




































American International Journal of Social Science Research; Vol. 2, No. 1; 2018 

ISSN 2576-103X  E-ISSN 2576-1048 

Published by Centre for Research on Islamic Banking & Finance and Business 

 
 

66 

Poverty in Nigeria: A Social Protection Framework for the Most 

Vulnerable Groups of Internally Displaced Persons 

Emmanuel Okokondem Okon
1 

 
1
Department of Economics,  Kogi State University, Anyigba, Kogi State, Nigeria 

Correspondence: Department of Economics, Kogi State University, Anyigba, Kogi State, Nigeria, E-mail: 

tonydom57@yahoo.com. Tel: +2348023275716  

 

 

Received:  January 12, 2018                        Accepted: January 17, 2018               Online Published: January 28, 2018   

 

 
Abstract 

Despite strong economic growth in Nigeria, 54% of the population remains in poverty. Of significant concern is the 

fact that the poverty rate has doubled in the past 20 years. Internal displacement in Nigeria is a recurring and large-

scale phenomenon and has affected most of the country’s 36 states. The country has seen many waves of 

displacement, both small and large scale, caused essentially by conflict, generalized violence, natural disasters and 

human rights violations all leading to loss of lives, properties and livelihood which in turn lead to deprivation, 

poverty and vulnerability. The operational definition of vulnerability in this paper as applied to the most vulnerable 

IDPs covers those categories of internally displaced persons who may never recover from the shocks of 

displacement and may become chronic poor as such worsening the poverty situation in Nigeria. This paper attempts 

a social protection framework for the most vulnerable IDPs as well as exit strategies. Protecting this vulnerable 

group is vital to poverty reduction especially as the country is presently suffering the adverse effects of dwindling 

revenue from crude oil and gas sectors, which today accounts for about 95 per cent of its revenue. 

 

Keywords: Poverty, Social Protection Framework, Vulnerable Group, Internally Displaced Persons, Nigeria. 

 

1. Introduction  

Despite strong economic growth in Nigeria, 54% of the population remains in poverty. Of significant concern is the 

fact that the poverty rate has doubled in the past 20 years. Nigeria is also highly unequal: the Gini coefficient was 

43.8 as of 2005 (Ortiz and Cummins, 2011). Approximately 20% of the population owns 65% of the national wealth 

(UNDP, 2009).  Income inequality is just one dimension of poverty in Nigeria. Poverty and vulnerability are also 

highly influenced by social and other factors, including geography, ethnicity, age and gender. For instance, a low 

gender equality ranking reflects the inequalities in human capital, political representation and economic participation 

between women and men. Meanwhile, with over 60% of the population below 18, children are represented 

disproportionately in poor households. Nigeria’s under‐five mortality and maternal mortality rates for the poorest are 

among the highest in the world, and poverty and deprivation exacerbate child protection issues, including 

trafficking, prostitution and abuse (Hagen-Zanker and Holmes, 2012).Patterns of poverty vary by geographic 

location and are also influenced by socio-cultural and religious norms and prevalence of conflict, disaster, 

insurgence, terrorism and instability, as much as by economic environment.  

Internal displacement in Nigeria is a recurring and large-scale phenomenon and has affected most of the country’s 

36 states. Africa’s largest populated country has seen many waves of displacement, both small and large scale, 

caused essentially by conflict, generalized violence, natural disasters and human rights violations leading all leading 

to loss of lives, properties and livelihood which in turn leads to poverty and deprivation. 

As at the end of 2014, of the global 38 million forcefully displaced by armed conflicts and generalized violence, 

Nigeria accounted for at least one million (Nigeriabar, 2015). Between July and October 2012, National Emergency 

Management Agency (NEMA) estimated in a published report that a total of 7.7 million people were affected by the 

flood disaster across the federation (Nigeriabar, 2015). Out of the affected population, 2.1 million people were 

internally displaced (IDPs); 363 persons died and 18,282 people were treated for injuries they sustained during the 



www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aijssr               American International Journal of Social Science Research             Vol. 2, No. 1; 2018 

67 
 

flooding. As at January 2014, about 165,000 people were displaced by both floods and conflicts in IDP camps in 

Nigeria (Nigeriabar, 2015). 

Having recognized that in Nigeria and elsewhere in the world, IDPs are amongst the most vulnerable populations, 

the Federal Government of Nigeria signed and approved the ratification of the African Union (Kampala Convention) 

for the Protection and Assistance of IDPs in Africa. Similarly, in recent years, the government of Nigeria and its 

development partners have sought to develop social protection instruments as a mechanism to tackle high rates of 

poverty and vulnerability in the country and to support progress in both the economic and the social spheres (Hagen-

Zanker and Holmes, 2012). 

