How does one evaluate the impact of an international human rights instrument such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)?

This was a key question for debate at the recent Fourth World Congress on Family Law and Children's Rights. The Childrens Institute (CI) attempted to address this question in one of its eight papers to the congress by focusing on South Africa's major poverty alleviation policies and programmes. The paper was authored by Annie Leatt and Solange Rosa, senior researcher in the Child Rights Programme.

Usually, member states' compliance with international conventions are judged by mechanisms such as plans, policies, laws and programmes that are put in place to translate the convention into the local legal framework. The United Nation's Innocenti Research Centre, for example, recently evaluated whether the CRC is adequately reflected in countries' laws, whether countries have established human rights watchdog bodies, and whether country reports on progress in implementing the CRC are submitted to the UN.

However, it is argued in the CI paper that the CRC can only claim to be effective when it actually results in a positive impact on the lives of children living in poverty and other difficult circumstances. Evaluating the implementation of domestic laws, policies and programmes is therefore essential for gauging whether a member state is complying with the Convention.

The paper particularly focuses on the situation of South African children living in poverty by presenting new research undertaken by the CI's Means to Live Project, which examines whether the targeting of poverty alleviation programmes is effective in reaching poor children. This research question is framed by Article 4 of the CRC, which states that "States Parties shall undertake all appropriate legislative, administrative and other measures for the implementation of the rights recognized in the present Convention."

A number of programmes in South Africa address child poverty, including the Child Support Grant, the School Fee Exemption Policy, the Primary School Nutrition Programme and the Free Primary Health Care Policy. These programmes are designed to help children directly. Other programmes, such as the Housing Subsidy Scheme or the Free Basic Water and Sanitation Policy, provide more indirect benefits to children via the household.

These policies are vital to families' financial security by firstly providing them with an income in a country where unemployment is at nearly 41% (using the expanded definition). Secondly, these policies also reduce the cost of caring for children by eliminating fees for school, health care and basic water and sanitation – to which all children are fundamentally entitled.

As far as the School Fee Exemption Policy is concerned, research shows that schools are not effectively helping poor children to get fee waivers when they are entitled to them. The reason for this is mostly that schools are not given supplementary finances to pay for teachers, buildings and other essential resources that are otherwise funded through school fees. Regarding the Free Basic Water Policy, research indicates that a large number of people who are not poor are inappropriately benefiting from this poverty alleviation mechanism.

CI research has established that the Child Support Grant is better targeted for poor children than the other policies, but that numerous problems are still associated with its related means test and some of its administration and planning.

The paper concludes that there is a long way to go before the government can claim that it has fulfilled its role as a duty-bearer towards children. South Africa is also not meeting its obligations under Article 4 of the CRC in using appropriate legal, administrative and other means to fulfil the rights of children. But, the CRC and the South African Constitution are useful tools in advocating for improved rights for children. It is therefore recommended that policy and law-makers conduct child impact assessments before making final policy choices.

To download the paper, click here.