orphan journal (sage)

7/28/2019 Orphan Journal (Sage)

1/16

http://isw.sagepub.com/

International Social Work

http://isw.sagepub.com/content/53/2/261The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/00208728093553852010 53: 261International Social Work

Mildred T. Mushunje and Muriel MaficoThe case for cash transfers

Social protection for orphans and vulnerable children in Zimbabwe:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

International Association of Schools of Social Work

International Council of Social Welfare

International Federation of Social Workers

can be found at:International Social WorkAdditional services and information for

http://isw.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://isw.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://isw.sagepub.com/content/53/2/261.refs.htmlCitations:

at Airlangga University on October 21, 2010isw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://isw.sagepub.com/http://isw.sagepub.com/http://isw.sagepub.com/content/53/2/261http://isw.sagepub.com/content/53/2/261http://isw.sagepub.com/content/53/2/261http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.iassw-aiets.org/http://www.iassw-aiets.org/http://www.icsw.org/http://www.icsw.org/http://www.ifsw.org/http://isw.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://isw.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://isw.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://isw.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://isw.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://isw.sagepub.com/content/53/2/261.refs.htmlhttp://isw.sagepub.com/http://isw.sagepub.com/http://isw.sagepub.com/http://isw.sagepub.com/http://isw.sagepub.com/content/53/2/261.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://isw.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://isw.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.ifsw.org/http://www.icsw.org/http://www.iassw-aiets.org/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://isw.sagepub.com/content/53/2/261http://isw.sagepub.com/


2/16

Social protectionfor orphans andvulnerable children inZimbabwe: The casefor cash transfers

Mildred T. MushunjeFAO, Zimbabwe

Muriel Mafico

UNICEF, Swaziland

AbstractThe unprecedented number of orphans and vulnerable children in Zimbabwehas created an urgent need to create innovative ways to provide for the social

protection of these children. Innovative packages consisting of educational,food and psychosocial support are being implemented by non-governmentalorganizations. However, as the orphan crisis continues to deepen, more

needs to be done and, learning from the experiences of other countries, theoption of cash transfers for social protection for orphans and vulnerable

children offers an attractive option for Zimbabwe. This article explores thepossibility of using cash transfers for the support of orphans and vulnerablechildren and highlights the challengesand strengths of this approach.

Keywords

cash transfers, orphans and vulnerable children, social protection, vulnerability

Thecurrent triple crisis of HIV and AIDS, recurrent droughts and economicmeltdown has created untold challenges for families both urban and rural inZimbabwe. Amongst the worst affected are children, of which there are an

Corresponding author: Mildred T. Mushunje, FAO/Zimbabwe, Block 1 Tendeseka Park,

Eastlea, Harare, Zimbabwe.

Email: [email protected]

i s w

International Social Work

53(2) 261275

The Author(s) 2010

Reprints and permission: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermission.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0020872809355385

http://isw.sagepub.com

http://isw.sagepub.com/http://isw.sagepub.com/http://isw.sagepub.com/http://isw.sagepub.com/


3/16

262 International Social Work 53(2)

approximate 1.7 million orphans with 980,000 due to AIDS (Government of

Zimbabwe, 2005). Orphans and vulnerable children are defined by the

Childrens Act as those who are in need of care because of their circum-stances which may be orphanhood and neglect, among other considerations.

According to the 2003 Government of Zimbabwe Poverty Assessment Study,

there was an increase in poverty at the national level in both urban and rural

areas between 1995 and 2003. The same Poverty Assessment Study Survey

revealed that the population below the total consumption poverty line

increased from 55 percent in 1995 to 72 percent in 2003 (see Figure 1).

During the same period, the population below the food poverty line also

increased from 29 percent to 58 percent (see Figure 2), with those households

headed by women and children registering higher poverty levels.

