accountability to children · in january 2012, the african child policy forum (acpf) organised a...
TRANSCRIPT
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
_____________________________________________________________________________________ A compilation of background papers
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 feed- back to refine the content of the compilation. We would also like to thank Annalies Borrel for her sup- port 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
MEASURING AND MONITORING ACCOUNTABILITY TO CHILDREN __________________________________________________________
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
MEASURING AND MONITORING ACCOUNTABILITY TO CHILDREN __________________________________________________________
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
MEASURING AND MONITORING ACCOUNTABILITY TO CHILDREN __________________________________________________________
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
MEASURING AND MONITORING ACCOUNTABILITY TO CHILDREN __________________________________________________________
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
MEASURING AND MONITORING ACCOUNTABILITY TO CHILDREN __________________________________________________________
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
MEASURING AND MONITORING ACCOUNTABILITY TO CHILDREN __________________________________________________________
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
MEASURING AND MONITORING ACCOUNTABILITY TO CHILDREN __________________________________________________________
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
MEASURING AND MONITORING ACCOUNTABILITY TO CHILDREN __________________________________________________________
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
MEASURING AND MONITORING ACCOUNTABILITY TO CHILDREN __________________________________________________________
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
MEASURING AND MONITORING ACCOUNTABILITY TO CHILDREN __________________________________________________________
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
MEASURING AND MONITORING ACCOUNTABILITY TO CHILDREN __________________________________________________________
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
_____________________________________________________________________________________ A compilation of background papers
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 con- cept of child-friendliness builds on three central pillars of child rights and wellbeing: protection, provi- sion 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
MEASURING AND MONITORING ACCOUNTABILITY TO CHILDREN __________________________________________________________
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
_____________________________________________________________________________________ A compilation of background papers
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
MEASURING AND MONITORING ACCOUNTABILITY TO CHILDREN __________________________________________________________
• 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
_____________________________________________________________________________________ A compilation of background papers
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
MEASURING AND MONITORING ACCOUNTABILITY TO CHILDREN __________________________________________________________
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
_____________________________________________________________________________________ A compilation of background papers
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
MEASURING AND MONITORING ACCOUNTABILITY TO CHILDREN __________________________________________________________
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
MEASURING AND MONITORING ACCOUNTABILITY TO CHILDREN __________________________________________________________
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
_____________________________________________________________________________________ A compilation of background papers
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
MEASURING AND MONITORING ACCOUNTABILITY TO CHILDREN __________________________________________________________
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
_____________________________________________________________________________________ A compilation of background papers
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
MEASURING AND MONITORING ACCOUNTABILITY TO CHILDREN __________________________________________________________
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
_____________________________________________________________________________________ A compilation of background papers
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
MEASURING AND MONITORING ACCOUNTABILITY TO CHILDREN __________________________________________________________
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
_____________________________________________________________________________________ A compilation of background papers
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
MEASURING AND MONITORING ACCOUNTABILITY TO CHILDREN __________________________________________________________
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
_____________________________________________________________________________________ A compilation of background papers
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
MEASURING AND MONITORING ACCOUNTABILITY TO CHILDREN __________________________________________________________
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
_____________________________________________________________________________________ A compilation of background papers
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
MEASURING AND MONITORING ACCOUNTABILITY TO CHILDREN __________________________________________________________
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
_____________________________________________________________________________________ A compilation of background papers
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
MEASURING AND MONITORING ACCOUNTABILITY TO CHILDREN __________________________________________________________
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
_____________________________________________________________________________________ A compilation of background papers
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
MEASURING AND MONITORING ACCOUNTABILITY TO CHILDREN __________________________________________________________
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
_____________________________________________________________________________________ A compilation of background papers
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
MEASURING AND MONITORING ACCOUNTABILITY TO CHILDREN __________________________________________________________
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
_____________________________________________________________________________________ A compilation of background papers
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
MEASURING AND MONITORING ACCOUNTABILITY TO CHILDREN __________________________________________________________
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
_____________________________________________________________________________________ A compilation of background papers
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
MEASURING AND MONITORING ACCOUNTABILITY TO CHILDREN __________________________________________________________
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
_____________________________________________________________________________________ A compilation of background papers
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
MEASURING AND MONITORING ACCOUNTABILITY TO CHILDREN __________________________________________________________
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
_____________________________________________________________________________________ A compilation of background papers
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
MEASURING AND MONITORING ACCOUNTABILITY TO CHILDREN __________________________________________________________
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
Table 2: The Child Development Index, 2008
CDI rank2000-2006 Country
Child Development Index
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
Table 2: The Child Development Index, 2008
CDI rank2000-2006 Country
Child Development Index
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
MEASURING AND MONITORING ACCOUNTABILITY TO CHILDREN __________________________________________________________
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