp. 603–631.

Ben-Arieh, A. and George, R. (Eds) (2006). Indicators of Children’s Wellbeing: Understanding Their Role, Usage, and Policy Influence. Dordrecht: Springer.

Bottani, N., and Tuijnman, A. (1994). International education indicators: Framework, development and interpretation. In Bottani, N. and Tuijnman, A. (Eds.), Making education count: Developing and using international indicators. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Bradshaw, J. (2006). The use of indicators of child wellbeing in the United Kingdom and the European Union. In Ben-Arieh, A. George, R. (Eds). Indicators of Children’s Wellbeing: Understanding Their Role, Usage and Policy Influence, pp. 63–82. Dordrecht: Springer.

Bradshaw, J., Hoscher, P .and Richardson, D. (2007). An index of child wellbeing in the European Union.Social Indicators Research, Vol. 80, No. 1, pp. 133–177.

Bradshaw, J. and Richardson, D. (2009). An index of child wellbeing in Europe. Child Indicators Research. Online article issued on 1st April 2009.

Corbett, T. (2006). The role of social indicators in an era of human service reform in the United States. In Ben-Arieh, A. and George, R. (Eds) Indicators of Children’s Wellbeing: Understanding Their Role, Usage, and Policy Influence (pp. 3–20). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

Dasgupta, P. and Weale, M. (1992). On measuring the quality of life. World Dev., No. 20, pp. 119–131.

41


Foundation for Child Development (2007).The Foundation for Child Development Child and Youth Wellbeing Index (CWI), 1975–2005, with Projections for 2006, http://www.fcd-us.org/usr_doc/2007CWIReport. New York: Foundation for Child Development.

Frazer, H. (1998). The Use of Social Indicators to Influence Policy in Ireland. Paper presented at the Monitoring and Measuring Children’s Well Being. The Third International Workshop, Kiawah Resort, South Carolina, USA.

Gottschalk, P. and Smeeding, T. (1995). Cross-National Comparisons of Levels and Trends in Inequality. Working Paper No. 127. Luxembourg: Luxembourg Income Study (LIS).

Habib, J. (1997). The experience with indicators on child poverty in Israel. Paper presented at the Monitoring and Measuring Children Wellbeing. The Second International Workshop, Campobasso, Italy.

Hood, G. (2007). Reporting on children’s wellbeing: The state of London’s Children reports. Social Indicators Research, 80/1, pp. 249–264.

Walker, R. (1999). Ending Child Poverty: Popular Welfare for the 21st Century? Bristol, UK: Policy Press.

The Annie E. Casey Foundation (2011). Kids Count Data Book: State Profiles of Child Wellbeing. Baltimore, MD: The Annie E. Casey Foundation.

Kenneth, L., Vick, L., and Sarah, M. (2001). Child and Youth Wellbeing in the United States, 1975–1998: Some Findings From a New Index. Social Indicators Research,56: 241–320. Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Kunkel, D., Smith, S., Suding, P. and Biely, E. (2002). Coverage in Context: How Thoroughly the News Media Report Five Key Children’s Issues. Casey Journalism Centre on Children and Families, Philip Merrill College of Journalism, University of Maryland.

Land, C. (2007). Child Well being in the United States: Recent Trends and Some International Comparisons Using the Child and Youth Wellbeing Index (CWI). Paper presented at the International Society for Child Indicators Inaugural Conference held in June 26–28, 2007, Chicago, USA.

Land, C., Lamb, L., Meadows O. and Taylor, A. (2007). Measuring trends in child wellbeing: an evidence-based approach. Social Indicators Research, 80/1, 105–132.

Lippman, L. (2007). Indicators and indices of child wellbeing: A brief American History. Social Indicators Research, 83/1, 39–53.

Little, H. (2006) Increasing the impact of indicators among legislative policy-makers. In: Ben-Arieh, A. and Goerge, R. (Eds). Indicators of Children’s Wellbeing: Understanding Their Role, Usage, and Policy Influence (pp. 131–140). Dordrecht: Springer.

Mekonen, Y. (2010). Measuring Government Performance in Realising Child Rights and Child Wellbeing: The Approach and Indicators. Child Indicators Research, Vol. 3, Issue 2, pp. 205-241.

Moore, A. (1997). Criteria for indicators of child well being. In: Hauser, R., Brown, B. and Prosser, W. (Eds) Indicators of Children’s Well Being. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Moore, A. and Brown, B. (2006). Preparing indicators for policymakers and advocates. In Ben-Arieh, A. and George, R. (Eds) Indicators of Children’s Wellbeing: Understanding Their Role, Usage, and Policy Influence, pp. 93–104. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

Moore, A., Vandivere, S., Lippman, L., Mcphee, C. and Bloch, M. (2007). An index of the condition of children: The ideal and a less-than-ideal U.S. example. Social Indicators Research, 84, 291–331.

42


Noorbakhsh, F. (1998). The human development index: some technical issues and alternative indices. J. of Intern. Dev, 10, 589–605.

O’Hare, P. and Bramstedt, L. (2004) .Assessing the KIDS COUNT Composite Index. A KIDS COUNT working paper.

Parker, D. (2007).Children and the Policy Agenda: Government Responses to the Innocenti Report Card. Paper presented at the International Society for Child Indicators Inaugural Conference held in June 26–28, 2007, Chicago, USA.

Raphael, D., Renwick, R., Brown, I. and Rootman, I. (1996). Quality of life indicators and health: Current status and emerging conceptions, Social Indicators Research, 3/1, 65–88.

Rodríguez, M. and Salinas, F. (2011). An index of maternal and child health in the least developed countries of Asia. Gac Sanit. doi:10.1016/j.gaceta.2011.05.021. Elsevier Espana.

Save the children UK (2008). The Child Development Index: Holding governments to account for children’s wellbeing. London: The Save the Children Fund.

Tardieu, B., Lopez, A. and. Tardieu, D. (1998).Impact of indicators on public action against poverty: A case study. Paper presented at the Monitoring and Measuring Children Wellbeing – The Third International Workshop, Kiawah Resort, South Carolina, USA.

Kyrili, K. and McKinley, T. (2008). Identifying Global Trends in Child Poverty: Save the Children’s New Child Development Index. Development Viewpoints, No. 21. Centre for Development Policy and Research. School of Oriental and African Studies

UN (2009). Abuja Declaration on HIV/AIDS, TB and Other Related Infectious Diseases, OAU/SPS/ABUDJA/3, Accessed in October 2009 at: http://www.un.org/ga/aids/pdf/abuja_declaration.pdf.

UN (2003). Indicators for Monitoring the Millennium Development Goals: Definitions, Rationale, Concepts and Sources. New York: United Nations Development Group.

UNDP (1990).Human Development Report 1990.New York: Oxford University Press. UNDP

UNESCO (2000).The Dakar Framework for Action, Education for All: Meeting our Collective Commitments. Adopted by the World Education Forum Dakar, Senegal, 26-28 April 2000. Accessed in January 2010 at: http://www.unescobkk.org/fileadmin/user_upload/efa/DakarFrameworkEnglish.pdf

UNICEF (2007).Child Poverty in Perspective: An Overview of Child Wellbeing in Rich Countries, Innocenti Report Card 7. Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre.

WHO (2013a).World Health Statistics 2013. Geneva: World Health Organization

WHO (2013b).National Health Account. Accessed in June 2013 at: http://apps.who.int/nha/database/DataExplorerRegime.aspx

WHO (2012).Universal Birth Registration Resolution. Accessed in May 2012 at: www.who.int/...birth_registration_resolution_23.../index.html.

43


THE CHILD-FRIENDLINESS INDEX: A TOOL FOR MONITORING ACCOUNTABILITY TO CHILDRENNegussie Dejene - Senior Programme Officer, ACPF Yehualashet Mekonen - Head, African Child Observatory, ACPF

1. BackgroundThere is a significant gap between promises about children’s rights and wellbeing and demonstrable efforts to realise them. This gap is evident from decades of research, as well as in the observations of treaty bodies monitoring the implementation of rights stipulated in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACRWC) (ACPF 2011a; AUC 2010; Mekonen 2010; UNICEF 2009; ACPF 2008).

In the 1990s, following the adoption of the CRC and the ACRWC, efforts were made to convince governments to accede and ratify these treaties. Consequently, most governments did, and many harmonised their national laws and policies to ensure consistency with the principles and obligations set forth in these instruments (OHCHR 2012). Although there are still some governments that have not yet ratified relevant regional and international child rights instruments or harmonised their laws and policies, the global focus is now on promoting accountability to children by ensuring compliance with these instruments.

Compliance with child rights is a reflection of commitment that manifests in many forms: formulation of pro-child laws and policies; establishment of appropriate structures and systems for implementation; allocation of sufficient resources; putting in place functional mechanisms to ensure efficient utilisation of resources and achieve better results in child wellbeing; and creation of platforms to provide children with the opportunity to express their views and be involved in decisions that affect them (ACPF 2011b; Save the Children International 2011; Mekonen 2010). Compliance with child rights instruments mirrors harmonious functioning of the various systems of the government in terms of policy making, planning, budget making and monitoring implementation (Tsegaye 2009). It also reflects the degree of coordination among various bodies of governments and other non-government organisations in terms of identifying priority areas and demarcating roles, responsibilities and deliverables.