At a national level this is evident in a decline in social indicators. For

example, the Zimbabwe Demographic and Health Survey (Government of

Zimbabwe, 2006a) shows that underweight prevalence for under-fives

increased from 13 percent in 1999 to 16.6 percent in 2005; the prevalence of

stunting, the chronic form of under-nutrition, rose from 26.5 percent in 1999

to 29.4 percent in 2005. In the education sector, the completion rate for the

primary-school level has been falling since the 1990s owing, in part, to finan-

cial constraints. The 2004 primary-school completion rate of 68 percent is

55

72

36

0

10

20

30

40X

50

60

70

80

1995 2003 2015

Figure 1. Percentage of total population below the total consumption povertyline, Zimbabwe, 1995 to 2003

Source:Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare, Poverty Assessment Study

Surveys I (1995) and II (2003).

http://isw.sagepub.com/http://isw.sagepub.com/http://isw.sagepub.com/


4/16

Mushunje and Mafco 263

well below the 2010 World Fit For Children (WFFC) target of 90 percent and

the 2015 Millennium Development Goals (MDG) target of 100 percent.

The vulnerability of children is now in the limelight because of the break-

down of the various coping mechanisms that have existed in the past, when

it was easily and readily addressed through community coping mechanisms,

such as the Zunde raMambo, and community coalitions where members of

a community pooled resources to assist a family in need by providing it with

food from the community granaries (Mushunje, 2006). Orphans were

absorbed into extended family networks. However, today, because of deep-

ening poverty, it is a challenge for households to absorb extended family

members when they cannot afford to provide for their own basic necessities.

As a result, the orphan crisis has become more amplified (Ayala, 2007).

In recognition of the challenges facing orphans and vulnerable chil-

dren, many governments including that of Zimbabwe and multilateral,bilateral and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have endorsed sev-

eral global commitments that prioritize interventions that address the

problems faced (Kavishe, 2007). These include the MDGs; the 2001

United Nations General Assembly Special Session on HIV and AIDS; and

the 2002 Special Session on Children of the United Nations General

29

58

29

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

X

1995 2003 2015

Figure 2. Percentage of total population below the food poverty line, Zimbabwe,1995 to 2003

Source:Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare, Poverty Assessment StudySurveys I (1995) and II (2003).



5/16


Assembly, whose outcome document was A World Fit for Children. To

implement these global commitments, countries developed National Plans

of Action (NPA) for orphans and vulnerable children. Zimbabwes plan wasapproved in 2005. To date, Zimbabwe has mobilized resources from vari-

ous donors for the implementation of the plan. Various players have come

on board to support it, as it is widely recognized that the growing crisis of

children requires multi-dimensional approaches that will harness all avail-

able resources and coping mechanisms (Mushunje and Mafico, 2007).

It is in this context that this article discusses the case for cash transfers as

a form of social protection for orphans and vulnerable children. The next

section discusses the concept of social protection and then narrows down

the discussion to cash transfers.

Social protection defined

Various definitions of social protection have been propounded by agen-

cies such as International Labour Organization (ILO, 2001) and World

Bank (2002). However, for this discussion, social protection is defined

according to the Asian Development Bank (2001). It states that social

protection is:

a set of policies and programs designed to reduce poverty and vulnerability by

promoting efficient labour markets, diminishing peoples exposure to risks, and

enhancing their capacity to protect themselves against hazards and interruption/

loss of income. The policies and procedures included in social protection involve

five major kinds of activities: labour market policies and programs, social

insurance programs, social assistance, micro and area-based schemes, and child

protection.

1

The common thread running through these definitions is that social pro-

tection aims to mitigate the impact on households and social vulnerability

caused by unforeseen shocks, particularly among poor and marginalized

groups (United Nations Childrens Fund [UNICEF], 2007).Social protec-tion policies are always part of a broader set of policies on macroeconomic

stability, enterprise and employment development, health and education, all

aimed at reducing risk and vulnerability and encouraging pro-poor growth.In 2006, 13 African governments, including that of Zimbabwe, came

together in what is now called the Livingstone Call to Action, recognizing

social protection for the vulnerable as a basic human right and committing

themselves to cooperating as nations in devising comprehensive costed

national social protection plans which would be integrated into national



6/16


development plans. The member states also committed to cooperation and

action to provide comprehensive social protection.

Social protection: An analytical ramework

UNICEF recognizes four intrinsic outcomes of social protection, transfor-

mative, promotional, protective and preventive, as illustrated in Figure 3.Social transfers including cash transfers are important instruments in

achieving any or all of these four intrinsic outcomes.

