1

IAMCR 2011 – AUDIENCE SECTION

Digital inclusion in the face of social semi-exclusion: adapting the EU Kids Online

questionnaire

Cristina Ponte1, José Alberto Simões2, Ana Jorge3

FCSH, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal

Abstract

Translating questionnaires for children (9-16) and parents conceived in English to 19

languages while ensuring that the questions had the same meaning in 25 countries was a

challenge for the EU Kids Online survey that allowed comparing online experiences of

children and young people across Europe and parents’ views on them (see

www.eukidsonline.net ). Based on our dual experience in the EU Kids Online network and in

the project Digital Inclusion and Participation” (UTAustin|Portugal Program, see

http://digital_inclusion.up.pt ), which is focused on disadvantaged social groups, we adapted

the Portuguese version of children’s face to face questionnaire to interview deprived children.

Therefore, a selected group of questions on access, frequency, activities, skills and mediations

were asked to children and young people (9-16) that access the internet at Digital Inclusion

Centres, which are part of a public policy program for social inclusion. This paper discusses

the issue of deprived children and the media, presents the challenges faced by the adaptation

of questions and characterizes their family composition and internet access.

1 Assistant Professor with Habilitation in Media Studies. Department of Communication Sciences

2 Assistant Professor. Department of Sociology

3 PhD student, Department of Communication Sciences

2

Key Words: deprived children; children and the internet; digital inclusion; EU Kids Online

Deprived children and their media experience

In contemporary societies, besides the relative social invisibility of children as a social group,

information and research on the most vulnerable groups of children are particularly missing,

namely on children living in poverty or in alternative care, from ethnic minorities or migrant

children, thus being ignored their particular life experiences facing the mainstream reference

of “being a child”. Fewer children but more children in poverty were pointed out by Qvortrup

(1994: xii) as an emerging social trend in European countries at the beginning of the 1990s

that continues to be a reality: one in five children in the EU were at risk of poverty before the

current economic crisis struck – approximately 20 million children, according to Eurostat

(2010).

There are many ways of defining poverty, ranging from absolute or relative definitions based

on income to indicators of social inequality and deprivation. As far as children are concerned,

a move to indicators of child well-being has been recognized as particularly relevant for

measuring their social inclusion (Bradshaw, 2007: 106). Among those indicators is their

material, educational and subjective well-being, already explored in recent UNICEF reports

(UNICEF 2007, 2010). In fact, if children cannot function as "normal" members of society

because they do not have access to the material goods that others deem necessary, then this

indicator of deprivation is a useful one, points Montgomery (2009: 166). Under this

perspective, for European low-income children cyberspace represents “not a new opportunity

but potentially a new danger, a new form of difference and exclusion”, as Ridge (2007: 174)

reports: “as children’s social lives are increasingly developed, explored and negotiated in the

world of virtual time and space, new sites of social exclusion are emerging”, namely through

“unsustainable consumption demands of high-tech accessories”.

Even if disadvantaged children gain more internet access, they may remain relatively

disadvantaged both in terms of the quality of internet access they enjoy and because one form

of this disadvantage is generally correlated with others, e.g. parents’ available time, parental

3

education and expertise, educational values at home, calm places to studying in and so forth

(Livingstone, 2009).

As noted above, for socially marginalized children and young people, poverty is not only the

scarcity of material or educational resources: it is also an internal construction of a self that

makes certain choices unthinkable, from reading a book from the library in their leisure times

nowadays to considering an ambitious career in their future. As Montgomery (2009: 170)

points out, Bourdieu’s concepts of habitus (considering individual, familiar and societal

dispositions) and social and cultural capitals are here particularly productive, taking the

debate about poverty away from economics and the lack of material possessions and back to

issues of deprivation and inequality, making visible the lack of various forms of cultural and

social capital. On cultural capital one can distinct: institutional cultural capital (such as

academic qualifications), embodied cultural capital (the ways in which people use language,

present themselves, display social competence or confidence and so on) and objectified

cultural capital (their ownership or use of material goods such as books or paintings). The

social capital involves networks and connections and how these networks are sustained.

