Most Vulnerable Children In Tanzania

2y ago
32 Views
2 Downloads
661.94 KB
36 Pages
Last View : 15d ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Jerry Bolanos
Transcription

MOST VULNERABLE CHILDREN INAccess to education and patterns of non-attendanceArushi TerwayBrian DooleyAnne SmileyEDUCATION POLICY AND DATA CENTERMaking sense of data to improve education

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThis work would not have been possiblewithout the intellectual support of ourcolleagues at FHI 360. In particular, wewould like to thank Carina Omoeva foroverall technical and methodologicaloversight; Benjamin Sylla and Jeje Okurutfor contributing to the research design andanalysis, and Mark Ginsburg, Karen Wiener,John Gillies and Kurt Moses for theircareful and critical reviews and feedback.

MOST VULNERABLE CHILDREN INTA N Z A N I AAccess to education and patterns of non-attendanceEDUCATION POLICY AND DATA CENTER FHI 360Arushi Terway, with Brian Dooley and Anne Smiley

CONTENTSEXECUTIVE SUMMARYiiiINTRODUCTION1LITERATURE REVIEW:Child “Vulnerability” in Tanzania1METHODOLOGY5FINDINGS61.1. Access to Education: Who is out of school?61.2. Educational Access for MVC: Examining Tanzania’s Indicators5Children living in child-headed and elderly-headed households5Single and double orphans6Single orphans living in poor housing conditions71.3. Educational Access for MVC:Examining Additional Factors of Vulnerability9Relationship to the head of the household9Early marriage10Pregnancy101.4. Examining the effects of multiple MVC indicatorson school attendance10CONCLUSIONS13REFERENCES14APPENDIXA-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThis paper analyzes the extent to which, in Tanzania, “child vulnerability”indicators identified by the government of Tanzania are associated withlower educational access, and what additional indicators predict educationalvulnerability.We use the following indicators available in theThe primary finding of this study is that afterTanzania Demographic and Health Survey 2010 toaccounting for gender, household wealth, location,examine school participation of the most vulnerableand child’s relationship to the head of the householdchildren (MVC) in Tanzania as compared to otherinto consideration, orphans do not have lower levelschildren:of school participation than children whose parents Child-headed household: the head of theare alive. Poverty remains a major barrier to school1household is 18 years or younger. Elderly-headed household with no other adult:attendance for all school age children in Tanzania. Aparent figure as the household head is an importantthe head of the household is 60 years or olderfactor in educational access: children living with adultand there is no other adult between the ageshousehold heads with whom they had a parentalof 20-59 living in the household.relationship (parents, grandparents or adopted/foster Orphaned: the child has one (single orphan) orboth (double orphan) parents deceased. Orphans living in a rural area in a home with aroof made of grass, thatch or mud. Orphans living in an urban area in a home withparents) were much more likely to be attending schoolthan children not living in such households. Moreover,for children between the ages of 15 and 18, marriage,and for girls, pregnancy, were also strong predictors oflower school participation.one of the following conditions: 1) a roof made ofgrass, thatch or mud, 2) a wall made of grass orpoles and mud2 or 3) there are no toilet facilities The child’s relationship to the head of thehousehold. The child’s marital history (marriage before theage of 18) The child’s pregnancy—whether the girl childwas pregnant at the time of data collection1Children ages 7 to 182Specification for poor quality wall material was not provided inthe NCPA, grass and pole or mud was derived by the authorsbased on options available in DHS 2010 dataset.EDUCATION POLICY AND DATA CENTERMaking sense of data to improve educationiii

ivEDUCATION POLICY AND DATA CENTERMaking sense of data to improve education

INTRODUCTIONWhat does child vulnerability mean in practice? Previousresearch published by the FHI 360 Education Policyand Data Center (Smiley, Omoeva, Sylla, & Chaluda,2012) demonstrated that orphanhood on its own is notnecessarily a good predictor of educational disadvantagein Lesotho, Malawi, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia.However, poverty and lack of adult care were associated with lower levels ofeducational access. This paper expands on these findings by conducting an in depthanalysis of a specific country context, Tanzania. It examines the extent to which“child vulnerability” factors identified by the government of Tanzania are associatedwith lower educational access, and what additional factors predict educationalvulnerability.EDUCATION POLICY AND DATA CENTERMaking sense of data to improve education1

