1 / 51

Anuradha K. Rajivan Rome, 8-9 May 2006

Experts Seminar Food for Education Potential and Limitations of Public Feeding for Social Equity: Experience from India ( Right to food & social equity). Anuradha K. Rajivan Rome, 8-9 May 2006. 8-9 May 2006. Anuradha K. Rajivan. Structure of Presentation. FFE concept and issues on objectives

dante
Télécharger la présentation

Anuradha K. Rajivan Rome, 8-9 May 2006

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Experts SeminarFood for EducationPotential and Limitations of Public Feeding for Social Equity: Experience from India(Right to food & social equity) Anuradha K. Rajivan Rome, 8-9 May 2006 8-9 May 2006 Anuradha K. Rajivan

  2. Structure of Presentation FFE concept and issues on objectives FFE – a partial tool Social equity – a subsidiary aim Objectives and instrument mismatch Public investment in feeding: the case of India, focus Tamil Nadu On social equity; FFE & social equity Measuring effects on social equity FFE: Potential and limitations Conclusion 8-9 May 2006 Anuradha K. Rajivan

  3. 1. FFE: Concept, background & issues on objectives Consists of: Feeding children at school Providing take-home food – generally dry rations - linked to a child continuing in school Broadly covers population ages 5+ to 16+; most in primary school ages Generally state or donor funded, sometimes with community participation What it is - a direct food/nutrition intervention What it is not – food/nutrition security through raised incomes managed prices of grain through a PDS which also influences market prices 8-9 May 2006 Anuradha K. Rajivan

  4. Very basic in human development Food addresses survival and sustenance - hunger, malnutrition, morbidity, mortality Freedom from want - In modern times, with food surplus globally and declining prices a concern, people should be able to take food security for granted Budget / donor support thru national / sub-national governments for those who cannot take it for granted should be supported 8-9 May 2006 Anuradha K. Rajivan

  5. Primary objective of FFE? Is it for Education: promotion of enrolment, attendance, retention, learning? Food security: combat hunger, malnutrition? The primary aim seems education – as the term FFE itself implies Donors tend to value school feeding for funding support state funding for education is seen as more legitimate than food food per se is seen as more in the primary domain of a household operationally easier, children assemble at school everyday grain availability 8-9 May 2006 Anuradha K. Rajivan

  6. Lack of goal clarity? Question: Are we using instrument ‘A’ for objective ‘B’? When resources (money, technical & administrative capacity) are limited, objectives need to be clear Absence of goal clarity has led to conceptual problems & difficulties in assessing FFE schemes; outputs rather than outcomes have tended to be measured 8-9 May 2006 Anuradha K. Rajivan

  7. 2. FFE addresses only one side Education: primarily addresses demand Hunger/malnutrition: addresses food supply In either case it is partial Also the additional issue of substitute meal vs additionality additionality is NOT the whole meal, but only extent to which it is more than home food Hence the expected impact on either objective is limited – need for realistic expectations Needs to be factored in when evaluations are planned 8-9 May 2006 Anuradha K. Rajivan

  8. 3. Social equity – a subsidiary aim In most cases other benefits are secondary – ‘also rans’ Social equity, including parental attitudes, cohesion FFE is rarely designed primarily for these While important, whether FFE is the best instrument is an open question Here we are even more in the realm of changing minds (more than education and hunger-nutrition) 8-9 May 2006 Anuradha K. Rajivan

  9. 4. Mismatch between objective & instrument in all cases: education Should scarce resources be invested in FFE or teachers, buildings, books, toilets teaching-learning techniques, training curriculum development hostel facilities for the poor / marginalsied scholarships, stipends, bicycles, uniforms livelihood support, so children are free to be in fulltime school 8-9 May 2006 Anuradha K. Rajivan

  10. Mismatch between objective & instrument: hunger-malnutrition Should scarce resources be invested in FFE or Most vulnerable population, below 36 months, P/L women, adolescent girls Children outside school who may be the worst off: dropouts, beggars, migrants, destitute, chronically ill or disabled Combating a host of non-food factors that affect nutrition outcomes: wat-san, deworming, immunisation, infectious diseases, parity, knowledge deficits 8-9 May 2006 Anuradha K. Rajivan

