Effectiveness of the child-at-risk protection system in Egypt: a fiscal and institutional perspective

Israa A. El Husseiny (Department of Economics, Faculty of Economics and Political Science, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt)
Amira Gamal El-Din (Sustainable Development Unit, Arab Academy for Science, Technology and Maritime Transport, Cairo, Egypt)
Khaled Zakaria Amin (Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Economics and Political Science, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt)

Review of Economics and Political Science

ISSN: 2631-3561

Article publication date: 23 May 2020

Issue publication date: 13 July 2021

Abstract

Purpose

This paper aims to fill a gap in the existing literature by shedding the light on four main issues. First, the relationship between child-at-risk protection and sustainable development and the key factors contributing to the failure or success of child-at-risk protection systems. Second, the main characteristics and limitations of the current institutional arrangements of the child-at-risk protection system in Egypt. Third, the budget allocations to child protection-relevant entities in Egypt. Fourth, the way forward to enhance the effectiveness of the child-at-risk protection system in Egypt.

Design/methodology/approach

The methodology used in this paper is of a qualitative nature. The authors relied on desk review of the international and national reports (including the un-published ones) and the relevant literature on the topic. Additionally, the authors reviewed the relevant laws and regulations and analyzed the fiscal data extracted from Egypt’s State budget. Also, semi-structured interviews were conducted with some officials from the different governmental entities covered by the study.

Findings

From the institutional perspective, the authors find that the current child-at-risk protection system in Egypt needs effective institutional arrangements, as it is attributed with the limited activation of the child protection committees, lack of coordination mechanisms and overlapping mandates with regards to case management. Hence, the authors propose two institutional approaches that could help in enhancing the performance of the current system. While the first approach has decentralized nature, the other is centralized. From the fiscal perspective, the authors analyze the trend and composition of the budget allocations to the child protection-relevant entities in Egypt. They show that such allocations are relatively small especially when items not related to child protection are excluded.

Originality/value

The paper analyzes the main characteristics and limitations of the current institutional arrangements of the child-at-risk protection system in Egypt. Moreover, it proposes two alternative institutional approaches to deal with such limitations and enhance the effectiveness of the current system. The paper also provides an analysis of the budget allocations to the child protection-relevant entities in Egypt. These issues have not been addressed sufficiently in the Egyptian context.

Keywords

Citation

El Husseiny, I.A., Gamal El-Din, A. and Amin, K.Z. (2021), "Effectiveness of the child-at-risk protection system in Egypt: a fiscal and institutional perspective", Review of Economics and Political Science, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 182-205. https://doi.org/10.1108/REPS-02-2020-0023

Publisher

:

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2020, Israa A. El Husseiny, Amira Gamal El-Din and Khaled Zakaria Amin.

License

Published in Review of Economics and Political Science. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode


1. Introduction

Recently, there has been a global interest by the international community in the protection of children against all forms of violence, abuse and exploitation, as a fundamental human right. Such global interest is manifested in the United Nations sustainable development goals (SDGs), which reaffirm that children’s development and protection come at the heart of the development process.

Yet, there are widespread difficulties in protecting children as many children across the globe and more specifically in developing nations, are still suffering from the risks of violence and all other forms of the harmful attitudes and practices, including abuse, neglect and exploitation. Additionally, the maltreatment of children is expected to be further exacerbated given the growing global trends of urbanization and adult and child migration, which all increase children’s vulnerability and exposure to risks of violence and exploitation (Delap, 2013). Such risks do not only have a detrimental impact on the children’s survival and development but also they constrain the nations’ ability to achieve inclusive economic growth and sustainable development (SAIEVAC, 2016; Boyden and Dercon, 2012). As such, investing in child-at-risk protection systems should receive a significant policy attention as it is expected to bring positive results for the well-being of children and for the societies they live in, in terms of reducing poverty and sustaining economic growth in the long-run (Boyden and Dercon, 2012; Richardson et al., 2017).

Egypt is one of the countries that recognized the importance of establishing child-at-risk protection systems in-line with the international agenda. This recognition originates from the exacerbated economic and social situation that led to an increase in risks facing children. Additionally, it should be highlighted that children represent a large segment of the population in Egypt. In 2018, the Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics (CAPMAS) declared that the total number of children (under 18 years) reached 38.9 million representing 40.1% of the total population (CAPMAS, 2018).

Despite the progress that Egypt has made on child protection issues, more efforts are needed regarding providing preventive mechanisms and ensuring social welfare for children. According to a study on the child multidimensional poverty in Egypt, MoSS, UNICEF and CAPMAS (2017), the deprivation in protection is the main contributor to child multidimensional poverty. Furthermore, in 2015, a study by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) showed that 84% of children between 2-14 years are exposed to physical and psychological violence in the governorates of Cairo, Alexandria and Assuit (NCCM and UNICEF, 2015). According to a survey conducted by the Ministry of Social Solidarity (MoSS), the number of street children reached 16,000 in 2014 (NCCM, 2015).

This deplorable and alarming situation requires institutional interventions and allocation of adequate resources to support the effectiveness of the child-at-risk protection system. There is a dearth of research on child-at-risk protection systems not only in Egypt but also around the world. Therefore, this paper attempts to fill the gap in the literature by shedding the light on four main issues. First, the relationship between child-at-risk protection and sustainable development and the key factors contributing to the failure or success of child-at-risk protection systems. Second, the main characteristics and limitations of the current institutional arrangements of the child-at-risk protection system in Egypt. Third, the budget allocations to child protection-relevant entities in Egypt. Fourth, the way forward to enhance the effectiveness of the child-at-risk protection system in Egypt.

The methodology used in this paper is of a qualitative nature. The paper relied on a desk review of the international and national reports (including the un-published ones) and the relevant literature on the topic. Additionally, the paper reviewed the relevant laws and regulations and analyzed the fiscal data extracted from Egypt’s State budget. Also, semi-structured interviews were conducted with some officials from the different governmental entities covered by the study.

The structure of this paper is as follows: Section 2 provides an overview on the relationship between child-at-risk protection and sustainable development and the institutional and fiscal aspects of child-at-risk protection systems. Section 3 reviews the current institutional arrangements of the child-at-risk protection system in Egypt and the proposed approaches to enhance them. Section 4 analyzes the budget allocations to the child protection-relevant entities in Egypt. Section 5 concludes incorporating the way forward for enhancing the current system.

2. Child-at-Risk protection: why does it matter and what are the main triggers?

This section discusses the importance of child-at-risk protection for sustainable development and analyzes the main “fiscal” and “institutional” triggers of child-at-risk protection systems.

2.1 Child-at-risk protection and sustainable development

Human capital research used to investigate the relationship between child development and economic and societal development. Some studies focused on examining the private and social returns to investments in children’s health, education and nutrition (for example, Moretti, 2005; Rolnick and Grunewald, 2003; Heckman and Masterov, 2007; UNICEF, 2012). Researchers have shown that investment in children does not only improve their well-being, quality of life and their personal earnings in adulthood but also it is imperative to create and sustain broad-based economic growth in the societies where they live in. Additionally, sustained economic growth, by itself, is expected to create the necessary conditions for the development of human capital in general and of children, in particular, allowing them to realize their full potentials (Boyden and Dercon, 2012).