L I T E R AT U R E R E V I E WChild “Vulnerability” in TanzaniaAround 2000, in recognition of the complex ways that HIV and AIDS affectschildren and communities, development agencies began to shift awayfrom the term “AIDS orphans” to a more inclusive category: “orphans andvulnerable children,” or OVC (USAID, 2000; World Bank, 2004). The term“vulnerable” was introduced as a category in its own right to describe childrenwho were, for various reasons not limited to orphanhood, at risk of harm.The World Bank argued that a vulnerable child isOver the past two decades, international agenciesone whose safety, well-being and development areand policymakers have posited that due to the lackthreatened, with major dangers including “lack of careof parental care, orphans in sub-Saharan Africanand affection, adequate shelter, education, nutrition,countries face numerous disadvantages, especiallyand psychological support” (2004, p. 1). In fact, therein terms of educational access (UNICEF, 2006a).is no common definition of the term “vulnerable,”However, in Tanzania, very few have found conclusiveand the concept has proven difficult to operationalizeevidence that orphanhood alone is associated within practice. Some development agencies focus onlower educational access (Smiley, et al., 2012), achild well-being, the likelihood of being harmed, andfinding that is often explained by the existence of asurvival. Others focus on more easily measurablestrong extended family safety net as well as a plethoraindicators: children who have sick parents, whoof services provided to orphans.are infected with AIDS, or who are working formoney. Table 1 in the Appendix presents a varietyA comparative study of 10 sub-Saharan countries,of definitions of vulnerability used by internationalincluding Tanzania, found that orphans systematicallydevelopment agencies over the last decade.have lower school participation than non-orphans(Case, Paxson, & Ableidinger, 2004). Within the DHSIn the case of Tanzania, poverty is widespread and1999 Tanzania dataset, Case et al. (2004) foundis overall a major vulnerability factor in preventingthat after controlling for age and gender of the childmany children from accessing education, thoughbetween the ages of 6-14 years, orphans had 8.4free primary education has greatly increased schoolpercentage points lower school enrollment thanparticipation. A comparison of school attendance datanon-orphans. The study also found that all childrenfrom the 1996 and 2007 Demographic and Healthliving in households headed by non-parental relativesSurveys revealed that, in both years, the proportionor non-relatives are less likely to attend school butof children in the poorest households who wereorphans living in these households were worse offout of school was higher than those in the richestthan non-orphans.households (Lewin & Sabates, 2011). Moreover, in22007, children in the poorest households who didKürzinger, et al. (2008) analyzed 2001-2002 baselineattend school were more likely to be overage thandata from OVC programs in Tanzania and foundchildren from the middle and highest wealth quintiles.that, after controlling for confounding variables suchEDUCATION POLICY AND DATA CENTERMaking sense of data to improve education

