Webinar Series on the Measurement of Child Protection

Presentation of the MICS Modules

for Child Protection

13 February 2013 at 9am and 9pm NY/ET

Claudia Cappa and Attila HanciogluStatistics 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 analysisPrimary sources of disaggregated dataTypically, 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, CensusSpecial methods are needed to capture certain populations

Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys

Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys

• Household survey program, developed by UNICEF in the 1990s– 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 1995-2014Round

Year/Period

Emphasis No. of Surveys

MICS1

1995World Summit for Children Goals

62

MICS2

2000World Summit for Children Goals

65

MICS3

2005-2007World Fit For Children Goals, MDGs, Other Global Monitoring Frameworks

52

MICS4

2009-2012MDGs, Other Global Monitoring Frameworks

60

MICS5

2013-2014

Final MDG Assessment, A Promise Renewed, Other Global Monitoring Frameworks

40 +

MICS Implementation

UNICEF develops standard tools, guidelines

In collaboration with interagency groups, UNICEF, other stakeholders, DHS programme

Countries customize survey toolsWith UNICEF support, through regional workshops, in-country supportFunding support primarily by UNICEF, plus other agencies – USAID, UNFPA and others

Technical support and training 

Governments conduct surveys

Implementing agencies conduct analysis, produce reports, disseminate 

Public sharing of reports and micro data By governments and UNICEF

• Full government ownership• Use globally agreed-upon indicators as starting point, design

survey tools around these indicators

MICS4 Surveys by Region

• 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 FeaturesFactual 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 communityMDGs, interagency indicator sets, other international commitments

Features

Sampling Multi-stage stratified cluster samplesSample size (MICS4): Around 10,000 households, but huge variationOver-sampling of households with under-5s

Fieldwork 2-4 monthsSupervisor, field editor, measurer, 3 to 5 interviewers

Training 3 weeks, including field practice

Reporting Summary Findings ReportFinal Report – 12 months after completion of fieldwork

Technical assistance Regional workshops, regional MICS coordinators, regional household survey experts

Access www.childinfo.orgReports 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-5s

HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIREsocial & demographic characteristicsliving arrangementseducationwater and sanitation, hand washinghousehold assetsITNschild labourchild disciplinesalt iodizationchild disability

WOMEN’S QUESTIONNAIREchild mortalitymaternal mortalityantenatal, delivery & postnatal carecontraception/unmet needfemale genital mutilation/cutting

WOMEN’S AND MEN’S QUESTIONNAIRESattitudes toward domestic violencemarriagesexual behaviourHIV/AIDS knowledge and attitudesaccess to mass media and use of ICTtobacco and alcohol use life satisfaction

UNDER-5 QUESTIONNAIREbirth registrationearly childhood developmentdiarrhoea, pneumonia, malariaimmunization infant and young child feedinganthropometry (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

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

MICS 4

MICS 5

SG’s MDG Report launchSeptember 2015

Data compilation and analysisSummer 2014

Large number of countries expected to

conduct surveys for MDG monitoring

Submission of data for SG’s reportMarch 2015

Timeline for Global Reporting on MDGs

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

UNICEF region

FGM/C Marriage

Attitudes towards

Domestic Violence

ChildDiscipline

Birth Registration

Child Labour

CEECIS 0 13 11 11 13 13

EAPRO 0 5 3 3 6 4

ESARO 1 3 1 0 2 1

MENARO 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

MICS countries that collected data on CP

Birth Registration

Questionnaire

BIRTH REGISTRATION BR

BR1. DOES (NAME) HAVE A BIRTH CERTIFICATE?

IF YES, ASK:MAY I SEE IT?

Yes, seen 1Yes, not seen 2No 3DK 8

1NEXT MODULE2NEXT MODULE

BR2. HAS (NAME)’S BIRTH BEEN REGISTERED WITH THE CIVIL AUTHORITIES?

Yes 1No 2DK 8

1NEXT MODULE

BR3. DO YOU KNOW HOW TO REGISTER YOUR CHILD’S BIRTH?

Yes 1No 2

Numerator:• Number  of  children  under  age  5  whose  births  are reported registered

Denominator:• Total number of children under age 5

MICS Indicator

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 weekAge  12–14  years:  At  least  14  hours  of  economic  work  or  28  hours  of domestic work per weekAge  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 

• Approval for FGM/CNumber 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 womenNumber 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 girlsNumber 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 0-14 years

MICS Indicators

THANK YOU

43