More importantly, compliance is about sustained effort to achieve implementation and maintain a functional monitoring and evaluation system to track progress, continuously informing measures to address child deprivation and ensure protection against abuse and exploitation. In general, compliance with obligations to children reflects a sense of accountability, and lies at the heart of government commitment and capability to meet these obligations.

Formal accountability mechanisms for children involve national, regional and international bodies with varying degrees of influence. At national level, there are human rights institutions such as Offices of Ombudsmen and Child Rights Commissioners mandated independently to monitor, speak out on violations of children’s rights, and call for measures for improvement. But the national human rights monitoring bodies in many cases lack the power to impose action on governments even when there are outright violations.

3

44


At international and regional levels, the formal mechanism for monitoring the implementation of the CRC and the ACRWC involves periodic reporting by governments on the progress of implementation to the Committees of the respective treaty bodies (OHCHR; AUC 2012), and review by the Committees. These treaty bodies also review supplementary reports from other independent sources, such as civil society organisations and UN agencies, in order to improve their understanding of the situation in countries under consideration. The review process is followed by a discussion with government delegates to acknowledge positive developments, highlight areas where improvements are required and suggest practical measures to expedite implementation.

There are other initiatives by regional bodies such as the African Union Commission (AUC) to monitor progress in implementing the goals in the Plan of Action Towards Africa Fit for Children, which aims to strengthen compliance with the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child. The AUC developed a monitoring and evaluation framework to assess progress since the mid-term review in Cairo in 2007; the framework was based on the priority areas identified in the Call for Accelerated Action Towards Africa Fit for Children adopted in the meeting. However, challenges related to delays in governments’ responses to the monitoring and evaluation framework have made it difficult to utilise this tool effectively.

Despite significant efforts by national human rights institutions and treaty bodies, implementation of the rights and wellbeing of children remains generally unsatisfactory in many African countries, as does accountability to children in general (ACPF 2011a; 2011b; UNICEF 2010).

To address this, the Child-Friendliness Index (CFI) was developed by the African Child Policy Forum (ACPF) as a monitoring framework. This paper provides a detailed conceptual and methodological description of the CFI, to encourage its utilisation as a monitoring tool at national and sub-regional levels.

2. The rationale for developing the CFI frameworkGlobally, there has been a general shift towards accountability-based public policy. This has necessitated evidence-based contextual analysis and accurate assessment of the situation of all citizens, including children. However, monitoring frameworks aimed specifically at children, which assess governments’ performances in accordance with their obligations as stipulated in the CRC and ACRWC, are not common. This is especially the case in Africa, where implementation and monitoring efforts are very limited (Mekonen 2009; Ben-Arieh and George 2001). In a situation with limited accountability and monitoring mechanisms, the main questions one could ask are:

• How do we know if governments are living up to their commitment to children? • In what areas are they performing well, and which areas need improvement? • What accounts for differences in government performance? • To what extent are differences in government performance due to disparities in levels of

income? • How do African governments rank in relation to each other?

The Child-Friendliness Index provides answers to some of these questions and helps gauge governments’ actions in relation to their commitments to children. It is a quantitative assessment framework that measures the extent to which governments are committed to realising the rights and wellbeing of their children.

45


The rationale for developing the Child-Friendliness Index as a monitoring framework was that evidence shows a disparity between promises and implementation – between rhetoric and reality. The CFI aims to track governments’ real efforts to narrow the gap between policy and practice. Furthermore, reports of formal monitoring exercises tend to not to be easily comprehensible. Complex, longwinded presentation of information is not effective for policy communication, or for engaging the media – which plays a critical role in promoting accountability (McGillivray and Noorbakhsh 2004).

In general, the Child-Friendliness Index is designed to balance methodological complexity and robustness on one hand with simplicity of the summary measure, for easier interpretation and communication, on the other. It is intended as an instrument that provides empirical analysis of governments’ performances in realising child rights and wellbeing in a coherent and objective manner.

The following sections provide a detailed description of the approach, components and methodology used in constructing the Child-Friendliness Index.

3. The approach, dimensions and indicatorsHighly conceptual notions such as the child-friendliness of a government are not easy to measure quantitatively. Such an exercise involves rigorous conceptual, methodological and analytical elaboration to ensure clarity on the phenomenon being measured, examine the appropriateness of the approach and methodology, and evaluate the sufficiency of indicators and the overall coherence of the measurement (Nardo et al. 2005).

The first step in the development of the Child-Friendliness Index was to provide a coherent definition of a government’s child-friendliness. As a rights-based framework, the CFI is premised on all civic, political, social, economic and cultural rights of children and the corresponding obligations of governments stipulated in the CRC and ACRWC.

All child rights treaties to which governments have acceded impose three distinct obligations: to respect, protect and fulfil those rights (OHCHR, 2001). Specifically, Article 4 of the CRC and Article 5 of the ACRWC oblige governments to undertake all appropriate legislative, administrative, and other measures to ensure the survival, protection and development of the child. The treaties also require governments to undertake these measures to the maximum extent of their available resources.

A child-friendly government is therefore defined as:

“…one which is making the maximum effort to meet its obligations to respect, protect and fulfil child rights and ensure child wellbeing.” (ACPF 2008:41).

The obligations of governments to respect, protect and fulfil children’s rights can alternatively be summarised in what is called the ‘Three P’s Approach’. In this approach, all children’s rights set forth in the CRC and the ACRWC are summarised as the rights to protection, provision and participation. The corresponding obligations of a government can also be summarised in these three categories: obligations to protect children from abuse and exploitation, provide for their basic needs and ensure their participation in decisions that affect them.

The complex interrelationships between rights and obligations require a multi-dimensional approach to measurement. We have therefore used a multi-dimensional approach for the measurement of governments’ child-friendliness that takes into account all these considerations. Accordingly, the three categories of children’s rights (protection, provision and participation) and the obligations of

46


governments to fulfil them have been identified as dimensions for measuring child-friendliness, enabling us to assess the extent to which governments are committed to progressive realisation of the following:

• Protection of children, as assessed by looking at the comprehensiveness of the legal and policy framework they have put in place to protect children from abuse and exploitation

• Provision for the basic needs of children to prevent deprivation, assessed in terms of budgetary expenditures on programmes targeting children and their effectiveness in achieving child wellbeing outcomes

• Participation of children in decisions that affect them, as assessed by looking at efforts in this regard.

In summary, child-friendliness of a government refers to the level of effort that a government has made in terms of putting in place laws and policies; demonstrating effort towards implementation as reflected through functional structures it has set up; allocating resources; and the results or outcomes achieved. The concept of child-friendliness of a government also reflects the mechanisms put in place to enhance the utilisation of budgets allocated to sectors benefiting children and to addressing inequalities.

In general, child-friendliness of a government is manifested through its commitment to utilise the maximum available resources to progressively realise all children’s rights and ensure their wellbeing (Mekonen 2010).

In order to ensure conceptual coherence, the selection of indicators within each of the dimensions was concept-driven, and not defined by the availability of data. However, during data collection, it became evident that there was no data available for certain indicators, particularly in relation to the dimension on child participation. Hence, to date, participation has been excluded from ACPF’s actual measurement of the child-friendliness of African governments4 .

About 40 legal, policy, budget and child wellbeing-related indicators have been identified to assess the child-friendliness of governments (Table 1 and Boxes 1 and 2). An appropriate methodology was developed for standardisation of indicator values, aggregation, weighting and analysis. Detail is provided in subsequent sections.

3.1 Indicators for child protection

The child protection dimension assesses governments’ efforts to protect children against harm, abuse and exploitation, by examining national laws and policy provisions, alongside the efforts made to implement them. A number of indicators were used for the assessment, relating to ratification of relevant regional and international child rights treaties, and the existence of comprehensive laws providing adequate legal protection against all forms of abuse, trafficking, sexual exploitation and harmful practices detrimental to the wellbeing of children. There are also indicators that look into the implementation aspect by examining the existence of government bodies responsible for children’s affairs, child justice systems and national plans of action for child survival, protection and development.

4 However, provisions in national laws relating to child participation were used as indicators for measuring governments’ efforts to promote child participation in the assessment of the child-friendliness of South Asian Governments. This collaborative initiative was aimed at measuring governments’ performance in realising child rights and wellbeing, and was led by Save the Children; HAQ: Centre for Child Rights; Plan International; Terre des Hommes; and CRY: Child Rights and You. This work confirms the possibility of using legal and policy provisions as measures of effort to promote child participation.

47


Table 1: Components and indicators assessing government performance in protection of children

Component Indicator

Ratification of international and regional legal instruments relating to children

Ratification/accession of:

• UNCRC• ACRWC• Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Pornography• Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict• ILO Convention on Minimum Age for Admission to Employment (ILO Convention No. 138)• ILO Convention on the Worst Forms of Child Labour (ILO Convention No. 182)• International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities• The Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption

National laws, policies and mechanisms

Existence of domestic laws on:

• Child trafficking• Sexual exploitation of children and pornography• Prohibition of corporal punishment• Harmful traditional practices• Policy for free education• Minimum age for admission to employment• Minimum age for criminal responsibility• Minimum age for marriage (both for male and female)

Child justice system

National Plans of Action (NPAs) and coordinating bodies for the implementation of children’s rights

Existence of child justice system/child-friendly courts

• Existence of a National Plan of Action for survival, protection and development of children• Existence of a government body that coordinates and monitors the national strategy for children.

