Developing and Testing Feasibility of an Integrated Intervention Preventing Family Separation and Improving Child Protective Outcomes Among Ultra-Poor Families in Burkina Faso

Introduction: Extreme poverty heightens children’s risk of being separated from family or exposed to violence and exploitation. Approximately 1.25 million children in Burkina Faso are working to augment family income. In search of better opportunities and unaware of the risks, parents send their children away for work in gold mines, cotton fields or cacao plantations in Ivory Coast, Niger or other countries. Living outside of family care increases children’s vulnerability to violence and exploitation, including exposure to the Worst Forms of Child Labor (e.g. slavery, debt bondage, transactional sex, forced or hazardous work). Girls are particularly at risk for transactional sex and sexual abuse, when working as domestic servants or maids. Humanitarian agencies often use economic approaches (microfinance, cash transfers, skills training, etc.) to shore up household economies. However, the impact of family-based economic interventions on children’s welfare to prevent family separation has rarely been tested.

Methods: This evaluation study uses a 3-arm cluster randomized control design to evaluate the effect of women’s economic empowerment intervention and the additive effect of a locally-developed child protection sensitization program on child protective outcomes. The study takes place in the Nord Region of Burkina Faso, characterized by extreme poverty and an ongoing food and nutrition crisis due to cyclical droughts. To recruit participants, 12 impoverished villages were selected based on comparable socio-demographic characteristics (e.g., poverty ranking, food insecurity, population). Within each village, families living in ultra-poverty were identified using a Participatory Wealth Ranking exercise. Each selected household included a female primary caregiver with a child between the ages of 10-15 (N=360 women and N=360 children). To minimize cross-arm contamination, randomization occurred at the village level to assign households to three study arms: Trickle Up (economic intervention only), Trickle Up Plus (economic empowerment plus child protection sensitization component) or the waitlist condition. This paper examines feasibility and acceptability of the intervention.

Results: All households were classified as ultra-poor (e.g., reported having no electricity) and 80% experience moderate to severe hunger (e.g., going to bed hungry, going without a meal for the entire day). The majority of participants were Muslim, 3% of mothers were literate and 40% lived in polygamous marriages with 2 other wives. About 70% of children reported being exposed to hazardous labor (e.g., carrying heavy loads, being exposed to toxins or chemicals) and 12% reported that work is interfering with school. About 4% reported being separated from their families due to work in gold mines or domestic work. When separated from families, children worked about 40 hours a week. The study discusses the intervention development and implementation process as well as participants’ acceptability, perceived usefulness and participation in both intervention components.

Conclusions: Graduation approach to moving people out of poverty has previously demonstrated an impact on households' food security, savings, assets, income and consumption. This study suggests that linking economic strengthening strategies with child protection interventions may be critical and feasible in the contexts of humanitarian crisis to stabilize families during high-risk periods and prevent family separation, child labor and child abuse.