TERMS OF REFERENCE

Child-sensitive social protection in Fiji:

An Assessment of the Care & Protection Allowance

***************************************************************************************************************************

Linkages to Fiji’s Roadmap for Democracy and Sustainable Socio-Economic Development (RDSSED 2009-2014):

  • Pillar 8: Reducing Poverty to a Negligible Level by 2015.
  • Policy Objective: All categories of the poor are able to meet their basic needs.
  • Strategies:‘review and develop poverty targeted policies’ and ‘strengthened institutions and programmes that support children of the poorest of the poor’.

Linkages to Outputs and Performance Targets of Ministry of Social Welfare, Women and Poverty Alleviation:

  • Output 2: Poverty Alleviation – Assistance to Disadvantaged Persons
  • Output Performance Measure: Provision of Care & Protection Allowance to poor households with children who will need care and protection.
  • Output Strategy:Strengthen the administrative, coordination, facilitation and monitoring of the Care and Protection Programme including the translation of 4 FA criteria.

Linkages to UNICEF Pacific Multi-Country Programme Document 2013-2017:

  • Programme Component Result 9: Social policies, safety nets, and budgets progressively address disparities and build resilience for the realization of child rights.
  • Intermediary Result 9.2: By 2017, government policies, budgets and social protection systems enhance resilience and reduce disparities for children.

***************************************************************************************************************************

  1. Purpose

The purpose of this assignment is to conduct an in-depth assessment of Fiji’s Care and Protection Allowance – a cash transfer programme targeting children in foster or residential care and children in vulnerable households – to explore the programme’s impact on recipients,analyse alternative designs, generate options for improving programme operation and ensuring programme (financial) sustainability.

The assessment will contribute directly to poverty reduction strategies identified in Fiji’s Roadmap for Democracy and Sustainable Socio-Economic Development (RDSSED 2009-2014) as well as the Corporate Plan of the Ministry of Social Welfare, Women and Poverty Alleviation (MSWWPA).It seeks to complement previous studies that are informing on-going reforms in Fiji’s social protection landscape (in particular the 2011 review of Fiji’s Family Assistance Programme) by focusing explicitly on children as a target group.

Results from the assessment will be used by the MSWWPA and other relevant stakeholders to inform planning and resource allocation decisions and identify priority actions to optimize the design, coverage and operational management of the Care and Protection Allowance. A secondary objective is to document Fiji’s experience with its cash transfer programme for vulnerable children and draw lessons learned that could benefit other Pacific Island Countries seeking to introduce or expand child-sensitive social protection schemes.

  1. Background

2.1Country Context

The Republic of Fiji is a Small Island Developing State (SIDS) home to nearly 860,000 people, including 290,000 childrenunder 18 years of age, living on 110 islands spread across 1.3 million square kilometres of the Pacific Ocean.The country has an increasingly urban population (51 percent according to the latest census). Fiji is classified as a “medium human development” country and ranks 96th out of 187 countries on the 2012 United Nations Human Development Index. The country has reached upper-middle income status with a gross national income (GNI) per capita of US$ 4,200 in 2012.Net Official Development Assistance (ODA) is relatively low compared to other Pacific countries (less than 2.5 percent of GNI).

Like most islands in the South Pacific region, Fiji is highly vulnerable to sudden economic or environmental changes as a result of its remoteness and geographical fragmentation; isolation from world markets and small internal market; limited commodities and consequent heavy dependence on imports; fragility of its ecosystem; and high susceptibility to natural disasters. Fiji is ranked 15thout of 173 countries in the 2012 World Risk Index and is second only to Papua NewGuinea as the Pacific island country most affected by natural disasters since 1990. The country suffers an annual average economic loss of 2.6 percent of GDP due to tropical cyclones and flooding.[1]

