1 / 56

IRAQ Operationalizing Equity

IRAQ Operationalizing Equity. Multidimensional Deprivation Analysis. MICS Analysis & Dissemination Workshop, Belgrade Nov 2011. IRAQ Mapping Child Well-being. D. a. h. u. k. N. i. n. e. w. a. E. r. b. i. l. K. i. r. k. u. k. A. l. S. u. l. a. y. m. a. n. i.

matia
Télécharger la présentation

IRAQ Operationalizing Equity

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. IRAQ Operationalizing Equity Multidimensional Deprivation Analysis MICS Analysis & Dissemination Workshop, Belgrade Nov 2011

  2. IRAQ Mapping Child Well-being D a h u k N i n e w a E r b i l K i r k u k A l S u l a y m a n i y a h S a l a h A d D i n D i y a l a B a g h d a d A l A n b a r W a s s i t K e r b a l a B a b i l A l Q a d i s s i y a M i s s a n N a j a f T h i - Q a r A l B a s r a h A l M u t h a n n a Life-Cycle Multidimensional Analysis UNICEF Iraq Country Office - December 2011

  3. Purpose and Structure of Presentation Purpose: To present Iraq methodology and results for Equity Analysis using MICS4 2011 dataset. Structure: • Conceptual Framework • Quantitative Methodology • Overall Results • Profiles of Deprivation Groups • Patterns & Overlapping Deprivation • Proximity and geography of deprivations • Target achievement • Next Steps

  4. Conceptual Framework

  5. Objectives of the Methodology • Build quantitative analysis on a clear conceptual framework founded on CRC, MDG, WFFC and Iraq’s context • Operationalise UNICEF´s global equity focus • Accurately identify the most deprived children (and their deprivation patterns) without ignoring less deprived ones • Obtain results easily understandable and communicable to stakeholders • Provides an equity-focused quantitative assessment for Iraq’s Situation Analysis (SitAn)

  6. UNICEF Equity Focus • Human Development Report (HDR) 2010: The past 20 years have seen substantial progress in many aspects of human development and achievement of MDG targets. • However, these years have also seen extreme inequality in progress -both within and across countries- and this is identified as a powerful brake on accelerated progress towards the MDGs. • Definition of Child Equity: equal opportunities for all children to survive, develop and reach their full potential without discrimination, bias or favouritism. • Why Equity? • Right in Principle: moral imperative to respond to most disadvantaged and in-need children • Right in Logic: accelerates development towards attainment of national development targets • Right in Practice: Brings higher returns to investments in improving children’s lives

  7. Iraq Equity Analysis Guiding Principles • Manifestations of Child Rights Violations: Deprivations faced by a child flag a violation of one or more of his/her rights. • Multiple Deprivations:Children face multiple deprivations, interconnected and often caused by common causes. “When sorrows come, they come not single spies. But in battalions”. • Life-cycle Stages: Children have different needs during the different stages of their lives – an infant requires different care than an adolescent. • Intra-stage and Inter-stage effect: The more deprivations a child faces, the worse the child’s situation will be both within a life-cycle stage and over stages • Spill-over effect: By reaching the most deprived children, the less deprived may be expected to benefit from an overall improvement in conditions. • International Standards & Context: selection and definition of dimension and deprivation thresholds through (1) CRC, MDG, WFFC (2) availability of data in MICS (3) critical issues at each stage of the child's life (4) adaptation to country context (Iraq)

  8. Issue vsChild Centred Approaches IssueCentred Ahmed Manal Amina All ok (60%) 30% Deprived Out of School 1 Deprivation 30%) Manal Sahar 2 Deprivations (10%) 20% Deprived Child Labour ChildCentred Ahmed Manal Sahar Amina Out of School Child Labour

  9. Child-Centred Approach • A Child-Centred Approach is concerned with multiple overlapping deprivations. • Instead of taking each indicator and measuring every relevant child; • take every child and measure him and her against every relevant indicator. X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

  10. Child-Centred Approach: Equal Rights • What does a child-centred approach mean for Equity? No child has any deprivation!