3.2 Indicators for provision of basic needs

Governments’ performances in providing for the basic needs of children are measured using two components, each composed of distinct sets of indicators. The first component relates to national budget expenditure on sectors that benefit children, and is intended to capture governments’ commitments to utilising the maximum available resources to provide for the basic needs of children (Box 1). To control for differences in economic status and population size of countries, performance in budgeting for children was measured by assessing the proportions of total budget expenditure on sectors benefiting children.5 These proportions were then converted into score values and combined to obtain what we call the Budgetary Commitment Index, a sub-dimensional index measuring the provision of children’s basic needs.

5 The concept of budgeting for children has been elaborated by the African Child Policy Forum in the background paper prepared to inform The African Report on Child Wellbeing 2011: Budgeting for Children in Africa published in 2011. Interested readers can visit our website (www.africanchildforum.org) to refer to this report for further information.

48


Box 1: Indicators for assessing allocation of adequate resources

• Expenditure on health as a percentage of total government expenditure• Public expenditure on education as a percentage of GDP• Percentage of the budget for routine EPI vaccines financed by the government• Expenditure on military and defence as a percentage of GDP• Percentage change in governments’ expenditure on health over the years.

The second component measures child wellbeing outcomes achieved in terms of access to services relevant to children (such as health care, education, nutrition, clean water and sanitation) and other child outcome indicators such as the proportion of malnourished children. These categories of indicators capture the efficiency and effectiveness of government programmes in achieving concrete results in improving child wellbeing (Box 2). As in the case of the Budgetary Commitment Index, the values of the various indicators used for assessing governments’ performances in achieving child wellbeing outcomes are converted into score values and aggregated to yield the Index for Achievement of Child Wellbeing Outcomes. The Index for Provision of Basic Needs, which shows the relative performance of governments in providing for the basic needs of children, is there fore a combination of these two sub-dimensional indices.

Box 2: Indicators for measuring effectiveness in achieving child wellbeing outcomes

• Access to healthcare services• Percentage of pregnant women attending antenatal care• Percentage of deliveries attended by skilled health workers• Percentage of children aged 12-23 months immunised against measles• Percentage of children with ARI infection (acute respiratory tract infection) taken to a healthcare facility • Percentage of population using improved drinking water source• Percentage of population using adequate sanitation facilities • Number of physicians per hundred thousand population

• Access to education services• Pupil-teacher ratio• Proportion of teachers qualified for the primary level (newly added)• Proportion of teachers qualified for the secondary level (newly added)

• Health-related child outcomes• Infant mortality rate• Percentage of children underweight

• Education-related child outcomes• Gross enrolment rate for primary education• Gross enrolment rate for secondary education by gender• Primary school completion rate (newly added) • Gender difference in enrolment.

Furthermore, progressive realisation of children’s rights is an important consideration that takes into account the fact that realisation of rights cannot be limited within a given timeframe, and requires effort that increases with time. Trend analysis was therefore used to capture the progressiveness of efforts made to realise children’s rights, using time series data for selected indicators for which such data was available. The results of these analyses were also incorporated in the assessment of governments’ child-friendliness.

The other important consideration in the construction of composite indices is redundancy of indicators (i.e. the use of many indicators measuring the same thing). Such redundancy is a major weakness observed in multi-dimensional measurement approaches, and reduces their efficiency and simplicity. In

49


an effort to address this problem, rank correlation was used to evaluate the strength of the relationship between indicators, and when strong positive or negative correlation was observed, one of the correlating indicators was dropped. The cut-off value of the correlation coefficient used for determining redundancy was ±0.8.

4. MethodologyAs with any other composite index, the construction of the Child-Friendliness Index follows a standard procedure that includes a process of standardisation of indicator values, weighting, and aggregation of scores in order to define the overall index. This section provides a brief description of the methodology used to combine the indicators for the Child-Friendliness Index.

4.1 Standardisation of indicators

The indicators identified within each of the dimensions (protection, provision and participation) have different values with significantly different ranges. While some indicators are expressed in percentages, others are expressed in rates (such as infant mortality rate, expressed per 1,000 live births), while others – especially those used for assessing child protection – are usually simple dichotomous (‘yes’ or ‘no’) scores. It is therefore necessary to standardise the indicators by converting them into an equal scale (Booysen 2002).

Further standardisation adjusts for the directionality6 of indicators. Directionality refers to a situation where an increase in the value of some indicators corresponds to an increase in governments’ child-friendliness, while an increase in other indicators corresponds to a decrease in child-friendliness (Julia 2003). Selection of an appropriate scaling technique is therefore important in order to address both directionality and differences in range (Salzman 2003).

The Linear Scaling Technique (LST)7 was used for the construction of the Child-Friendliness Index (Box 3).

Box 3: Formulae used to standardise indicator values

When an increase in the value of an indicator corresponds to an increase in the performance, the score value (Iij) for that particular indicator (Xi ) of a country (j) is given by:

Iij = }X{}X{}X{X

jkjk

jkij

MinMaxMin−

−

Inversely, if an increase in the value of an indicator corresponds to a decrease in performance, the score value is calculated using the complementary formula:

Iij = }X{}X{X-}X{

jkjk

ijjk

MinMaxMax

−Where:

Max{Xjk} refers to the maximum value of the indicator Xi in the range of countries included in the comparison, and similarly,

Min{Xjk} denotes the minimum value of the indicator Xi in the range of countries.

Source: Booysen 2002.6 The variation in the relationship of indicators to the level of government child-friendliness is referred to as directionality.7 This standardization technique has been used widely by indices such as UNDP’s Human Development Index (HDI), the Economic Freedom index published by the Heritage Foundation, and the Global Hunger Index (Wiesmann 2006; William and Kane 2007; UNDP 2000).

50


4.2 Weighting and aggregation of score values

A method of weighting is also applied to the CFI. The most commonly used weighting methods are (1) expert weighting; (2) principal component analysis; and (3) equal weighting. Each of these methods was considered, particularly with respect to the causal relationships and the precision of measurement of indicators relevant to the CFI; this was of particular importance given that the measurement of concepts like governmental child-friendliness is based on multi-dimensional indicators whose causal relationships are not clearly determined. Experience from the construction of similar composite indices has shown that when there is insufficient knowledge of causal relationships between indicators, applying equal weights is advantageous (Nardo et al. 2005).Furthermore, human rights and the obligations associated with them are recognized as “indivisible”, which implies the need to apply equal weighting. Therefore, apart from the implicit weight generated while scaling values, all indicators and indices in the CFI are treated with an equal weighting scheme.

Aggregation of score values is the other important step in the construction of indices. Usually, aggregation techniques have an additive or multiplicative nature. Sometimes geometric averaging is used, depending on the functional relationship8 that exists between indicators (Nardo et al. 2005). In situations where not much is known about the relationship between the various indicators used for the measurement, the recommended approach is to use an additive method. Therefore, ACPF applies the additive aggregation method both for combining score values that make up dimensional indices and in aggregating the dimensional indices to arrive at the overall measure that constitutes the Child-Friendliness Index.

As mentioned earlier, some of the indicators are ‘inputs’, while others relate to outcomes. Aggregation of these indicators may seem like adding oranges and apples. But the reason for this is that measuring the child-friendliness of governments entails measuring elements of both inputs and results. For instance, budget allocated for sectors benefiting children is an important ‘input’ parameter that shows a government’s commitment to prioritising children; however, budget allocation alone does not show objectively whether the budget was utilised effectively to bring about child wellbeing outcomes. It is therefore important to complement the measurement with outcome-related indicators in order to capture efforts to achieve concrete results in terms of child wellbeing outcomes. Combining outcome related parameters also adds new perspectives, allowing analysis of the efficiency and effectiveness of the ‘input’ parameter.

4.3 Capturing efforts towards gender equality

Children’s right to non-discrimination is one of the four cardinal principles enshrined in almost all child rights instruments. Governments are obliged to take all appropriate measures to ensure that all children, irrespective of gender or any other social, economic or political background, are treated, provided for and protected equally. One cannot therefore meaningfully measure governments’ performance without giving due consideration to the efforts made to narrow gender inequality among children. As one mechanism of capturing efforts that governments make to realise children’s right to non-discrimination, an attempt was made to look into gender disparity in access to education (the only indicator for which gender disaggregated data was available for most countries in Africa).

8 Relationship in which a change in one variable is accompanied by a change in the other, based on complex interaction rather than direct cause.

51


For this, a technique was introduced that uses gender disaggregated data and yields scores that take into account the disparity. Governments that performed well in narrowing the gender gap were given higher scores, and those that performed less well had lower scores. The calculation involves two steps. First, the data for boys and girls are standardised independently. Then, these independently standardised score values are combined using a general equation (harmonic mean of the two scores) that takes into account the disparity. The absolute differences in indicator values between boys and girls were also used as additional indicators. These techniques have demonstrated their added value by capturing governments’ efforts in narrowing gender disparity better than the simple arithmetic method.

The approach and methodology used for constructing the Child-Friendliness Index have undergone several validation processes. The CFI has been developed, revised and improved through the suggestions made by renowned experts in the field (Box 4).

Box 4: The validation processes

ACPF was keen to solicit expert feedback on the approach, methods and indicators of the Child-Friendliness Index, and organised a number of roundtable meetings that brought together renowned specialists in the field and policy practitioners both from government and non-governmental sectors. Deliberations were substantively rich and served their purpose in terms of soliciting feedback and allowing the CFI to benefit from the reflections of experts and several other stakeholders. The methodology of the Child-Friendliness Index has also gone through a scholarly appraisal exercise, wherein it was published in the International Journal of Child Indicators, a peer reviewed journal published by Springer (http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12187-009-9047-5). These validation mechanisms were instrumental in identifying strengths and weaknesses of the Index and in further improving its approach and methodology.