Although these definitions of social protection are comprehensive

enough for wage earners, they exclude non-wage earners, which is where

the majority of vulnerable children are found. As in the legislation of most

countries and according to international standards such as the International

Labour Organization (ILO), children are not allowed to work and therefore

are excluded from the formal labour force. The consequence is that, to theextent that social protection is predicated on linkages to the labour market,

children are excluded as individual recipients from social protection. They

thus become only beneficiary endpoints through their membership of other

institutions (families, households, schools, projects). In the case of orphans

living alone, the argument is they are already managing households but are

ProtectiveWorkfare

Food Aid

School feeding

Cash transfers

PreventivePensions

Insurance

Universal benefits for

elderly and children

Conditional cash transfers

PromotiveMicro-credit

Second chance education

Skills training

Targeted school fee

Waivers

TransformativeSocial and economic policy

Legal reform

Standards/regulations

Behaviour and attitudinal

change

A framework for social protection

Examplesofinstru

ments

Figure 3. A conceptual framework and instruments for social protection

Source: UNICEF (2007).



7/16


not recognized by formal structures as legitimate household heads. Kaseke

(2004: 231) also notes this and adds that social protection in Zimbabwe

promotes social exclusion largely due to its preoccupation with protectingthose who are in formal wage employment. As a result, the majority of

Africans in the Southern African Development Community region have

tended to rely on informal social protection systems which are largely

based on kinship or mutual aid arrangements. These have however been

shown to be challenged in the context of HIV/AIDS and poverty.

Current social protection mechanisms or orphans

and vulnerable childrenCurrently, support for formal education is the most common form of support

for orphans and vulnerable children in Zimbabwe through the Basic Education

Assistance Module (BEAM) programme. BEAM is one of the five compo-

nents of the Enhanced Social Protection Project (ESPP), which forms part of

the Government of Zimbabwes wider social protection strategy. Coverage is,

however, low (7.8% overall, and 7.3% and 9.6% of children of primary- and

secondary-school age, respectively) and there is evidence of limited success in

reaching those most in need (Government of Zimbabwe, 2006b). Other school

programmes include the block grants.2 While other programmes are clearly

needed, BEAM seems justified in view of the wide-ranging benefits of school

attendance, such as improved skills and formal-sector employment prospects.

Research has also shown that the benefits of school attendance also extend to

protection against psychosocial distress and especially for girls lower vul-

nerability to infection with HIV and other sexually transmitted infections

(STIs) and reduced exposure to teenage pregnancy (World Bank, 2002).

Other forms of social protection include public assistance, which is verylow as a result of inadequate budgetary allocation, and only one out of 1000

people in need benefit from this (Kaseke, 2004). Social welfare officials

have become very selective as to who should benefit, and those who would

normally benefit end up not doing so because of the shortage of resources.

Orphans and vulnerable children are supposed to benefit from this support

through the household head, which discriminates against children living on

their own as they are not considered as adults who can apply for benefit on

their own behalf. Traditional social protection approaches to combattingchild hunger and poverty include price subsidies, food based safety-net

programmes and public works, and these approaches have dominated the

social protection landscape in the southern African region, Zimbabwe

included. Again these all target adult-led households with the assumption

that the benefits will trickle down to children in the household. National



8/16


and international NGOs have also collaborated with the government to

provide support for orphans through the programme.

The challenge with the described forms of social protection is that theytend to be limited in coverage. For instance, the block grant system pays for

school fees but may not provide for school uniforms or stationery, which

makes the case for cash transfer to augment other social protection mecha-

nisms strong.

The case for cash transfers

Given the increasing number of orphans and vulnerable children who have

become a common feature in Zimbabwe, it is clear there is need for a para-

digm shift from focusing on work-related and adult-based social protection

schemes to those that are inclusive to an extent that such children can also

benefit. It is incontrovertible that investment in children is a key factor in

poverty reduction, economic growth and sustenance, that is, maintaining

positive social indicators. While traditional poverty alleviation and political

and socio-economic development strategies remain important instruments

for growth, their benefits do not automatically reach orphans, and so direct

interventions continue to be required to reach the socially and economically

excluded (UNICEF, 2007). The value of cash transfers lies not only in their

ability to tackle income poverty and support the achievement of broader

social, economic and development objectives, but also in assuring the pro-

tection of societys most vulnerable groups. Social protection frameworks

have consistently identified the critical role cash-based social transfers play

in reducing vulnerability to poverty (Samson et al., 2006). While cash trans-

fers are not a panacea for poverty eradication, they are an important compo-

nent of overall poverty reduction strategies and social protection systems,especially for vulnerable children.