Building on the achievements made under the UN Millennium Development Goals, the SDGs represent the first official global attempt to produce a multidimensional social progress framework for all countries of the globe, with the explicit intention of leaving no one behind (Richardson et al., 2017).

Although the SDGs focus mainly on sustainable development, they are closely linked to human rights in general and the rights of children in particular (Wernham, 2018). Indeed, two targets of SDG 16 (16.1 and 16.2) explicitly address the necessity to end exploitation, abuse, trafficking and all other forms of violence against children. As such, the empowerment of children and their protection from the risks of violence and exploitation have become essential elements for the effective achievement of the SDGs and the realization of their long-term development outcomes (Beqiraj and McNamara, 2016; SAIEVAC, 2016; Richardson et al., 2017).

In light of this context, Appendix 1 summarizes the synergies between child-at-risk protection and sustainable development. It elaborates how child-at-risk protection can affect (or be affected by) the realization of the SDGs, with a focus on areas of poverty, hunger, health, education, gender equality, economic growth and justice and institutions. As the appendix reveals, achieving the SDGs has the potential to reduce children’s exposure to risks of violence, abuse and exploitation. At the same time, securing the conditions favorable to children’s development and protection is conducive to the realization of a wide range of the SDGs and their targets.

More specifically, children exposed to risks of violence, neglect and exploitation tend to experience developmental delays; have mental, physical or psychological health issues; and are less likely to attend schools or achieve an acceptable level of educational attainment. This, in turn, would constrain the children’s ability to realize their full potentials and, consequently, would harm their employment prospects and earnings potential in adulthood, with the negative consequences on human capital, employment and economic growth. In addition, the lack of effective child-at-risk protection systems would reinforce the vicious cycle of poverty and inequality. In other words, while poor and discriminated against children are more prone to risks of violence, exploitation and abuse than their peers, being at risk, by itself, reinforces the children’s poverty and their likelihood to be discriminated against. As such, building effective and accountable institutions along with ensuring equitable access to justice by all should be considered as a key for the protection of child rights and for the realization of the positive outcomes of the SDGs in general.

Reviewing the relevant literature reveals that the significant link between child-at-risk protection and sustainable development has been recognized by many researchers and development institutions. For instance, Delap (2013) provided evidence on the essential role of child-at-risk protection in achieving the broader development goals and objectives relating to child survival and health, education, economic growth and equity. Similarly, a high-level round-table, held in Sri Lanka by the South Asia Initiative to End Violence against Children SAIEVAC (2016), addressed specific SDGs related to violence against children (through a South Asian lens) to inform policy objectives for achieving those goals.

Adopting a broader framework that looks at all children, not only those who are at risk, Richardson et al. (2017) measured and evaluated the progress of rich countries toward achieving the SDGs that seem to be most relevant to children. Based on the argument that the realization of the SDGs requires, as a prerequisite, the protection of human and child rights, Wernham (2018) presented a mapping for the linkages between each of the 17 SDGs and the UN’s Convention on Rights of the Child. Furthermore, Boyden and Dercon (2012) examined the linkages between children’s well-being and social and economic development. They shed light on the policy directions that can enhance the benefits of poor children from economic growth.

Focusing on child marriage as a core development and human rights issue, the Global Partnership to End Child Marriage (2017) analyzed the linkages between risks associated with child marriage and the SDGs, affirming the mutual effects between them. On another front, Beqiraj and McNamara (2016) investigated the linkages between the SDGs and access to justice by children, showing how improving access to justice can affect the economic and social well-being of children.

A recent joint report of ILO-UNICEF (2019) focused on the role of social protection systems in addressing child poverty and socio-economic vulnerabilities, presenting alternative options for financing child social protection schemes. In a similar context, Cluver et al. (2016) found that social protection provision (based on forms of cash and/or care support) is significantly associated with improvement in 12 out of 17 health-related indicators within five key SDGs amongst adolescents (10-18 years old) in South Africa, namely, hunger, health, education, gender equality and peaceful societies.

2.2 Institutional and fiscal aspects of child-at-risk protection systems

There is no doubt that systems are complex in nature and interrelated with other larger systems to achieve certain goals. Fundamentally, any system should include functions, structure and capacity (Wulczyn et al., 2010). Structure implies the institutional arrangement that draws the relationships between different actors in the system and helps facilitating its work to meet the intended goals. Moreover, capacity incorporates both human and financial capacities that help the system to function and operate properly.

UNICEF (2010) refers to the child protection system as a set of laws, policies, regulations, services, capacities, monitoring and oversight needed to prevent and respond to protection risks.

The characteristics of the child protection system differ from one country to another based on the existing context. Wulczyn et al. (2010) indicated that a well-functioning system is attributed with the flexibility, coordination and collaboration with the different stakeholders.

The effectiveness of child protection systems was under the focus of most international organizations such as, UNICEF and Save the Children. The latter identified several factors that affect the effectiveness of the child protection system. These factors include legal reforms, the role of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs), allocated resources, coordination among different actors, social mobilization and cultural changes (Save the Children, 2012).

In a gap analysis conducted to strengthen the child protection system in sub-Sahara Africa, a number of lessons learned were identified. These lessons include the importance of law enforcement, the indispensability of formulating laws that are consistent with the local context, the importance of resource mobilization, the intrinsic role of CSOs, the significance of building the capacity of social workers, the great role of monitoring and evaluation and importance of coordination mechanisms (Training Resource Group and Play Therapy Africa, 2012).

Additionally, a study evaluating the child protection unit and social welfare system in Albania emphasizes on the importance of decentralization to ensure effective child protection system. The child protection, according to this study, should be an integral part of the local level functions (Westwater and Jovanovic, 2009).

It is worth mentioning that, as child-at-risk protection systems are embodied within the child protection systems, the authors considered that attributes of the child protection systems mentioned in the literature (characteristics, requirements, challenges and factors of success) are applicable to the child-at-risk protection systems as well.

3. Child-at-risk protection system in Egypt: an institutional perspective

Incontrovertibly, institutions play an imperative role to facilitate and enable child-at-risk protection services, as without well-functioning institutions, the services would be feeble. This section provides an overview on the current institutional situation of child-at-risk protection system in Egypt and proposes two institutional approaches to deal with the limitations of the current situation.

3.1 Current institutional arrangements of child-at-risk protection

Egypt was the 11th state to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) in 1990. Moreover, Egypt signed the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography in 2002. Egypt also ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the involvement of children in armed conflict in 2007.

Egypt is considered one of the first countries that translated the UNCRC into a national law, Child Law No. 12/1996 and its amendments by Law No. 126/2008. The law tackles different issues regarding child protection, one of which is dealing with child-at-risk.

As previously mentioned in Section 2, the child-at-risk protection system is complex and full of entanglements. This nature is clearly reflected in the Egyptian system, as it incorporates different stakeholders at the national and local levels. The conducted interviews revealed that the relationship between the different actors is attributed with tension and conflict, which, among other factors, restrict the effectiveness of the system. The current institutional setup of child-at-risk protection system in Egypt is presented in Figure 1.