5. Impact of the Child-Friendliness IndexFive years after the launch of the Child-Friendliness Index in 2008, significant interest in the Index has been generated among many actors, including governments; treaty bodies of child rights laws; regional bodies such as the African Union Commission; the United Nations; civil society organisations; the international and national media; and academia. The CFI is being used as a framework for monitoring compliance with child rights instruments, and as an advocacy tool to promote accountability to children. The CFI Index has been recognised as a credible instrument to link governance and child rights and wellbeing, and is being used by several international and multilateral agencies to demonstrate the relationship between good governance and improved implementation of children’s rights.

The Index has also demonstrated its potential to be adapted and replicated in other parts of the world. The Centre for Child Rights of India (HAQ) adapted and used the Index to measure the performance of the various Indian states in realising the rights and wellbeing of their children. This work is published under the title India: Child Rights Index, and was widely circulated within India and beyond (HAQ 2009). The CFI has also inspired an initiative aimed at assessing the child-friendliness of governments in South Asia and comparing their performance in realising the rights and wellbeing of children (Save the Children, Plan International, Terre des Hommes, HAQ and CRY 2013). The CFI can also be adapted at national level and can serve as a framework for monitoring implementation and identifying gaps that need immediate action. It can contribute to national, regional and global efforts aimed at enhancing compliance with child rights instruments and creating an environment conducive to children’s rights and wellbeing.

52


The Index has also enabled a quantitative analysis of the relationship between the wealth of a nation and the performance of its government in realising the rights and wellbeing of children. It has shown that countries with relatively low GDP can still do well in realising child rights. This evidence serves as a good rebuttal to those seeking to justify poor child wellbeing solely on the grounds of a lack of resources. On the other hand, the relatively poor performance of some countries with high GDP per capita show that national wealth and a high level of development are not guarantees of child wellbeing.

The Child-Friendliness Index has the potential to influence policy action in countries where government performance is less good, and to trigger measures to improve child protection. An example is the series of ratifications of relevant child rights treaties by the Government of Swaziland following the publication of the Child-Friendliness Index rankings (Box 5). This experience can be replicated in other countries faring poorly in the rankings.

Box 5: Government action triggered by the Child-Friendliness Index: The Swaziland case

The Swaziland Partnership Forum meeting was held on 6 April 2011. At the meeting, Ms Clara Dube, Child Protection Specialist at UNICEF (Swaziland), highlighted the fact that Swaziland is listed among the 10 least child-friendly countries in the ACPF Child-Friendliness Index. She further emphasised that this was partly because of several conventions and protocols that the country had signed but had not adopted, and which have a bearing on the rights of children.

Deputy Prime Minister H.E. Themba Masuku assured the stakeholders that the country would legislate all of the outstanding international conventions and protocols within the next six months. During his keynote address, H.E. Mr Masuku assured stakeholders that measures had been put in place by the relevant ministries to ensure that all these conventions and protocols are adopted. He mentioned that leading this process was Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation H.E. Mr Lutfo Dlamini, who had been mandated to work closely with relevant ministries in ensuring that the domestication of these protocols was completed within the next six months.

The Deputy Prime Minister finally said: “I strongly hope that this exercise, once completed, will help remove the country from this list, as it does not belong there”.

Subsequently, the Government of Swaziland enacted the Child Protection and Welfare Act of 2012 and ratified nine child-related instruments, including the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child and the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption.

Sources: The Swazi Observer, daily newspaper in Swaziland. Article by Fanyana Mabuza, 7 April 2011; ACPF 2013.

6. Challenges on access to data for CFIIndex construction requires data that is accurate and up-to-date. Data availability on child wellbeing outcomes is relatively good when compared to process-related indicators for efforts made to implement or enforce laws and policies at national level.

Given that data collection, especially primary data collection, is an expensive exercise, the CFI is largely constructed using secondary data from credible sources. These include:

• Government sources, especially national statistical offices

• Databases of several specialised UN agencies such as UNICEF; UNESCO’s Institute of Statistics; the UN Statistics Division; WHO; ILO; the official MDG indicators website of UNDP; and the UN Population Division

• The databases of other regional and international institutions like the IMF, the World Bank and the African Development Bank (AfDB).

53


ACPF uses the best available data and information from these sources to construct the Child-Friendliness Index.

For indicators related to legal and policy frameworks, data and information is compiled mostly from States Parties reports submitted to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child and the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, as well as the Concluding Observations of these Committees (see Table 1 for the list of indicators). Other sources include ACPF’s own reviews, carried out in more than 30countries, which identify inconsistencies with child rights standards (ACPF 2012b; 2012c). The CFI also takes into account other reports compiled by governments in connection with periodic reviews of the implementation of the Plan of Action Towards Africa Fit for Children, organised by the African Union (AU 2012).

Numerous challenges to the construction of the CFI remain, however, particularly in relation to data availability and collection. These are outlined below.

Discrepancy of definitions

There is inconsistency in definitions, concepts and terms used across countries and/or data sources. For example, data for the indicator on “the proportion of populations using safe drinking water and adequate sanitation facilities” can be defined either by access to “safe” or access to “improved” water supply and sanitation facilities. Furthermore, countries use different definitions of “rural” and “urban.” Variations in definitions affect comparisons between countries, and even across time within the same country (WHO and UNICEF, Joint Monitoring Report, 2010).

Timeliness

Data must be up to-date in order to be relevant. Many countries face a time lag of years between data collection and dissemination for public use. For some indicators, the latest available data could be as old as ten years or more. For example, analysis of education expenditure for Gabon is based on data from2002. Child labour data from Burkina Faso, Nigeria, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe dates back to the 1990s (UNICEF 2013; ILO 2013).

Availability and accessibility

Availability and accessibility are important considerations in data related discourse. There are indicators for which data is not available at all, and for others, data may be available, but is not accessible for public use.

Data on child participation is more or less entirely unavailable in almost all African countries. Availability of data disaggregated by key characteristics such as age, sex, disability status, place of residence and economic status is also a major challenge in measuring and monitoring accountability. For example, budget-disaggregated data for sectors, programmes and potential beneficiaries is non-existent or unavailable for most African countries. It is also hard to find data disaggregated by age, sex, disability status and other grounds of discrimination even for the basic indicators that are widely available (Yawson et al, 2011).

Lack of resources is often cited as a major barrier to the generation, compilation and dissemination of data. But at times, attitudinal factors are at play, associated with the value given to data and recognition of its significance in shaping development strategies and ensuring their success. These are some of the reasons for excluding some of the indicators identified for constructing the CFI.

54


In terms of accessibility, we note, for example, that education expenditure data for countries like Algeria, DRC, Guinea Bissau, Libya, Nigeria, Sao Tome and Principe and Somalia is not publicly available and hence entirely inaccessible. Secondary enrolment ratio data is either unavailable or inaccessible for many countries in Africa (Algeria, Angola, Botswana, CAR, Chad, Congo Brazzaville, Cote d’Ivoire, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Guinea Bissau, Liberia, Libya, Mali, Morocco, Rwanda, Seychelles, Somalia, Sudan and Tanzania) (UNESCO Institute for Statistics 2013). Moreover, data is not consistently available with which to undertake trend analysis or cross-country comparisons in order to generate more evidence and knowledge that could serve as useful input for policy formulation.

Box 2: Example of differences in IMR estimates from selected sources (Deaths per 1,000 live births)

CountryUN Population

Division 2005-2010

WHO 2009 AfDB 2009

Angola 104 98 113Cameroon 94 95 85Chad 131 124 128Djibouti 82 75 82Egypt 26 18 33Ethiopia 72 67 77Tanzania 64 68 62

Inconsistency of data between sources

Some data also lack coherence between different data sources, and it is challenging to determine which is more reliable. For example, the Infant Mortality Rate (IMR) data generated by the UN Population Division is not consistent with the IMR figures produced by other UN specialised agencies such as UNICEF and WHO, or with that given by other institutions such as the AfDB. See Box 2 for differences in IMR estimates from selected sources.

;oizThere is diversity among African countries in the level of statistical capacity. This is reflected in the quality and quantity of data available. Data collection is costly and budgetary allocation is a major constraint for African statistical offices, often preventing improvement in data quality, expansion of the scope and frequency of data collection, and the strengthening of human and institutional capacities. The international community must strengthen its support to these agencies, helping to build their capacity and enabling them to undertake specialised surveys that collect comprehensive and reliable data and effectively disseminate it, in order to maximise its utilisation in policy and programme formulation and implementation.

In conclusion, reliable and timely data is crucial for planning, implementation and follow up of development initiatives, including the monitoring of compliance with human rights standards. Despite these compelling realities, however, data availability on issues relating to children is generally low in Africa. The available data is in many cases limited in terms of scope, country coverage, and time span. It is also not disaggregated by relevant characteristics such as sex and other socio-economic characteristics.

Greater investment in comprehensive, transparent and credible data systems is a priority in Africa. National Statistical Offices should be strengthened in order to collect, analyse and disseminate reliable

55


data, especially through initiating national surveys that reflect state-of-the-art methodologies for assessing the situation of children. National child rights observatories must be established and given clear roles and responsibilities in coordinating national efforts to generate, compile and disseminate data on issues related to child rights and wellbeing.