Governments and international development partners are now giving

increasing recognition to the role that cash transfers can play in supporting

development objectives. Moreover, there is now considerable evidence that,

in most cases, cash transfers provide a more effective long-term response to

repeated shocks and chronic poverty (World Bank, 2007). Zimbabwe has

also embraced the cash transfer concept and intends to pilot this as a form

of social protection for orphans and vulnerable children.

Deining cash transers

Cash transfers can be operationally defined as regular non-contributory

payments of money provided by the government or NGOs to individuals or



9/16


households, with the objective of decreasing chronic or shock-induced

poverty, addressing social risk and reducing economic vulnerability. The

transfers can be unconditional, that is, households receive the cash transferwith no conditions set; or conditional, that is, households are expected to,

for example, actively fulfil human development responsibilities such as

education, health, nutrition, etc. (Samson et al., 2006). Cash transfers can be

viewed from the point that they can be used as a vehicle towards achieving

the MDGs, the National Action Plan for Orphans and Vulnerable Children

and the various other child protection instruments to which the government

of Zimbabwe is a signatory.

Beneits o cash transer

Studies of cash transfer programmes in other countries have demon-

strated that under diverse socio-economic conditions certain types of

cash transfer programmes have been successful. For example, a success-

ful cash transfer project was undertaken in Zambia in Kalomo District.

One thousand most desperate households taking care of orphans were

identified and given an equivalent of US$6 each between November

2003 and April 2004. Households could purchase food, soap, blankets

and other basic needs. The scheme proved to be successful as the head-

men and local communities reported reduced incidences of begging.

Households were also able to save some money and invest it for future

needs (Schubert and Goldberg, 2004: 9). Drawing from such country

experiences and adapting these, Zimbabwe intends to carry out an uncon-

ditional cash transfer pilot project.

Direction o unds to needy households or immediate use. Cash transferscan immediately improve access to income and reduce the impact of mac-

roeconomic shocks on the poor. They can be a conduit for directing funds

for immediate disposal and alleviate otherwise potentially disastrous situ-

ations. In South Africa, it is reported that the overall impact on poverty has

been a reduction in the poverty gap by 45 percent and the destitution gap

by 67 percent (Samson, 2007). Mozambiques urban cash transfer pro-

gramme increased household incomes in poor towns by about 41 percent

(Devereux, 2002). Households can use the cash for what they consider aspriority and so they are empowered in decision-making about the use of

the cash. In the case of education, where fees are paid but school uniforms

or stationery are not bought, cash transfers can be used as a means of

leveraging this support. If funds are injected directly to the household or

community, it becomes an effective way of addressing the urgent needs of



10/16


children in the community or household. In arguing for this direct injec-

tion of funds, it is noted that families and communities are the first port of

call for assisting orphans and vulnerable children, but in many instancesthey do not have the necessary financial resources for material support.

With the cash transfer, funds are readily available for use by the household

or community and the responsibility of care is strengthened.

Enhancing orphans well-being while maintaining dignity or the vulnerable. Given

the robustness of cash grants in addressing poverty and vulnerability for

orphans and vulnerable children, it would appear that cash transfers would be

an excellent policy option for securing their well-being. The advantage of this

option is that with cash, ultra-poor households will be empowered to have a

greater flexibility over household expenditure, and the elderly who care for

most orphans will also be covered (Kavishe, 2007). Traditional support, be it

from the government or from NGOs, has been standard and may not necessar-

ily respond to the needs of orphans. With cash transfers, there is an opportu-

nity to address needs not covered by the standardized forms of support. The

dignity of the recipient household is maintained as it is then able to purchase

immediately urgent products and services. Standardized support assumes

households require the same services, when in actual fact this is not the case.

With cash transfers, households are able to define and purchase what they

require.