Poverty:Some 35 percent of the national population was living below the basic needs poverty line in 2008/09. The average poverty rate in rural areas (44 percent) is significantly higher than the urban poverty rate (26 percent), while poverty rates in squatter settlements range from 38 to 55 percent.[2] Households with children (and elderly) are more susceptible to being poor.In addition, an estimated ten percent of Fiji’s population is considered to be non-poor, but at risk of falling below the poverty line.[3]Moreover, natural disasters frequently push families into poverty. For example, because of theincome loss due to 2009 flooding, the proportion of flood-affected sugarcane families below the basic needs poverty line increased from an estimated 54 to 77 percent.[4]Due to internal migration, a significant proportion of the population is living in informal and squatter settlements – often in poor quality housing, with inadequate service provision, in environmentally marginal areas, and with no legal security of tenure.

Food security:Fijian households spent close to one third of their total expenditure on food consumption in 2008/09, ranging from an average of 25 percent in urban areas to 46 percent in rural areas.[5] Home production – an important food safety net – accounted for five percent of total food consumption in urban areas, while rural households produced on average 35 percent of their own food consumption. Because of their limited access to land, the urban poor are often considered one of the most food insecure groups. For example, a 2009 survey in the Wailea squatter settlement in Suva revealed that only 24 percent of residents were food secure while 76 percent experienced low or very low food security (though hunger remains relatively uncommon even in these circumstances).[6] Overall, the role of subsistence food production is declining sharply (-43 percent in urban and -20 percent in rural areas between 2002 and 2008).[7] This reflects a strong trend of domestically produced foods being displaced by imported items.

Child nutrition:Malnutrition in children resulting from poor dietary intake remains a concern, particularly in Indo-Fijian children. The 2004 National Nutrition Survey reported that 16 percent of Indo-Fijian children under five years were underweight for their age; 7 percent was wasted (low weight-for-height); and 5 percent was stunted (low height-for-age). Prevalence of malnutrition in iTaukei children was generally low (3-4 percent). Deficiencies of micronutrients (such as vitamin A, iron and zinc) are a serious public health problem affecting up to half of all children under five years.[8]

Child health:Fiji has made significant progress in reducing its under-five mortality rate; from 31 deaths per 1,000 live births in 1990 to 22 per 1,000 in 2012. The leading causes of under-five deaths are now pneumonia and diarrhoea (14 percent), neonatal causes (43 percent) and injuries (11 percent).[9] It is estimated that while about 70-80 percent of the population has access to primary health care, only about 40 percent has access to quality health services.[10] Vaccination levels for children are high; and the introduction of pneumoccocal and rotavirus vaccines in 2012 is expected to further reduce the burden of pneumonia and diarrhoea.

Education:Access to formal early learning opportunities remains constrained: only 47 percent of five-year olds were attending pre-school in 2011.[11]However, children’s access to primary schooling is generally high ( 95 percent). Access to secondary schooling is much lower (80 percent) with non-attendance twice as high in rural areas (26 percent) than urban areas (13 percent). There are also strong disparities across quintiles in urban areas, with urban children in the poorest quintile three times less likely to attend secondary school than children in the richest quintile. Moreover, children from the poorest families are much more likely to drop out of school (e.g. by the age of 16 years, 35 percent of the poorest children in rural and 16 percent in urban areas have dropped out of school).[12]Lower levels of educationdramatically increase the risk of poverty later in life.[13]

Child Protection:An ILO survey found that children who have dropped out of school early are more likely to be engaged in child labour, such as seasonal farm work, collecting scrap metal and pushing wheelbarrows.[14] The incidence of children engaged in sex work and drug trafficking is also a matter of concern. Poverty, parental or family neglect and other social problems, combined with the need for cash for personal wants, are key underlying causes of child labour. The Fiji Police Force recorded an increase in the number of cases of sexual child abuse from 162 in 2005 to 362 in 2010, while cases of physical child abuse increased from 98 to 214 over the same period.[15] Moreover, a 2008 Child Protection Baseline found that seven out of ten adult survey respondents admitted to physically hurt children in their care.[16]