It is against this background that this paper seeks to achieve a social protection framework for the most vulnerable 

groups of internally displaced persons in Nigeria. UNICEF defines social protection as “the set of public and private 

policies and programmes aimed at preventing, reducing and eliminating economic and social vulnerabilities to 

poverty and deprivation” (UNICEF, n.d.).  Social protection is essential to the realization of the rights of children, 

women and families to an adequate standard of living and essential services. According to Bank (1997), protecting 

vulnerable groups during episodes of macroeconomic contraction is vital to poverty reductions in developing 

countries. This is essential to Nigeria as the country is presently suffering the adverse effects of dwindling revenue 

from crude oil and gas sectors, which today accounts for about 95 per cent of its revenue. The fallen price of crude 

at the world market has orchestrated the devaluation of the naira and increased inflation. 

Poverty – and its common consequences such as malnutrition, homelessness, poor housing and destitution – is a 

major contributor to vulnerability. However, in this paper, the term vulnerability refers to the relationship between 

poverty, risk, and efforts to manage risk of falling into poverty. Though internally displaced persons are generally 

vulnerable, the operational definition of vulnerability here as applied to the most vulnerable IDPs covers those 

categories of internally displaced persons who may never recover from the severe shocks of the displacement and 

may become chronic poor, thus worsening the poverty situation in the country.  

2. Conceptualizing Social Protection, Vulnerability and Poverty 

Social protection emerged as a critical response to the “safety nets” discourse of the late 1980s and early 1990s. 

‘Safety nets’ are a form of social protection which help people meet immediate basic needs in times of crisis. 

Typical short-term goals are to mitigate the immediate impact of shocks and to smooth consumption. The World 

Bank has a slightly different definition, which defines ‘safety nets’ as social assistance programmes (Gentilini et al., 

2014).In the 1990 World Development Report, for instance, safety nets were very much the third prong of the World 

Bank’s three-pronged approach to “attacking poverty” (World Bank, 1990), and were conceptualized as minimalist 

social assistance in countries too poor and administratively weak to introduce comprehensive social welfare 

programmes. During the 1990s, as thinking on livelihoods, risk and vulnerability, and the multi-dimensional nature 

of poverty became more nuanced, safety nets were increasingly criticized as residualist and paternalistic, and more 

sophisticated alternatives began to be proposed. At the same time, the broader potential of social protection began to 

be recognized, and bigger claims are now being made for what social protection can and should strive to achieve. 

There are two interconnected strands in this response, both linked to a concern for long-term and sustainable poverty 

reduction. The first links risk management explicitly with economic growth, and argues that reducing risk or 

protecting the poor against income and consumption variability will allow them to invest and accumulate – a 

“trampoline” out of poverty (World Bank,  2000). Despite being vigorously promoted in international development 

publications, this link has not yet become a key component of anti-poverty programming in practice. In low-income 

countries, social protection continues to be perceived by governments and donors as comprising fiscally 

unsustainable “consumption” transfers to the economically inactive or unproductive poor, which diverts scarce 

public resources from “productive” investment for economic growth, and therefore deserves lower priority as a 

poverty reduction tool. 

At the same time, most advocates of social protection do not make the second connection which we argue is of 

fundamental importance to long-term poverty reduction, namely the positive relationship between livelihood 

security and enhanced autonomy or empowerment. Social protection continues to be conceptualised by development 

agencies mainly in terms of public responses to livelihood shocks – the conventional, narrowly specified “safety 

net” function. But this is “economic protection”, not “social protection”, and it is hardly socially transformative. 

Largely missing from the World Bank’s Social Risk 

Management framework, for instance, is a concern for equity and social rights. It is argued that an appreciation of 

this second linkage can help create the policy conditions for a virtuous cycle of pro-poor growth, governance 

systems that are accountable and responsive to poorer as well as wealthier citizens, and an approach to development 

that is grounded in concerns for social equity. 

 

 



www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aijssr               American International Journal of Social Science Research             Vol. 2, No. 1; 2018 

68 
 

2.1. Definitions and Types 

Some see social protection narrowly, essentially as a new label for old-style social welfare provided to the 

“deserving poor” (e.g. widows and orphans, or people with disabilities). Many policymakers continue to equate 

social protection with social safety nets, or interventions that cushion the poor against production and consumption 

shocks, such as food aid for drought-affected farmers in subsistence-oriented communities. Others adopt a very 

broad approach, including education and health subsidies, job creation and microcredit programmes, as well as 

safety nets for groups that may be vulnerable to shocks, but are not usually regarded as among the poorest strata of 

society.  A more “political” or “transformative” view extends social protection to arenas such as equity, 

empowerment and economic, social and cultural rights, rather than confining the scope of social protection to 

targeted income and consumption transfers. 