Aordability

One of the key questions raised in the discourse on cash transfers is afford-

ability for economically pressurized African governments, such as Zimbabwe.

However, the assumption is that cash transfer is part of a broader social pro-tection plan and complements other already existing programmes. When

implemented in this context, various actors, both the government and NGOs,

are providing different needed support, leveraging the resources each party

has and building on the comparative advantage of the other. Also drawing on

the experiences of the Kalomo project in Zambia, a large number of house-

holds (1000) benefited from very small injection of amounts, yet these made

a difference in the lives of many children. Cash transfers, therefore, do not

need to involve large sums of money.

Improved social indicators among orphans and vulnerable children

Cash transfers contribute to improved food security and dietary diversity,

and can improve childrens nutritional status, as demonstrated in Zambias



11/16


Kalomo pilot project. The number of household members living on one

meal a day decreased from 19 percent at the baseline to 13 percent at evalu-

ation (UNICEF, 2007). Cash transfers have the potential to be effectivesince they address identified specific household needs and not those which

are imposed by a funding agency or a system external to the household, thus

contributing to improved social indicators.

Increased investment in children

Evidence suggests that households receiving cash transfers increase invest-

ment in their childrens education. In Zambias Kalomo pilot project, overall

absenteeism from school declined by 16 percent over the first nine months of

the pilot scheme and enrolment rates rose by 3 percentage points to 79 per-

cent. In the same Zambian pilot, 28 percent of the transfers were spent on

investments, and the scheme seems to have stopped the practice of selling

assets for food as household income and purchasing options were diversified.

Challenges in implementing cash transers

Even though cash transfers offer possibilities in social protection in

Zimbabwe, there are some challenges which need to be considered.

The targeting challenge. The decision on targeting is one of the most com-

plex issues that programme designers must address. Badly designed or

implemented targeting mechanisms can omit would-be beneficiaries, while

those who should not benefit end up doing so. Targeting involves mecha-

nisms that should discriminate between the poor and the non-poor.

Zimbabwes Department of Social Welfare3 has a method of means testingwhich attempts to identify the most vulnerable of a community. The ability

to measure poverty and identify the poor is essential for designing any tar-

geted cash transfer programme. In practice targeting is faced with formida-

ble administrative hurdles, especially where the informal sector is a major

source of livelihood and poor peoples visibility is low. In recognition of

these difficulties, there have been attempts to use categorical targeting, of

geographic, demographic, gender and households. Other options include

targeting the most vulnerable households in which the most unfavourabledependency ratios exist, for example where there is no working-age adult or

where there are three or more dependants per adult (Miller, 2007).

Operational environment. Zimbabwe had varying inflation rates with an

unstable exchange rate to the US dollar for about six consecutive years since



12/16


2001. Such uncertainty and the economic meltdown have had the net effect of

creating a speculative environment where goods and services have been over-

priced and the inflation rate continuously soars. In the financial and bankingsector, it has proved to be difficult to withdraw money from the bank and

local currency has been known to be in short supply. For households receiv-

ing cash transfer funds, the environment may make it difficult for them to

purchase goods they require. It could therefore prove a challenge trying to

assess the extent to which cash transfers could be successful, given the vola-

tile operating environment.

RecommendationsCash transfer provides an implementation option that is useful when a coun-

try lacks sufficient human or financial resources, or when design ques-

tions make it difficult to implement a national scheme with confidence for

varied reasons. In the case of Zimbabwe the decision to pilot a cash trans-

fer scheme is being informed by the current socio-economic context.

Hyper-inflation coupled with capacity constraints in the public sector, as

well as supply-side constraints, necessitates experimentation in order to

learn lessons.

In proposing the following recommendations, it is imperative to note that

any social protection mechanism that is introduced targets children and the

households in which they live. Cash transfer schemes should be planned on

the basis of a thorough assessment of needs across the entire range and the

costs of meeting them in the short, medium and long term in a sustainable

manner. Cash transfers have to be implemented with the recognition that

there are other support mechanisms that exist and the cash transfers pilot

project should be part of the already existing social protection structure.Development workers, social welfare officers and policymakers need to

make use of already existing structures to provide care and support for

orphans and vulnerable children. This should be based on replicating and

adapting already proved models of support to orphans, rather than consis-

tently attempting to create new ones. Following on from the discussion, this

article makes the following recommendations.