Article 97 of the Child Law No. 126/2008 grants the General Child Protection Committees (GCPCs) the responsibility of drawing up child protection policies and following up on their implementation at the governorate level. The same Article confers the Child Protection Committees (CPCs) with the responsibility of identifying and intervening in child-at-risk cases, at the district level. While the GCPCs and CPCs are granted, by Law, the responsibility for child protection, they do not have executive arms to undertake the case management and follow-up on cases. Also, their establishment and activation process is facing significant difficulty.

The MoSS contains four sub-sectors, namely, Social Insurance, Pensions, Subsidies and Social Affairs. The Ministry’s Social Affairs Sector (MoSS-SAS) is concerned with different activities, one of which is child protection. For instance, MoSS-SAS is responsible for dealing with children in conflict with law, counseling, overseeing and monitoring the care institutions and outsourcing some services to Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). In addition, MoSS-SAS is responsible for formulating the overall policies of social protection. At the governorate level, MoSS has 27 directorates for social affairs, in addition to social affairs departments at the district level.

According to the Presidential Decree No. 54/1988, the National Council for Childhood and Motherhood (NCCM) is responsible for proposing child protection policies, following up on the implementation of child protection strategies, proposing training programs, collecting data and information and collaborating with the government and NGOs and agencies working in the field of child protection.

As indicated by the conducted interviews, the mandates of MoSS-SAS and NCCM regarding the child protection overlap in a way that has negatively affected the effectiveness of the current institutional arrangement. For instance, the MoSS, in general, draws the social protection policies that include child protection, while NCCM has the mandate of proposing the child protection policies and strategies.

Additionally, the child-at-risk protection mechanism cannot function in isolation from other specific service providers, which play a vital role in dealing with child-at-risk cases. For instance, the Ministry of Interior immediately intervenes to take the child out of risk and is responsible for transferring the child to the child court when needed. Also, the Ministry of Health provides medical services in government hospitals when necessary and submits official reports to the prosecutor in some child-related cases. The Ministry of Justice and its affiliated child court set and implement rules and regulations to protect the best interest of the child.

Furthermore, the role of NGOs cannot be neglected. The interviews revealed that, in the current institutional setup, the NGOs are sourced out to provide the case management and other services to children at-risk such as, shelters, psychological support and counselling. They also help in compensating the lack of well-trained and competent government’s social workers and the limited number of supporting jobs such as, legal advisors who can work with child-at-risk cases. Nevertheless, it should be highlighted that the absence of a clear body responsible for the child-at-risk protection mechanism, as a result of conflicting roles and responsibilities, has contributed to the poor coordination among the service providers. The interviewees stressed on the importance of having an effective coordination mechanism to facilitate the process of child-at-risk protection.

Recognizably, despite the efforts of the Egyptian government and its commitment to protecting children, the current institutional arrangements for child-at-risk protection show the limited activation and effectiveness of GCPCs and CPCs at the local level; the weak coordination among different stakeholders involved in the child-at-risk protection; the insufficiency of full time and well-trained social workers in the relevant government agencies; and the overlapping mandates regarding the management of children-at-risk cases.

This convoluted situation requires institutional interventions that guarantee the effectiveness of the child-at-risk protection system. Two institutional approaches to deal with the current situation are proposed in the following sub-section.

3.2 Proposed institutional approaches to improve child-at-risk protection system in Egypt

To facilitate the provision of child protection services, an effective child protection system is required. This section sets out two approaches to have an effective institutional structure of the child-at-risk protection system in Egypt. The first approach envisages the establishment of new child protection bodies within the Governorates’ General Diwans (headquarters). The second approach foresees the establishment of new child protection bodies within the Social Affairs Directorates and Departments, which are affiliated to MoSS. More elaboration on each approach is provided below.

3.2.1 Approach 1: New Child Protection Department within the Governorate.

The first proposed institutional approach of the child-at-risk protection system manifests a decentralized approach to a great extent, as it puts emphasis on empowering the local administration with the decision-making regarding child-at-risk protection. Clearly, decentralized systems are ascribed with their effectiveness and efficiency because of their closeness to local citizens’ preferences. Therefore, the importance of this approach emanates from the need to have a more effective system. This approach proposes the following institutional arrangements:

  • To establish a Child Protection Department at the governorate level – affiliated to the Governorate’s Diwan (headquarter) and under it, a Child Protection Division in each district; and

  • To establish an NCCM office at the governorate level.

The proposed Child Protection Departments and Divisions, as illustrated in Figure 2, will act as the operational arms “secretariat” of the GCPCs and CPCs, respectively and coordinate with service providers to ensure the best interests of the child-at-risk. Meanwhile, the NCCM office will provide technical guidance and support to the GCPCs and CPCs and the to-be-established departments and divisions. The departments at the governorate level will be headed by a qualified social work manager, while the divisions will constitute of a senior social worker heading a team of social, legal and psychological workers to ensure that all needed services and requirements for case management process are covered.

To ensure these institutional arrangements provide effective child protection services, the roles and responsibilities of the key players need to be clear. Mainly the role of the GCPCs and CPCs would be activated according to the Law. The service providers will designate focal points to work with the departments and divisions. Appendix 2 provides the detailed proposed roles and responsibilities under approach 1.

3.2.2 Approach 2: New Child Protection Department within the Social Affairs Directorate.

The second proposed approach for enhancing the child-at-risk protection system relies to a great extent on benefiting from the existing institutional arrangements. This approach recommends the following institutional arrangements:

  • To establish a Child Protection Department at the governorate level affiliated to the existing Social Affairs Directorate and under it, a Child Protection Division in each district.

  • To establish an NCCM office at the governorate level.

  • To establish a technical secretariat for each GCPC and CPC.

As captured by Figure 3, this approach does not differ significantly from the first approach in terms of the structure and functions of the proposed child protection system. However, the primary difference is that new child protection departments and divisions at the governorate and district levels would be formed within the already existing Social Affairs Directorates and Departments, respectively. The main rationale for this approach is that such Directorates and Departments already provide various services related to child protection and employ a significant number of social workers. Hence, locating the child protection system with such entities would strengthen their existing role with regards to child protection and avoid any potential duplication.

As in Approach 1, the child protection departments and divisions will act as the operational arms of the GCPCs and CPCs and coordinate with service providers to ensure the best interests of the child. The proposed technical secretariat within the GCPCs and CPCs will act as the link between the committees and departments/divisions, especially in the cases that need intervention based on the legal authority of the GCPCs or CPCs. It is recommended that the head of the technical secretariat should be a staff member with a professional background in social work. The NCCM office will provide technical support and assistance to the departments, divisions, technical secretariat, GCPCs and CPCs.

The to-be-established bodies in this approach almost have the same roles and responsibilities of those of the first one, with slight difference especially with the establishment of the technical secretariat, which will play the coordination role between the departments/divisions and the committees. Appendix 2 provides the detailed proposed roles and responsibilities according to this approach.