7. ConclusionThe Child-Friendliness Index is an attempt by ACPF to enhance accountability for children by quantitatively assessing governments’ performances in accordance with their obligations, as set forth in the CRC and ACRWC, and objectively showing areas of strength and weakness. It is a tool developed to build the capacity of civil society organisations, regional bodies and treaty bodies to engage effectively with governments, so they can expedite the implementation of all children’s social, cultural and political rights, and improve their overall wellbeing. As an analytical tool, the Child-Friendliness Index has enabled the linking of accountability with the realisation of child rights. Despite data challenges, it is a useful tool that can make a significant contribution towards enabling countries to be more accountable to children.

56


REFERENCESACPF (2012a). Child Law Resources Volume II: The Reporting Status of African States. Compilation in a CD. Addis Ababa: The African Child Policy Forum.

ACPF (2012b). Harmonisation of Children’s Laws in Eastern and Southern Africa: Country Briefs. Addis Ababa: The African Child Policy Forum.

ACPF (2012c). Harmonisation of Children’s Laws in West and Central Africa: Country Briefs. Addis Ababa: The African Child Policy Forum.

ACPF (2011a). The African Report on Child Wellbeing 2011: Budgeting for Children. Addis Ababa: The African Child Policy Forum.

ACPF (2011b). The African Report on Child Wellbeing: Rhetoric, Reality and the Scorecard. Addis Ababa: The African Child Policy Forum.

ACPF (2008). The African Report on Child Wellbeing 2008: How child-friendly are African governments? Addis Ababa: The African Child Policy Forum.

African Development Bank (2010). African Statistical Year Book. Tunis: African Development Bank.

AUC (2010). The State of Africa’s Children Report 2010.Department of Social Affairs, African Union Commission.

Ben-Arieh, A. and George, R. (2001). Beyond the Numbers: How Do We Monitor the State of Our Children? Children and Youth Services Review, 23 (8), 603-631.

Booysen, F. (2002). An Overview and Evaluation of Composite Indices of Development. Social Indicators Research, 59(2), 115-151.

HAQ: Centre for Child Rights (2010). India: Child Rights Index. New Delhi: HAQ: Centre for Child Rights

ILO (2010). World social security report: Providing coverage in all time of crisis and beyond. Geneva: International Labour Organization.

Julia, J. (2003). Methodological Choices Encountered in the Construction of Composite Indices of Economic and Social Wellbeing. Center for the Study of Living Standards.

Nardo, M., Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S., Hoffman, A. and Giovannini, E. (2005). Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide, Working Paper, Paris: OECD Statistics Directorate.

McGillivray, M. and Noorbakhsh, F. (2004). Composite Indices of Human Wellbeing: Past, Present and Future. Helsinki: United Nations University, WIDER.

Mekonen, Y. (2010). Measuring Government Performance in Realising Child Rights and Child Wellbeing: The Approach and Indicators. Child Ind Res, 3: 205-241.

Mekonen, Y. (2009). Governance and Child Wellbeing: How to measure government performance. Addis Ababa: The African Child Policy Forum.

57


Mekonen, Y. and Tsegaye, S. (2010). Budgeting for Children in Africa: Concept and Framework Analysis. Addis Ababa: The African Child Policy Forum.

Save the Children, HAQ, Plan International, CRY and Terre des Hommes (2013). The South Asian Report on the Child-friendliness of Governments. Kathmandu: Save the Children, HAQ: Centre for Child Rights, Plan International, CRY: Child Rights and You and Terre des Hommes.

OHCHR (2012a). The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Accessed in November 2012 at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher/CRC.html.

OHCHR (2012b). Universal Periodic Review. An article on the website of the Office of the UN High Commission for Human Rights (OHCHR). Accessed in June 2012 at: http://www.ohchr.org/en/hrbodies/upr/pages/uprmain.aspx

Tsegaye, S. (2009). Governance and Child Wellbeing in Africa: A Review. Addis Ababa: The African Child Policy Forum.

UNICEF (2011). The state of the World’s Children: Adolescence - An Age of Opportunity, New York: UNICEF.

UNICEF (2010). Progress for Children: Achieving the MDGs with Equity, Number 9, September 2010. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund.

UNICEF (2009). The State of the World’s Children: Special Edition, Celebrating 20 years of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund.

UNPD (2011). World Population Prospects: The 2010 Revision. Infant Mortality data accessed in December 2012 at: http://esa.un.org/wpp/Excel-Data/mortality.htm

WaterAid (2011). East Africa Data Reconciliation Workshop. Report on a regional workshop looking at monitoring approaches in drinking water and sanitation organized by WaterAid Tanzania, WHO and UNICEF. Dar es Salaam: WaterAid-Tanzania

WaterAid (2009). Data Reconciliation Workshop in Southern Africa. Report on a regional workshop looking at monitoring approaches in drinking water and sanitation organized by WaterAid in collaboration with WHO and UNICEF.

Wiesmann, D. (2006). A Global Hunger Index: Measurement Concept, Ranking of Countries, and Trends, Discussion Paper. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute.

William, W. and Kane, T. (2007). Methodology: Measuring the 10 Economic Freedoms, 2007 Index of Economic Freedom. The Heritage Foundation.

WHO (2011). World Health Statistics. World Health Organization, Geneva.

WHO and UNICEF (2010). Joint Monitoring Report 2010: Progress on sanitation and drinking-water, WHO and UNICEF.

Yawson, O., Armah, A., Okae-Anti, D., Essandoh, K., Afrifa, K. (2011). Enhancing Spatial Data Accessibility in Ghana: Prioritization of influencing factors using the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, 2011, Vol.6, 290-310.

59

1. Why a Child Development Index?Throughout the last two decades, governments have signed several international commitments facilitating the delivery of children’s minimum needs and the protection of their basic rights. Many of these–the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (a regional child rights instrument) and the Millennium Development Goals–have clear and direct implications for improving the wellbeing of children.

Although economic growth has stabilised or worsened for many countries around the world during the last decade, many African countries have seen consistent economic growth. The questions posed by this are: are children sharing equally in these benefits? Or are recent crises undermining progress, disproportionately affecting the youngest and most vulnerable of populations? In general, is child wellbeing in poor countries gradually improving, catching up with that in developed countries, or are children in poor countries still affected by the deep poverty and inequalities that persist in many developing countries? These questions are challenging to answer without an instrument that monitors and compares the wellbeing of children globally.

The introduction of the Child Development Index (CDI), designed by Save the Children UK in 2008, sought to address this gap by providing a multidimensional tool for assessing and monitoring progress in eliminating child deprivation throughout the world. The aim was that the establishment of a clear, accessible tool would hold governments to account for delivering on child wellbeing. Good performers would be highlighted and recognised for their efforts, and comparisons could be made between poor performers and good performers in a standardized manner.

The CDI also aims to raise the profile of children themselves, by highlighting their inherent rights and vulnerabilities, and to persuade policy-makers that investing in children is both essential to a successful development strategy and a key indicator of development in itself.

Despite the legal and moral obligations to deliver child rights, children’s wellbeing is often neglected in development policy dialogue, which is problematic for three main reasons. Firstly, children experience poverty differently from adults, as work with child poverty surveys attests, and they are often affected by unequal allocation of resources between members of the household (ACPF 2009).9 Secondly, children are more likely to live in poverty than adults, given that poorer households generally have more children than better-off ones (Anderson and Hague 2007). Finally, addressing child wellbeing can potentially break the intergenerational cycle of poverty, as children who are better fed, better educated and in good health grow up to be more productive adults (Harper and Marcus 2003).

9 See also the work done by the Young Lives project on children’s experiences of poverty: http://www.younglives.org.uk/our-themes/ childrens-experiences-of-poverty

MEASURING CHILD WELLBEING AND HOLDING GOVERNMENTS TO ACCOUNT: THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT INDEXSarah Hague - Chief of Social and Economic Policy, UNICEF GhanaMaricar Garde - Head of Research, Evaluation and Advocacy, UNICEF Uganda

4

60


Indices for measuring child wellbeing do exist for some countries, like those used in Brazil and India, but these are not tools that are applied globally. Likewise, child indices developed for UNICEF’s Innocenti Research Centre (IRC) Report Card and UNICEF’s child poverty studies are relevant only to a group of countries, and are not globally representative or comparable (Gordon et al. 2003). Other existing indices, such as HDI (used for measuring human and economic development in general) do not adequately reflect the specific wellbeing of children. This is because child indicators do not necessarily follow the same trends as adult ones. It is now frequently agreed that looking purely at per capita income as a measure of wellbeing is inadequate, as numerous factors of inequality, inaccessibility, and inefficiency are hidden. Indeed, comparing the ranking of countries in the CDI with their ranking in per capita income is revealing – several countries are doing far better on child wellbeing than their level of per capita income implies (Save the Children UK 2008). For example, countries such as Malawi and Tanzania are ranked over 40 places higher in the CDI than they are in the income rankings. Conversely, several resource-rich countries, such as Botswana, South Africa, and Saudi Arabia, have far lower rankings for child wellbeing than they do for income, suggesting that national wealth is not having the impact on children’s lives that might be expected (Save the Children UK 2008).

