A/HRC/31/33 D. Non-discrimination and reaching the most vulnerable and deprived children 18. It is the responsibility of States to analyse and take into account the diversity and varying vulnerabilities of children in all parts of their territory, to ensure that their policies and programmes are responsive to the rights of all children, prioritizing the most vulnerable and deprived among them. Studies have shown that rates of return on investment in children are higher and more worthwhile when targeted at vulnerable children. 14 19. States must also take into consideration the evolving needs of children at different ages, as well as the unique situations and vulnerabilities of different groups of children. A good example of this can be seen in Peru, where a life cycle approach is used in the analysis of federal budget allocations to children’s rights. The purpose of this approach is to quantify specific public investment in the three basic stages of childhood (early childhood, 0-5 years; children, 6-12 years; and adolescence 13-17 years) with the objective of supporting more specific public policies to achieve more effective enforcement of their rights at every stage.15 20. States must recognize that investing in child-sensitive social protection – including social assistance, social insurance, social service and social equity measures – is a key strategy for addressing child poverty and inequality. Such measures help to move children out of chronic poverty while also expanding their opportunities for survival, participation, protection and development.16 One example in this regard can be seen in Malawi, which in 2006 introduced an unconditional social cash transfer pilot programme that targeted the country’s most poor and labour constrained households. The programme led to household dietary diversification, increased demand for education and health care, and a drop of 23 per cent in illnesses among participating children. The effects on education included a 5 per cent increase in enrolment, increased educational expenditures per child, a one-day decrease in absences and a 10 per cent decrease in out-of-home work for intervention areas compared to children in control groups.17 21. Child-sensitive social protection programmes have also been launched in Bangladesh, India and Nepal, aimed at influencing and supporting Governments to reduce the vulnerability and poverty of children by ensuring that social protection measures lead to meaningful investment in children.18 As a result, the 10-year social protection framework of the Government of Nepal has been amended to reflect child-sensitive social protection as one of the working principles, and there have also been increased commitments in this area for orphaned children by local governments. 14 15 16 17 18 6 Nichoas Rees, Jingqing Chai and David Anthony, “Right in principle and in practice: a review of the social and economic returns to investing in children”, UNICEF Social and Economic Policy Working Paper, June 2012. UNICEF, Inversión pública en la infancia en América Latina y el Caribe: Sistematización de experiencias destacadas (Panama, 2014). African Child Policy Forum, African Report on Child Wellbeing 2013: Towards greater accountability to Africa’s (Addis Ababa, 2013), p. 66. Ibid. Save the Children Finland, Putting Child Sensitive Social Protection into Practice, discussion papers on Bangladesh, India and Nepal.