as age, gender, religion, relationship to the head ofWith a substantial population of children who werethe household, and the household child/adult ratio,married before the age of 18, it is worth exploring ifno difference remained between orphans and non-these children are at an educational disadvantage.orphans in terms of school enrollment. Smiley et al.(2012), analyzing 2004 and 2010 DHS datasets forIt is likely that Tanzania’s extended family safety net,Tanzania, also did not find any significant differencecombined with government and donor support tobetween the primary net attendance of orphans andorphans, maybe the reason behind relatively equalnon-orphans. Ainsworth, Beegle, & Koda (2005),levels of school enrollment and attendance amongexamining household surveys from Northwesternorphans and non-orphans. However, “vulnerability”Tanzania, a region hard-hit by the AIDS crisis, foundgoes beyond orphanhood, and it is important tothat children spend significantly fewer hours in schoolexamine other factors that may lead to educationalduring the months prior to an adult death in thedisadvantage. In line with the international trends,household. Following the death, the school attendanceTanzania’s Ministry of Health and Social Welfareof new orphans returned to normal.(MoHSW) uses a working definition of MostVulnerable Children (MVC) to provide social protectionBeyond poverty and orphanhood, traditional culturalto orphans and other vulnerable children.practices like early marriage (marriage before the ageof 18) and early pregnancy can also put particularlyMVC is defined as those children who are adverselyfemale children at an educational disadvantageaffected by the AIDS crisis as well as all children(UNICEF, 2001). Community level studies of youthwho are at risk of not receiving basic social serviceshave revealed that marriage is one of the majorincluding education. MVC are protected under thereasons for dropping out of school for both girls andNational Social Protection Framework (MoFEA,boys in sub-Saharan Africa (Bastien, 2008; Colclough,2008), which outlines policies and guidelines forRose, & Tembon, 2000).support from government, development agencies, civilsociety, and the private sector.Tanzania has a high prevalence of early marriage forgirls with 9 percent of females on mainland TanzaniaTowards this end, the MoHSW created a generaland 6 percent of females in Zanzibar reporting beingclassification of MVC in the National Costed Planmarried before the age of 18. Twenty-nine percent ofof Action (NCPA) for Most Vulnerable Children thatthese females were married when they were 14 to 15includes any child under the age of 18 living in theyears old, and 65.3 percent were married when theyfollowing conditions:were 16 to 17 years old (CDC & UNICEF, 2011). those living in child-headed householdsT H E N AT I O N A L A C T I O N P L A N O N C A R E , S E R V I C E S , T R A I N I N G A N DPROTECTION OF VULNERABLE CHILDRENIn 2008/09 Tanzania provided a total of 561,823 vulnerable children with basic services includinghealth care, food, shelter, psychological and legal services, and education (Guidelines for thePreparation of Medium Term Plan and Budget Framework for 2010/11 – 2012/13).EDUCATION POLICY AND DATA CENTERMaking sense of data to improve education3

those living in elderly-headed households with noadult from 20–59 years-old presentBeyond this general guidance, the MoHSW allowsflexibility at the local level to include categories of those with one or both parents deceasedchildren that community stakeholders have identified those with disabilitiesas vulnerable. In 2006, the MoHSW estimated that those in rural areas: children with one survivingthe MVC population on Tanzania’s mainland was closeparent living in a house with poor quality roofingto 930,000, equivalent to 5 percent of the child(grass and/or mud) and those with a disabilitypopulation. Through the NCPA for Most Vulnerableliving in similar poor conditionsChildren (MoHSW, 2008), the Government of those in urban areas: children with one survivingTanzania designed a multisectoral policy to deliverparent living in a house with poor quality roofingsupport to these children, including improved access(grass and/or mud) or with poor wall materials orto primary and secondary education. The guidancewithout toilet facilities; anddocuments argue that MVC face serious challenges in those with a disability living in similar poorconditions (MoHSW, 2008).entering and remaining in the formal school system,especially those in child-headed households or inhouseholds where the head is elderly or critically ill.4EDUCATION POLICY AND DATA CENTERMaking sense of data to improve education