The two approaches have a slight difference with regards to accountability. In both approaches the proposed child protection departments and divisions will be accountable to the NCCM for compliance with the child protection strategies, standard operational procedures (SOPs) and any other technical issues. This can be referred to as the technical accountability. In terms of the administrative/operational accountability (reporting, follow up and other administrative activities) the two approaches differ. In Approach 1, the child protection departments and divisions will be accountable to the Governorate’s Diwan, whereas in Approach 2, they will be accountable to the Social Affairs Directorates and Departments of MoSS-SAS. This is illustrated in Figure 4.

One can notice that the two approaches incorporate the establishment of new entities, which will incur higher cost on the budget. This might be true in the short-term, but for the long-term it will ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of the system and it will guarantee higher social return on the community.

3.3 Advantages and disadvantages of the two approaches

Indisputably, each of the two proposed approaches has its advantages and disadvantages. The first approach is likely to be a more decentralized approach that is aligned with the mandates provided to GCPCs and CPCs in the Child Law. Hence, such a setup will assure the sustainability of the child protection mechanism, as it will be integrated within the functions of the governorate. However, the disadvantages of this approach include that appointing new social workers will be difficult, specifically with the limited funds available for the governorates. Also, the governorates may not put the child protection issues as a priority.

The second approach has the advantage in the existence of MoSS-SAS offices at the local level, which will not incur high costs. In addition, to that, MoSS-SAS already has the capacity to deal with different child protection cases through different departments, the monitoring and evaluation tools, the leverage to appoint social workers and the capacity to collect relevant data. On the other hand, MoSS-SAS is not mandated with childhood issues only and has other activities and priorities.

4. A budget analysis of the social protection sector in Egypt with a focus on child protection-relevant entities

This section provides an analysis of the budget allocations to the “social protection” functional sector in Egypt, with a particular focus on those entities that are the most relevant to child protection. The analysis is based on estimates of the State’s General Budget issued by the Ministry of Finance (MoF). It covers the period from fiscal year (FY) 2014/2015 to FY 2018/2019.

It is noteworthy that the budgeting system in Egypt follows the “line-item” approach rather than the “program-based” approach. Accordingly, one cannot derive a precise estimate of the total budget allocations to child protection in general or to child-at-risk protection in particular. An approximation of that estimate, however, can be reached based on a given assumption regarding the specific percentage, that is, directed to child protection (or child-at-risk protection) out of the total budget allocations to the relevant entities.

4.1 Budget allocations to the “social protection” functional sector in Egypt

The “social protection” sector represents the second most important functional sector in Egypt’s State Budget. Based on the budget estimates and as shown in Figure 5 (and Appendix 3), this sector has accounted for almost 23.4% of the total public expenditure and around 7% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), during the five-year period of analysis, in average.

Between FY 2014/2015 and FY 2018/2019, total budget allocations to the “social protection” sector decreased in absolute real terms (by around 28%) [1], as a relative share in total public expenditure (from 27.5% to 21.1%) and as ratio of GDP (from 8.8% to 5.7%), as indicated by Appendix 3. This came in favor of the two functional sectors of “public and general services” and “housing and public utilities”. Indeed, the relative share of “public and general services” in total public expenditure has increased significantly from around 34% to around 47% and that of the “housing and public utilities” sector from 2.8% to 3.8%, between FYs 2014/2015 and 2018/2019.

From the one hand, the rise in the relative share of the “housing” sector in total public expenditure reflects the expansion in the Government’s mega projects and investments in the social housing program and in the relevant public utilities, including water and sanitation. From the other hand, the data indicates that budget allocations to “public debt transactions” increased significantly from 25.1% to 37.8% of total public expenditure, between FYs 2014/2015 and 2018/2019, which was the main driver of the significant rise in the relative share of the “public and general services” sector.

4.2 Budget allocations to child protection-relevant entities in Egypt

According to the administrative classification system of Egypt’s State Budget, the budget of each functional sector is divided into three main components, namely,

  • central administration (Ministry’s headquarter);

  • local administration (service directorates at the Governorate level); and

  • affiliated public service authorities.

Table 1 presents the budget authorities [2] that correspond to each administrative level of the “social protection” sector in Egypt.

As the “social protection” sector in Egypt incorporates a wide range of services and activities that might be out of the current study’s scope, the fiscal analysis in this section is limited to those entities, which are assumed to be the most relevant to child protection. These entities include MoSS-SAS, Directorates of Social Affairs at the Governorate level and NCCM.

According to the estimates of Egypt’s State Budget and as reflected in Table 2, the mentioned child protection-relevant entities have been allocated around LE 13.2bn during the five-year period of analysis, in average. This amount represented around 5.3% of total budget allocations to the “social protection” sector, 1.2% of Egypt’s total public expenditure and 0.4% of GDP, in average. Those ratios would definitely become smaller if budget allocations to the activities that are non-relevant to child protection are excluded from the budgets of the examined entities.

As indicated in Table 2, overall budget allocations to the child protection-relevant entities in Egypt were increasing during the period under analysis, as a relative share in the “social protection” sector’s budget and in total public expenditure.

Table 2 also reflects the fact that while the budget allocations to MoSS-SAS have been increasing (as a percentage of the total budget allocations to child protection-relevant entities), those of the Social Affairs Directorates have been decreasing. This trend was mainly driven by the significant rise in the budget allocations to “social security benefits” item in MoSS-SAS budget that accompanied the introduction and expansion of the social solidarity pension (Takaful and Karama) [3]. This situation is alarming given the fact that Social Affairs Directorates, rather than MoSS-SAS, are the entities responsible for the direct provision of child protection services. It also contradicts with what was stipulated in the Egyptian Constitution regarding the necessity of the gradual shift toward a fiscally decentralized system, according to which the local administration units should be given a relatively high power in expenditure and revenue mobilization decisions.

The following sub-sections introduce further analysis on the budget composition of each of the three main entities under our scope.

4.2.1 Budget allocations to the Ministry of Social Solidarity-Social Affairs Sector.

According to the estimates of Egypt’s State Budget and as presented in Table 3, total budget allocations to MoSS-SAS averaged around LE 11bn during the five-year period under analysis, 98.3% of which has been directed to Chapter 4 “subsidies, grants and social benefits”. This chapter is mainly dominated by the “social benefits” group and more particularly the “social security benefits” item, which covers the expenses of the social solidarity pension (i.e. Takaful and Karama), child pension and other sub-items.

As can be noted from the data presented in Table 3, the relative share of Chapter 6 investments” in the budget of MoSS-SAS was negligible (around 0.3% during the period of analysis in average). This fact indicates that the financial resources that would be available to undertake the investment activities that are needed to improve the availability and quality of child-at-risk protection services at the national level are relatively poor.

If budget allocations to Chapters 1, 3 and 5 (which are not relevant to child protection) are excluded and assuming that around 40% of the budget allocations to Chapters 2, 4 and 6 is directed to child protection-relevant programs and activities, child protection-relevant budget of MoSS-SAS would reach around LE 4.4bn, in average.

4.2.2 Budget allocations to the directorates of social affairs at the governorate level.

As indicated by Table 4, the total budget allocations to the Directorates of Social Affairs averaged around LE 2.1bn during the five FYs under analysis. Chapter 1 “wages and salaries” has dominated the local administration’s budget as it accounted for almost 89.1%, in average. The remaining 11% was distributed between Chapter 4 “subsidies, grants and social benefits”, Chapter 2 “goods and services” and Chapter 6 “investments”.