However, some current definitions of social protection from policy literature as given by some agencies are stated as 

follows: Social protection refers to the public actions taken in response to levels of vulnerability, risk anddeprivation 

which are deemed socially unacceptable within a given polity or society(Norton et al, 2000). Social protection is a 

collection of measures to improve or protect human capital, ranging from labor market interventions, publicly 

mandated unemployment or old-age insurance to targeted income support. Social protection interventions assist 

individuals, households, and communities to better manage the income risks that leave people vulnerable(World 

Bank, 2003).Social protection is the provision of benefits to households and individuals through public or collective 

arrangements to protect against low or declining living standards (Van Ginneken, 1999).Social protection is defined 

as the set of policies and programs designed to reduce poverty and vulnerability by promoting efficient labor 

markets, diminishing people’s exposure to risks, and enhancing their capacity to protect themselves against hazards 

and interruption/loss of income(Ortiz, 2001). 

2.2. Types of Social Protection 

i)Social Assistance 

Social assistance is direct, regular and predictable cash or in-kind resources transfers to poor and vulnerable 

individuals or households (Arnold et al., 2011). It is usually provided by the state and financed by national taxes 

(Barrientos, 2010). Support from donors is also important in lower income contexts. Transfers are non-contributory, 

i.e. the full amount is paid by the provider. Some are targeted based on categories of vulnerability, and some are 

targeted broadly to low-income groups. This is the primary form of social protection available in most developing 

countries (Barrientos, 2010). 

Cash transfers: are direct, regular and predictable transfers that raise and smooth incomes to reduce poverty and 

vulnerability (Arnold et al., 2011:2). Unconditional Cash Transfers (UCTs) are for the beneficiary to decide how to 

spend. Conditional Cash Transfers (CCTs) are given with the requirement that the beneficiary meets certain 

conditions – often related to human capital development, such as visiting a health clinic or ensuring children go to 

school. 

Social pensions: are state pensions, a form of cash transfer targeted by age. Pensions are the most common social 

protection tool, with the widest global coverage and often highest national spend. 

In-kind transfers: are economic and livelihood asset transfers to households, facilitating income generation. They 

tend to be larger, one-off transfers but can also be smaller, regular transfers, such as food transfers. They tend to take 

an integrated approach, linking the transfer with skills training and other activities (Gsdrc, n.d.). 

School feeding: is a free nutritious meal at school – usually lunch – and sometimes take-home rations for children 

most in need. This is a type of in-kind assistance. These are near-universal – most countries that can afford to 

provide food for their schoolchildren do so (Bundy et al., 2009). They help encourage parents to keep children in 

school (Norton et al., 2001). 

Public works programmes (PWPs; or Public Employment Programmes): provide jobs on infrastructure projects for 

cash or food. They are sometimes classified as labour market interventions depending on whether their function is 

primarily poverty alleviation, job creation, or social protection. They are politically popular although arguably 

inefficient (Norton et al., 2001). 

ii) Social insurance 

These are contributory programmes where participants make regular payments to a scheme that will cover costs 

related to life-course events, for example, maternity, unemployment or illness (Barrientos, 2010). Sometimes costs 

are matched or subsidised by the scheme provider. Social insurance includes contributory pensions; health, 

unemployment, or disaster insurance; and funeral assistance (Norton et al., 2001). It can be provided formally 

through a bank or employer, or informally through a community-based pooled fund. Social insurance is strongly 

linked to the formal labour market, meaning coverage is often limited to formal workers. 

 

 



www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aijssr               American International Journal of Social Science Research             Vol. 2, No. 1; 2018 

69 
 

iii) Labor market interventions 

Labor market interventions provide protection for poor people who are able to work, and aim to ensure basic 

standards and rights (Barrientos, 2010). Interventions can be active or passive: 

Active labour market policies aim to help the unemployed and the most vulnerable find jobs, through interventions 

such as job centers, training, and policies to promote small and medium sized enterprises. 

Passive interventions include maternity benefits, injury compensation, and sickness benefits for those already in 

work, financed by the employer. Passive interventions also include changes to legislation, for example establishing a 

minimum wage or safe working conditions. 

Many poor people work within the informal sector, and some people with disabilities, the chronically ill and old 

may not be able to work at all, so labour market interventions cannot always reach them (Gsdrc, n.d.). 

iv) Traditional or informal social protection 

Formal social protection systems do not offer complete coverage and inevitably exclude parts of the population. 