METHODOLOGYThis study uses Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) data for Tanzania(2010) to examine the relationship between access to schooling and indicatorsof child vulnerability, as defined in the Tanzanian NCPA in addition to severalindicators identified by the researchers.The data captures a representative sample of allschool-age children living in households, but doesnot include children living in institutions, informalsettlements or the streets. Accordingly, the findingsof this study cannot be generalized to children livingoutside of formal households.there is no other adult between the ages of 20-59living in the household. Orphaned: the child has one (single orphan) orboth (double orphan) parents deceased. Orphans living in a rural area in a home with a roofmade of grass, thatch or mud. Orphans living in an urban area in a home with oneSchool-aged children were defined as those aged 7-18,of the following conditions: 1) a roof made of grass,with children from 7-14 being considered of primarythatch or mud, 2) a wall made of grass or poles andschool age and children from 15-18 of secondarymud2 or 3) there are no toilet facilitiesschool age. We recognize that children of secondaryschool age may not necessarily be attending secondaryAdditional variables identified by the authorsschool, as almost 20 percent of the children in this age The child’s relationship to the head of thegroup were attending primary; the primary-secondarynomenclature in this paper is simply meant to refer tothe different age groups. The sample included a totalof 15,270 children, out of which 11,218 were of primaryschool age and 4,052 were of secondary school age.household. The child’s marital history (marriage before theage of 18) The child’s pregnancy—whether the girl child waspregnant at the time of data collectionSchool attendance within the last year was theBivariate data analysis was conducted using one-outcome variable measuring educational access.way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determineSchool attendance in this study is measured by thethe variation in school attendance based on thehead of the household’s response to whether the childvulnerability indicators above. For multiple regressionattended school at any time during the year. It doesanalysis, probit models were used to determinenot measure the official enrollment in school or thethe combined effect of multiple indicators onnumber of days attended by the child.school attendance. The results of this analysis weregeneralized to the larger population at 95 percentThe following proxy vulnerability indicators were usedconfidence interval.as explanatory variables:Variables identified by the Tanzania NCPA1 Child-headed household: the head of the householdis 18 years or younger. Elderly-headed household with no other adult: thehead of the household is 60 years or older and1 Indicators on disability were not included in the analysis becauseno data on household member disabilities was available in DHS2010 dataset.2 Specification for poor quality wall material was not provided inthe NCPA, grass and pole or mud was derived by the authorsbased on options available in DHS 2010 dataset.EDUCATION POLICY AND DATA CENTERMaking sense of data to improve education5

FINDINGS1.1 Accessschool?to Education: Who is out ofIn the past decade, Tanzania has made great progressin improving primary school access, with grossenrollment rates increasing from 68 percent in 2000to 102 percent in 2010. However, approximately 650thousand children – 16 percent of the primary schoolage population (ages 7-14) – were still not enrolled inprimary school in 2010. Secondary access was evenmore problematic, with 52 percent of the relevant agegroup (15-18) out of school in 2010.1FIGURE 1. PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN WHODID NOT ATTEND SCHOOL AT ANY TIMEDURING THE 2010 SCHOOL YEAR, BY AGE80%60%40%20%0%78910 11 12 13 14 15 16 1718The 2010 DHS data revealed that school attendancewas associated with region of residence, urban/ruralresidence, age, and household wealth; however, girlsand boys had almost equal attendance rates.1.2 Educational Access for MVC:Examining Tanzania’s IndicatorsThe number of children out of school ranges from39 percent in Tabora to 10 percent in Town WestThe Government of Tanzania identifies MVC as(Zanzibar) and Kilimanjaro. At the same time, 10particularly disadvantaged in primary and secondarypercent more children were out of school in ruralschool access (MoHSW, 2008). However, ANOVAareas than in urban areas. Another important factorfindings demonstrate that, in most cases, Tanzania’sappears to be age: younger children (7-9 years) andMVC indicators are strong predictors of low schoololder children (13-18 years) are much more likely toattendance only for specific subpopulations.be out of school than children within ages 10-12 (seeFigure 1). Finally, poverty remains a major factor; inChildren living in child-headed and elderly-headed2010 the highest proportion of out-of-school childrenhouseholdswas from the lowest wealth quintile . This was true forThe first two indicators of vulnerability in the NCPAboth girls and boys, with 38 percent and 35 percentare defined by the age of the head of the household.out of school rate respectively for the poorest wealthChildren are considered vulnerable if they are livingquintile2 (see Figure 2).in a household that is either headed by a child underthe age of 19, or headed by an elderly adult over theage of 59 with no other adults living in the household.1 World Development Indicators, pment-indicators2 Wealth quintiles were calculated by TDHS using a principlecomponent analysis based on household asset data on number ofvariables like household ownership of a number of characteristics,6EDUCATION POLICY AND DATA CENTERMaking sense of data to improve educationsuch as source of drinking water, type of sanitation facilities, andtype of materials used in dwelling construction.