When comparing the results of the CDI with that of the Human Development Index (HDI), a much more outcome-oriented index which relies mainly on adult-related indicators, we still noticed significant deviations in country ranking. Some countries, such as Pakistan and the Philippines, are ranked better using the HDI than the CDI. For example, Pakistan’s global ranking in the HDI is more than 20 places better than its ranking in the CDI: despite better life expectancy for adults, almost 40% of children are still underweight (UNDP; Save the Children UK 2008). Likewise, several resource rich countries, such as Oman or Equatorial Guinea, score well in the HDI (which includes an income indicator) but much more poorly in the CDI, which focuses more on the ‘outcomes’ of people’s lives rather than the means by which to achieve those outcomes (ibid.). The Human Poverty Index (HPI), which is based on the HDI, also focuses essentially on adult wellbeing, replacing the HDI’s income indicator with a cluster of three other indicators and thereby removing the simplicity ensured by the HDI. National poverty data is not specific to children, as the unit of analysis includes all members of the household rather than children specifically; thus this measurement hides the proportion of children living in economic poverty, which varies significantly from the figure for adult poverty (Cockburn et al. 2007; ACPF 2009).

2. Methodology and IndicatorsAs well as the technical considerations that had to be taken into account in compiling the CDI, several practical factors have influenced its design. Similar to the HDI or the HPI, the CDI had to be a relatively simple and transparent index that could be widely understood and used, particularly for advocacy purposes. Its focus was explicitly on children rather than on deprivation of the population in general. Furthermore, a poverty index such as the CDI should ideally aim to be a reflection of outcomes or impacts, rather than inputs. This implies that rather than measuring income levels or the number of doctors present in a country, for example, it should measure outcomes such as health status and educational level. In some cases, this principle proved very challenging to apply in practice, as outlined below.

With these prerequisite criteria in mind, a review of a range of indexes and indicators was carried out in order to select the indicators that would go into the Child Development Index (see below). As a result, the CDI was designed to cover three essential dimensions of child wellbeing: vulnerability to mortality at a very early age; child malnutrition; and lack of a minimal level of education (see also McKinley and

61


Kyrili 2008). The indicator selected corresponding to vulnerability to early mortality is the under-five mortality rate.10 The indicator for malnutrition is the percentage of children underfive years of age who are underweight. The indicator that corresponds to lack of education is the percentage of school-age children who are not enrolled in primary education.

HealthDuring the review of possible health indicators, consideration was given to indicators on vaccination against major diseases, looking at the data for the immunisation coverage of BCG, Hepatitis B, Polio, DPT and measles. However, vertical programmes to scale up immunisation coverage have had substantial success in improving coverage while having less impact on other aspects of children’s health. Immunisation rates are an input rather than an outcome indicator. In addition, immunization coverage rates are highly correlated with the under-five mortality rate. As a result, it was decided that mortality rate among children under five provides an excellent overall reflection of children’s health status, and this was selected as the health indicator for the CDI.

NutritionChildren’s nutrition status is well recognized as an underlying factor in a third of all child deaths globally (Black et al. 2008). Under-nutrition exacerbates the impact of diseases as it weakens immune systems, and is associated with later impairment of motor and cognitive development, which in turn affects children’s ability to contribute productively to society as adults. The nutrition indicator selected – prevalence of underweight children under five years of age11 – was chosen because it represents, in effect, the combined effect of two other related indicators: stunting and wasting12 .

EducationThe education indicator used in the CDI is the net enrolment ratio for primary school.13 For our measure of the percentage of children deprived of primary education, we use the inverse of the net primary enrolment ratio – i.e.100 minus the net enrolment rate.

The limitation of using the enrolment ratio is that it does not follow the principle of using outcome indicators – i.e. enrolment measures only how many children are initially enrolled in school and not whether they remain in class or learn effectively. In addition, it is not a stock variable summing up cumulative achievement, such as literacy. Instead it measures current educational flows, meaning that it could exhibit significant variation from year to year. However, measures of educational outcomes, such as literacy rates, are limited and are not related directly to children. A further indicator that could complement the net enrolment rate is the proportion of children who start grade 1 and who reach the last grade of primary school (known as the Survival Rate to last Grade of Primary), although this indicator is not readily available prior to the 2000s. The youth literacy rate was also examined, but this provides a measure of child educational attainment with a significant time lag, and data for this indicator is also relatively sparse.

10 The under-five mortality rate is the probability (expressed as a rate per 1,000 live births) of a child born in a specified year dying before reaching the age of five based on the assumption that he/she is subject to current age-specific mortality rates.11 The percentage of children whose weight for age is more than two standard deviations below the median reference standard for their age.12 Underweight is measured by weight for age, stunting is measured by height for age and wasting is measure by weight for height.13 The number of children of official primary school age who are enrolled in primary education as a ratio of the total number of children of official primary school-age population.

62


3. Data availabilityGiven that our three selected indicators are generally estimated every few years in major national surveys, it was most convenient for the CDI to aggregate the data into three time periods, starting from the beginning of the MDG measurement period: 1990-1994, 1995-1999 and 2000-2006.Data is most plentiful for the latter period, less so for the middle period and most sparse for the early period. Given the timing of the CDI’s launch in 2008, the 2000-2006period includes two more years than the two previous periods, so we would expect more progress to have taken place over that period.

In total, 137 countries are included in the CDI across the three periods. Despite careful selection of indicators that are commonly available worldwide, a number of countries still had to be excluded due to a lack of data, as a result of political transitions, conflict, or a general lack of statistical capacity. However, the number of countries represented in the 2012 CDI increased from 137 at the outset of the analysis to 141.

The main data sources of the three indicators and our population data (for weighting the results by country size) are: the UN Population Division; the World Bank’s Health, Nutrition and Population statistics; and the UN MDG indicators. Where there were missing values, the data were supplemented, if feasible, with further data available primarily in the UN MDG country reports and the UN Common Country Assessment reports. Some data were also drawn from UNDP reports and the World Bank’s education statistics. In addition to the quality control that these data sources all apply rigorously, the consistency of the data drawn from different sources was thoroughly checked before being used.

4. Constructing the indexThe indicators for the percentage of underweight children and the percentage of children not enrolled in primary education are, by their nature, indexed from 0 to 100. However, the third indicator, for under-five mortality, is a rate per 1,000 live births. We could have expressed the under-five mortality rate as a percentage of the population that cannot expect to reach age five, but the resulting percentages would have been very small compared to the magnitude of the other two indicators. Instead, we simply transposed the indicator into an index of 0 to 100 by fixing an upper and a lower limit for the mortality rate that are just out of any country’s reach. This is also the approach adopted by the Human Development Index. The lower post is set to 0, indicating that no child in a country dies before the age of five; Iceland comes closest to reaching this goal, with a rate of 2 deaths per 1000. The upper goalpost is set to 340; Niger came closest to such a high rate in the early 1990s with 320 deaths of children under five per 1,000 live births. These goalposts were changed into percentages to align with the other two indicators (Save the Children UK 2008).

When aggregating the three indicators, now all indexed from 0 to 100, into the CDI, we had to consider how to weight them. In doing so, it was preferred that the CDI retain simplicity and transparency over potentially confusing or controversial complex theories for weighting the three indicators. Consequently, the three indicators are simply added together without allocating each an arbitrary weight. In other words, all three are given equal arithmetic weighting in the index. When the results are aggregated for the CDI across regions, we use population weights that correspond to the percentage of the population of children in each country.

Once the indicators are aggregated, the resulting scores for each country are ranked and their progress compared across periods. A low score represents a low level of child deprivation, whereas a high score equals a high level of deprivation.

63


Some results

The analysis of the CDI for three time periods over the 16years between 1990 and 2006 (1990-1994, 1995-1999 and 2000-2006) showed a significant improvement in children’s wellbeing worldwide. The index showed an overall improvement of 34% in child wellbeing within this time frame; but progress varies across the periods. Between 1990-94 and 1995-99, the CDI showed 18%improvement,then a further 20% between 1995-99 and 2000-06. Although progress was higher in the later years, taking into account the longer third period shows a slight slow-down in the annual rate of progress.

The top and bottom ten countries for 2000-06, shown in Table 1, unsurprisingly reflect overall levels of national development. Those in the top ten are all advanced economies while very poor countries in sub-Saharan Africa are last in the rankings. However, associations between an economy’s size and its child wellbeing are not entirely straightforward. For example, India is ranked in 100th place, just behind Nepal and Bangladesh, which are less wealthy. In south-east Asia, Vietnam is ahead of the Philippines and Indonesia at 72nd, despite being less economically developed. Even within developed countries, rankings deviate from economic status. The United States is ranked 23rd in the 2000-06 CDI, far behind relatively smaller economies like Spain and Italy, and even Cuba and Costa Rica.

Table 1: Top and bottom ten countries in the Child Development Index (2000–2006)

Best Performers Worst PerformersRank Country Score Rank Country Score1 Japan 0.41 128 Guinea-Bissau 44.372 Spain 0.57 129 Central African Republic 44.933 Canada 0.73 130 Mali 45.484 Italy 0.86 131 Chad 45.985 Finland 0.87 132 Congo, Dem. Rep. 46.466 Iceland 0.88 133 Angola 48.167 France 0.91 134 Burkina Faso 50.188 United Kingdom 0.99 135 Somalia 53.139 Germany 1.02 136 Sierra Leone 55.9410 Norway 1.03 137 Niger 58.47

Source: Save the Children UK 2008

Progress in children’s wellbeing over the three periods varies greatly across regions. Regional averages reveal that Latin America and the Caribbean recorded the biggest improvement, at 57%, over all three periods. Improvements in East Asia and North Africa and the Middle East (45% and 41% respectively) are also above the global average. On the other hand, child wellbeing progressed slower than the rest of the world in South Asia (22%) and sub-Saharan Africa (21%). The CDI showed the least amount progress in the developed world (2.5%) but this is due to the much better starting conditions in these countries.