Traditional community-based forms of social protection distribute risk within a community and fill some of the gaps 

left by formal interventions (Norton et al., 2001). They are often self-funded, for example funeral insurance savings 

groups, but can be externally funded by the state or donors. Formal social protection should be carefully managed to 

enhance, rather than disrupt, existing informal systems (Harvey et al., 2007). 

v) Other types of social protection 

Social care and support is highly complementary to social protection, and sometimes considered to be social 

protection, as a form of social assistance. UNICEF recognises that social support helps address the interaction 

between social and economic vulnerability, through services such as home-based care and family support services 

(UNICEF, 2012). 

Government or private sector subsidies are sometimes classified as social protection if they enhance access for the 

poor or act as safety nets. Subsidies can keep prices low for basic goods and services consumed by the poor (Norton 

et al., 2001). However, subsidies are often regressive. The Middle East and North Africa spend four per cent of GDP 

on fuel subsidies, which represents a form of social assistance, but most of the benefit goes to upper-income groups 

(Gentilini et al., 2014). 

Price support is state intervention to protect market prices for the goods produced by the poor, which can smooth 

income. There is a tendency for these temporary measures to become permanent, which institutionalizes 

unprofitable production (Norton et al., 2001). 

2.3. Vulnerability and Poverty 

Oxford Dictionaries (n.d.) defines vulnerability as the quality or state of being exposed to the possibility of being 

attacked or harmed, either physically or emotionally. In general terms, vulnerability expresses the propensity of an 

element or a set of elements (organized in a system) exposed to hazards to suffer damage. In other words, 

vulnerability allows the assessed level of hazard to be translated into an estimated level of risk (Sterlacchini, 2011). 

According to Devereux et al (2006), a common way of conceptualizing vulnerability is to view it as a product of two 

components: exposure to hazard (a shock or process) and resilience, or the ability to manage the hazard. Hazards 

could include natural shocks such as drought, or economic shocks such as currency depreciation. Resilience relates 

to ‘coping strategies’ at the individual, household, community and group levels. People can protect themselves 

against the risk that a hazard will undermine their livelihood by drawing on savings, diversifying their livelihoods to 

spread risk, building social networks that can provide informal social assistance in times of need, and so on. When 

all these risk-coping mechanisms fail, people become acutely vulnerable to even minor shocks.  

It is important to emphasize that vulnerability and poverty are not synonymous.  Specifically, vulnerability is a 

broader concept than poverty, in at least three ways: The non-poor are also vulnerable to future poverty (some 

definitions of vulnerability refer to people whose income is within, say, 20 per cent of the poverty line); 

Vulnerability incorporates various non-income aspects of ill-being, such as insecurity, social exclusion and political 

marginalisation, while poverty measures focus on income and assets; Vulnerability is a dynamic concept, which is 

both forward-looking and constantly changing, while poverty is a static concept that measures proxies for wellbeing 

at a point in time (Devereux et al, 2006). 

Business Dictionary (n.d.) defined poverty as a condition where people's basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter 

are not being met. Poverty is generally of two types: (1) Absolute poverty is synonymous with destitution and occurs 

when people cannot obtain adequate resources (measured in terms of calories or nutrition) to support a minimum 

level of physical health. Absolute poverty means about the same everywhere, and can be eradicated as demonstrated 

by some countries. (2) Relative poverty occurs when people do not enjoy a certain minimum level of living 

standards as determined by a government (and enjoyed by the bulk of the population) that vary from country to 

country, sometimes within the same country.  

 



www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aijssr               American International Journal of Social Science Research             Vol. 2, No. 1; 2018 

70 
 

3. Literature Review: Objectives and Impacts of Social Protection Programmes 

The primary aim for most social protection programmes is to reduce poverty and vulnerability. As noted above, 

different stakeholders have different conceptual approaches for achieving this. There is strong evidence that social 

protection can have significant impacts on both poverty and vulnerability. There is evidence of the positive effects 

of social transfers (in particular, social pensions and cash transfers) on poverty reduction and in reaching the 

chronically poor (Barrientos and Niño-Zarazúa, 2011). There is also evidence from Latin America that social 

transfers can reduce inequality (Fiszbein and Schady, 2009). There is some evidence that social protection also has 

negative effects on poverty indicators (Hagen-Zanker et al., 2011).  

Many social transfers seek to improve children’s schooling, to invest in human capital and to break the 

intergenerational transmission of poverty (Barrientos and Niño-Zarazúa, 2011). Impacts of social protection on 

schooling have included, at both primary and secondary levels, increased enrolment, attendance, better grade 

progression, and decreased drop-out (Barrientosand Niño-Zarazúa, 2011). A systematic review shows that both 

CCTs and UCTs have positive effects on schooling enrolment and attendance. The effect sizes are larger for CCTs 

than UCTs, but the difference is not significant (Baird et al., 2013). Social protection programmes which do not 

focus explicitly on schooling also have positive effects, for example, pensions are often used to pay grandchildren’s 

school fees (Barrientos and Niño-Zarazúa, 2011).  