  11. Child-Centred Approach: 1 Indicator Out of School: All ok (80% of Population) • 2 children out of the 10 are out of school. 1 Deprivation (20%)

  12. Child-Centred Approach: 2 Indicators Out of School: Child Labour: All ok (60% of Population) • 3 children out of the 10 are involved in child labour. 1 Deprivation (30%) 2 Deprivations (10%)

  13. Child-Centred Approach: 3 Indicators Out of School: Child Labour: All ok (50% of Population) Violent Discipline: • 4 children out of the 10 suffer violent discipline. 1 Deprivation (20%) 2 Deprivations (20%) 3 Deprivations (10%)

  14. Child-Centred Approach: 4 Indicators Out of School: Child Labour: All ok (50% of Population) Violent Discipline: • 3 children out of the 10 have unsafe water. Unsafe Water 1 Deprivation (20%) 3 Deprivations (20%) 4 Deprivations (10%)

  15. Child-Centred Approach: 5 Indicators All ok (40% of Population) • 4 children out of the 10 don’t have improved sanitation. Out of School: 1 Deprivation (30%) Child Labour: Violent Discipline: 4 Deprivations (20%) 5 Deprivations (10%) Unsafe Water No Improved Sanitation

  16. Child-Centred Measure of Inequity Worst 30% of all children Have 4 or more deprivations Middle 30% of all children Have only 1 deprivation Best off 40% of all children Have no deprivations All ok (40% of Population) 1 Deprivation (30%) 4 Deprivations (20%) 5 Deprivations (10%)

  17. Quantitative Methodology

  18. Children Life-Cycle Motherhood Birth & Early Childhood (0-59 mo) Maternal Care Child Marriage Late Adolescence (15-17 yr) Child Care Female Genital Mutilation Water Nutrition Access to Information Violent Discipline Schooling Sanitation Child Labour Schooling Access to Information Violent Discipline Middle Childhood (5-14 yr)

  19. Children Life-Cycle(0-17 years) Motherhood Late Adolescence (15-17 yr) Birth & Early Childhood (0-59 mo) Maternal Care Child Marriage Female Genital Mutilation Child Care Shelter Access to Information Nutrition Violent Discipline Schooling Water & Sanitation Schooling Child Labour Access to Information Violent Discipline Middle Childhood (5-14 yr) UNICEF Iraq Country Office - December 2011

  20. Birth & Early Childhood (0-59 months) Birth & Early Childhood (0-59 mo) Water Sanitation Maternal Care Child Care Nutrition Violent Discipline

  21. Middle Childhood (5-14yr) Middle Childhood (5-14 yrs) Child Labour Schooling Access to Information Water Violent Discipline Sanitation

  22. Late Adolescence (15-17 yrs) Late Adolescence (15-17 yr) Water Sanitation Child Marriage Female Genital Mutilation Access to Information Schooling

  23. Household (0-17 yrs): Water & Sanitation Water & Sanitation (0-17 yr) Water Sanitation

  24. Counting Deprivations (Moderate + Severe)

  25. Overall Results

  26. ActualResults from MICS4 (All Children) All Children: 16.6 million children = 250,000 children 1.7 million (10%) All ok (No deprivations) 4.6 million (28%) Low (1 deprivation) 5.8 million (35%) Med (2 deprivations) 4.5 million (27%) High (3+ deprivations)

  27. Overall Results

  28. Severity to Number of Deprivations

  29. Life-Cycle Stages

  30. Profile Characteristics

  31. DeprivationLevels by Urban/Rural

  32. DeprivationLevels by Wealth Quintile

  33. DeprivationLevels by Mother’s Education

  34. DeprivationLevels by Sex

  35. DeprivationLevels by Age (year)

  36. Patterns * Overlap

  37. Schooling & Deprivation: by Sex and Age

  38. Patterns of Deprivation All Groups

  39. Patterns of Deprivation Well-Off

  40. Patterns of Deprivation Low Dep (1)

  41. Patterns of Deprivation Med Dep (2)

  42. Patterns of Deprivation High Dep (3+)

  43. Overlaps of Deprivation (LF1 0-59 mo)

  44. Overlaps of Deprivation (LF2 5-14 yr)

  45. Overlaps of Deprivation (LF3 15-17 yr)

  46. Overlaps of Deprivation (LF3 15-17 yr)

  47. Proximity * Geography

  48. Proximity of Multiple Deprivation = 1 million children 38% Not Multi-Dep (6.3 m) 27% Multi-Dep (4.5 m) 35% Multi-Dep (5.8 m) 35% of all Households have no multiple deprived children 30% of all Households 35% of all Households

  49. Overall Results

  50. Geography of Multiple Deprivation

More Related