FIGURE 2. PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN OUT OF SCHOOL BY HOUSEHOLD STIn our sample, the majority of the households hadthe age of 19, and they were less likely to be out ofadult household heads between the ages of 19 andschool than children living in adult headed households.59, and very few lived in child-headed households.However, this difference in school attendance was notHowever, a substantial number of children lived instatistically significant and could not be generalized toelderly-headed households (see Table 1).all rural households.TABLE 1. CHILDREN LIVING IN HOUSEHOLDSSingle and double orphansHEADED BY CHILDREN, ADULTS AND THE ELDERLYIn this sample, 12 percent of the children were singleorphans, with either the mother or the fatherNumber of Childrendeceased, and 2 percent double orphans, with bothunder 1942(7-14 years), more single and double orphans were19 to 5912,076over 592,902Age of Household Headparents deceased. In the primary school age groupout of school than non-orphans, but this differencewas not statistically significant. However, forsecondary school aged children (15-18 years), therewas a significant difference in the proportion ofsingle orphans who were out of school as comparedto non-orphans. The out-of-scho

as vulnerable. In 2006, the MoHSW estimated that the MVC population on Tanzania’s mainland was close to 930,000, equivalent to 5 percent of the child population. Through the NCPA for Most Vulnerable Children (MoHSW, 2008), the Government of Tanzania designed a multisectoral policy to deliver support to these children, including improved access

Related Documents:

TARP Tanzania Agricultural Research Project TAWIRI Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute TAWLAE Tanzania Association of Women Leaders in Agriculture and Environment TBC Tanzania Broadcasting Cooperation TBS Tanzania Bureau of Standard TCC Tanzania Communications Commission TCCIA Tanzan

the quality of care, support and protection for most vulnerable children. These guidelines will provide a direction for quality service provision to most vulnerable children at all levels in Tanzania. It will also facilitate monitoring the impact and avoid duplication in service provision to most vulnerable children.

education in Tanzania and defines the roles of national and local education bodies. Sources: UNESCO-IBE (2010). World Data on Education VII Ed. 2010/11. United Republic of Tanzania. Geneva: UNESCO-IBE. United Republic of Tanzania (1997). National Council for Technical Education Act. Dodoma: United Republic of Tanzania.

Tanzania Country Report Executive summary 6 1. Introduction 13 1.1. Research objectives and methodology 14 1.2. Education system in Tanzania 15 1.2.1. Autonomous education systems 15 1.2.2. Education system in Tanzania Mainland, 2012 16 1.2.3. Simplification measures taken in profiling OOSC 16 1.2.4. New education policy in Tanzania Mainland 17 2.

Background: Following cervical cancer, breast cancer is the second most common cancer and second leading cause of cancer mortality among women in Tanzania.1 2 The lifetime risk for developing breast cancer in Tanzania is approxi-mately 1 in 203, and approximately half of all women diag-nosed with breast cancer in Tanzania will die of the disease.

THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA OF 1977. CHAPTER 2 OF THE LAWS. 2005 . The following is the official Revised version in English of “KATIBA YA JAMHURI YA MUUNGANO WA TANZANIA YA MWAKA 1977”. This revised edition of the

THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA NATIONAL LAND POLICY MINISTRY OF LANDS AND HUMAN SETILEMENTS DEVELOPMENT DAR ES SALAAM TANZANIA . NATIONAL LAND POLICY The Ministry of Lands and Human Settlements Dar es salaam, Tanzania Second Edition 1997 . CONTENTS PAGE PREFACE ii DEFINITIONS iii

The publication of the ISO 14001 standard for environmental managements systems (EMS) in 1996 and then revised in 2004 has proved to be very successful, as it is now implemented in more than 159 countries and has provided organizations with a powerful management tool to improve their environmental performance. More than 223 149 organizations have been certified worldwide against ISO 14001 at .