While these immediate impacts are well-documented, there is less evidence on whether increased schooling 

translates into improved knowledge and educational attainment, better labour market outcomes, or an escape from 

chronic poverty (Barrientos and Niño-Zarazúa, 2011). The evidence on the effectiveness of CCTs and UCTs on 

improving test scores is small at best. More research is needed that looks at longer-term outcomes (Baird et al., 

2013). 

Social protection programmes can aim to improve health directly, e.g. by conditioning programmes on attendance at 

health services, or indirectly, e.g. through supplemented income and therefore consumption (Barrientos and Niño-

Zarazúa, 2011). There is strong evidence on the positive health impacts of cash transfers and health insurance 

programmes, particularly on children’s and maternal health outcomes. Most of the evidence comes from CCTs in 

Latin America, since these are often conditioned on health investments. Many CCT programmes include a number 

of health components, including incentivising attendance for health education, measurements of height and weight, 

immunisations and nutritional supplementation.  

CCTs in Latin America have had strong impacts on improving health care check-ups for children, children’s 

morbidity rates and immunisation, among others (Barrientos and Niño-Zarazúa, 2011). CCTs have also improved 

maternal health (Barrientos and Niño-Zarazúa, 2011). A systematic review concludes that CCTs appear to be 

effective in increasing the uptake of preventative health services, and encourage some preventative behaviours 

(Lagarde et al., 2009). The link between CCTs and health outcomes is less clear. In some cases programmes have 

noted improvement in health outcomes, though it is unclear to which components these positive effects should be 

attributed (Lagarde et al., 2009). There is some evidence to suggest that MICs have been more successful at meeting 

health needs than LICs, as LICs often do not have the supply capacity to meet demand (Barrientos and Niño-

Zarazúa, 2011). 

In theory, social protection has the potential to protect or improve the nutritional status of target groups in a number 

of ways. Improved economic status could enable households to access more nutritious diets, healthcare, and 

education, and to make improvements in water, sanitation and hygiene. All of these could help people remain well-

nourished and to grow and develop properly. However, the evidence for the impact of social protection on nutrition 

remains mixed.  

Evaluations of conditional cash transfer programmes in Latin America found that some, but not all, improved child 

growth (i.e. height). Only one looked at impact on wasting, but found no impact (Lagarde et al., 2009). These 

studies found that the age of the child and access to health care are more important for child growth than 

conditionalities (Manley et al., 2012). It has been suggested that ‘nudging’ beneficiaries (i.e.,emphasizing the 

importance of good nutrition but not attaching conditions) might be as effective. The evidence for unconditional 

cash transfers is also unconvincing (Ruel and Alderman, 2013). For example, evaluations of the Ethiopian 

Productive Safety Net Program have repeatedly found no discernible impacts on growth or risk for wasting among 

children in targeted households. Cash transfers, conditional and unconditional, have a slightly more positive effect 

on girls’ nutrition than that of boys (Manley et al., 2012).  

There have been relatively few evaluations of the impact of food transfers on nutrition outcomes. A recent set of 

studies comparing food with cash transfers found variation in effect in different countries (Hoddinott et al., 2013). 

Very generally, food transfers had more of an impact on energy intake whereas cash transfers had more of an impact 

on dietary diversity. Whilst this effect has been seen in other studies, it is not consistent in all settings and has 

generally not been related to subsequent changes in growth or risk of wasting.  



www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aijssr               American International Journal of Social Science Research             Vol. 2, No. 1; 2018 

71 
 

Recent reviews have shown that school feeding is not an effective way of improving nutrition outcomes, primarily 

because it fails to target children during the first 1000 days of their development (Alderman and Bundy, 2012). This 

is widely viewed as the critical window of opportunity for preventing malnutrition. There is emerging evidence that 

school feeding can have a positive impact on the nutrition of younger siblings. Whether this represents the most 

cost-effective way of achieving this outcome is debatable. Schools might provide a useful platform for promoting 

nutrition messages and for reaching adolescent girls (Bhutta et al., 2013). However, the benefits and risks of school-

based nutrition programmes have not been tested. 

4. Poverty Situation and Vulnerability in Nigeria 

The majority of the Nigerian population lives in poverty, despite the wealth in the country. Although indications that 

poverty may be declining (AfDB et al., 2009; NPC, 2010), of significant concern is that, between 1980 and 2004, 

both rural and urban poverty more than doubled, from 28.3% to 63.3% in rural areas and from 17.2% to 43.2% in 

urban areas (UNDP, 2009). Nigeria’s national poverty line states that 54% of the 140 million population lives in 

poverty (approximately 75 million people) (NPC, 2010), of whom 22% were defined as ‘core poor’, i.e. extremely 

poor in 2004 (UNDP, 2009).  

