Investing in children in times of crisis: Long-term vision or forgotten priority? | Experts’ Opinions

The first years of life are transformative not only for the child, but for an entire society. Investing in this crucial period is proven to have higher returns in the future, building the foundations for a more prosperous society and economy. However, although this is the most important window of opportunity, children nowadays still face a significant number of challenges and barriers, despite the hard work and initiatives conducted by governments or international development organisations. According to UNICEF reports, hundreds of millions of children continue to face severe poverty, lacking access to nutrition, healthcare, early learning, safe housing, and protection services. Lately, with all the funding cuts in the international development sector, will investing in children still be seen as a long-term priority, or will it be replaced with crisis management spending? As the world marks International Children’s Day today, take a minute to reflect on this topic along with the experts who have shared their opinions with us.

DevelopmentAid: What are the top challenges and opportunities facing children globally today from an international development perspective?

“The convergence of risks across systems is the fundamental problem facing children around the world. Risks and challenges facing children are multifaceted; the pressures of poverty, conflict, climate shocks as well as financial instability are not isolated phenomena. They intertwine, and children encounter them at the same time, compounding vulnerability and undermining long-range development results. Globally, nearly 333 million children live in extreme poverty, over 240 million are out of school (UNESCO), and data from UNICEF shows over 45 million children under five suffer from wasting (being too thin for their height, editor’s note). These are not distinct crises. They are interconnected outcomes of fragmented and underperforming systems. This is reflected in development contexts as persistent learning poverty, increasing numbers of out-of-school children, child abuse, including harmful child labor and limited access to quality health, nutrition, education, protection and safety services. The situation is much more acute in humanitarian settings. Systems tend to be fragile, nonexistent or collapsed. Field experience in settings like Sudan, Nigeria, Iraq illustrates how displacement interrupts education, weakens safety systems, separates children from families and also puts children at increased risk of mental health issues, violence, neglect and exploitation. The solution lies in radically rethinking the design and delivery of responses. The risks faced by children are intertwined, and responses should reflect this reality. More efficient and sustainable results can be achieved through integrated, system-strengthening strategies that connect protection, health, education, agriculture, food security and livelihoods, Multipurpose cash assistance and social protection. Strengthening national systems, investing in prevention, and prioritising child-centered policies are no longer optional. They are essential for achieving lasting impact at scale.”

“In my experience working with the provincial government and tracking program budgets under FCDO and UNDP-funded projects in Sindh, the honest answer is NO. Child-focused allocations are among the first to absorb cuts when fiscal pressure mounts and they rarely have the political constituency that infrastructure or security spending enjoys. What makes this particularly damaging is that the costs show up years later in the form of stunted development outcomes, reduced workforce productivity and overstretched health systems. Development partners can do more than fill financing gaps. From my M&E work I have seen that robust public expenditure tracking and transparent reporting genuinely shift the conversation inside governments. When data on service delivery failures is made visible to civil society and media it becomes politically harder to deprioritise children. Conditional financing mechanisms that ring-fence child nutrition and early childhood budgets during fiscal downturns deserve much wider adoption. The goal should be making these cuts institutionally costly rather than the default response to budget pressure.”

“One of the persistent challenges still affecting children globally is multidimensional poverty, which not only limits their access to nutrition, clean water, and education but also reduces their capacity for socio-emotional development, mental health stability, and the understanding of moral values. However, there are significant opportunities where low-cost mobile technology can play an important role by enabling learning and health services to reach remote areas, supported by global commitments that advance the SDGs and encourage youth activism, forcing governments to prioritize children on their political agendas.”

“The greatest challenge facing children today is convergence. Poverty, conflict, climate shocks, displacement, and learning loss are no longer separate crises — they are colliding in the lives of children at the same time. For millions, childhood is becoming defined not by protection and possibility, but by repeated disruption and deprivation. The opportunity, however, is just as real. We know what works: good nutrition, quality health care, safe housing, early learning, social protection, and responsive caregiving. We also know that investments in children produce some of the highest returns a society can make. The real question is whether the world is willing to act on what it already knows. If children are placed at the centre of development policy, they will not simply survive this era of instability — they will help shape stronger, fairer, and more resilient societies. In that sense, investing in children is not only a moral duty. It is one of the clearest tests of development leadership.”

