Webinar Series on the Measurement of Child Protection

Webinar Series on the Measurement of Child Protection Presentation of the MICS Modules for Child Protection 13 February 2013 at 9 am and 9 pm NY/ET Claudia Cappa and Attila Hancioglu Statistics and Monitoring Section/DPS UNICEF HQ

Outline • Discuss some conceptual, methodological, ethical challenges related to the collection of data on child protection through household surveys • Provide an overview of the MICS survey program • Review existing Child Protection Modules in MICS

Some preliminary questions • Why do we need data/evidence? • What data/evidence do we need? • What data/evidence do we have? • How can we make be better use of what we have? • How should we get the data/evidence we need?

What data/evidence do we need? • Prevalence data on nature and magnitude of CP violations • Risk and protective factors • Evidence on how and why certain violations occur and persist • What works and what does not work for prevention and response • Data and information for the monitoring and evaluation of programmes

Main sources of data for CP Nationally representative household surveys (part of international programs) § Relevant to obtain prevalence estimates; not suitable for understanding why § Use standard data collection methodology and questionnaires to allow for country/regional comparisons and trend analysis § Primary sources of disaggregated data § Typically, data are collected by countries every 3 -5 years “KAP surveys”= Problem with standardization and validation School-based surveys = Population of children out of school Administrative data, Census Special methods are needed to capture certain populations

Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys

Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys • Household survey program, developed by UNICEF in the 1990 s – to assist countries in filling data gaps on children’s and women’s well-being for tracking progress toward World Summit for Children Goals • Nationally representative household sample surveys – Face to face interviews, observations, measurements – Representative sample of households

MICS 1995 -2014 Round Year/Period Emphasis MICS 1 1995 World Summit for Children Goals 62 MICS 2 2000 World Summit for Children Goals 65 52 60 MICS 3 2005 -2007 World Fit For Children Goals, MDGs, Other Global Monitoring Frameworks MICS 4 2009 -2012 MDGs, Other Global Monitoring Frameworks 2013 -2014 Final MDG Assessment, A Promise Renewed, Other Global Monitoring Frameworks MICS 5 No. of Surveys 40 +

MICS Implementation UNICEF develops standard tools, guidelines Countries customize survey tools Technical support and training Governments conduct surveys Implementing agencies conduct analysis, produce reports, disseminate Public sharing of reports and micro data In collaboration with interagency groups, UNICEF, other stakeholders, DHS programme With UNICEF support, through regional workshops, in-country support Funding support primarily by UNICEF, plus other agencies – USAID, UNFPA and others By governments and UNICEF • Full government ownership • Use globally agreed-upon indicators as starting point, design survey tools around these indicators

MICS 4 Surveys by Region 14 12 Number of Surveys 10 12 11 10 8 8 7 6 7 5 4 2 0 CEECIS East Asia Pacific Eastern-Southern Africa Middle East North Africa South Asia Latin America Caribbean Western-Central Africa

• Low and middle/high income countries • Chad, Mali, Costa Rica, Serbia, Qatar, Argentina • Emergency or post-emergency settings • Somalia, Iraq, Sindh, Sudan • New to MICS (Bhutan, Mali), all MICS rounds (Serbia, Gambia), “returning” countries (Moldova, Afghanistan) • Single household survey data source on children in several countries

Questionnaires – Some Features Factual questions, behavior – some attitude questions Validated and tested questions/modules All questions contribute to either the numerator or denominator of a well-defined indicator Indicators are mostly those adopted and endorsed by the international community MDGs, interagency indicator sets, other international commitments

Features Sampling Multi-stage stratified cluster samples Sample size (MICS 4): Around 10, 000 households, but huge variation Over-sampling of households with under-5 s Fieldwork 2 -4 months Supervisor, field editor, measurer, 3 to 5 interviewers Training 3 weeks, including field practice Reporting Summary Findings Report Final Report – 12 months after completion of fieldwork Technical assistance Regional workshops, regional MICS coordinators, regional household survey experts Access www. childinfo. org Reports and micro data sets (SPSS)