Inequality in income and asset distribution, unequal access to basic infrastructure and services and social-cultural 

norms are key drivers of poverty, vulnerability and inequality in the country (UNDP, 2009). Indeed, Nigeria has 

high rates of inequality6. According to the UN Development Programme (UNDP, 2009), inequality increased 

between 1985 and 2004 (from 43 to 49), although others suggest it has been decreasing (from 49.1 in 1990 to 43.8)7 

(Ortiz and Cummins, 2011): overall, however, it remains high. When adjusted to reflect inequality, Nigeria’s Human 

Development Index value drops significantly, from 0.423 to 0.246 (UNDP, 2010). 

Poverty incidence is highly correlated with educational attainment in Nigeria. Households headed by individuals 

with little or no education experience the highest poverty incidence, depth and severity (NPC, 2010; Ojowu et al., 

2007). Nigeria has made improvements in net enrolment in primary school: 9 out of 10 eligible children are now in 

school as a result of Universal Basic Education (UBE) interventions and enrolment in private schools (NPC, 2010). 

However, this figure masks the fact that disadvantaged groups are still excluded and education quality remains poor: 

the country still has more than 7 million children out of primary school, of whom girls constitute about 62% (ibid.). 

It also masks attendance: the 2008 Demographic Health Survey (DHS) shows that net attendance at primary is 

62.1% (NPC and ICF Macro, 2009). Approximately 15 million children under 14 are working to support their 

family and pay their school fees (UNICEF Nigeria, 2006). 

Although Nigeria’s HIV prevalence appears to have stabilised in the past 10 years, the epidemic still remains a 

major public health challenge. The sheer size of the population means that Nigeria is second only to South Africa in 

terms of numbers of people affected by HIV and AIDS. Indeed, with an estimated 3.3 million people living with 

HIV, Nigeria bears nearly 10% of the global burden of HIV (UNAIDS, 2009). 

Gender inequality is pervasive in Nigeria (Ajani, 2008). Women face consistent inequalities in terms of access to 

and control over land, credit facilities, technologies, education and health. Poverty therefore often affects women 

more intensely than men (Social Watch, 2005). In rural communities, female-headed households tend be the poorest, 

given cultural norms which inhibit women from inheriting land – traditionally, on the death of her husband, a widow 

is dispossessed of all her husband’s property (Rural Poverty Portal, 2010). Incidence of food insecurity is also higher 

for female- than for male-headed households –49% compared with 38% – although women improve household food 

and nutrition security by spending more of their income on food (Ajani, 2008). 

As the median age in Nigeria is only 17.1 years (UNDP, 2010), and over 17% of the population is under the age of 

six (NPC and ICF Macro, 2009), poverty has tremendous impacts on children’s protection needs. It threatens the 

survival of many Nigerian children, reflected in high rates of child and infant mortality; high prevalence of 

malnutrition; and often limited educational opportunities. Nigerian children are highly vulnerable to income poverty 

but also to a wide variety of other economic and social factors. These include urbanisation and migration; health 

shocks; environmental degradation; domestic violence and family fragmentation; broader societal violence and 

conflict; social exclusion and discrimination; harmful traditional practices based on cultural values; and orphanhood 

and loss of family. 

4.1. Internal Displacement and Poverty in Nigeria 

Nigeria currently has over four million internally displaced persons (IDPs) who have been forced to leave their 

communities and homes due to violent conflicts. We have the dubious distinction of being the third worst country in 

the world ranking of IDP numbers. Worldwide, the number of internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) according to 

International Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) in 2013 stood at 33.3 million people(Ibrahim, 2014). Their 

spatial distribution shows that 63 percent of IDPs are located in only five countries affected by conflict – Syria (6.5 

million), Colombia (5.7 million), Nigeria, (3.3 million), the Democratic Republic of Congo (2.7 million) and Sudan 

(2.4 million) (Ibrahim, 2014). Because these figures change in response to the conflict situation within countries, the 

http://blogs.premiumtimesng.com/author/jibrin/
http://blogs.premiumtimesng.com/author/jibrin/


www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aijssr               American International Journal of Social Science Research             Vol. 2, No. 1; 2018 

72 
 

caseload and therefore the ranking of the countries also change over time. The number of IDPs in Nigeria has grown 

considerably since the 2013 estimates and is today over four million. 