“Emerging human rights show that rights are not static but continuously reshaped by changing realities. In this context, it is necessary to examine how policies on children are evolving in the digital age. Children today grow up in an environment very different from that in which many existing regulations were designed. However, in many countries, protection systems remain largely unchanged. The 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child was created in a pre-Internet world. Although General Comment No. 25 (2021) acknowledged the impact of the digital environment on children’s rights, there is still no comprehensive international treaty regulating child digital governance in the age of artificial intelligence. This reveals a structural gap in global governance, where human rights frameworks exist but lag behind rapid technological change. Evidence from UNICEF and child development research suggests that unregulated digital exposure may have profound and lasting effects on children’s mental health and cognitive development, with potential consequences at the societal level. This highlights an urgent policy challenge: international frameworks must evolve at the same pace as digital technologies to ensure adequate protection of future generations, requiring strengthened international cooperation through multilateral mechanisms supporting states with capacity constraints in addressing global challenges.”

“The current geopolitical climate is one of the greatest threats to mankind and, more particularly to children globally. Ongoing conflicts such as the Russia–Ukraine War and the Israel–Hamas War, along with war involving the United States, Iran, and Israel, have created an environment of fear, instability, and deep uncertainty for millions of children. A crisis of ethical leadership and the normalization of prolonged conflict have made the world increasingly disturbed and fragile. The United Nations has verified over 315,000 significant violations against children in conflict between 2005 and 2022, an alarming testament to the scale and severity of harm inflicted through war. Nearly one in five of the world’s children live in areas affected by conflicts, with more than 473 million children suffering from the worst levels of violence since the Second World War, according to figures published by the UN. Climate change has emerged as a defining threat to children’s futures. It is not an illusion anymore; it has become a lived reality shaping health, education, and livelihoods. The poor are more affected and so are their children. Children are disproportionately affected by extreme weather events, food insecurity, water scarcity and air quality. In many parts of the world, climate shocks are pushing families into distress migration and forcing children out of school. Unfortunately, Satabhaya of Odisha (India) became the 1st village to face climate-induced displacement and the villagers were rehabilitated in another place. Another critical challenge lies in the evolving nature of education. While enrolment rates have improved globally, learning outcomes remain alarmingly low. This means that many children spend years in school without acquiring foundational skills. And with the expansion of digital education, the situation is worsening. Access to digital tools became essential for learning continuity, yet millions of children were left behind due to lack of connectivity, devices, or supportive learning environments. As per the UNICEF report of 2025, 1.3 billion school-age children (ages 3–17) still do not have internet access at home, this is about two-thirds of all children globally. The age-old gender discrimination and inequality still affect children a lot. Though global poverty has declined over the decades, disparities within and across countries remain as it is. Millions of children still lack access to basic nutrition, healthcare, and education, particularly in remote areas, among the indigenous groups. Even if the services exist, they are often uneven in quality. A child born in a rural or marginalized community is far more likely to experience stunting, learning poverty, and limited life opportunities compared to their urban or wealthier peers. This inequality is increasingly intergenerational, locking children into cycles that development efforts struggle to break. As per the news of Reuters, 4.9 million children under 5 died in 2024 and 1 in 8 girls globally experience sexual violence before 18.”

DevelopmentAid: In the current geopolitical context, are governments doing enough to protect child-focused budgets, and how can development partners help keep child wellbeing at the centre of policy and financing decisions?

“Globally, child-focused budget spending remains very vulnerable to financial pressure. Commitments to wellbeing, social protection, child protection, and education are usually constrained by shrinking fiscal space, rising debt burdens, inflation, along with sporadic budget execution. While policy frameworks regularly prioritise children, financing doesn’t constantly follow. At exactly the same time, humanitarian needs consistently climb, with worldwide funding requirements exceeding fifty billion US$ but remaining significantly Underfunded based on UNOCHA. This gap translates straight into weakened access to essential services for children. In crisis-affected and fragile settings, the effects are immediate. Systems don’t adjust slowly to funding shocks. They deteriorate quickly, resulting in disruptions in training, overstretched health systems, and also decreased safety products to address the greatest needs. Addressing these effects calls for a change in the approach. Development partners have to move beyond short-term financing cycles and support system-level resilience. This comprises strengthening public financial management, improving expenditure tracking and transparency, and also supporting governments to prioritise and also ring fence child focused investments inside national budgets. Ultimately, the issue is not only how much funding is available, but how consistently and effectively it is translated into sustainable outcomes. Protecting child wellbeing requires aligning policy commitments with sustained, accountable financing that delivers measurable results for children.”

“No, most governments are not adequately protecting child budgets. Post-pandemic fiscal austerity, rising debt servicing, and geopolitical conflicts have led to disproportionate cuts in education, health, and child social protection.

Development partners could consider several alternatives:

• Promote innovative financing mechanisms, such as debt-for-child-investment swaps.
• Strengthen the capacity of policymakers and civil society to audit budgets from a rights-based approach.
• Invest more in community-based organizations, given that international cooperation is heavily skewed toward large NGOs that do not always make appropriate use of the funds received.
• Develop technological mechanisms that allow greater inclusion of civil society in monitoring the use of resources allocated to children.”