Other vulnerable groups:Children with disabilities are a particularly vulnerable group facing many obstacles that prevent them from having an adequate quality of life. A 2010 baseline survey identified around 3,020 children with disabilities nationwide.[17]They often lack opportunities for education and employment later in life and have limited access to adequate health care and support services. Other at-risk groups include orphans; an estimated 23,000 children in Fiji have lost one or both parents.[18]

2.2The Social Protection Landscape

Social protection in the Pacific:Social protection is widely seen as a crucial component of poverty reduction strategies and efforts to reduce vulnerability to economic, social, natural and other shocks and stresses. While many Pacific Island Countries have fairly extensive informal, traditional support systems, they offer only partial protection against hardship and are slowly declining.[19] Governments are only gradually stepping in to compensate for this loss of social protection. At the same time, the region is and will continue to be highly exposed to macro-economic shocks, environmental disasters and climate change. Apart from fee waivers for education and health services, coverage of social protection programmes to support vulnerable children and households is very low in the Pacific. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) estimates that only 12% of potential beneficiaries of social protection actually receive benefits, substantially below the average for other regions.[20]

Social protection in Fiji:Fiji has one of the most developed social protection systems in the South Pacific. It consists of a mix of:

  • Social transfers in the form of cash and food vouchers (Poverty Benefit Scheme, Care and Protection Allowance; Food Voucher Programme; and Social Pension Scheme);
  • Programmes to enhance access to basic services by reducing financial barriers (fee free education, bus fare subsidies, housing subsidies);
  • Labour market programmes (skills training and placement by the National Employment Centre, Welfare Graduation Programme); and
  • Social insurance schemes (National Provident Fund, Health insurance).

The delivery of Fiji’s social protection programmes has undergone a number of important reforms in recent years. For example, the Department of Social Welfare (DSW) is now issuing beneficiary ID cards and has transitioned from a manual voucher system for the distribution of social welfare benefits to an electronic payment system. Moreover, DSW has intensified its efforts to reduce ‘inclusion errors’ and is increasingly focusing on integrating graduation and exit strategies into the design of social protection programmes. In 2012, the Family Assistance Programme – which was category based (elderly, chronically ill and permanently disabled) – was replaced by the Poverty Benefit Scheme, which aims to reach ten percent of the population living in poverty and provides assistance to a maximum of four persons in a household with a maximum FJ$150 monthly allowance, inclusive of a $30 food voucher. At the same time, a new Social Pension Scheme was introduced for senior citizens who are 70 years and above and not receiving any form of superannuation funds.

Social protection for children: The Care and Protection(C&P)Allowance, administered by the Department of Social Welfare, is the main public social safety net for children. It entails a monthly cash grant,topped up with a food voucher, targeted at children in foster care and vulnerable households (mostly single mothers) as well as children in residential homes.[21]The monthly allowance is paid to the guardian of the child and the amount is determined by the child’s age, school enrolment and other criteria as follows: (a) FJ$25 if the child does not go to school; (b) FJ$30 if the child is in primary school; (c) FJ$40 if the child is in secondary school; (d) FJ$60 per child with disabilities; and (e) FJ$100 per child in a residential home. The programmecurrently reaches around 5,000children and was allocated a budget of FJ$4.4 million in 2012.[22]

Another important social protection programme for Fijian children is the Free Bus Fare Scheme, which is administered through the Ministry of Education. Launched in 2009, the programme provides transportation assistance to schoolchildren with a family income below FJ$15,000. It currently reaches more than 77,000 students across the country.

Existing research:A small but growing body of research and analysis has sought to fill knowledge gaps on Fiji’s social protection system and put forward recommendations for reform.In 2006, ILOpublished a ‘Sourcebook for Extending Social Security Coverage in Fiji’. From 2009-2011, PFIP conducted an activity-based costing exercise[23] and beneficiary perceptions survey[24] in support of DSW’s transition to an electronic payment system for social assistance grants.[25] In 2011, World Bank conducted a macro-level analysis of the coverage and impact of the Family Assistance Programme on national poverty rates; an operational review of application processes and staffing; and a qualitative study to collect information on beneficiary perspectives.[26]In 2012, ADB published a revised Social Protection Index for Fiji.[27]However, no research to date has systematically examined Fiji’s social protection programmes from a children’s perspective and/or the Care and Protection Programme in particular. Moreover, little is known about the impact of social transfers at the child and/or household level.