  11. Which ministry will choose FFE? Education Ministry – low probability Social welfare, Women and Child – somewhat higher probability Social Justice / SC-ST – low probability 8-9 May 2006 Anuradha K. Rajivan

  12. 5. Public investment in feeding: the case of India, focus Tamil Nadu India – population 1.1 billion in 28 states/UTs something like 25 countries, with enormous diversity and social inequities Population of a few individual states in India Andhra Pradesh 76 million Tamil Nadu 62 million Compare with population of countries like Philippines 87.9 million; Republic of Korea, 47.5 million Nepal 27.7 million; Malaysia 24.4 million Sri Lanka 20 million 8-9 May 2006 Anuradha K. Rajivan

  13. Basis for inferences… Field based experience with technical knowledge Two decades of direct programme experience in India (particularly in Tamil Nadu ), a country with persistent social inequalities largely linked to caste and sex Absence of research, especially, controlled impact evaluation – but some studies available (Dreze & Goyal, 2003) TN, a southern state of India where public feeding schemes have become the norm; scaling up to national level Conceptualising, designing Phased scaling up Implementation, monitoring, management Evaluation Policy for a malnutrition free state 8-9 May 2006 Anuradha K. Rajivan

  14. Why is the TN Case of Interest? Feeding children through visible, public funding is near universal from the preschool age to high school – developed after a long history Centres function every day Buildings in place Earmarked staff in place (cook, helper, organiser – women predominate) Staff training budgeted for Equipment in place (scales, utensils, mats…) 8-9 May 2006 Anuradha K. Rajivan

  15. Why is the TN Case of Interest? Feeding takes place almost without interruptions NMP for the 2+ with complementary feed for younger ages Take home for remote/inaccessible locations All ingredients of FFE, and beyond FFE ages – even though the primary aim is seen as combating hunger and malnutrition Menu nourishing and varied – rice, sambar, different vegetables, weekly egg, supplements Health linkages conceived and established Attention to nutritionally vulnerable groups P/L, AGs Below 24 months 8-9 May 2006 Anuradha K. Rajivan

  16. Why is the TN Case of Interest? Second generation issues seen: pop relocation – need to relocate some centres gap identification & filling for remote locations alternate staffing patterns - two vs one worker model top down vs participatory, local bodies quality issues coming up with near universalisation growth monitoring, records maintenance are issues private nursery schools & the English medium TN treated as something of a ‘model’ in India: De facto right to food, a soft right 8-9 May 2006 Anuradha K. Rajivan

  17. India: Going Beyond TN Supreme Court Orders of Nov 28, 2001: all state governments to introduce cooked MDMs in primary schools within six months Most states missed the deadline; some could not / did not comply Judicial intervention based NMPs may not be the best way The logistics, management and budgets can be mind-boggling Yet, this contributed to a steady expansion of school lunches as most states, after some reluctance, complied (Rajasthan, Karnataka & even Bihar, UP) But political has been highly variable – even though critical for quality & sustainability Hence the evolution of feeding schemes in TN is of interest 8-9 May 2006 Anuradha K. Rajivan

  18. Concept of right to food Legitimacy vis-à-vis legal enforceability Soft vs hard rights – soft established much earlier in TN Full legitimacy, public expectation, political commitment, budget allocations But in spite of court rulings, not well established in other parts of India In case of non-performance can a poor recipient take legal action? And against whom? Parents? School? State? Is it realistic? 8-9 May 2006 Anuradha K. Rajivan

  19. Evolution of Direct Nutrition Investments in TN - 1 Providing food outside the home – not new 1956 school mid-day meals in Madras State Govt + voluntary contributions 200,000 children, 8000 schools 1961 CARE (Bulgar wheat) 1,600,000 children, 30,000 schools 8-9 May 2006 Anuradha K. Rajivan

  20. Evolution of Direct Nutrition Investments in TN - 2 1967 – Central Kitchens Radical change from school based feeding Problems with HMs managing noon meals Teaching time lost Variations in quality This was preferred by many But costs increased & logistics were harder 8-9 May 2006 Anuradha K. Rajivan