Within Chapter 4, the group of “grants” had the greatest relative share (around 97.4% in the two FYs 2015/2016 and 2016/2017 in average) and was solely allocated to the “grants for general government entities”. The share of “social benefits” group in this chapter, however, was negligible and was mainly allocated to the two items of “social benefits for governmental employees” and “service expenses for non-governmental employees”. As such, the majority of the budget allocations to this chapter is non-relevant to child protection.

Excluding the budget allocations to Chapters 4 and 5 (which have no relevance to child protection) and assuming that around 40% of the budget allocations to Chapters 1, 2 and 6 is directed to child protection-relevant programs and activities, child protection-relevant budget of the Directorates of Social Affairs would reach around LE 791m, in average.

4.2.3 Budget allocations to the National Council for Childhood and Motherhood.

As mentioned previously, the NCCM represents the main public service authority with a significant relevance to child protection in Egypt. As shown in Table 5, the total budget allocations to NCCM has averaged around LE 36.7m during the five-year period of analysis. The data indicates that the entity’s total budget allocations has decreased both in absolute terms and as a ratio of total budget allocations to child protection-relevant entities between FYs 2014/2015 and 2018/2019.

As for the structure of NCCM’s budget, Table 5 indicates that while Chapter 6 “investments” had the greatest relative share in the three FYs 2014/2015, 2015/2016 and 2016/2017, the situation has reversed in the two FYs 2017/2018 and 2018/2019, where the relative share of Chapter 1 “wages and salaries” has dominated. This trend has its own implications for the quality of the services provided by this entity. Moreover, a closer look at the structure of the “investments” chapter reveals that the majority of the budget allocations to this chapter was directed to the “miscellaneous” item under the group of “other non-financial assets”. In contrast, the share of the “fixed assets” group in this chapter was relatively small (around 2.2% in FY 2016/2017).

Assuming that half of the budget of NCCM (excluding Chapter 5) is allocated to child protection-relevant programs, child protection-relevant budget of NCCM would reach LE 17m.

To sum up, child protection-relevant entities were allocated around LE 11bn, representing 1.2% of total public expenditure and 0.4% of GDP, in average. Because of the absence of a program-based budgeting approach in Egypt, the authors could not identify the specific amount of budget funds allocated to child protection. Under very arbitrary assumptions based on the percentage share of children in total population and the scope of the examined entities’ activities, the authors argue that average child protection-related budget allocations can be as low as LE 5.2bn (representing 0.5% of total public expenditure and 0.1% of GDP). Yet, those estimates seem to be overestimated as well.

It is noteworthy that child protection is one of the least well-resourced sectors not only in Egypt but also in many other developing countries. For example, child protection represents around 0.035% of the total expenditure of the union government in India and around 1% of the total government budget allocations in Ghana (Delap, 2013). In Malawi, the visible child protection budget is equivalent to around 0.068% of the total Government budget and about 0.017% of GDP, in 2018/19 (UNICEF, 2018). In Yemen, total child protection-related expenditure represented around 0.75% of total government expenditure and 0.3% of GDP, during 2009-2012, in average. Furthermore, according to the ILO-UNICEF joint report in 2019, while expenditure on social protection for children represents around 2.5% of GDP in Europe, it accounts for 0.1% of GDP in North Africa.

5. Conclusion

This paper presents the two-way relationship between child-at-risk protection and sustainable development. Achieving the SDGs has the potential to reduce children’s exposure to different forms of risks through securing the conditions favorable to children’s development. In return, protecting children from the various risks of violence, abuse and exploitation is expected to enhance the realization of a wide range of the SDGs.

Moreover, the paper shows that child-at-risk protection system in Egypt needs to be improved through well-designed institutional interventions and adequate allocation of financial resources.

From the institutional perspective, the authors argue that the current child-at-risk protection system needs effective institutional arrangements, as it is attributed with the limited activation of the CPCs, lack of coordination mechanisms and overlapping mandates with regards to case management. Hence, it proposes two institutional approaches that could help in enhancing the performance of the system.

Inevitably, the implementation of each of the proposed approaches encounters some challenges that should be taken into consideration. One of the main challenges is the capacity. Implementing an effective child-at-risk protection system needs adequate financial, human and physical resources. On the one hand, the financial resources available to child protection-relevant entities (through the State Budget) are limited. On the other hand, the new departments and divisions need well-trained staff and social workers who can undertake the case management process and deal with the unusual cases. Furthermore, physical infrastructure, in terms of space and equipment, is needed to support the child protection system. Additionally, the weak coordination mechanism between the operational bodies and the service providers could threaten the effectiveness of the system.

Dealing with those challenges requires the development of coordination and referral mechanisms to facilitate communication among different stakeholders. In this regard, the NCCM could develop service guides and provide a coordination mechanism among different service providers. It could also support in building capacity and providing leaders with tailored programs on the importance of child protection. In addition, the NGOs have a vital role in providing awareness programs to the community and supporting the child protection departments and divisions in the case management process.

From the fiscal perspective, child protection-relevant entities are classified within the Social Protection functional sector, the second most important sector in Egypt’s State Budget. The analysis reveals that these entities together have been allocated around LE 13.2bn, during the five-year period of analysis (81.6% to Social Affairs Sector at MoSS, 18.1% to Directorates of Social Affairs and around 0.3% to NCCM). This overall amount represented a small share in the total budget allocations to the Social Protection Sector, total public expenditure and GDP, estimated by around 5.3%, 1.2% and 0.4%, in average, respectively. Yet, given the lack of a program-based budgeting approach in Egypt, an estimate of the exact budget allocations to child protection (and more specifically to child-at-risk protection) is difficult to reach. Under very arbitrary assumptions based on the percentage share of children in total population and the scope of the examined entities’ activities, the authors argue that average child protection-relevant budget allocations can be as low as LE 5.2bn (representing 0.5% of total public expenditure and 0.1% of GDP).

Undoubtedly, the recent efforts of the Egyptian government to follow the program-based budgeting approach should not only reflect in increased efficiency and effectiveness of government expenditures but also would allow for better and more precise estimates of the budget allocations that affect particular segments of the population, like children. The idea is that in program-based budgeting, funds are allocated to “programs” rather than to “line-items”. Hence, budget allocations to a given entity in a specific year is a function of its success in achieving the intended objectives of its various programs in the previous year, based on key performance indicators. As such, this approach improves the prioritization of government expenditure by allocating the scarce resources to the most productive areas. Furthermore, program-based budgeting is a necessary condition for developing what is known as “child-responsive” or “child-friendly” budget, which allows civil society and decision-makers to examine and track the budget resources that the government allocates to programs that benefit children in the various areas of health, education, nutrition and social protection (including child-at-risk protection).

The current detrimental situation of the child-at-risk protection system necessitates institutional changes and more allocation of financial resources. A suitable institutional form that helps in flourishing the current system needs to be determined. Additionally, benefiting from other sources of financing such as, corporate social responsibility and philanthropy – through effective coordination mechanisms – would help in supporting the efficiency of the system. This requires tightening the relationship and building partnerships with the private sector and CSOs. In addition, coordination mechanisms should be in place to coordinate the child-at-risk protection efforts. Moreover, capacity building programs are required to help in enhancing the system. Finally, a strong political will that guides the embodiments and mainstreaming of child-at-risk protection into the national policies and plans is crucial.