“In too many countries, child-focused budgets are not being protected strongly enough. Under pressure from debt, inflation, insecurity, and shrinking aid, spending on children is often treated as flexible. But cutting nutrition, health, education, or protection does not reduce costs — it postpones them, often at a much higher human and economic price. Development partners can help by defending child-sensitive budgeting, protecting core social services during fiscal stress, and reminding policymakers of a simple truth: spending on children is not charity, and it is not consumption. It is long-term nation-building. Budgets tell the truth about priorities. If children are the first to lose when fiscal pressure rises, then child wellbeing has not yet been placed where it belongs — at the centre of policy and financing decisions. A serious commitment to development must include a serious commitment to protecting children, especially when conditions are hardest.”

“Yet, alongside these challenges lie significant opportunities. Advances in technology, if used inclusively, can transform access to education, healthcare, and social protection. Digital platforms can bridge gaps in service delivery, enable personalized learning, and amplify children’s voices in ways previously unimaginable. However, this requires deliberate investment in digital equity and safeguards. But the world is busy engaging in wars and most of the leaders are paying less attention to these issues. Investments in nutrition, stimulation, and care during the early years are increasing, but the use of resources is still a challenge. Similarly, the rise of youth-led movements, particularly around climate action, politics and social justice, signals a shift from viewing children as passive beneficiaries to recognizing them as active agents of change. The recent Gen Z movements in Nepal and Sri Lanka, perhaps showing a way. But youths of other countries need to learn from this. The mental health and psychosocial well-being of children and adolescents are receiving recognition, but remain significantly underfunded and stigmatized across many countries. Development approaches have historically focused on physical needs such as food, shelter, health and education while often neglecting the emotional and psychological dimensions of child development. Though the issue is getting recognition, still there is a dearth of resources and competent manpower to address the issue. The future of children in the global development landscape depends on how well systems can adapt to complexity. While the nations have failed to address the age-old issues, the new issues are emerging. This requires political will, sustained investment, and a shift in perspective, alas will that happen soon? I doubt it. We are busy fighting, engaging in conflicts and spending a lot on that.”

DevelopmentAid: Are governments investing enough in parenting support or are families being left alone to navigate today’s child wellbeing crises?

“Parenting support is still among the least-invested areas of child well-being globally. However, evidence indicates it’s among the most impactful. According to the WHO, an estimated 1 billion children experience violence every year. The majority of violence against children was associated with stress in households going through social, displacement, and poverty disruption. Families are likely to face escalating pressure with limited structured support across contexts. This is exacerbated in humanitarian settings where displacement, loss of livelihoods as well as breakdown of community structures put caregivers under considerable stress. In the meantime, a lot of children are separated from their parents and in danger of losing parental care. Foster parents, as well as alternative caregivers, play a crucial role that is often overlooked in this situation. Kinship care along with other family-based options offer continuity, stability, and protection for children who can no longer stay with their biological parents in urban and humanitarian settings. Financial, psychosocial, or case management solutions are rarely prioritized or provided sufficient support to these caregivers. The challenge is also developing. As policy responses to digital risks lag practice, children are becoming more and more exposed to digital risks – from harmful content to online exploitation. Child outcomes are significantly improved by parenting programs connected to social protection as well as mental health services, according to evidence from UNICEF and Save the Children International. These parenting programs continue to be underfunded and inadequately scaled. If systems are to protect children, they must first support families and all forms of caregiving. Strong child protection systems are built around supported families and caregivers.”

“During my work on reproductive health and family planning programs across 30 districts of Sindh, I consistently observed that the moment a child was born the institutional support for that family effectively ended. Parenting in the early years received almost no structured government attention yet the evidence is clear that caregiver responsiveness in the first five years shapes brain development in ways that no later intervention can fully compensate for. Families today are navigating flood displacement, economic insecurity and rising digital pressures without adequate public infrastructure behind them. Community-level family support programmes do exist and some show strong results but they are almost always dependent on donor funding and rarely reach scale. What is needed is a reframe: parenting support treated as a core pillar of social protection rather than a charitable add-on. This means integrating structured parenting guidance into primary healthcare contacts, investing in community family centres in high-vulnerability districts and ensuring continuity of support beyond the first postnatal visit.”

“In general, governments invest very little in parenting support. There are no comprehensive parental support programs to accompany child development at home, leaving families, especially single mothers and households in poverty, without tools to manage stress, child mental health, non-violent discipline, or early stimulation.”