  21. Evolution of Direct Nutrition Investments in TN - 3 1975 ICDS – pilot, then expansion, focus on the preschool ages 1980 TINP – pilot, then expansion & WB-ICDS III 1982 – independently, the Noon Meal Programme introduced for rural preschoolers Largest, visible, centre-based feeding scheme outside the home 8-9 May 2006 Anuradha K. Rajivan

  22. Evolution of Direct Nutrition Investments in TN - 4 First time the hardest to reach population covered – preschoolers (2-5 years) Early focus was only on combating hunger But over the years serious efforts made to combine food provisioning with health, immunization, growth monitoring, pre & post natal care, & health-nutri education With TINP-ICDS integration coverage from 6 months 8-9 May 2006 Anuradha K. Rajivan

  23. Evolution of Direct Nutrition Investments in TN - 5 Coverage of beneficiaries expanded over time Rural preschoolers Urban preschoolers Primary school children Older school children up to 15 years or Class X 1983 – OAP, destitute, widows 1995 – P/L women 8-9 May 2006 Anuradha K. Rajivan

  24. Three features of interest ONE Sustained political will – public policy attention with budgetary allocations Hunger-malnutrition entered political discourse & remained on the political agenda for over 4 decades, fully backed by funding This, in spite of contrary advice of experts (too populist); finance department (too expensive); and bureaucrats (operations too massive & complex) TWO Pressure from below – programme v. popular, almost a right Difficult for a facility to remain closed without public reaction & immediate enquiry THREE While political will triggered demand from below, the demand, in turn, contributed to the RETENTION of political will over time Regardless of the party in power 8-9 May 2006 Anuradha K. Rajivan

  25. Direct NMP coverage in TN beyond GoI sanctioned ICDS Projects, 2003 Scheme Number of Centres Number of Children Number of Adults Total Covered ICDS - General 10421 417236 121713 538,949 ICDS - WB 19500 821754 273035 1094,789 Other Urban Centres 718 29309 3105 32,414 Total-Pre School Centres 30639 1268299 397853 1666,152 Total School Centres 40437 6389589 Nil 6389,589 All Centres 71,076 7,657,888 397,853 8,055,741 Source: Department of Social Welfare, Government of TamilNadu 8-9 May 2006 Anuradha K. Rajivan

  26. 8-9 May 2006 Anuradha K. Rajivan

  27. 6. On Social Equity A rather critical issue in South Asia (e.g. India, Nepal, also in others) India marked by a varna-jati (caste) system Compounded by other inequalities Sex based inequities, ideas of masculinity Rising issues of religious tolerance Cumulative inequalities operate and persist, more so in some parts Caste, largely social, based on purity-pollution Class, largely economic, rich-poor Power, positions of control over others 8-9 May 2006 Anuradha K. Rajivan

  28. State Policy on Social Equity Positive discrimination (reservation) in education, employment, land allotment, elections, etc., tries to counter social inequalities Traditionally, economic instruments used for social objectives with differing degrees of success for advancement of the historically deprived Change has certainly happened, but progress uneven: by states, sectors, rural-urban Variations may be partly explained by differing amounts of pressure from above & below success in minimiszing ‘elite capture’ among those benefiting from quotas mindset changes Question: To what extent can FFE contribute? 8-9 May 2006 Anuradha K. Rajivan

  29. FFE & Social Equity: Alternate Extreme Positions Mismatch between objective and instrument Food is for combating hunger-malnutrition Social equity needs mindset changes, not food Education, IEC, incomes, social policies are better instruments Processes like urbanisation contribute Food is an excellent entry point for a number of agendas, equity included It is an attractive item for everyone, more so in poor communities (think of a seminar with no lunch or refreshment breaks; or a flight where you have to carry / buy your own food) Positive effects on children Promotes daily social interaction Equality between boys and girls in rations Teachers, helpers/cleaners, cooks, parents are influenced Can contribute to social equity 8-9 May 2006 Anuradha K. Rajivan