This paper tackled the fiscal and institutional aspects of the child-at-risk protection system in Egypt. Further research is needed with regards to costing the proposed institutional approaches, exploring other sources of their financing and examining the real role of CSOs in child-at-risk protection in Egypt.

Figures

Current institutional setup of the child-at-risk-protection system in Egypt

Figure 1.

Current institutional setup of the child-at-risk-protection system in Egypt

Approach 1 – institutional arrangements

Figure 2.

Approach 1 – institutional arrangements

Approach 2 – institutional arrangements

Figure 3.

Approach 2 – institutional arrangements

Technical and administrative accountability in the two approaches

Figure 4.

Technical and administrative accountability in the two approaches

Egypt’s public expenditure by functional classification: average relative shares of the five-year period (2014/2015-2018/2019)

Figure 5.

Egypt’s public expenditure by functional classification: average relative shares of the five-year period (2014/2015-2018/2019)

Structure of the “social protection” functional sector in Egypt by administrative classification

Administrative levelRelevant budget authorities
Central administration MoSS, including social insurance, pensions, subsidies and social affairs sub-sectors.
Ministry of Supply and Internal Tradea
Local administration 27 Directorates of Social Affairs at the Governorate level
Public service authorities The NCCM
The National Council for the Care of Martyrs’ Families and Injured
The National Council for Disability Affairs
The National Center for Sociological and Criminological Research

Notes:

a

It is noteworthy that while the Ministry of Supply and Internal Trade is classified within the “social protection” functional sector, the Directorates of Supply and Internal Trade at the Governorate level are classified within the “economic affairs” functional sector

Source: Table is developed by the authors based on the Functional and Administrative Classifications of Egypt’s State Budget, MoF

Budget allocations to the child protection-relevant entities: relative shares of the five-year period (2014/2015-2018/2019)

Expenditure entity/FY 2014/2015 2015/2016 2016/2017 2017/2018 2018/2019 Five-year period average
MoSS-SAS (%) 74.8 77.1 77.9 88.4 89.8 81.6
Directorates of Social Affairs (%) 24.7 22.5 21.7 11.4 10.1 18.1
NCCM (%) 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.3
Total budget allocations to child protection-relevant entities
(LE million)
8,673 9,113 9,813 17,956 20,291 13,169
As % of budget allocations to the social protection sector 4.0 4.3 5.2 6.0 6.8 5.3
As % of total public expenditure 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.5 1.4 1.2
As % of GDP 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4

Note: Table is developed by the authors based on the State’s General Budget estimates published by MoF and the GDP (at factor cost) preliminary data published by the Ministry of Planning and Economic Development

Budget allocations to MoSS-SAS: relative shares by expenditure chapters

Expenditure chapter/FY 2014/2015 2015/2016 2016/2017 2017/2018 2018/2019 Five-year period average
Wages and salaries (%) 1.1 1.2 1.2 0.6 0.5 0.9
Goods and services (%) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2
Interests (%) 0.01 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.4
Subsidies, grants and social benefits (%) 98.2 98.0 98.0 98.5 98.6 98.3
Other expenditures (%) 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.0 0.0 0.001
Investments (%) 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.03 0.1 0.3
Total budget allocations to MoSS-SAS
(LE million)
6,484 7,025 7,640 15,878 18,213 11,048

Note: Table is developed by the authors based on the State’s General Budget estimates, MoF

Budget allocations to the directorates of social affairs: relative shares by expenditure chapters

Expenditure chapter/FY 2014/2015 2015/2016 2016/2017 2017/2018 2018/2019 Five-year period average
Wages and salaries (%) 89.0 90.4 90.0 88.3 87.8 89.1
Goods and services (%) 2.8 3.0 2.9 3.0 3.0 2.9
Interests (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Subsidies, grants and social benefits (%) 4.3 4.8 5.2 5.6 5.6 5.1
Other expenditures (%) 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03
Investments (%) 4.0 1.7 2.0 3.0 3.6 2.9
Total budget allocations to the Directorates of Social Affairs
(LE million)
2,141 2,046 2,131 2,051 2,053 2,084

Note: Table is developed by the authors based on the State’s General Budget estimates, MoF

Budget allocations to NCCM: relative shares by expenditure chapters

Expenditure chapter/FY 2014/2015 2015/2016 2016/2017 2017/2018 2018/2019 Five-year period average
Wages and salaries (%) 28.0 35.2 34.7 57.9 67.7 44.7
Goods and services (%) 3.9 4.8 4.7 7.1 8.7 5.8
Interests (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Subsidies, grants and social benefits (%) 0.0 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.04
Other expenditures (%) 3.7 6.0 7.8 10.1 9.2 7.3
Investments (%) 64.4 54.0 52.8 24.9 14.4 42.1
Total budget allocations to NCCM (LE million) 47.8 41.9 42.8 26.9 24.3 36.7

Note: Table is developed by the authors based on the State’s General Budget estimates, MoF