Based on her ethnographic research among children in the US, Ellen Seiter (2005) argues that,

far from leveling class differences, the internet has deepened social divisions along the lines of

class, race and ethnicity, both within and between countries. Middle-class children are not

only likely to have better quality computers and software; they also are likely to have much

more informed support in using them from parents and other adults, and a greater access to

social networks which will provide them with a sense of motivation and purpose in using such

technology in the first place. By contrast, poorer children simply have less access to cultural

goods and services: “they live not just in different social worlds, but in different media worlds

as well” (Buckingham, 2007: 84).

These different media worlds might be contrasted in the types of access to two levels of digital

divide (Hargittai, 2002): a first level of digital divide means having access to digital

technologies, considering ownership and use; and a second level is related to the user profiles,

assuming that more advanced users will develop a more functional rather than an

entertainment-oriented user profile. The differentiation hypothesis considering that

sociological variables continue to be important predictors including for the digital generation

4

(Peter and Valkenburg, 2006; Livingstone and Helsper, 2007) also confirms that idea. The

exploration of how far the digital experience of particularly deprived children goes nowadays

is the aim of the current ongoing research. Preceding others that will focus on the second level

of the digital divide, this paper is focused on the first level, also providing a contextualization

of the participant children and youth.

The Portuguese context and the Program Escolhas

Placed in the Southern Europe and facing the Atlantic, living the economic and cultural

globalization from a semi-peripheral situation, a fast expanding consumption and access to

technologies in the last decade, Portugal still experiences an unfinished modernity (Almeida &

Costa, 1998), in-between developed and developing countries, sharing a language and cultural

ties with Brazil, Cap-Verde, Angola and other former colonies, from where come the majority

of migrants.

In the last two decades, the Portuguese society has registered large transformations, namely

in its demographic and structural composition and in lifestyles, both having impacts on

children’s and young people’s experiences. Demographic and structural changes that have an

impact on childhood are: a decrease in birth rate among native families, one of the most

accentuated in Europe; the increase of recomposed families, which create more complex

parental relations; the differences in the attainment levels of education among generations

(low literate grand-parents; a majority of parents who attained only compulsory school;

adolescents that that have already surpassed their parents’ schooling); the income gap among

families, with 25% of children living in poverty (INE, 2010).

Being for decades a relatively closed and ethnically homogenous society, Portugal also faces

the consolidation of a broader cultural and ethnical heterogeneity. Besides gipsy families

spread throughout the country, there is an increase of immigrant families, and their second

generations, mostly concentrated in the capital area and in Algarve, and having more children

than the Portuguese ones. Therefore, there is now a bigger diversity of children’s social and

cultural backgrounds, as well as different paths and trajectories in their families, both

conditions placing relevant questions on social identities and social inclusion and

participation.

As for the lifestyle changes, it could be mentioned the late arrival to consumption patterns

compared to other contemporary societies, which have had an increasing expression within

5

the leisure cultures: the changes in the TV panorama (multiplicity of private channels

entertainment-oriented) and in other mass media; an explosion of shopping centres attracting

family outings; the embellishment of the households with individualized technology, amongst

them the digital technologies oriented to entertainment, communication and information à la

carte (gaming consoles, DVD players, plasma TV, laptops, digital cameras, mobile phones and

so on). These postmodern scenarios contrast with low levels of informational literacy

amongst adult generations. Among older generations, shared childhood memories of poverty

are combined with the willingness of providing their children with all the material comfort

that they themselves had the lack of. This potpourri of pre-modern, modern and postmodern

structures and values is marked by a high social inequality: amongst the 25 countries that

participated in the EU Kids Online survey, Portugal occupies the second highest position in the

social inequality index (ratio of share of income or expenditure of the richest 10% to the

poorest 10% of the population), after Turkey and followed by the UK.

In recent years, public policies have tried to change the educational scenarios, investing both

in adults and children, around Programs such as Novas Oportunidades [New Opportunities],

targeted at adults with low school attainment, the upgrade of school equipments (e.g.

broadband access, digital boards) and stimulus to the industries to produce and sell low cost

laptops to students since the early years of schooling (Programs Magalhães and E-Escolas). By

2010, more than 800 thousand families had already answered positively to these Programs,

considered as references for digital inclusion.

