Consultant Terms of Reference - Child-Sensitive Social Protection (CSSP) at Save the Children

Review Objective/Questions

How to become more effective in influencing national as well as local policies for greater adoption of CSSP is the key question for this review. To answer this broad question, several specific questions need to be answered including

• What are the different types of CSSP being adopted in low- and middle-income countries? This classification may include dimensions such as – the nature of “child sensitivity”, national/local CSSP, initiated by the government or other actors, targeted vs. universal etc.
• What contextual and procedural factors played critical roles in adoption of CSSP?
• What are the key entry points for Save the Children to promote CSSP vs. social protection coverage in general?
• Which strategic approaches are likely to be more successful in resulting adoption different forms of CSSP and in which contexts?

Method

This review is expected to include literature/desk review, key informant interviews and case studies. While the consultant will propose methods based on rigour and practicality, this section gives a few broad ideas. Literate on policy influence can provide conceptual framework as well as evidence for effective strategies to influence policy. For example, Oxfam (2020) report argues that developing an effective influencing strategy should include - 1) engaging people from the outset, 2) context and gender (disability as well) analysis, 3) understanding and analysing power, 4) focus areas for influencing, 5) power mapping, 6) choosing strategies and tactics, 7) evidence. A paper by Mayne et al (2018) focuses on use of evidence in policy influence to identify three of the key ways - “Evidence is more likely to influence policymakers when presented to them during ‘windows of opportunity’, when they are motivated to pay attention to and solve a problem”, “Identify the actors with the power to change policy, and the actors able to influence policymakers”, and “Use a wide array of tools to communicate effectively”.

The conceptual distinctions between general social protection and CSSP can also draw on both the literature on social protection and desk review of social protection policies. It is anticipated that the review will conduct “deep-dive” on a few cases of CSSP. These case studies can be on a few selected CSSP based on – a) whether it is a new social protection policy with limited child sensitivity, b) new CSSP policy/programme, c) incorporating child sensitivity in an existing social protection programme.

Key informant interviews should cover stakeholders from advocacy and campaigns, policy makers, practitioners, and researchers. The focus of these KIIs should be on their experience and views of how to effectively bring policy changes towards adoption of CSSP. A workshop can be organized to validate the findings and recommendations on strategies for CSSP. The consultant can also propose children’s participation in this work based on the need and/or feasibility of engaging children in the process.

Expected Deliverables

• Inception report outlining the approach/ methodology, workplan and contents of the report
• A report following the outline agreed in the inception report
• A workshop to validate the report

Study Management

The consultant(s) will work closely with the CSSP Technical Working Group and other relevant Policy Advocacy, MEAL and Programming colleagues. 

Team and Selection Criteria

The review can be conducted by an individual consultant or by a team of consultants with a lead consultant. To be considered, the team member(s) must have demonstrated skills, expertise, and experience in:

• Conducting strategy reviews on topics related to children’s wellbeing
• Demonstrated familiarity with social protection and CSSP literature
• Sound understanding of advocacy and campaign strategies
• Conducting ethical and inclusive studies involving marginalised, deprived and/or vulnerable groups in culturally appropriate and sensitive ways
• Managing and coordinating a range of government, non-government, community groups and academic stakeholders