  30. Evidence from India: Overall messages Noon meal programs have the potential to contribute to all three: hunger-nutrition, education & social equity But the effects ARE NOT AUTOMATIC - they depend upon the design, quality of implementation, budget ‘proofing’; hence the criticality of Pressure from above (political will) Pressure from below (community) Administrative and technical capacities budgets Poor design & implementation can DO MORE HARM THAN GOOD, including children falling ill due to unhygienic / improper cooking Take home rations have the least potential for social equity One needs to have realistic expectations abt effects There are a number of ‘other’ contributory factors Social change takes time 8-9 May 2006 Anuradha K. Rajivan

  31. Tamil Nadu, 1974 Headmaster manages school meals Uses help of teachers Distracts from teaching High variations in quality from school to school Daily struggle for school management Gap – no dedicated staff (CARE, 1974) 8-9 May 2006 Anuradha K. Rajivan

  32. Chhattisgarh, 2003 Cooking in a soot covered classroom, swarming pupils, utensils inadequate, cook struggles, gets children to help Teacher wishes school feeding is stopped – distracts children, classroom turns filthy after food, there is no teaching after lunch Gap – inadequate funding, infrastructure & management, political will (Ref: Dreze & Goyal, 2003) 8-9 May 2006 Anuradha K. Rajivan

  33. Rajasthan, 2003 Well managed logistics & monitoring, political will in place But identical meal everyday (ghoogri – boiled wheat & jaggery) Poor infrastructure Upper caste children bring home food Privilege or discrimination? Gap – under funding 8-9 May 2006 Anuradha K. Rajivan

  34. TN, 2003-05 GoI traditional focus – Hunger; GoTN focus – shifted from Hunger to Nutrition Funding – first call on the state’s resources (prohibition lifted) TN is perhaps the only State in India with An official GO for a Malnutrition Free State (Apr 2002) A corresponding Nutrition Policy (Nov 2003) Long history & expansion based on the ICDS & NMP 8-9 May 2006 Anuradha K. Rajivan

  35. TN, 2003-05 Addresses intra-household issues – removes existing ‘social’ biases Universal feeding contributes to common dining and socialisation of children at a very early age (as against targeted feeding) Which is better depends on the primary objective Preference for Dalits, widows among staff But caste based habitations and population locations result in segregation and barriers – promotes inequality Take home rations don’t counter intra-household differences and food sharing limits hunger-nutrition benefits Community watch and participation helps retain regularity and quality 8-9 May 2006 Anuradha K. Rajivan

  36. 7. Measuring implications of feeding for social equity Very little research available (contrast with education & hunger links which are much better researched) Centre/school based meal programs can reduce as well as continue & even increase existing inequities; in some cases they ‘reveal’ latent inequalities (tumblers) making young children aware To measure impact we can assess – Equity inside schools / feeding centres Equity outside schools / feeding centres Former is easier to influence and assess; the latter is more longer term, sustainable, but influenced by a number of other factors as well We first look at indicators for the former; but here context is all 8-9 May 2006 Anuradha K. Rajivan

  37. Indicators: Classroom/Centre Is feeding universal or selective? Selective may be ‘efficient’ for the other objectives, but can contribute to social in-equality Do children have similar plates, tumblers? Instances of Dalit children drinking by cupped hands Do they sit together while eating? Separate or common seating arrangements Is the same food served to all? Incidence of bringing own food or going home for lunch (the well off) Are there separate water pitchers for different social groups? Dalit and non Dalit (Rajasthan) 8-9 May 2006 Anuradha K. Rajivan

  38. Indicators: Staff Selection criteria for cooks, helpers/ cleaners, organisers any preference for / bias against disadvantaged groups (caste, widows, abandoned) What proportion from disadvantaged groups (e.g., lower castes, single parent), by staff category Are cleaners predominantly from the more disadvantaged; cooks from the less Staff composition by sex Share of females under different categories Are females under-represented in higher paying posts 8-9 May 2006 Anuradha K. Rajivan

  39. Indicators: Location Coverage in better off vs worse off villages / urban areas Coverage in tribal / remote areas Coverage in all-girls & all-boys schools Share of habitations/schools not covered by category Government, aided, private 8-9 May 2006 Anuradha K. Rajivan