Combining social and educational aims, Escolhas is a nationwide program aiming to promote

social inclusion of children and young people (6-24 years old) from the most vulnerable socio-

economic contexts, particularly descendants of immigrants and ethnic minorities. Digital

inclusion is one of its five priority areas of intervention, crosscutting and cumulative with the

others: school education, vocational training, community participation & citizenship, and

entrepreneurship. Its 132 centres are mostly placed in the metropolitan areas of Lisbon and

Oporto, created by local NGOs and working in the inner of vulnerable contexts, these being

social housing, old buildings in the city center or slums in the suburbs. Each center is

equipped with a minimum package of six PCs, broadband access and a printer. Digital

activities include guidance, free activities, those aimed at developing skills and school success,

6

and more formal ICT courses. Local teams are composed by 3-4 technicians and include a

young person living in the community and who acts as mediator.

These centres were the scenario for our interviews with deprived children and young people

(9-16), adapting the EU Kids Online questionnaire. As said, this paper will focus on adaptation

process and on the households and conditions of access the internet among these children,

comparing results with those from the national sample. Let us take a brief look at some of

these national results.

Portugal in the EU Kids Online survey

In Portugal, according to the Eurostat values, children accessing the internet were estimated

to be 78% and thus being the universe of the EU Kids Online survey. On the basis of results on

educational level attained by the main provider and his/her occupation among the thousand

households interviewed, 53% households were composed by low SES families and 18% were

from high SES (European average, respectively, 19 and 34%), a gap that illustrates the social

inequality pointed above. On the internet use at home, about two out of three children were

single users and only 7% declared not having internet access at home.

Only 22 parents out of the thousand interviewed describe their families as belonging to a

group that were discriminated against in the country and only five declared that Portuguese

wasn’t the main spoken language at home, suggesting a high level of integration and linguistic

homogeneity among these respondents, due to a possible underestimation of neighborhoods

inhabited mostly by deprived, migrant and ethnic minority children in the national sampling.

National results follow the European pattern on accessing the internet more at home than at

school, but contrast in the devices children use. Portuguese children lead in having a personal

laptop (68%), far from the double of the European average (24%), a probable consequence of

the above mentioned public policies. Children with personal laptops cross all families,

possibly influencing the high presence of the internet in the bedroom (67%; European

average: 49%), occupying the third place after Denmark and Sweden. Differences among SES

are reduced, being the ownership even a little higher among children from low SES families

7

(68-66%). The reverse is that these children are those with lowest access to the internet in

the public areas of the household (73%; high SES 86%) or through personal PCs (28%;

children from medium SES: 40%), game consoles (22%; high SES: 37%) or mobile devices

(5%; high SES: 10%), and sharing less the computers with others in the household. Influence

of the above mentioned public policies are thus visible, suggesting a clear move from the

“almost no technology” to the personal laptop among children from low SES families.

The low cost of the laptops were supported by internet service providers, integrating different

packages for internet access, the most popular being a pen-drive with a limited amount of

internet traffic. While children of high SES families, where packages of full-access are more

common, declare less access to the internet at schools or in public spaces free of charge,

children from middle and low SES families declare more their use of the internet in those

spaces. In particular, accessing the internet in public libraries was declared by one out of four

children, doubling the European average. However, the daily access to the internet was one of

the lowest among the 25 countries, being also less differentiated by SES (high: 57%; low:

52%) than the European average (respectively 64-49%).

The dynamic process of adapting the EU Kids Online questionnaire

Our initial aim was to compare as far as possible the national results on access, uses, activities,

skills and mediations with those from a purposive sample of children and young people

attending Escolhas centres. Therefore, our first task was selecting 23 questions from the EU

Kids Online face to face questionnaire, following, as much as possible, the protocols and

guidelines for application and interviewing. In this initial phase, we also considered that at

least older children could answer the survey questions by themselves with minimum help. In

order to compensate their effort, , as a symbolic token of appreciation, at the end all the

interviewees received T-shirts and stickers with advice on safety in the internet, provided by

an ISP.

The discussion on the initial draft with Escolhas local coordinators and animators quickly

concluded that even the 14+ yr olds would be unable to answer many questions by

themselves, therefore implying the reduction of sentences to a minimum of information as

8

well as the number of questions. Abstract terms were replaced by more common words: for

example, [parents, teachers, friends] suggested or explained was replaced by taught.

Issues such as the family composition - potentially sensitive for most children interviewed -

were identified in those local meetings. Since many children did not seem to live in structured

families composed by both parents, the solution was starting the questionnaire by asking the

child: Who do you live with?, and adapting the questions on parental mediation to the adults

which he/she lives with.