What is also significant is the substantial variation in the performance of countries within the same region, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. For example, children in Malawi enjoyed a 56% improvement in their wellbeing over the entire period, while those in the Republic of Congo saw their CDI deteriorate by about half. Policies such as the removal of primary school fees in Malawi and Ethiopia in the mid-1990s boosted primary school enrolment in these countries, which in turn improved their CDI. Income inequality, the high incidence of HIV/AIDS and the increasing cost of education aggravated child deprivation in some parts of the region. For example, progress stalled or reversed in South Africa, Lesotho and Botswana.

64


When comparing performance in the CDI with economic growth, there is certainly significant correlation. Vietnam recorded significant improvements in child wellbeing, halving its CDI score, at a time of rapid economic growth, whereas India made much less progress and still has a CDI score twice as high as Vietnam’s despite also recording fast GDP growth. This suggests that while economic growth often plays an important role in improving child wellbeing, its impact is contingent on that growth being used to create fiscal space for provision of services. Obviously, those countries that have implemented a child-friendly mix of policies, including strengthening basic services, removing user fees and establishing a social protection system, will further leverage the impacts of economic growth on children’s wellbeing.

Looking at the progress of each of the CDI’s three indicators over the period measured provides further insight into where progress has been made and where challenges have arisen.

Primary school enrolment performed the best among the three, with the proportion of school-age children who were not enrolled in school dropping by just over 45%. Under-five mortality decreased by 33% and the proportion of underweight children went down by 28%. Progress in child survival accelerated in the most recent two periods, while primary enrolment improved at a steadier rate. Conversely, the decline in the proportion of underweight children slowed down in recent years. Campaigns to promote Universal Primary Education have clearly had success in increasing access to primary school; however, while the numbers of enrolled children may be going up, the quality of education offered has not necessarily kept pace and needs attention. Furthermore, despite global progress many children continue to miss out on school in countries affected by conflict and emergencies, and greater effort is required to reach them.

The sharp decline in under-five mortality over the years reflects increasing coverage of basic life-saving interventions such as immunisation and the use of oral rehydration solutions (ORS) to treat diarrhoea, as well as increasing coverage of and access to healthcare. Scaling up basic interventions successfully at a national level and implementing pro-poor policies is possible even in low-income countries like Bangladesh and Nepal, which are on track to meet MDG 414. However, huge inequalities in child mortality exist, with the poorest children most exposed to health risks and least likely to have access to interventions (Victoria et al. 2003).

Progress has been slower for nutrition. Of the 137 countries in the CDI’s sample, 90% made more progress in reducing child mortality than in reducing malnutrition. This may be partly explained by trends for financing vertical health programmes delivering tangible results, such as mosquito nets and vaccinations, rather than promoting nutrition as an integral part of interventions in multiple sectors and integral to development policy. In recent years, the tendency to focus on nutrition as a narrow technical sector has started to change – such as through the Scaling Up Nutrition initiative – as donors and governments alike have seen the need to tackle malnutrition as a cause in itself of mortality, morbidity and poverty.

Overall, the results show that differences in policy and governance can make all the difference to children’s lives. Economic growth alone does not necessarily lead to substantial progress, and well-designed policies that create pro-poor growth and programmes that are child-focused are required in order to have a dramatic impact. This point is best illustrated by substantial variations in performance across Sub-Saharan Africa.

14 See ‘Countdown to 2012: Maternal, Newborn and Child Survival’, http://www.countdown2015mnch.org/

65


5. Strengths and limitationsThe CDI fills a gap in international poverty monitoring resources by providing a tool to measure child wellbeing globally. The power of the CDI lies in its capacity to hold governments to account on the most important aspects of child wellbeing. It provides a tool through which countries can recognise the progress they are making and be compared with other countries in a standardized manner.

The Index has also been widely accepted as a robust, reliable benchmark for tracking child wellbeing around the world, partly owing to its simplicity and its solid grounding. For example, all three indicators are well-known and accepted, being prominent targets within the MDGs. UNICEF’s research centre, the Innocenti Research Centre (IRC), acknowledged the CDI’s success in having “broken the Gordian knot [of] deprivation measurement”. Organisations and citizens around the world are able to use the CDI in confidence to confront policy-makers on progress in delivering child wellbeing, assured by the CDI’s presentation of each country’s performance alongside its peers. Furthermore, the avoidance of an overly complex or arbitrary methodology, or the use of less well-known indicators, has ensured that the CDI is quickly understood and therefore more easily adopted and used.

The CDI has also been useful in the analysis of global progress in achieving child rights, highlighting important blockages to improving wellbeing. For example, as detailed above, the 2008 report underlined the slow progress in nutrition compared to the other two areas that had arguably received more global attention.

Undoubtedly, there were challenges in the design of the CDI, including the selection of which indicators to include, and often these decisions had to be driven by the practicalities of data reliability and availability. For example, the CDI does not include information on child protection or child participation, as these areas are simply not well represented at the global level by indicators that are collected regularly in the majority of countries. The CDI is not based entirely on outcome data, as in the case of education. As a result, the CDI is not perfectly aligned to all child rights, which would encompass a far larger range of issues.

Indices in general suffer from limits to their analysis due to their aggregate nature. For example, they cannot be used to measure the depth of deprivation of individuals in a country – meaning that we cannot tell what proportion of the population suffers from just one or from multiple deprivations. Further work is still required to use the CDI to highlight issues of inequality within countries, which are otherwise masked by the index’s national-level representativeness.

A key limitation to the CDI was the surprising number of often very small or highly fragile countries for which no data was available. This meant that these countries were simply excluded, and that their situation remains unmonitored. However, such gaps, both in terms of child wellbeing and country coverage, clearly underscore the need to advocate for wider and better data collection on these basic issues.

6. Reaction to and impact of the CDI’s LaunchThe CDI was launched in December 2008, and received wide media coverage and circulation in development networks. It was the first policy report by Save the Children to be launched with an interactive website, enabling much greater interactivity with the data and wider adoption of the index. Amongst other communication channels, an article in the Economist15 and a dedicated edition of the World Bank’s poverty newsletter helped establish the index’s credibility and adoption. Support from policy-makers such as the President of the African Development Bank, Donald Kaberuka, further boosted the acceptance and subsequent use of the CDI.

15 http://www.economist.com/world/international/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12780728&source=hptextfeature

66


It is widely accepted that the CDI sits comfortably alongside more general indices such as the HDI, and that it complements the few existing national level indices, which are often more complex.

There was great interest in the CDI across Save the Children’s country programmes. Individual country briefings were prepared for China, Ethiopia, India, Nigeria and Sierra Leone. The CDI was seen as an effective tool for national level advocacy. Country offices used the index in dialogue with high-level government offices, ministries and other development partners such as country offices of the World Bank and the World Health Organization. The index generated a lot of media attention in Japan, the country that emerged at the top of the ranking, with the press not only highlighting Japan’s excellent score but also its responsibility to provide developmental support to other countries.

While the CDI proved a useful advocacy tool at the global and national levels, its impact would be greater if it was also used to track progress at local level within countries. It is well known that children in different areas and wealth quintiles experience different levels of wellbeing. In 2010, UNICEF Burkina Faso updated the CDI to influence the development of its new Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP). In 2009, UNICEF’s India office further developed the CDI, producing an index that ranked35 states and 593 districts. The index included indicators for health and nutrition, education, and child safety (developing a nationally disaggregated version of the CDI in one country can allow for the inclusion of more indicators, which is problematic when it comes to cross-country comparisons). Recently, the results of India’s index were used to select districts for a large nutrition survey (Hungama 2011).These examples reveal how the CDI’s contribution to national level discussions and efforts can be further promoted.

The CDI has contributed to the discussion around measuring children’s wellbeing. Poverty tends to affect children disproportionately, and deprivation among children contributes greatly to global poverty. Yet data and methodological issues make it difficult to measure child-specific poverty globally. The CDI serves as a tool to synthesise developments in health, education and nutrition in a broad but diverse group of countries.

7. Updating the Index in 2012The Child Development Index 2012 focussed on progress, challenges and inequality (The Save the Children Fund 2012). The four-year gap between the two editions allowed for significant amounts of new data to be collected that showed changes in children’s wellbeing against a background of changing economic and social conditions. More recent data were available for primary net enrolment and under-five mortality than for nutrition indicators such as the proportion of underweight children. The second version of the CDI included 141 developed and developing countries, up from the 137 included previously. The reporting periods were 1995-99, 2000-04 and 2005-10.

CDI scores continued to represent national level child wellbeing. The 2012 edition looked at the issue of equity, particularly how children in the poorest and most vulnerable groups may not experience the same progress in wellbeing as the rest of the population. It also looked at how the financial and food crises are affecting undernutrition among children. Future editions will explore the feasibility of intra-country indices for a sub-set of the sample, with the national average decomposed by region, geographic area or wealth quintiles. Needless to say this will be driven by the availability of reliable data.

