Abstract
This paper explores child protection based on three factors; child abuse, child labour and child substance abuse. The analysis is based on a cohort of 17,848 vulnerbale households and the children in therein studied over a period of four years under the “sustainable comprehensive repsonses for vulnerable children and tehir families project” implemented in rural Uganda between 2011 and 2017. We find overall child protection factors mentioned above improved over the four years alongside household vulnerability. Howveer we observe that compared to the rest of the vulnerable households, the children who had experience child abuse, used susbanctes and alcohol and experience child labour were less likely to transition out of vulnerability compared to the others. We also found out that these children were less likely to be enrolled in school over the foru years and were more likely to be absent from school. We conclude that poor child protection indtcaors amongst the vulnerable children compound their household and individual vulnerability and increase the likelihood that their basic rights will be violated. We recommend that child protection issues, and child rights specifically should be brought at the forefront of all child protection interventions.
Highlights
Vulnerability is a widely used but elusive concept (Whitney, 2015)
We compare the improvement from vulnerability of vulnerable households which had children affected by child abuse, child labour, substance abuse or lack of school enrollment as compared to those without these factors
The findings show that after four years of working with children, child labour cases reduced from 26% to 5% (p
Summary
Vulnerability is a widely used but elusive concept (Whitney, 2015). The World Bank (2000) defines vulnerability as a high probability of a negative outcome or an expected welfare loss above a socially accepted norm. Pelling (2003) defines vulnerability as exposure to risk and an inability to avoid or absorb potential harm. Pelling (2003) defines vulnerability as exposure to risk and an inability to avoid or absorb potential harm. Vilagrán de León (2006), look at vulnerability in terms of its categories. In this context, he defines physical vulnerability as the vulnerability of the physical environment; social vulnerability as experienced by people and their social, economic, and political systems; and human vulnerability as the combination of physical and social vulnerability. He defines physical vulnerability as the vulnerability of the physical environment; social vulnerability as experienced by people and their social, economic, and political systems; and human vulnerability as the combination of physical and social vulnerability Both vulnerability and its antithesis, resilience, are determined by physical, environmental, social, economic, political, cultural and institutional factors (Prevention Consortium, 2007). Our measure of vulnerability incorporates both individual attributes of the child in question and household members as well as the characteristics of the household where the index child resides
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Canadian Journal of Children's Rights / Revue canadienne des droits des enfants
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
