Client Logo

How effective is the Social Protection System in reducing child poverty? A community

based AnalysisBy Martha Mbombo

Acting Permanent SecretaryMGECW

09 July 2015

Outline of the presentation1. Introduction2. Child poverty in Namibia3. Objective of the study4. Methodology5. Findings6. Recommendations7. Conclusion

MGECW 2Page 2

1. IntroductionChild welfare grant tend to focus

on the children orphaned by HIV/AIDS

Other children are affected by other vulnerabilities due to poverty, food insecurity and access to critical services such as education and health

MGECW 3Page 3

2. Child poverty in Namibia (NHIES 2009/10)

Children in severe povertyChildren in povertyChildren vulnerable to poverty

N$ 3,330 per annum& adult equivalent

N$ 4,535 per annum& adult equivalent

N$ 6,803 per annum& adult equivalent

Child Poverty (continued)Where are the most children in poverty?•House Hold with youngest child under 5•large House Hold; •Number of orphans in a House Hold•Caregivers are married or in consensual union•Female caregiver has secondary education•In Oshiwambo or Rukavango speaking families in Kavango, Caprivi, Oshikoto regions

5Page 5 MGECW

The community-based social protection assessment

Led by MGECW in partnership with NPC

Researchers: Southern Hemisphere Consultants and Survey Warehouse

Technical Working Group included key line ministries – meetings at main stages in research process: planning, research instruments, feedback from field work, results, recommendations

Recommendations validated with all relevant line ministries

Final draft completed in August 2012

3. Objectives of Community Based Study• Assess the effectiveness of social protection

measures at community level• Assess the uptake of services by children who are

particularly vulnerable• Assess formal and informal community support

structures to tackle economic concerns• Assess strategies that poor households with

children use to cope with economic adversity

7Page 7 MGECW

4. Methodology• A qualitative research method was used• Study conducted in the Regions where the

high levels of child poverty• Information collected from children aged 15 –

17 , care givers, parents, members of the communities, Civil Society Organisations, Community leaders, church leaders, traditional and regional leaders, health workers and government workers

• Methods used includes in – depth interview, workshops and focus group discussions

8Page 8 MGECW

• Selection of regions based on regional child poverty profiles (NHIES 2003/2004)

• Countrywide spread to ensure understanding of social protection mechanisms in North and South of the country

• Sites per region included one urban or peri-urban site and two rural sites (except Khomas)

Methodology: Sample

Region Sites per region

Omaheke Gobabis, Steinhausen and Otjinene

Karas Keetmanshoop, Tses and Bethanie

Ohangwena Eenhana, Engela and Ongenga

Kavango Rundu, Utokota and Kapako

Khomas Katutura East and Katutura Central

5. Findings

5.1. Experiences of Poverty

5.2. Coping with Poverty

5.3. Effectiveness of the Social

5.4. What is working well

10Page 10 MGECW

5.1. Children’s experiences: food insecurity

“There is no food to eat breakfast, because they use to struggle to get this food and it is too little, if you eat breakfast, then there will be no food left for you when you come back from school. Sometime there is no lunch you only eat once in a day”, (children’s focus group, Kavango)

• Hunger most frequently mentioned experience of poverty

• Most children in FG often did not have breakfast or lunch (one meal a day)

• Effects: children run away from home to find food; poor school attendance; low concentration/performance

5.1. Children’s experiences: education

“When our kids go to school, they are returned back home when they don’t have uniforms or when they didn’t pay the school fees, they don’t get their reports”, (parents / caregivers focus group, Ohangwena)

•Pressure on poor families to pay fees/SDF•Lack of affordable and reliable transport – children need to hike or walk long distances to school•Effects: Leads to bullying, victimisation, embarrassment, low attendance, drop outs, alcohol and drug abuse

5.2. Coping With Poverty

5.3. What do communities say about effectiveness of grants?

• Reduce child poverty at individual level – food, health care, clothing, school costs (basic needs)

• Pension covers water, electricity, rent • Value of grant is small especially for disabled children

but they do make a difference • Regular source of income – households able to plan

spending“It benefits everyone. They all eat the food which was

bought with that money” (focus group children, Ohangwena)

“

5.3. Two groups of children missing out on grants

Children who qualify but are not receiving grants: •Don’t have access to national documents •San and Ovahimba communities•Street children•Children with disability (stigma)

Poor, vulnerable children with both parents alive who don’t have sufficient income to support children

5.4. What is working well in addressing child poverty and vulnerability?

• Social grants make a difference for those receiving them

• School feeding, soup kitchens, drought relief• Some examples of good coordination between

ministries (e.g. MGECW, MoHAI, MoHSS on birth registration)

• Some examples of well functioning regional and local coordination mechanisms (uneven across regions)

5.5. Key Recommendations

Page 2 20

Key Recommendations I

• Expand of Child welfare grants– Expansion to all poor and

vulnerable children–Regular adjustment for

inflation–Regular review of grant

amounts

Key Recommendations I: continued

• Remove barriers to grant access– Strategy on public

information campaigns– Strengthened outreach for

civic registration, especially to ‘hard-to-reach’ children

Key Recommendations I: continued

• Strengthen school feeding programme– Ensure poorest communities

are reached– Expansion to secondary

schools

Key Recommendations II

• Human resources–Upscale number of social workers–Diversification of recognised social service

professions• Children’s budget– Identification of key areas of government

expenditure– Tracking of allocations over time

Key Recommendations II

• Coordination & integration of social protection services–Establishment of regional and local

committees of stakeholders involved in addressing child poverty

Key Recommendations III• Strengthened data collection, M&E–Central database in regions on number of

children requiring and receiving grants and services, accessible to key ministries– Set of indicators for regular monitoring of

grant system and impacts on child outcomes at central level– Evaluation of grant application process,

access and service delivery standards, use of grants, impact of grants

Key Recommendations IV

• Remove barriers to education– Abolish School Development

Fund (report acknowledges that this has happened)

– Develop more equitable funding formula for schools

• Remove barriers to health services– Assessment of current user fees

in health facilities: cost of administration, effectiveness and efficiency of implementation

Key challenges identified in the system• Need for grants and services outweighs capacity to

respond• Shortage of social workers• Accessibility of grants and services for most

vulnerable• Poor monitoring of services and programmes• Budget allocations for children unclear across

ministries• Weaknesses in coordination and collaboration

between ministries and between CSO and government

• CSO face severe funding constraints

6. Conclusion of the Study• Child poverty is not confined to a specific

risk groups and remain a mainstream problem in Namibia

• Coping strategies employed by poor household do not provide income security and are generally ad hoc means of surviving

• Child Welfare grant despite their small monetary value, plays a critical role in reducing child poverty, and needs to be improved in terms of coverage and quality

Types Child Welfare Grants (2015)

• Child maintenance Grants:– Means-tested at N$ 12,000 per year– N$ 250 per month per child– Single orphans or biological parent receives Basic

State Grant or one biological parent in prison for at least 6 months

• Foster care grants:– N$ 250 per month per child– Children formally placed in foster care

Types Child Welfare Grants (2015)

• Special maintenance grants:– N$ 250 per month per child– Children with disability below age 16 (after that:

Basic State Grant)• Place of safety allowance:– N$ 10 per day for children taken into short term

care– Vulnerable Grant– N$250 per month per child, for children whose

parents / guardians have no source of income

Thank you