67


8. ConclusionThe launch of the Child Development Index provided a robust and widely accepted global tool for measuring and monitoring child wellbeing. It quantifies three central aspects of children’s wellbeing: health, education and nutrition. While many country-specific analyses of child wellbeing exist, the CDI offers a way to compare and monitor progress worldwide and over a long time period. The analyses using the CFI also emphasise the often-neglected point that child wellbeing is different from adult wellbeing or economic development.

Analysis of the most recent CDI results (2012) reinforces the fact that that economic growth, while necessary for reducing child deprivation, is insufficient on its own. Some countries that experienced a fall in rankings between the first and second editions registered positive economic growth. Considerable variation in performance between countries within regions further underlines the fact that governance and political will play major roles in improving children’s wellbeing.

The index serves as a crucial advocacy tool, both globally and at the country level, for holding governments to account in ensuring the most basic elements of child rights. It highlights specific areas of poor relative progress. National level stakeholders can understand their country’s relative performance in relation to other countries, and the CFI provides a useful point of entry for engagement with policymakers and partners. Disaggregating the index’s results by different socio-economic groups would provide further valuable insight into reducing child poverty and inequalities.

Overall, the CDI is a simple yet powerful tool for seeing how children are doing globally. It must be used to promote the achievement of children’s rights, and to push for greater progress in reducing child deprivation up to and beyond 2015, the deadline for the current MDGs.

68


REFERENCESAnderson, E. and Hague, S. (2007). The Impact of Investing in Children: Assessing the Cross-Country Econometric Evidence.

Black, R. et al. (2008). Maternal and child undernutrition: global and regional exposures and health consequences. Lancet, 371:243-260.

Cockburn et al (2007). Child Poverty and Intrahousehold Allocation. PEP Network.

Gordon, D. et al. (2003). Child poverty in the developing world. Bristol. Accessed at: http://www.nscb.gov.ph/poverty/TCPovStat/reading_materials/rioXG/Social%20Exclusion/ChildPov_PP.pdf.

Harper, C. and Marcus, R. (2003). Enduring poverty and the conditions of childhood: life course and intergenerational poverty transmissions. World Development, 31(3): pp. 535-554.

Hungama (2011).The Hungama survey report – 2011.

McKinley, T. and Kyrili, K. (2008). Developing a Child Poverty Index: Background Paper.

Victoria, C. et al. (2003). Applying an equity lens to child health and mortality: more of the same is not enough. Lancet, 362: 233-241.

69

Table 2: The Child Development Index, 2008

CDI rank2000-2006 Country

Child Development Index

1990-94 1995-99 2000-061 Japan 0.72 0.53 0.412 Spain 0.98 0.75 0.573 Canada 1.54 1.09 0.734 Italy 0.97 1.14 0.865 Finland 1.26 0.97 0.876 Iceland 0.77 0.93 0.887 France 0.89 0.87 0.918 United Kingdom 1.7 0.7 0.999 Germany 6.12 4.69 1.0210 Norway 0.85 0.55 1.0311 Netherlands 2.44 0.88 1.212 Belgium 2.14 1.1 1.2513 Sweden 0.77 0.5 1.314 Luxemburg 7.07 1.71 1.4815 Austria 5.09 1.49 1.516 Australia 1.19 2.65 1.7217 Denmark 1.46 1.53 1.8718 Ireland 4.09 .. 2.3119 Switzerland 6.25 2.49 2.9520 Cuba .. 4.86 3.1221 Costa Rica 6.87 6.95 3.2622 Argentina .. 4.33 3.3423 United States 2.5 3.14 3.8824 Malaysia 11.92 8.89 4.1125 Chile 6.14 5.1 4.1426 Bahrain .. 5.76 4.5127 Tunisia .. 7.7 4.5428 Uruguay 6.74 5.8 4.8929 Panama 8.5 6.43 5.0430 Croatia 8.48 6.03 5.0531 Russian Federation .. .. 5.0532 China 11.49 8.23 5.0633 Belarus .. .. 5.1534 Qatar .. 6.83 5.1635 Brazil .. 8.84 5.6336 Romania 11.17 5.93 5.7637 Paraguay 7.39 6.18 5.7738 Thailand 13.33 .. 5.7939 Belize 8.27 .. 5.8240 Mexico .. 7.79 5.8741 Peru 15.27 9.54 6.242 Albania .. .. 6.2543 Ecuador .. 10 6.3344 Syrian Arab Republic 10.73 9.66 6.445 Algeria 13.55 12.63 6.5746 Venezuela, RB 9.93 9.28 6.7447 Jordan 8.01 8.17 6.84

Continued to next page ...

70




1990-94 1995-99 2000-0648 Turkey 20.01 15.25 7.1249 Kazakhstan .. .. 7.4850 Egypt, Arab Rep. 16.94 12.66 7.6151 Jamaica 7.58 9.08 7.6352 Honduras 15.58 .. 7.6453 Georgia .. 12.58 7.7954 El Salvador 18.68 14.74 7.9155 Mauritius .. 10.19 8.0356 Colombia .. 9.42 8.1957 Moldova .. 7.95 9.1158 Mongolia 18.1 15.19 9.1259 Suriname .. .. 9.4160 Armenia .. .. 9.6161 United Arab Emirates .. 12.94 9.6162 Saudi Arabia .. 8.77 9.6663 Kyrgyz Republic .. 13.76 9.8664 Kuwait .. 9.1 9.8965 Nicaragua 20.68 17.14 10.1366 Bolivia .. 14.87 10.267 Lebanon .. 8.9 10.2368 Iran, Islamic Rep. .. 16.62 10.7569 Trinidad and Tobago .. .. 10.7770 Morocco 26.35 19.62 11.0171 Occupied Palestinian territory .. 5.79 11.1572 Vietnam 23.38 19.46 11.973 Dominican Republic 24.52 12.58 12.1474 Sri Lanka 18.5 15.23 12.2775 Guyana 18.41 15.93 12.5776 Tajikistan .. .. 13.3677 Guatemala .. 21.07 13.4478 Sao Tome and Principe .. .. 13.7279 South Africa 12.24 10.89 14.3680 Indonesia 25.19 20.8 14.5281 Philippines 18.45 16.89 14.6582 Maldives 28.3 23.49 15.183 Oman 21.44 14.25 15.784 Azerbaijan .. 17.82 15.9885 Gabon .. .. 16.8986 Bhutan .. 33.88 20.0887 Botswana .. 18.7 20.8988 Malawi 47.85 36.17 21.2189 Namibia 22.78 25.18 21.8290 Zimbabwe 18.65 20.42 21.9191 Tanzania 41.88 42.58 22.8792 Cambodia 33.94 35.2 23.2893 Myanmar (Burma) 24.03 27.07 23.5394 Uganda 39.21 28.04 24.2

Continued to next page ...

71




1990-94 1995-99 2000-0695 Nepal .. 38.92 25.6296 Togo .. 26.83 25.8897 Lao PDR 43.28 35.44 26.0898 Bangladesh 45.84 36.16 26.3299 Kenya 25.5 30.42 26.52100 India 36.53 31.22 26.62101 Madagascar 41.41 41.01 26.64102 Swaziland .. .. 26.76103 Senegal 40.09 37.22 26.91104 Rwanda 37.97 39.26 28.61104 Lesotho 24.54 28.4 28.73106 Cameroon 28.37 31 29.27107 Benin .. 43.15 29.47108 Mauritania 50.12 32.03 29.69109 Ghana 39.8 33.63 29.78110 Haiti 50.01 37.68 29.89111 Comoros 32.35 35.34 29.99112 Zambia 32.86 36.4 30.11113 Gambia, The .. 35.19 30.63114 Equatorial Guinea .. .. 30.7115 Timor-Leste .. .. 31.32116 Mozambique .. 45.35 31.76117 Congo, Rep. 21.31 .. 32.29118 Yemen, Rep. 40.37 42.03 33.32119 Pakistan 48.46 .. 33.59120 Guinea .. 46.48 33.87121 Côte d'Ivoire 41.37 37.06 34.23122 Ethiopia 61.93 54.11 36.43123 Sudan 43.09 .. 37.69124 Eritrea 56.51 48.81 38.29125 Burundi .. .. 39.28126 Nigeria 49.37 43.06 40.53127 Djibouti 48.61 46.02 43.15128 Guinea-Bissau .. .. 44.37129 Central African Republic .. 40.4 44.93130 Mali .. 54.02 45.48131 Chad .. 49.05 45.98132 Congo, Dem. Rep. .. 43.17 46.46133 Angola .. 59.56 48.16134 Burkina Faso 55.42 52.17 50.18135 Somalia .. .. 53.13136 Sierra Leone .. .. 55.94137 Niger 70.88 70.04 58.47138 Czech Republic 6.01 2.21 ..139 Iraq 11.18 17.52 ..140 Cape Verde 13.33 .. ..141 F.Y.R.O. Macedonia .. 6.84 ..142 Fiji .. 4.91 ..143 Liberia .. 51.24 ..

72


The African Child Policy Forum (ACPF)

P.O. Box 1179, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Tel: +251 116 62 81 92/96/97/99

Fax: +251 116 62 82 00

Email: [email protected] Website: www.africanchildforum.org

www.africanchildinfo.net

Documents

ACCOUNTABILITY TO CHILDREN · In January 2012, The African Child Policy Forum (ACPF) organised a roundtable meeting of experts to solicit feedback on the theme, structure and content