Gallery

Poverty: multidimensional in both its causes and consequences

Young Lives is an international study of childhood poverty following the changing lives of 12,000 children in Ethiopia, India (Andhra Pradesh and Telangana), Peru, and Vietnam over 15 years. In India, Young Lives is a collaboration between the University of Oxford, the Centre for Economic and Social Studies Hyderabad (CESS), Sri Padmavati Mahila Visvavidyalayam (Women’s University), Tirupati (SPMVV) and Save the Children India.

The images displayed are of children living in circumstances and communities similar to the children within our study sample. © Young Lives / Farhattulah Beig; Patricia Espinoza Revello; Sarika Gulati

Young Lives: breaking ground, shaping futures

Young Lives is a unique comparative, longitudinal study of children in low and middle-income countries. Designed to track progress against the United Nations Millennium Development Goals, and now against the Sustainable Development Goals, the study provides evidence for policymakers about children’s lives from early infancy into young adulthood.

Mixed methods capture the whole picture

Children and their families are at the heart of Young Lives’ research. Five survey rounds, in-depth interviews with a smaller group of children and school surveys combine to build up a rich picture of children’s lives and their experiences.

Focusing on Andhra Pradesh and Telangana

In India, Young Lives has followed the lives of 3,000 children and their families in 20 rural and urban communities across Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. Of these children, 1,000 were born in 1994-95 (Older Cohort) and 2,000 were born in 2001-02 (Younger Cohort).

Opportunities to tackle stunting

1 in 4 fifteen year olds (in the Young Lives Younger Cohort) suffer from stunting. Despite some improvements, the most disadvantaged children are still as likely to suffer stunting today as they were 15 years ago. Young Lives has shown that although the first 1,000 days following conception are critical for development and growth, stunted children can undergo catch-up growth even after the age of 5. This offers an opportunity for policy interventions.

Midday Meals support retention

The Midday Meal scheme provides significant nutritional benefits for children and Young Lives evidence shows that this intervention supports retention of children in school:

“The food is nice and the school is good” Deepak on the Midday Meal Scheme.  

Level up? Complex transitions through school

91% of our Younger Cohort were enrolled at the age of 15 and great progress has been made in expanded access to secondary schooling. However, for most children, learning levels remain poor across both public and low fee-charging private schools.

Missing employment opportunities

Despite rising levels of education, many young people are unable to secure stable employment. At age 22, young men, young people from Scheduled Castes, rural areas and the poorest households are most likely to be working.

Salman, a young man living in an urban area reflects: “In life, we have both good days and bad days. When we get up in the morning, we need 100 rupees in our pocket and when we sleep and get up again, 100 rupees should be there again.”

‘Whatever she may study, she can’t escape from washing dishes’

Where resources are limited and opportunities for girls scarce, parents make hard decisions about which of their children to support:

“Everyone around me said: ‘Why educate a girl?’ it is a waste. It is better that you send your son”: a mother reflects on the voices that influenced her decision on whether to educate her daughter.

Growing up fast: the responsibilities of adolescents

Although adolescence offers a ‘second window of opportunity’ to support development, girls’ and boys’ work and care responsibilities often make it difficult for them to succeed at school. Only 35% of twelve-year-old girls who spent three hours a day on domestic work went on to complete secondary education.

Child marriage

Gender becomes increasingly significant during adolescence. In United Andhra Pradesh, 28% of Young Lives girls were married before the legal age of 18 years. Girls who stayed in school until at least 15 years of age were less likely to marry as children.

Sarada, a 20-year old woman says: “My parents asked me to get married, but I told them that I want to pursue my education and I am not going to marry now… I want to live my life as a single woman. I like going to college and teaching at the night school.”

Talking about sexual and reproductive health

Social norms that encourage early child-bearing are compounded by inequitable access to health and education services with the vast majority of girls giving birth soon after their marriage. Young people who were married before the legal age reported having very little knowledge about family planning before pregnancy.

Poverty is a risk factor for early child-bearing

For most girls, marriage is swiftly followed by child-bearing: nearly two-thirds of married girls in the survey had given birth by age 19. The predictors of early child-bearing and early marriage are very similar: being enrolled in school at age 15 reduced the probability of early child-bearing by 21 per cent.

Experiencing risk and facing violence: child protection

Violence remains a feature of many children’s lives despite national and international attempts to reduce it both within the home and at school. In 2009, the vast majority (9 in 10) of eight-year-old students reported witnessing corporal punishment in school during the past week.

Taking stock: Young Lives India and the future

Since 2002, differences in household wealth based on location and caste have reduced over time. However, substantial inequalities persist between Other Castes on the one hand and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes on the other. Poorer households still typically experience more adverse events (such as family ill-health or environmental shocks) than richer households, yet are less likely to have the capacity to withstand these without negative impacts on children. Indeed, more households report vulnerability to economic shocks in 2016 than they did a decade prior.