Questionnaires and Topics • Household Questionnaire – Usual members of households • Women’s Questionnaire (Age 15 -49) – With Birth Histories – Without Birth Histories • Men’s Questionnaire (Age 15 -49) – Usually for a sub-sample • Under-5 Questionnaire – Administered to mothers or primary caretakers of under-5 s

HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE WOMEN’S QUESTIONNAIRE social & demographic characteristics child mortality living arrangements maternal mortality education antenatal, delivery & postnatal care water and sanitation, hand washing contraception/unmet need household assets female genital mutilation/cutting ITNs WOMEN’S AND MEN’S QUESTIONNAIRES child labour attitudes toward domestic violence child discipline marriage salt iodization sexual behaviour child disability HIV/AIDS knowledge and attitudes access to mass media and use of ICT tobacco and alcohol use UNDER-5 QUESTIONNAIRE life satisfaction birth registration early childhood development diarrhoea, pneumonia, malaria immunization infant and young child feeding anthropometry (nutrition indicators)

MICS strategy for inclusion of new topics • • Global relevance UNICEF priority Programmatic relevance Validated, tested Economical and simple Maintain eligibility, general structure Avoid further sophistication

MICS 2013 -2014

Timelines • Global Pilot Survey (Bangladesh, May-June 2012, 1000 households) • Official launch by UNICEF (October 2012) • Finalize survey instruments • …and supporting documents (by March 2013) • Workshops: March 2013 onwards • Survey implementation – 2013 - First quarter 2014 at the latest for surveys servicing MDG reporting – 2013 and 2014 for all other surveys

Timeline for Global Reporting on MDGs 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 MICS 4 MICS 5 Large number of countries expected to conduct surveys for MDG monitoring Data compilation and analysis Summer 2014 Submission of data for SG’s report March 2015 SG’s MDG Report launch September 2015

Child Protection Modules in MICS

MICS and Child Protection Largest source of internationally comparable data on Child Protection (countries covered, topics) Groups of children that out of the scope of a household survey: Children living in institutions, children living on the street, etc. Comparison with other surveys - other non-specialized household surveys (DHS, RHS) - thematic household surveys (SIMPOC, VAC) - school based-surveys (GSHS, HBSC)

Child Protection Modules in MICS • • • Birth Registration Child Labour Child Discipline Child Marriage Attitudes towards Domestic Violence FGM Other relevant cross-cutting issues • Living arrangements • Child Disability • Children in Child-Headed Household

MICS countries that collected data on CP FGM/C Marriage Attitudes towards Domestic Violence CEECIS 0 13 11 EAPRO 0 5 ESARO 1 MENARO UNICEF region Child Discipline Birth Registration Child Labour 11 13 13 3 3 6 4 3 1 0 2 10 2 9 11 7 ROSA 0 1 0 0 1 1 TACRO 0 5 5 5 6 5 WCARO 11 12 9 9 13 9 TOTAL 14 49 31 37 52 40

Birth Registration

Questionnaire BIRTH REGISTRATION BR 1. DOES (NAME) HAVE A BIRTH CERTIFICATE? BR Yes, seen Yes, not seen No DK 1 2 3 8 1 NEXT MODULE 2 NEXT MODULE BR 2. HAS (NAME)’S BIRTH BEEN REGISTERED WITH THE CIVIL AUTHORITIES? Yes No DK 1 2 8 1 NEXT MODULE BR 3. DO YOU KNOW HOW TO REGISTER YOUR CHILD’S BIRTH? Yes No 1 2 IF YES, ASK: MAY I SEE IT?