Mainstreaming cash transer as a part o a broader national social

protection ramework/strategy

Support needs are greater than cash alone. Given that a very high percentage

(3050%) of households are affected by AIDS and other illnesses through

the death of a household member, by caring for orphans, or because they



13/16


currently include someone who is chronically ill, these added burdens must

be addressed through programmes and policies that reduce social and emo-

tional problems caused by the impact of HIV/AIDS and other illnesses.Cash transfers cannot address all the needs of orphans, but they can be part

of a larger programme.

Improved targeting

Cash transfers have to target households rather than individual orphans or

vulnerable children in the household, in order to reduce stigmatization. For

instance, there have been cases with other programmes targeting orphans

where a child lives in an extended family household and has received sup-

port from an NGO. This child becomes a victim of the support and falls

prey to the lucky orphan syndrome. Rather than enhancing the quality of

life for such children, the reverse may happen when individual orphans are

targeted in a household. The politics in the household may be such that the

caregiver supporting the orphan or vulnerable child may not even have

enough for his/her own children and this then creates problems, hence the

importance of targeting a household rather than the individual. Focus on

the household also helps to remove focus from the child and strengthen the

households overall coping mechanisms.

Establishment o community banks

In order to deal with the financial challenges facing Zimbabwe and make

cash transfers feasible, local communities could open up local banks where

money is deposited into a trusted agent in the community. The community

would have to decide who this agent could be: it could be the local chief orother respected structures such as child protection committees. Linked to

this is the use of micro-insurance for the benefit of persons operating out-

side the formal sector. This can be initiated by an injection of the cash trans-

fer. Kaseke (2004: 9) argues this allows communities to design their own

social protection systems which can respond to their priority needs. This is

particularly pertinent to orphans and vulnerable children who do not fit into

any particular category which would allow them to qualify for social protec-

tion schemes (as discussed above). The community insurance initiativesbuild on this philosophy of the poor helping the poor. They differ from pri-

vate insurance companies in that they are run by the beneficiaries and not

intended to make profit (Lacey and Kyama, 2005).



14/16


Linking cash transers with livelihood activities

Linking livelihood activities with cash transfers would be useful to ensurethat households develop skills that can raise their livelihood bases and com-

plement the function of cash transfer. Such activities could include small

livestock-rearing and income-generating activities. It would also ensure

continuity of income once a cash transfer project comes to an end.

Conclusion

It is apparent that the support for orphans and vulnerable children needs to

be stepped up, as Zimbabwe is likely to see more such children in the short-

to long-term period and the situation will get worse before it gets better.

Indications are that there is increasing poverty among orphans, particularly

for those living in child-headed households. The argument for cash transfer

is therefore pertinent at this stage, as the needs of orphans and vulnerable

children continue to evolve. There is no panacea for addressing their needs

and responses have to be iterative, because the issue of orphans will remain

a national agenda as long as poverty and HIV/AIDS exist, hence support

methods have to continuously evolve and be responsive.

Notes

1. Authors emphasis.

2. Block grants are lump-sum payments to schools for purchase of materials (text

books, desks, etc.) and refurbishment of the infrastructure, including provision of

facilities for water and sanitation. In return, the school agrees to enrol a specified

number of orphans and vulnerable children (OVC), who are made exempt from

paying fees and levies for an agreed period of time (Kajawu and Makiwa, 2006).

3. This is housed in the Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare and

administered by Social Welfare officers.

References

Asian Development Bank (2001) Framework for Operations on Social

Protection, Social Protection Strategy in Asia and the Pacific, Revised Draftfor Consultations, January. Available online at: http://www.adb.org.poverty/

(accessed 2 July 2007).

Ayala, F. (2007) Draft Concept Paper for CCT Pilot in Zimbabwe, Draft Social Protection

in ESAR: A Framework and Strategy for UNICEF, ESARO. Harare: UNICEF.



15/16


Devereux, S. (2002) Can Social Safety Nets Reduce Chronic Poverty?,Development

Policy Review 20(5): 65775.

Government of Zimbabwe (2003)Poverty Assessment Study. Harare: Governmentof Zimbabwe.