The pilot test, conducted with African descendent children (9-14) from one of the most

vulnerable neighborhoods in the Portuguese capital, allowed us to identify other points to be

changed. For instance, the question on the devices for accessing the internet strictly following

the original questionnaire presupposed that the child had his/her own devices or at least that

they existed in the household (Table 1):

Table 1: Devices used for internet access

Yes No No answer

Your own PC (desktop computer)

Your own laptop or laptop that you mainly use and can take to your own room

A PC shared with other members of your family

A laptop shared with other members of your family and that you cannot take to your own room

A mobile phone

A Games console such as a PlayStation

A Television set (TV)

Other handheld portable devices (e.g. iPod Touch, iPhone or Blackberry)

Source: EU Kids Online survey

This question generated successive negative answers and suggested a sense of material

deprivation. Therefore, a question on media environments at home, used by Livingstone in the

end of the 1990s (Livingstone, 2002), was recuperated (Table 2). Starting with the television

set it allowed children to express pleasure in recalling and counting how many existed in their

households (one… two… three… four!). On the other hand, it also made visible the exchanges as

9

far as media mobility is concerned: computers, game console, the internet or mobile phones

could be accessed everywhere.

Table 2: Description of the household’s equipment

At home, for all In your room Don´t have

Television

Radio/Sound System

Game console

Computer

Mobile phone

Internet

Bookshelf with non-school books

Source: Escolhas survey (based on Livingstone, 2002)

The pilot questionnaires also confirmed that particularly young children were tired with its

extension, the difficulties of understanding questions on frequency of uses and apparent

similar questions on mediation. Therefore, more cuts on the information on frequencies were

done. At the end, the questionnaire was divided into two versions, one for the younger (9-13)

and another for the older (14-16).

The version for the 9-13 was designed as a structured interview of 30 questions, some of

them open-ended questions: From this list of activities, what do you prefer? Why?; What are

you forbidden to do on the internet?, and ending with a sensitive question: (And tell me what is

for you using the internet in a safe way? How do you do it?). The version for the 14-16 was a

self-completion questionnaire of 29 questions that included a broader question on cultural

interests and practices as well as three open-ended questions: From this list of activities, which

do you prefer?; What is your blog about?, for those who declared having a blog, and the final

one: We have asked you some questions about good and bad things that can happen on the

internet. Is there anything you would like to warn people of your own age about?

10

Collecting data

The interviews were conducted between March and May 2011, in 19 Escolhas centres in the

areas of Lisbon and Oporto, where most of them are located, as mentioned before. One or two

researchers visited each centre for an afternoon, previously arranged with mediators which

acted both as “privileged informants” and gatekeepers, so we could find young people in their

free time. This moment was also used to observe children in the place, accessing the internet

by them own, and to catch the environment atmosphere. We had a total of 279 respondents,

distributed as follows:

Table 3: Distribution of respondents per area, gender and age groups

Indicator Frequency %

Area

Lisbon 108 39%

Oporto 171 61%

Gender

Female 96 34%

Male 183 66%

Age

< 14 159 57%

>= 14 120 43%

While age groups are relatively balanced in the sample, gender differences express the reality

of Escolhas: there is much more boys than girls attending the centres. The geographic bias is

due to bigger time-constraints for the field work in Lisbon.

Families, media environments and the first level of the digital divide

Table 4 contrasts results from the EU Kids Online survey and from Escolhas. Although the

different nature of the samplings imposes cautiousness it is interesting to look at the patterns

of differences and similarities that emerge when they are side by side.

11

Table 4: Results from the EU Kids Online survey and from the Escolhas centres

EU Kids Online Portugal Centros Escolhas

Household composition

Living with one adult 8% 32%

Living with two adults 65% 48%

Living with three adults 21% 5%

Living with 4+ adults 5% 8%

Family type

Single parent 20% 35%

Two parents 79% 54%

Other 1% 9%

Education among parents

Primary education (9 years) or less 47% 92%

Internet access at home

No internet access 7% 31%

At least one parent use the internet 60% 46%

Devices for accessing the internet

Personal laptop 65% 69%

Personal PC 33% 26%

Shared laptop 35% 59%

Shared PC 35%

Game console 25% 13%

Mobile devices 7% 5%

TV 28% 8%

Mobile phone 31% 25%

Places of access

At home 87% 56%

At school 72% 59%

In a public library 25%

In the Digital Inclusion Centre 96%

Frequency of access

Everyday or almost everyday 54% 55%

Once or twice a week 39% 37%

Once or twice a month 4% 6%

Less than once or twice a month 3% 2%

In terms of family background, the results highlight the weight of not structured households

around both parents living together among the interviewees in Escolhas as only 54% lived

with them, contrasting with the 79% among the EU Kids Online national sample. About a

third of children and youth from Escolhas live with a single parent, this being mostly the

mother, and almost one in 10 children is cared for by relatives other than their parents.