“In many places, families are still being left on their own. Parenting is often described as a private responsibility, but child wellbeing is deeply shaped by public policy. Parents cannot provide stable, nurturing care if they are overwhelmed by poverty, stress, poor mental health, unsafe environments, or the absence of childcare and support services. That is why parenting support should be seen as essential development infrastructure. It includes paid family leave, maternal and child health services, mental health support, early childhood programmes, and community-based guidance for caregivers. Supporting parents is one of the most practical and cost-effective ways to improve outcomes for children. The earliest years of life shape everything that follows. If we want children to thrive, we must stop expecting families to absorb every shock alone. Strong families need strong systems around them. Parenting support is not a soft issue on the margins of policy — it is central to how nations protect childhood itself.”

DevelopmentAid: What are the main benefits and risks of integrating AI into children policies?

“Artificial intelligence presents a significant opportunity to strengthen child-focused systems, particularly in early warning, case management, education planning, and service targeting. In complex and resource-constrained environments, AI can support faster identification of at-risk children, detect patterns of vulnerability, and improve the precision of interventions. This enables a shift from reactive programming to more anticipatory, data-driven responses, which is critical in both development and humanitarian contexts where needs evolve rapidly. AI can also enhance monitoring systems, improve allocation of limited resources, and support more evidence-based policymaking at scale. However, these benefits come with substantial and often underestimated risks. Globally, according to an ITU report, over 2.6 billion people remain offline, meaning that the children most in need are also the most likely to be excluded from AI-enabled systems. In addition, weak data protection frameworks, limited regulatory oversight, and low digital literacy in many contexts expose children to privacy violations, surveillance risks, and misuse of sensitive data. There is also a rapidly growing threat of digital harm, including online exploitation, child sexual abuse material, and AI-generated deepfakes, which are evolving faster than policy and safeguarding responses. Ultimately, the issue is not the technology itself, but the readiness of systems to govern, regulate, and apply it responsibly. Without strong safeguards, accountability, and local capacity, AI risks reinforcing existing inequalities rather than reducing them. Responsible, rights-based integration must therefore remain central to any adoption of AI in child-focused policies.”

“Having designed digital data collection tools and MEAL (Monitoring, evaluation, accountability, and learning, editor’s note) systems for programs in Pakistan, I see real potential in AI for children’s policy, but I also know exactly where things can go wrong. On the positive side, predictive analytics can help social protection programs identify at-risk children before a crisis becomes irreversible. AI-assisted case management can reduce the administrative burden on social workers who are already stretched thin. In education, personalised learning platforms can adapt to individual needs in schools with large class sizes and limited teacher capacity. The risks however, are not abstract. Algorithmic bias can entrench discrimination against children from marginalised communities. Data collected on vulnerable children is exceptionally difficult to govern across departments and jurisdictions. And critically, most communities where child vulnerability is highest still lack the connectivity and trained personnel that effective AI deployment requires. No AI tool in children’s policy should be scaled without independent evaluation of its equity impact and hard limits on commercial use of children’s data.”

“AI can be a very useful tool, helping to personalize learning for children with disabilities or in crisis contexts; it can also facilitate access to knowledge by personalizing educational content. It also improves the efficiency of child protection systems, reducing response times. However, the indiscriminate use of these technologies currently promotes the replacement of human interaction in education and care, damaging socio-emotional development and creating a dangerous dependency that reduces children’s self-sufficiency capacities. The lack of regulation allows tech companies to extract children’s data without ethical oversight, which requires creating policies that protect children from this and other vulnerabilities associated with the use of technology.”

“AI can be a powerful tool for children if it is governed wisely. It can help detect learning gaps earlier, improve access for children with disabilities, strengthen service delivery, and support better targeting of health, education, and protection programmes. Used well, it can make child-focused systems more responsive and more inclusive. But the risks are serious if safeguards are weak. AI can deepen bias, invade privacy, widen exclusion, and expose children to manipulation or opaque automated decisions. Children are not simply smaller users of technology; they are developing human beings who need stronger protections for their rights, dignity, and safety. So the question is not whether AI belongs in children’s policy. The real question is whether governance can keep pace with innovation. Technology should never outrun responsibility. The best use of AI is not to replace human judgment, but to strengthen it — always with the best interests of the child as the first principle.”

See also: Benefits and risks of restricting social media access for children | Experts’Opinions

Investing in children is proven to have high returns, but another thing worth investing in is skills and continuous learning. With DevelopmentAid’s Individual Professional Membership, development sector professionals get plenty of opportunities to learn about new jobs, new requirements, and the latest news in order to make informed decisions. The membership offers in a single place access to thousands of job openings in the international development sector, information about tenders and grants for individuals, salary trends, news, editorials, reports, podcasts, and many more with just a few clicks.