Government of Zimbabwe (2005)National Action Plan for Orphans and Vulnerable

Children. Harare: Government of Zimbabwe.

Government of Zimbabwe (2006a)Zimbabwe Demographic Health Survey. Harare:

Government of Zimbabwe.

Government of Zimbabwe (2006b) World Fit for Children, Mid-decade Progress

Report, 20022006. Harare: UNICEF and Ministry of Health and Child Welfare.

International Labour Organization (ILO) (2004) Social Protection Matters. Special

report on Participation of the Social Protection Sector in ISSAs 28thGeneral

Assembly, Beijing, China, 1218September. Geneva: ILO.

Kajawu, G. and E. Makiwa (2006) Innovative Approaches to Empowering Orphans

and Other Vulnerable Children: CRS/ZW STRIVE Education Initiatives,

Journal of Social Development in Africa 21(1): 6784.

Kaseke, E. (2004) Social Protection in SADC: Developing an Integrated and

Inclusive Framework Social Policy Perspective, in M.P. Olivier and E.R. Kalula,

Social Protection in SADC: Developing an Integrated and Inclusive Framework

(publication financed by Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (FES)). Johannesburg: Centre

for International and Comparative Labour and Social Security Law (CICLASS).

Kavishe, F.P. (2007) Securing the Wellbeing of Orphans and Vulnerable Children

(OVC) in Zimbabwe through Cash Transfers. Harare: UNICEF.

Lacey, M. and R. Kyama (2005) Neglected Poor in Africa Make Their Own Safety

Nets,New York Times, 28 August.

Miller, C. (2007)Zimbabwe VulnerabilityStudy. Harare: Government of Zimbabwe.

Mushunje, M.T. (2006) Child Protection in Zimbabwe: Yesterday, Today and

Tomorrow,Journal of Social Development in Africa 21(1): 1234.

Mushunje, M.T. and M. Mafico (2007)Walking the Talk: Zimbabwes Experiencein Implementing the National Action Plan for OVC, Journal of Social

Development in Africa 22(2): 3562.

Samson, M. (2007) African Perspectives on Cash Transfers: The Developmental

Impact of Social Transfers, paper presented at the Africa Regional Workshop on

Cash Transfer Programs for Vulnerable Groups, Mombasa, February.

Samson, M., K. MacQueen and I. Van Niekerk (2006) Designing and Implementing

Social Transfer Programmes. Economic and Policy Research Institute, CapeTown. Available online at: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/26/63/43280571.pdf

(accessed 10 November 2009).

Schubert, B. and J. Goldberg (2004) Scaling Up Extending Social Transfers

Beyond the Pilot Area. Sixth report on consultancy to plan the extension of the



16/16


Child Welfare Project for people living with AIDS, administered in Kalomo dis-

trict, Zambia. Lusaka: Government of Zambia.

United Nations Childrens Fund (UNICEF) (2007)Draft Social Protection in ESAR:A Framework and Strategy for UNICEF, 2007; Conceptual Framework for

Social Protection. New York: UNICEF.

World Bank (2002) Education and HIV/AIDS, A Window of Hope: Accelerating

the Education Sector Response to HIV/AIDS in Africa: A Review of World Bank

Assistance in the Global HIV/AIDS Programme, compiled by Anne Bakilana,

Donald Bundy, Jonathan Brown and Birger Fredriksen. Available online at:

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTHIVAIDS/Resources/.pdf (accessed 10

November 2009).

World Bank (2007) Report of Africa Regional Workshop on Cash Transfer

Programs for the Vulnerable Groups, Mombasa, Kenya, 2628 February 2007.

Available online at: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/WBI/

WBIPROGRAMS/SPLP/0 (accessed 10 November 2009).

Author biographies

Mildred T. Mushunje is HIV/Livelihoods Officer, FAO/Zimbabwe, Block 1

Tendeseka Park, Eastlea, Harare, Zimbabwe. [email: [email protected]]

Muriel Maficois Deputy Resident Representative, UNICEF, Swaziland, at 1st FloorLilunga House, Somhlolo Rd, Mbabane, Swaziland.

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the

views of their respective organizations.
http://isw.sagepub.com/

orphan journal (sage)

Documents