The Boko Haram insurgency, conflicts with militants in the Niger-Delta, inter-community conflicts and cattle 

rustling in the north central zone (Plateau, Nassarawa and Benue States), rural banditry in the North West as well as 

election related violence (Kaduna, Zamfara, Katsina and Sokoto States) kidnapping in the South East and the 2013 

flooding of River Benue have all conspired to provoke the displacement of millions of people from their normal 

places of abode. The most serious cause generating the increase of IDPs in the country is of course the insurgency in 

the North East zone. The current figure of the number of IDPs emanating from Boko Haram terrorism in the North 

East, according to the United Nations, is 1.5 million. There has been a spike in the numbers due to increased attacks 

and expansion of the zone of Boko Haram attacks and conquest of Nigerian territory over the past months (Ibrahim, 

2014). 

UNICEF has identified six major drivers of population movements in Nigeria leading to an increased need for 

humanitarian aid. They are insurgency, communal conflicts, natural disasters, environmental degradation, poverty 

and electoral violence. The key problem in Nigeria is that nothing is ever done to resettle the IDPs. The IDPs that 

ran from the post election violence of 2011 have not been resettled. Neither have the victims of the 2013 floods. The 

IDPs from the Boko Haram insurgency and inter-communal conflicts continue to grow partly because nothing is 

done to address their long-term needs. 

IDPs live a life of misery after being uprooted from their homes and livelihoods. There are a few camps but they do 

not have good facilities such as rooms and toilets. Most IDPs have to seek out friends, relations and village mates to 

stay with. Others are dependent on religious organisations. Given the general poverty in the land however, taking 

care of IDPs is a real strain on hosts and host communities. Internally displaced persons have now become a part of 

the poverty stricken populace. Social protection is essential to the realization of the rights of internally displaced 

persons to an adequate standard of living and essential services. 

5. Existing social protection policy and programmes in Nigeria 

5.1. Social Protection Policy  

There has been a concerted effort by governments and the international community in sub-Saharan Africa to foster 

commitment to social protection within national poverty reduction agendas. This resulted in the African Union’s 

(AU’s) Conference of Ministers of Social Development adopting a social policy framework that included a 

minimum package of social protection in October 2008, endorsed by AU Heads of State in early 2009, noting that 

‘social protection has multiple beneficial impacts on national economies, and is essential to build human capital, 

break the intergenerational cycle of poverty, and reduce the growing inequalities that constrain Africa’s social and 

economic development’ (Regional Experts Meeting on Social Protection, 2008). On this basis, AU Member States 

were called on to develop plans of action for the design and rollout of a minimum package of social protection 

measures. Despite Nigeria being a key player in the AU, the country has not yet achieved this(Hagen-Zanker and 

Holmes, 2012). 

Hover, social protection policy has been discussed nationally in Nigeria since 2004, when the National Planning 

Commission (NPC), supported by the international community, drafted a Social Protection Strategy. More recently, 

in 2009, the National Social Insurance Trust Fund (NSITF) drafted a social security strategy. However, neither 

strategy has generated sufficient political traction to progress past draft, despite a chapter committed to social 

protection in the implementation plan of Nigeria’s most recent national policy document – Vision 20: 2020 (Hagen-

Zanker and Holmes, 2012). 

The draft 2004 Social Protection Policy approached social protection using a lifecycle and gender lens (recognizing 

both economic and social risks including job discrimination and harmful traditional practices) and presented a social 

protection response organized around four main themes: social assistance, social insurance, child protection and the 

labour market. However, only a few components of this are included in the national implementation plan of Vision 

20: 2020, most notably social insurance, in the form of extending national health insurance to the informal sector; 

labour market programmes, including the development of labor-intensive interventions; and other social 

programmes, such as the provision of vitamin A supplements for children.  

The Vision 20: 2020 objective for social protection is to ‘increase productivity and income, reduce poverty and 

vulnerability by diminishing people’s exposure to risk and enhancing their capacity to protect themselves against 

hazards and loss of income’. Specifically, it calls on social protection to contribute to reducing the poverty rate from 

65% to 50% by 2013. An estimated N186 billion of social protection expenditure was proposed over the plan period 

(2010-2013), although it is not clear how this will be allocated within social protection or how these resources will 

be generated. The plan suggests that process issues will be addressed (harmonising provision, improving 

coordination and data management, etc.) alongside expansion of social protection provision to the informal sector, 

particularly through the NHIS and social transfers to the most vulnerable groups (Hagen-Zanker and Holmes, 2012).  

http://blogs.premiumtimesng.com/author/jibrin/


www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aijssr               American International Journal of Social Science Research             Vol. 2, No. 1; 2018 

73 
 

Overall, limited federal-level leadership promoting the provision of a social protection package (beyond cash 

transfers and health financing mechanisms) and absence of an overarching federal social protection policy or 

strategy are key constraints to the development and implementation of appropriate social protection mechanisms at 

state level. Moreover, in practice, programmes have to date been based on a narrow conceptualisation of social 

protection (CCTs and health financing mechanisms) resulting in ad hoc, small-scale and state-led programmes, with 

little coordination between sectors and between the state and federal level. 

