1

Adolescents, Crisis and Risk.Are CCTs an adequate policy answer?

UNICEF - ODI Conference: The global economic crisis - Including children in the policy response. 9-10 Nov. 2009

2

Paper’s main questions CCTs focusing on adolescents: how

are formulating the relations between human capital, social and economical contexts, and individual strategies?

Are CCTs promoting inclusion of new generations?

Are CCTs useful tools for promoting rights and citizenship among adolescents?

3

Some Highlights of the current crisis Past crisis in LA: inequality of income increases

20% of poorest households shares 2.2% - 8.8% of total income, the richest 20% shares 41.8% - 62.4% by 2005.

Most affected areas in Argentina: construction, textile industries and services, followed by automobile industries and tourism. Focus on smallest companies.

Brazil had shown a modest reduction of inequality, partially due to CCTs and previous context.

Teenage pregnancy may grow, homicides rates are highest in LA.

4

Focus

Analysis of three CCTs’ focusing on adolescents.

Empirical evidence produced through fieldwork, secondary data and interviews.

Analytical framework: Human rights approach to social policy.

5

Human rights approach participation, accountability, conditionalities, targeting and funding, extension of equality conception of citizenship in CCTs

6

ProgrammesOpportunity

NYCProJovem Proyecto

Adolescente

Transferences

Up to U$ 1800 per year. Poverty line: U$ 25.000 per year

Up to U$ 328 per year. PL aprox. U$ 1428 per year (IBGE, 09/08)

Up to U$ 252 per year. PL aprox U$ 792 per year (04/09 INDEC).

Conditionalities

Highly monitored.

Attend to school, library card, passing grade, annual tests, annual credits, scores in annual test

70% attendance to programs’ activities (1200 hrs distributed in 12.5 hrs weakly during 2 years), 75% attendance to school, community activities and respect of rules of conduct.

Attendance to programs’ activities (variable), attendance o re enrollment to school, community activities and respect of rules of conduct

7

ProgrammesTargeti

ngFamilies w/ children in school, in selected districts, annual income of up to 130% of pov line. Children in primary school and high school students

Adolescents 15-17, of families in Borsa Familia or referred by programs, as eradication of child labor, or sexual abuse or traffic, etc.

Adolescents 14-21 “in social vulnerability” selected by NGOs

Who applies

Families First families, then adolescents by themselves.

NGOs, schools, churches, municipalities.

Coverage

Pilot. Up to 2400 households. 8400 children and adolescents

1.700.000 70000 - 100000

Gender rate

Demographic 50.9% female and 49.1% male in evaluation sample.

Aprox. 7 of each 10 are male

8

Opportunity NYC

ProJovem Proyecto Adolescent

e

Conditionalities goals

1) Changing behavior and values.

2) Changes in reference group, community perception of teen-agers, rewards.

3)Educational achievements.

4) Good behavior in school.

1)Citizenship Education.

2) Training in non-formal context.

3) Changing behaviors and social norms through group interactions.

1)Training in non-formal context.

2)Cultural and recreational experiences that could be considered as behavior and cultural change.

3) After-school activities to foster academic achievement.

9

ParticipationOpportunity

NYCProJovem Proyecto Adolescente

Conditionalities

Individually based Grupally based Grupally based

Claims and

compliances

None None None

Parents involveme

nt

Through conditionalities

Through consultation in the evaluation

process

None

Design, monitorin

g or evaluation

process

As data units in evaluation processes

As data units in evaluation processes

and in making conduct rules

In the process of establishing conduct

rules

10

Transparency

Opportunity NYC

ProJovem Proyecto Adolescente

Availability of

information

Website and NGO

Local governments Website and Ministry

Strategies of

spreading information

Not developed Through websites.

Local governments spread information through their own means.

No public information broadly spread.

Local governments spread information through their own means

11

Opportunity NYC

ProJovem Proyecto Adolescente

Accountability Model

Mixture of technocratic

and marketized

Mix between participatory and technocratic apr.

Accountability “under pressure”. Political

networking

Who City government /

political leader

NGOs, Participants, Local government

Provincial & eventually local

govern.

To whom Vertical (donors)

Horizontally accountable: Evaluation and monitoring units.

Partisans, NGOs, social movements,

international agencies.

For what Use of public’s taxes

Quality of implementation, impacts,

adequacy to rules, distribution of benefits

Distribution of benefits

To what extent

Sub-contracted provision

difficult clients’ power

NGOs are monitored by the federal state, but the

results are not necessarily available to

clients.

NGOs expenditures to government.

Adolescents have no control or access to it.

No control of the internal processes.

12

Overview ONYC: state’s capabilities for targeting and

implementation, ngos’ capabilities, relation with formal education, territorial approach to poverty. Lack of minimum guar., restriction for immigrants, individualistic / aislacionist appr, funding, lack of participation.

ProJovem: citizenship education, group appr, minimum guar., state’s capabilities. Local implementation, week relation with school, lack of exit door, restrictions of transparency and participation.

Proy. Adolescente: extension of coverage, productive proyects, group appr.. Local impl., lack of exit door, week relation with school, transparency and participation.

13

Final comments

1. Concentration and segmentation processes and crisis.

2. Territorial approach to risk and crisis impacts.

3. Transformation and time vs risk approaches. Life trajectories / age and gender

4. Context in comparison with assumptions5. Citizenship in program’s design. Rationale

for to focus on exclusion / disconnectedness.