  40. Indicators: Lunchtime routine, work sharing or burden What ideas / habits is lunchtime routine imparting (equity, hygiene, etc.) Are students encouraged / used to help in the feeding / cleaning Picking up own plate etc. Cleaning premises Are there differences between boys & girls Are there differences between social groups 8-9 May 2006 Anuradha K. Rajivan

  41. Indicators: Effects on education Differential effects on enrolment, attendance, retention, performance Girls vs boys; some evidence that girls benefit more in enrolment but not in performance (Design issues? Do teachers/parents pay more attention to boys?) More vs less advantaged social groups Retention after primary school 8-9 May 2006 Anuradha K. Rajivan

  42. Indicators: Outside Share and characteristics of non-participants Share worse off/better off Share female Share disadvantaged groups, locations Perceptions among community (participant & non-participant households, teachers…) Reasons for participation or otherwise Is it considered a threat to prevailing social hierarchy; too much intermingling (example of sand throwing)? Health hazard (poor hygiene, food hard to digest) Other 8-9 May 2006 Anuradha K. Rajivan

  43. Indicators: Behavior Outside Time spent for homework, domestic chores By sex and social status Indicators for those in hostels Is social equity more prevalent in centre / school situation rather than outside Is it less acceptable in other social-cultural contexts Participating in each others vital events, cultural or religious occasions Sharing food outside school Marriage 8-9 May 2006 Anuradha K. Rajivan

  44. 8. FFE: Potential & Limitations Clearly FFE has some potential to counter inequalities – social and to an extent economic But this is not automatic - it can also exacerbate & reveal inequalities – thrust them in the face of children Design and quality of implementation, including sensitising staff as part of their training becomes critical if beneficial effects are to be promoted Food is attractive, more so to children, and those from poorer households an excellent entry point for socialization but perceptions about FFE and hence the effects depend critically on how the concerns of quality, administration and equity are managed 8-9 May 2006 Anuradha K. Rajivan

  45. FFE: Potential & Limitations Starting only at school going ages misses out the early years for nutrition impacts for cognitive development for socialization TN example demonstrates that it is possible to have sustained publicly funded interventions in much earlier age groups – with concomitant benefits Food is only one instrument it is unlikely to be the primary instrument for equity but given the special socio-cultural value of ‘communal dining’, it has the potential to be a powerful tool 8-9 May 2006 Anuradha K. Rajivan

  46. FFE: Potential & Limitations A combination of pressure from above and below is a strong contributory factor for quality and sustainability (budget proofing) Politically, public feeding has proved to be a winner in TN, but this has not caught on in many other parts of India until recent judicial intervention 8-9 May 2006 Anuradha K. Rajivan

  47. FFE: Potential & Limitations Trade off between objectives needs to be better investigated E.g., equity would require universal feeding while hunger or education objectives could do with sharp targeting Donor dependence limits longer term sustainability It is unlikely that any ministry of education would use limited funds for FFE rather than teachers, buildings or books Evaluation studies are limited, especially those evaluating social equity 8-9 May 2006 Anuradha K. Rajivan

  48. FFE: Potential & Limitations Recognise that food is being given because food aid is available Schools are the focus because that is convenient Hence education becomes the ‘front’ objective Nutrition impacts for school children were not always demonstrated; there was a shift to addressing classroom hunger When FFE phase out was recommended there was increased interest in investigating other benefits 8-9 May 2006 Anuradha K. Rajivan

  49. 9. Conclusion Clarity in primary and secondary objectives, including latent and patent ones is essential Identify primary aims of donors and recipient governments / NGOs – what are the differences? Realistic expectations – FFE addresses only one side of the education and hunger-nutrition objectives, it is only one meal with less additionality effects (substitute meal, sharing) Not the best instrument for any First step towards designing appropriate evaluations Visible publicly funded feeding has potential and limitations – India provides a rich canvas of diversified experience which should be studied Identify indicators – inside and outside centres – customised for the local context 8-9 May 2006 Anuradha K. Rajivan

  50. Conclusion A 2-pronged strategy - Prevention of inequity based mindsets among the young Management of preexisting biases Public feeding, whether at school or outside has the potential to reduce inequalities; but could also increase them The positive effects would depend on design and implementation Other primary instruments are essential, to which feeding can contribute 8-9 May 2006 Anuradha K. Rajivan

More Related