SDGs and child-at-risk protection

SDGs and targetsLinkages with child-at-risk protection
Goal (1): no poverty
Targets: 1.1; 1.2; 1.3; 1.4; 1.5
Children at risk have lower chances to receive quality medical and educational services; therefore, they are less productive and lack access to labor market. This perpetuates the vicious cycle of poverty across generations
Poverty increases the likelihood that children are exposed to various forms of risk, including those associated to early marriage
Goal (2): zero hunger
Targets: 2.1; 2.2
Children at risk usually fail to access nutritious food, which has a detrimental effect on their current and future well-being and on the societies where they live in
Children with limited food resources, who suffer from hunger or malnutrition and live in poor conditions, tend to have serious developmental issues (i.e. poor health and school performance) and may be involved in risky activities for the sake of food provision
Goal (3): good health and well-being
Targets: 3.1; 3.2; 3.4; 3.5; 3.7; 3.8
Inadequate protection of children against risks is associated with a variety of health problems. These problems include higher rates of infant and maternal mortality associated with early child marriage; greater involvement of children in unhealthy practices such as smoking and harmful alcohol consumption; and increased long-term physical, mental or psychological health issues (i.e. suicide, depression and obesity)
People with mental or psychological health issues are more likely to be engaged in child-harmful activities such as assaulting or beating children
Goal (4): quality education
Targets: 4.1; 4.2; 4.5; 4.7; 4.A
Children who are exposed to risks at home or in schools (i.e. corporal punishment and bullying) are less likely to go to school and if they do so they tend to either dropout at early stages or have learning difficulties because of their developmental delays, which constrains their educational attainment
Children who are out of school are more exposed to risks than those who are in schools. In addition, illiterate and less educated families are more likely to be engaged in child-harmful practices and are less likely to be aware of the consequences of such practices than their more educated counterparts
Goal (5): gender equality
Targets: 5.1; 5.2; 5.3; 5.C
Girls are more likely to be taken out of school to marry and/or work at home, which increases their exposure to risks of abuse, sexual violence and exploitation
Achieving gender equality mainly through empowering young girls; increasing their accessibility to education; and improving their awareness regarding protection measures from the harmful discriminating practices of sexual, physical or psychological violence (i.e. early marriage and trafficking), is expected to help in breaking the vicious cycle of gender-based discrimination and violence
Goal (8): decent work and economic growth
Targets: 8.1; 8.2; 8.3; 8.5; 8.6; 8.7; 8.B
Child protection is a key to sustain economic growth and ensure productive employment. Violence and exploitation damage children’s mental and physical development, which negatively affects their employment prospects by limiting their capacity to contribute to the economy. Furthermore, the financial resources that governments spend to support child victims reduce the economic growth potential of the respective economies
Economic growth secures, through raised tax revenues, the financial resources needed to ensure sustainability of child-at-risk protection schemes and services
Promoting employment and ensuring decent job opportunities contribute to reducing the child risks, as involvement in activities that endanger children is associated to high unemployment and inactivity rates especially among the youth
Goal (10): reduced inequalities
Targets: 10.1; 10.2; 10.3; 10.4
The negative impact that violence and exploitation have on children’s educational and health outcomes and on their employment prospects in the adulthood, perpetuates the vicious cycle of poverty and inequality
Children in poor, rural and disadvantaged areas have less access to social services (including child-at-risk protection schemes and justice) and hence, are more prone to risks compared to their peers in rich areas. Thus, reducing income inequality within countries and providing equitable access to justice for all contribute to protecting children from the various risks, mainly by increasing their overall well-being and allowing them to develop to their full potentials
Goal (12): responsible Consumption and production
Target: 12.8
Children at risk usually live in deprived areas, belong to low-income families and have less accessibility to quality education. Hence, those children tend to have unsustainable consumption patterns, as they might be less aware of sustainable development, environmental issues and lifestyles in harmony with nature
Goal (16): peace, justice and strong institutions
Targets: 16.1, 16.2; 16.3; 16.6; 16.9; 16.A; 16.B
Protecting children from risks significantly contributes to making societies more peaceful
Insuring provision of effective, accountable and transparent institutions relevant to child-at-risk protection (i.e. enforceable laws and regulations; coordination among key stakeholders; accountability; transparency) contributes to the effectiveness of child-at-risk protection systems
Insuring access to justice is a prerequisite for the realization of child rights and their protection against all forms of risks, as children at risk have less access to justice and/or are more likely to be unfairly treated by the justice sector than their peers
Goal (17): partnerships for the goals
Target: 17.1
Strengthening domestic resource mobilization and improving domestic capacity for tax and other revenue collection, are essential for securing the financial resources needed to implement effective child-at-risk protection mechanisms
Note:

By risks, we mean all forms of violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect that children can be exposed to

Source: This table is developed by the authors based on: UN-SDGs (https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org); Delap (2013), Boyden and Dercon (2012); and Richardson et al. (2017)

Roles and responsibilities of the key players under the two institutional approaches

Roles and responsibilities
Entity/ committeeApproach 1Approach 2
GCPCs Convene once every two months (in emergency cases the Social Work Manager in the Child Protection Department can request the Governor, as head of the GCPC to call an extraordinary meeting)
Take decisions regarding the unusual or unresolved cases forwarded by CPCs
Communicate with the directorates of service providers’ entities to support the case implementation
Report to NCCM office on the implementation of child protection strategies
Monitor the work and performance of the CPCs and Child Protection Department
Review the reports sent by the CPCs and the Child Protection Department
Child protection departments Follow the rules and procedures developed by NCCM
Communicate and coordinate with the NCCM office at the governorate level to provide technical support to the Child Protection Department and divisions
Provide operational support and advise to Child Protection divisions
Transfer the cases reported through Child Helpline to the relevant divisions
Plan and co-ordinate with the relevant service providers to ensure adequate services are available within the Governorate
Implement the mechanism for coordinating with service providers developed by NCCM
Act as secretariat to the GCPC
Make recommendations on how to resolve the unusual and unresolved cases submitted by the CPCs for the GCPC to consider
Report monthly to the GCPC
Request the head of GCPC to convene extraordinary meetings as required
The same as for Approach 1, with different reporting style:
Report to the Head of Social Affairs Directorate
Coordinate with the technical secretariat to request the head of the GCPC to convene extraordinary meetings as required
CPCs Delegate its authority to the staff of the Child Protection Departments and Divisions as necessary to ensure the effective delivery of child protection services
Convene once a month (in emergency cases the Senior Social Worker in the Child Protection Division can request the head of the CPC to call an extraordinary meeting)
Communicate with service providers to support the case implementation
Ensure that the cases are handled according to the roles and procedures of the Child Protection Division
Take decisions regarding unusual cases
Transfer the unusual cases to GCPC, which cannot be resolved at the local level
Investigate and respond to all complaints regarding the work and performance of the Child Protection Division
Monitor the work of the division through receiving a monthly report on the cases and progress of each case
Provide progress report to the GCPC through the Child Protection Department
Child protection divisions Follow the rules and procedures developed by NCCM
Take responsibility for case management
Communicate with the NCCM office at the governorate level
Plan with and coordinate with the relevant service providers to ensure adequate services are available within the district
Implement the mechanism for coordinating with service providers developed by NCCM
Request operational support and advise from the Child Protection Department
Act as secretariat to the CPC
Report monthly to the CPC
Request the head of the CPC to convene extraordinary meetings as required
The same as for Approach 1, with different reporting style:
Report to the Head of Social Affairs Department
Coordinate with the technical secretariat to request the head of the CPC to convene extraordinary meetings as required
GCPC and CPC technical secretariats Not applicable Act as a link between the department and GCPC
Technical secretariat within GCPC should report every two months to GCPC
Act as a link between the division and CPC
Technical secretariat within CPC should report monthly to CPC
Facilitate the procedures of dealing with cases referred to the respective committees
Social affairs directorates Not applicable Receive reports from child protection departments
Monitor the performance of the child protection departments
Respond to all complaints regarding the work and performance of the child protection department
Ensure that the Child Protection Departments work within the overall child protection policy
Social affairs departments Not applicable Receive reports from child protection divisions
Monitor the performance of the child protection divisions
Respond to all complaints regarding the work and performance of the division
Ensure that the child protection divisions work within the overall child protection policy
Service providers Work with NCCM to develop a coordination and referral mechanisms of child protection
Follow the coordination and referral mechanisms developed by service providers and NCCM
Appoint focal points for child protection to communicate and coordinate with the Child Protection departments/divisions to achieve the best interest for the child
Report any cases of child at-risk to the concerned division
Provide the case manager with a follow up report on the case on quarterly basis
NCCM Develop the policies and strategies of child protection
Develop criteria and standards for the child Helpline
Develop the SOPs to departments, divisions, GCPCs and CPCs
Develop the terms of references to the new NCCM office, departments and divisions
Provide technical support through its offices to the child protection departments/divisions, GCPCs and CPCs
Provide capacity building to key players
Provide recommendations when needed to GCPCs and CPCs regarding the unusual cases
Work with service providers to develop a coordination and referral mechanisms for child protection cases

Note: Table is developed by the authors

Egypt’s public expenditure by functional classification: Relative shares in total public expenditure and in GDP