MICS Indicator Numerator: • Number of children under age 5 whose births are reported registered Denominator: • Total number of children under age 5

Child Labour

Questionnaire • New module developed in consultation with ILO • Background data analyses to establish sensitivities of questions to CL prevalence • Progress towards harmonization of data collection tools, but significant differences remain with SIMPOC and ILO estimates • New age group 5 -17 • Three components: economic activities, hazardous working conditions and household chores

Child Labour – MICS Indicators • Percentage of children 5 -17 years of age involved in child labour Age 5– 11 years: At least 1 hour of economic work or 28 hours of domestic work per week Age 12– 14 years: At least 14 hours of economic work or 28 hours of domestic work per week Age 15 -17: At least 43 hours of economic work or domestic work per week • Percentage of children 5 -17 years of age working under hazardous conditions

Child Discipline

Child Discipline Module • Questions addressed to family relatives/mothers or primary caregivers of one randomly selected child aged 2 to 14 years old • The questionnaire asked whether any member of the household had used any of various disciplinary practices with that child during the past month • 8 violent disciplinary practices: 2 psychological (such as shouting and name calling); 6 physical (such as shaking, spanking and hitting with an implement) • 3 non-violent disciplinary practices (such as taking away privileges and explaining why something is wrong) • Assesses respondents’ attitude toward physical punishment

Violent Discipline Indicator • Numerator: Children age 2 -14 years who experienced any violent discipline (psychological aggression or physical punishment) during the 30 days preceding the survey • Denominator: Children age 2 -14

Child Marriage

MICS Indicators • Marriage before age 15: Proportion of women age 15 -49 years who were first married or in union by the exact age of 15 • Marriage before age 18: Proportion of women age 20 -49 years who were first married or in union by the exact age of 18 • Young women age 15 -19 years currently married or in union • Polygyny: Proportion of women age 15 -49 years who are in a polygynous union • Spousal age difference: Proportion of women currently married or in union whose spouse is 10 or more years older (a) for women age 15 -19 years, (b) for women age 20 -24 years

Attitudes towards domestic violence

Background • Collecting and analyzing information on the reasons why wife beating is justified makes it possible to under gender attitudes towards the female roles of wife, mother, and domestic partner • Measurement of practices of violence against women, although possible, raise ethical and methodological issues • Positive attitudes towards domestic violence have been found to be associated with the prevalence of domestic violence; still many women justify domestic violence even if they have not been victims • Positive attitudes do not necessarily signify approval by women of wife-beating, but they signify women’s acceptance of such norms

MICS Indicator Percentage of women aged 15 -49 who state that a husband/partner is justified in hitting or beating his wife in at least one of the following circumstances: – (1) she goes out without telling him – (2) she neglects the children – (3) she argues with him – (4) she refuses sex with him – (5) she burns the food

Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting

Innovations in data collection • Change in the questionnaire for daughters: new questionnaire allows for calculating prevalence for age group 0 -14 • Most surveys conducted before 2010 and some of the 2010 surveys asked women about the FGM/C status of only one daughter, either the first born, or the most recently cut • Changes introduced in MICS 4 (2010 -2011) and adopted by DHS surveys as well

Rationale and methodological considerations • Prevalence rates can provide an enhanced understanding of FGM/C among the youngest age groups where recent intervention efforts would, in many settings, show the most impact • However, girls 0 -14 may still be exposed to the risk of being circumcised depending on the age at which FGM/C is generally performed (censored observations) • Importance of taking age at cutting into account • As age at cutting varies in different settings, the amount of censoring will vary • Caution is needed when comparing across age cohorts and across surveys

Module Three sets of questions: 1) Questions for women 15 -49 years of age: § Knowledge of the practice § If FGM/C has happened to her § Type of procedure: if flesh was removed, nicked without removing flesh, sewn closed § Age of circumcision § Performer: traditional performer, health personnel 2) Questions for FGM/C for daughters (0 -14): § Circumcision status of all daughters below age 15 § Type of procedure § Age of circumcision § Performer: traditional performer, health personnel 3) Attitudes regarding the continuation of the practice

MICS Indicators • Approval for FGM/C Number of women age 15 -49 years favouring the continuation of female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C)/Total number of women age 15 -49 years who have heard of FGM/C • Prevalence of FGM/C among women Number of women age 15 -49 years who report to have undergone any form of female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C)/Total number of women age 15 -49 years • Prevalence of FGM/C among girls Number of girls age 0 -14 years who have undergone any form of female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C), as reported by mothers/ Total number of girls age 014 years

THANK YOU 43