12

Grandparents (especially grandmothers), aunts, uncles and brothers and sisters-in law are

relatives that cohabit with the child and take care of him/her. This picture among deprived

children confirms the sensitivity of the family issues, and the need to avoid the implicit frame

of the two-parents’ dominant model when asking questions on family mediation.

Educational capital is one of the key sensitive points in Portugal with implications at all levels,

including digital inclusion. Four years of compulsory education reached all children only in

1959-1960, and its extension to 9 years was declared in 1986; school failure and

abandonment during adolescence have also been high for decades. Therefore, nowadays

adolescents might easily have more school attendance than their parents, with the latter

having more than their own parents, frequently illiterate (35% of illiterate people in

1960). Table 4 shows that nationwide, almost half of households still have a parent (usually,

the mother) that didn't reach the Secondary level. Whereas, nowadays young women tend to

have a better performance than young men, among the Escolhas participants the percentage of

parents having the Primary level or less almost reached the total sample size (92%).

A sign of this low cultural and educational capital in their households is the relative high

absence of books: on the side of the print culture for leisure purposes, among the Escolhas

sampling, 38% of the younger respondents (9-13) and 22% of the 14-16 declare not having

non-school books in their households, which makes evident a poor cultural capital in those

families.

Turning to the audiovisual media environment, television is the main device and especially

younger children were proud on counting the sets spread through the households from the

living rooms to the kitchen and bedrooms. The radio/stereo set was the second technology,

being these values in line with the national trend on the media diet among different age

groups in Portugal (Rebelo, 2008).

As far as the digital media is concerned, the first level of digital divide (Hargittai, 2002), the

one on ownership and use, becomes visible. All the interviewed children declared themselves

as internet users but the contexts of access diverge: whereas in the national sampling only 7%

don’t have internet access at home, the number of those without this access in the Escolhas

Group is more than four times bigger (31%). The percentage of parents that are internet users

13

is also below the national average: 46% of these children and youth have at least one member

of the family that know how to use the internet, in particular the mother (46%) or father

(39%), against 60% in the EU Kids Online sampling. This depicts families where children lead

the use of the internet, although using it scarcely.

Following the ownership of personal laptops in European terms, with dominance of low SES

children, as we have seen, this device also leads among the Escolhas children, again above the

national average, whereas all the reminiscent devices (PC, game console, television or mobile

phone) are below the national average. Furthermore, if the ownership of modern technology,

such is the case of laptops, is apparently assured, the comparison on the places of access

shows that children that attend the Digital Inclusion Centres find them real spaces for their

internet access: almost all declare accessing the internet in these public places, while

declaring a lower use of the internet at school and at home. Finally they don´t diverge so

much from the EU Kids Online answers on the frequency of use, this being one of the lowest

values in the European landscape.

When we look at the distribution of these devices by age, the main difference is due to the fact

that children under 14 years tend to refer more often that they neither have most of the

technological devices at home nor the access to internet. Among those 14 yr old or above,

there is a greater expression of ownership of technological devices, particularly in the

bedroom environment. Also, there is a growing importance of the computer that appears

after television and radio as the third device with more relevance in characterizing the

bedroom environment.

Synthesis and next steps

At the end of this glance at the family contexts and digital experiences of those attending the

Digital Inclusion Centers several important methodological remarks need to be made:

Firstly, the importance of considering family compositions and access to the media in the

households that don’t fit the mainstream model of middle-class, high educated parents and

well equipped households, thus the importance of avoiding wording questions that might be

insensitive to such contexts. Secondly, the delicate task of adapting the questionnaire to

children that experience low literacy skills, reduced vocabulary and low time spam attention