2014/ 2015 2015/2016 2016/2017 2017/2018 2018/2019 Period average
Functional sector/FY % of total exp. % of GDP % of total exp. % of GDP % of total exp. % of GDP % of total exp. % of GDP % of total exp. % of GDP % of total exp. % of GDP
General and public services 34.21 10.9 37.12 12.0 39.03 11.2 40.94 11.4 47.29 12.8 39.72 11.7
Defense and national security 4.98 1.6 5.00 1.6 4.84 1.4 4.30 1.2 4.17 1.1 4.65 1.4
Public order and public safety 4.94 1.6 5.15 1.7 5.21 1.5 4.56 1.3 4.33 1.2 4.84 1.4
Economic affairs 4.45 1.4 4.84 1.6 4.47 1.3 4.45 1.2 4.30 1.2 4.50 1.3
Environment protection 0.21 0.1 0.26 0.1 0.20 0.1 0.16 0.0 0.15 0.0 0.20 0.1
Housing and public utilities 2.78 0.9 2.93 0.9 8.07 2.3 4.71 1.3 3.75 1.0 4.45 1.3
Health 5.37 1.7 5.20 1.7 5.02 1.4 4.55 1.3 4.34 1.2 4.90 1.5
Youth, culture and religious affairs 3.59 1.1 3.54 1.1 3.27 0.9 2.57 0.7 2.48 0.7 3.09 0.9
Education 11.95 3.8 11.48 3.7 10.67 3.0 8.87 2.5 8.12 2.2 10.22 3.0
Social protection 27.53 8.8 24.48 7.9 19.22 5.5 24.90 6.9 21.06 5.7 23.44 7.0
Total public expenditure (LE million) 789,431 864,564 974,794 1,207,138 1,424,020 1,051,989

Note: Table is developed by the authors based on the State’s General Budget estimates published by MoF and the GDP (at factor cost) preliminary data published by the Ministry of Planning and Economic Development

Notes

1.

The percentage change in real terms is calculated based on the Headline Consumer Price Index (CPI) data derived from the database of the Central Bank of Egypt (www.cbe.gov.eg).

2.

By budget authorities, we mean those budget units that have the authority to negotiate with the MoF on their budget allocations.

3.

This program represents one of the main social protection programs, launched in 2015 and implemented by the MoSS. The general aim of this program was to mitigate the potential negative impacts of the economic reform procedures on the poor and most vulnerable segments of Egypt’s population. The program comprises of conditional (i.e. Takaful) and unconditional (i.e. Karama) cash transfers mainly to poor, elderly and disabled people (www.moss.gov.eg).

Appendix 1

Table A1

Appendix 2

Table A2

Appendix 3

Table A3

References

Beqiraj, J. and McNamara, L. (2016), “Children and access to justice in the agenda for sustainable development”, Briefing Paper by the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, International Bar Association.

Boyden, J. and Dercon, S. (2012), “Child development and economic development: lessons and future challenges”, Young Lives – An International Study of Childhood Poverty, available at: www.younglives.org.uk

CAPMAS (2018), Press Release on the Occasion of the World Child Day, available at: www.capmas.gov.eg/Pages/SearchGeneral.aspx?Search_id=%u0627%u0644%u064a%u0648%u0645+%u0627%u0644%u0639%u0627%u0644%u0645%u0649+%u0644%u062d%u0642%u0648%u0642+%u0627%u0644%u0637%u0641%u0644

Cluver, L.D., Orkin, F.M., Meinck, F., Boyes, M.E., Yakubovich, A.R. and Sherr, L. (2016), “Can social protection improve sustainable development goals for adolescent health?”, PLoS One, Vol. 11 No. 10, p. e0164808, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0164808.

Delap, E. (2013), “Protect our future: why children protection matters in the post-2015 development agenda”, IssueLab, available at: www.issuelab.org/resource/protect-my-future-why-child-protection-matters-in-the-post-2015-development-agenda.html

Heckman, J.J. and Masterov, D.V. (2007), “The productivity argument for investing in young children”, NBER Working Paper No. 13016.

ILO-UNICEF (2019), “Towards universal social protection for children: achieving SDG”, 1.3’, ILO-UNICEF Joint Report on Social Protection for Children.

Moretti, E. (2005), “Social returns to human capital”, NBER Reporter: Research Summary.

MoSS, UNICEF and CAPMAS (2017), “Understanding child multidimensional poverty in Egypt”.

NCCM (2015), “Childhood and motherhood strategy: 2015-2020”.

NCCM and UNICEF (2015), “Violence against children in Egypt: a quantitative survey and qualitative study in the governorates of cairo, alexandria and assuit”.

Richardson, D., Brukauf, Z., Toczydlowska, E. and Chzhen, Y. (2017), “Comparing child-focused sustainable development goals (SDGs) in high-income countries: indicator development and overview”, UNICEF, Office of Research – Innocenti Working Paper WP-2017-08.

Rolnick, A. and Grunewald, R. (2003), “Early childhood development: economic development with a high public return”, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, available at: www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/fedgazette/early-childhood-development-economic-development-with-a-high-public-return

SAIEVAC (2016), “Implementation of the sustainable development goals relating to ending violence against children in South Asia”, High-Level Round-Table Meeting, South Asia Initiative to End Violence against Children (SAIEVAC), An Apex body of South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), 14-15 March, Colombo.

Save the Children (2012), “Progress in child well-being: building on what works”, A Report Commissioned from the Overseas Development Institute.

Training Resource Group and Play Therapy Africa (2012), “Strengthen child protection system in Sub-Sahara Africa”, Working Paper.

The Global Partnership to End Child Marriage (2017), “How ending child marriage is critical to achieving the sustainable development goals”, Girls not Brides, available at: www.girlsnotbrides.org

UNICEF (2010), “Child protection systems: mapping and assessment toolkit – user’s guide”.

UNICEF (2012), “A brief review of the social and economic returns to investing in children”, Policy Advisory Unit- Division of Policy and Strategy.

UNICEF (2015), “Child budget analysis in Yemen 2015”, available at: www.unicef.org/socialpolicy/files/CBA_Eng_rev8_for_printing_final_2_2_2015.pdf

UNICEF (2018), “2018/19 Child protection budget brief: building inclusive productive and resilient communities in Malawi”, available at: www.unicef.org/malawi/media/1951/file/ChildProtectionBrief.pdf

Wernham, M. (2018), “Mapping the global goals for sustainable development and the convention on the rights of the child”, UNICEF, available at: www.unicef.org/albania/reports/mapping-global-goals-sustainable-development-and-convention-rights-child-0

Westwater, G. and Jovanovic, V. (2009), “Evaluation of child protection unit intervention within framework of social welfare system reform and decentralization of social service processes in Albania”, Austrian Development Cooperation and UNICEF.

Wulczyn, F., Daro, D., Fluke, J., Feldman, S., Glodek, C. and Lifanda, K. (2010), “Adapting a systems approach to child protection: key concepts and considerations”, UNICEF, UNHCR, ChapinHall and Save the Children.

Corresponding author

Israa A. El Husseiny can be contacted at: israa_adel_feps@yahoo.com