1. Evidence and gaps in research on children “left behind”
Dr. Victor Cebotari
UNICEF Office of Research
Bucharest, 20 November 2018

2. Top 20 European migrant countries (IOM World Migration Report 2018)

3. The main outcome of migration
The commonality of transnational families, that in which some members of the family migrate and some remain back home
RO = aprox. 2,5% din totalul copiilor conform Direcţia Generală de Asistenţă Socială şi Protecţia Copilului DGASPC, peste 6% conform ISJ şi aprox. 10% conform unor ONG-uri (Save the Children)

4. Theory
Money and time are crucial resources that parents and other family members can provide for children [Thomson, Hanson, & McLanahan, 1994]
Migration is a family strategy to improve the wellbeing of family members (Stark & Bloom 1985)
Along these lines, migration comes with benefits and costs for children

5. Most evidence confines migration to its effects on material resources
Remittances in Europe and Central Asia 2017 (IMF and WB data)

6. Gaps in evidence on children left behind
We know little of this population of children!
Children live in complex family arrangements
Internal – international migration
Multidimensional perspective on child wellbeing
Longitudinal data and evidence
Adults report on children – no child voices
Context specific evidence

7. What are the current trends in terms of child wellbeing?
Education: performance, attainment, enrollment, years lag, school enjoyment
Health: subjective, objective
Psychological: Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire - SDQ, other
Perceptions of migration
Multidimensional
Comparing children in migrant and non-migrant families
Looking at child reports and caregiver reports compared
Children with different migration experiences
Complexity of care arrangements

8. Children left behind are doing rather well when…
One parent migrant, the other parent caregiver (especially when the mother is the caregiver)
Stability of care (child does not change caregiver)
Short duration of absence
Remittances, especially when they are used to invest in children
Good quality relationship between the child and migrant parent
Legal residence/work permit abroad
Use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT)
Expectation of reunification

9. Risk factors Migration + Divorce Gender – i.e. girls
Child changes caregiver
The child’s primary caregiver is absent, or child is alone
Tension between migrant parent and the caregiver of the child
Child is a returnee

10. Current Policy Actions
Limited nationwide policy frameworks targeting specifically children left behind!
National action plans on migration (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Moldova, Albania, Serbia, others), State commissions on migration (Georgia), or inter-institutional working groups (Romania) have components on children left behind
Focus on strategic framework, migration management, and observance of children’s rights
Children left-behind are integrated in social protection systems
Small-scale actions by national and international stakeholders

11. Discussion Bottom-up approach
Linking evidence and policy actions
Parental migration is not always a vulnerability for children
Dynamic process
Natural tendency among children and families to build resilience
Country and context specific
Relevant empirical evidence
Focus on gaps and risks
Formal and informal child protection actions

12. Thank you! vcebotari@unicef.org www.unicef-irc.org florence@unicef.org
Connect with us on: