• About us
  • GSDRC Publications
  • Research Helpdesk
  • E-Bulletin
  • Privacy policy

GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Governance
    • Democracy & elections
    • Public sector management
    • Security & justice
    • Service delivery
    • State-society relations
  • Social Development
    • Gender
    • Inequalities & exclusion
    • Social protection
    • Poverty & wellbeing
  • Humanitarian Issues
    • Humanitarian financing
    • Humanitarian response
    • Recovery & reconstruction
    • Refugees/IDPs
    • Risk & resilience
  • Conflict
    • Conflict analysis
    • Conflict prevention
    • Conflict response
    • Conflict sensitivity
    • Impacts of conflict
    • Peacebuilding
  • Development Pressures
    • Climate change
    • Food security
    • Fragility
    • Migration & diaspora
    • Population growth
    • Urbanisation
  • Approaches
    • Complexity & systems thinking
    • Institutions & social norms
    • PEA / Thinking & working politically
    • Results-based approaches
    • Theories of change
  • Aid Instruments
    • Budget support & SWAps
    • Capacity building
    • Civil society partnerships
    • Multilateral aid
    • Private sector partnerships
    • Technical assistance
  • M&E
    • Indicators
    • Learning
    • M&E approaches
Home»GSDRC Publications»Impacts of social protection programmes on children

Impacts of social protection programmes on children

Helpdesk Report
  • Pamela Pozarny
July 2016

Question

What is the evidence regarding positive and negative impacts of social protection programmes on children, and more specifically, the conditions and processes that cause these outcomes? What does the literature suggest as key guiding considerations and approaches to maximise positive impacts.

Summary

The impact of social protection on children is under-researched. Key findings and insights from the literature include:

  • Multidimensional social protection systems have had positive impacts on addressing economic and human development, multiple vulnerabilities, and both social and economic inequities.
  • Child-sensitive social protection programmes are more intentionally responsive to children’s rights and vulnerabilities, addressing the range of dimensions of children’s wellbeing. They do not necessarily target children, however.
  • Social protection and child protection (e.g. combatting abuse and violence) should not be viewed as two separate sectors – social protection has great potential to decrease risks for children. Evidence on non-contributory social protection programme impacts on violence and abuse against children cautiously indicates positive protective impacts, notably on sexual violence against female adolescents.
  • Social transfers can contribute to reducing negative sexual behaviours and HIV prevention, particularly in combination with effective enabling factors (e.g. health-care services). This is by addressing underlying causes of risks – these are the structural social and economic drivers of adverse behaviours, e.g. early sexual debut, unprotected sex, dependence on men for economic security, migration for economic reasons, transactional sex.
file type icon See Full Report [PDF - 670 KB]

Enquirer:

  • Australian Government

Suggested citation

Pozarny, P. (2016). Impacts of social protection programmes on children (GSDRC Helpdesk Research Report 1381). Birmingham, UK: GSDRC, University of Birmingham.

Related Content

Increasing Birth Registration for Children of Marginalised Groups in Pakistan
Helpdesk Report
2021
Prevalence of health impacts related to exposure to poor air quality among children in Low and Lower Middle-Income Countries
Helpdesk Report
2020
Impact of COVID-19 on Child Labour in South Asia
Helpdesk Report
2020
Workplace-based Learning and Youth Employment in Africa
Literature Review
2020
birminghamids hcri

gro.crdsg@seiriuqne Feedback Disclaimer

Outputs supported by FCDO are © Crown Copyright 2022; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2022; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2022
Connect with us: facebooktwitter

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2022; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2022; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2022