  1. Key Research Questions

The purpose of this assignment is to conduct an in-depth assessment of Fiji’s Care and Protection (C&P) Allowance to explore the programme’s impact on recipients,analyse alternative designs, generate options for improving programme operation and ensuring programme (financial) sustainability. Key research questions include the following:

3.1Programme design: How is the C&P programme designed and what is the scope for improvement?

  • What are the targeting and eligibility criteria for the C&P Allowance? Does the design of the programme take adequate account of the social, economic and environmental vulnerabilities and risks that children face? Does programme design conform to good international practice?
  • What is the coverage of the C&P Allowance (total number of children and disaggregated by geographic location and social characteristics such as age, gender and disability)?
  • Is the size of benefit levels sufficient to avoid child deprivation of essential goods and services?Is the current payment arrangement (combination of cash and food voucher) optimal?
  • Is the duration of the benefit optimal? To what extent are exit and graduation strategies appropriate and/or effective?
  • Does the C&P Allowance fit well within the range of complementary social protections schemes provided by DSW and other ministries? How can linkages with policies and programmes in other social sectors – such as child protection, education, health, housing, and disastermanagement and risk reduction – be strengthened (i.e. integrated delivery and social protection floors)?
  • Programme implementation: How is the programme implemented and how could operational management be strengthened?
  • Is governance and implementation capacity to administer the grant sufficient (e.g. in terms of staffing and workload)? Which factors affect implementation and/or variation across different parts of the country?
  • How do Social Welfare Officers determine eligibility for the C&P Allowance in practice? How do potential beneficiaries learn about the eligibility criteria and the application process for the C&P Allowance? Are there any barriers to access the grant for the most vulnerable? What is the average length of the application process? How frequent does re-certification occur? Are grievance procedures in place?
  • How can planning, monitoring and evaluation processes be strengthened? How can database management be improved? How cancommunication and outreach activities be strengthened?

3.3Programme benefits: How do beneficiaries use the C&P Allowance and how does it make a difference for children?

  • How do recipients (caregivers and residential homes) use the C&P Allowance? Are transfers mostly used for immediate consumption, productive investment and/or savings? To what extent are transfers being misused on non child-related expenditures?
  • What is (do beneficiaries say about) the impact of the C&P Allowance on children’s food intake and nutritional status? Illness and health seeking behaviour? Children’s education (e.g. enrolment, attendance, school drop-out)? Children’s participation in hazardous work or seasonal farm labour? Risky adolescent behaviour (e.g. use of alcohol, drugs)? What is the impact on self-esteem and/or social position of recipients? Are there any unintended impacts?
  • What are the intervening/contextual variables (e.g. socioeconomic characteristics of the beneficiaries, cultural factors affecting participation) that influence the impacts?

3.4Programme costs: How much does the C&P Programme cost and how would the cost change under different scenarios?

  • How much is Government spending on the Care and Protection Allowance in absolute and relative terms (broken down by total programme cost, administration cost, etc.)?
  • What are the budget planning and allocation mechanisms? What are the sources of financing? Are there any mechanisms for protecting the programme’s budget in times of fiscal pressures? Is the budget based on needs and benefits or historical allocations?
  • What would be the budgetary impact of changing the design and/or the size of the C&P benefit in line with recommendations of the assessment?
  1. approaches/Methodology

The contractor will be responsible for the development and implementation of a mixed methods research design to collect, analyse and ‘mix’ both quantitative and qualitative data in order to provide robust and credible answers to the key research questionslisted above. Questions around impact of the C&P Allowance should be answered using non-experimental research designs such as theory-based and participatory approaches.[28]