14

to written texts as well as to somewhat complex routing and graphics stressed the advantages

that came from the conversations with local animators from Digital Inclusion centers and the

importance of pre-testing with children from migrant and low income families not being so

familiar with the native Portuguese language. Thirdly, the similarities that emerge between

this sensitive group of less privileged children and the national trend, expressed in the

enthusiasm of the families to adhere to campaigns such as “one laptop per child”, had two

important consequences: on one hand, at a basic level, made those families move from

exclusion to ownership; on the other hand, it apparently had no outstanding affect on the

amount of use, since this tends to coincide with the relatively low level of frequent internet

access. Fourthly, the high value of informal public spaces with relatively low level of adult

mediation among both groups, such as the public libraries or the Digital Inclusion centres,

suggesting the unexplored potential of these places for other kind of uses and opportunities,

this being particularly relevant when considering the cultural capital and educational level

among the low SES families. Finally the differences between these groups as far as other

digital equipments and household and school environments are concerned, broadening the

gap on opportunities for exploring and using the digital media in different activities and for

the digital literacy.

This research also helps to question the efficacy of public policies of social and digital

inclusion of the most disadvantaged children and young people, as much effort has been put

merely on access, neglecting the interactions of children with the media within the household

and the kind of mediations they receive in different types of families. The availability of public

access does not correspond to an effective use: why is access to the internet in schools less

popular than in the Escolhas Centres by this group? If they have to account for limited time or

limited bandwidth to manage their access to the internet, what are the consequences for

theirs uses? What are the characteristics of their uses if children are the only users of internet

in their homes or if they do not have privacy to use in public spaces such as Escolhas? This will

be the focus of future papers.

References

Bradshaw, J. (2007). Child benefit packages in 22 countries. Childhood, generational order and the

welfare state: exploring children's social and economic welfare. H. Wintersberger, T. Olk and J.

Qvortrup. Odense, COST: 141-160.

15

Buckingham, D. (2007). Youth, Identity, and Digital Media. John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur

Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cidade, editor.

Hargittai, E. (2002). "Second-level digital divide: difference in people's online skills." First Monday 7(4):

http://webuse.org/pdf/Hargittai-SecondLevelFM02.pdf.

INE, Instituto Nacional de Estatística. (2010). Indicadores Sociais 2009. Lisboa: Instituto Nacional de

Estatística, I.P. Retrieved from the Internet June 1, 2011.

http://www.ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpid=INE&xpgid=ine_publicacoes&PUBLICACOESpub_boui

=105186688&PUBLICACOEStema=55445&PUBLICACOESmodo=2

Livingstone, S. (2002). Young People and New Media. London, Sage.

Livingstone, S. (2009). Children and the internet. London, Polity Press.

Livingstone, S. and Helsper, E. (2007). “Gradations in digital inclusion: children, young people and the

digital divide”. New Media & Society, 9 (4): 671-696.

Montgomery, H. (2009). Children, young peple and poverty. Children and Young People's Worlds. H.

Montgomery and M. Kellett. Milton Keynes, The Open University: 165-180.

Peter, J. and Valkenburg, P. M. (2006). “Adolescents’ internet use: Testing the ‘disappearing digital

divide’ versus the ‘emerging digital differentiation’ approach”. Poetics, 34: 293-305.

Qvortrup, J. (1994). Childhood matters: an introduction. Childhood Matters: Social Theory, Practice and

Politics. J. Qvortrup, M. Bardy, G. Sgritta and H. Wintersberger. Vienna, European Centre: 1-24.

Rebelo, J. (2008) Públicos de Comunicação Social em Portugal. Lisboa, Entidade Reguladora da

Comunicação

Ridge, T. (2007). Negotiating childhood poverty: children's subjective experiences of life on a low

income. Chidhood. Generational Order and the Welfare State: Exploring Children's Social and

Economic Welfare. H. Wintersberger, L. Alanen, T. Olk and J. Qvortrup. Odense, University Press

of Southern Denmark: 161-180.

Seiter, E. (2005). The Internet Playground. Chilkdren's access, entertainment, and miss-education. New

York, Peter Lang.

UNICEF. (2010). Humanitarian Action Report: partnering for children in emergencies. New York:

UNICEF. Retrieved from the Internet June 1, 2011.

http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/UNICEF_HAR_2010_Full_Report_EN_020410.pdf

UNICEF. (2007). Annual Report: covering 1 January 2007 through 31 December 2007. New York: UNICEF.

Retrieved from the Internet June 1, 2011.

http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/Annual_Report_2007.pdf