Other social assistance programmes are implemented in an ad hoc manner by a range of government ministries, 

departments and agencies (MDAs) at state level and/or funded by international donors. These include CCTs for 

girls’ education (in Bauchi, Katsina and Kano, through the UK Department for International Development (DFID), 

the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the World Bank), a child savings account in Bayelsa and a disability grant 

in Jigawa, plus various health waivers, education support (e.g. free uniforms) and nutrition support. HIV and AIDS 

programmes at state level also include social protection subcomponents, including nutrition, health and education 

support. Labour market programmes include federal- and state-level public works programmes, agricultural 

subsidies/inputs and youth skills and employment programmes – but these are not necessarily targeted at the 

poor(Hagen-Zanker and Holmes, 2012). 

A certain amount of social equity legislation has been passed, which can be seen as part of the transformative social 

protection agenda: the Civil and Political Rights Covenant, the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Covenant, the 

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Violence Against Women and the Convention on the Rights of the 

Child. However, not all states have passed these, and implementation is weak at best. There is limited, if any, 

conceptual link between the broader regulatory policies of equality and rights and social protection policies. 

5.2. Issues in the Existing Social Protection Programmes in Nigeria  

The mapping of Nigeria’s emerging social protection sector identified a number of key issues. One of the key 

concerns is the limited coverage and reach of existing programmes. This is reflected in the small scale of 

programmes run by government and development partners (international agencies and NGOs) which cover between 

a few hundred households and a few thousand. While 140 million people live in poverty in the country, social 

protection programmes reach only a small fraction of the poor. This includes the federal-led MDGs-DRG safety nets 

– COPE and the MCH (see table below). Only the CBHIS has the explicit vision to reach 100% of the poor (in the 

informal sector). This may be linked to the presidential mandate given to the NHIS to achieve universal health 

insurance coverage and access to health care for all Nigerians by 2015 (NHIS, 2010). However, the executive 

secretary of the NHIS has admitted there are enormous financial difficulties in extending such a scheme to the huge 

number of informal workers and those living in poverty, as well as challenges relating to the poor state of health 

infrastructure and human resource capacity within the health system, a lack of public awareness of the scheme and 

weak coordination and reluctance of state governments and LGAs to engage with the scheme (Gavrilovic et al., 

2011). 

Table 1: Coverage of Social Protection Programmes 

Programme Projected coverage: number of 

households/% of poor  

Actual coverage: number of 

households/% of poor  
COPE  22,000 households/less than 0.001% of poor households nationally 

(NAPEP, NPC and ICF Macro, 2009)  

CCT girls’ education  Kano – scaling up to all eligible girls in 

LGAs where CCT is implemented  

12,000 girls, Kano/0.002% of poor people in 

Kano (9.2 million population; poverty 
incidence approx. 60%)  

7,000 girls, Katsina / 0.001% of poor people 
in Katsina (6 million population; poverty 

incidence approx. 70%)  

MCH  851,198 women and girls June 2010 (Phase 1: 615,101, Phase 2: 

236,097)/less than 0.01% of the poor (assumption 75 million poor; 
poverty rate 54%)  

CBHIS  100% informal sector workers (when fully 

rolled out, expected to cover 112 million 

Nigerians in informal sector (PATHS2, 
2010)  

Currently unavailable  

Source: Holmes et al (2012). 
6. Most Vulnerable Groups of IDPs 

Internally displaced persons are "persons or groups of persons who have been forced or obliged to flee or to leave 

their homes or places of habitual residence, in particular as a result of or in order to avoid the effects of armed 

conflict, situations of generalized violence, violations of human rights or natural or human-made disasters, and who 

have not crossed an internationally recognized State border."On the other hand, vulnerability is the forward-looking 

state of expected outcomes, which are in themselves determined by the correlation, frequency and timing of realized 



www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aijssr               American International Journal of Social Science Research             Vol. 2, No. 1; 2018 

74 
 

risks and the risk responses. Households are vulnerableif a shock is likely to push them below (or deeper below) a 

predefined welfare threshold (e.g., poverty)(Heitzmann et al., 2002). 

Although all persons affected by conflict and/or human rights violations suffer, displacement from one's place of 

residence may make the internally displaced particularly vulnerable. Following are some of the factors that are likely 

to increase the need for protection (Training on the Protection of IDPs (n.d.): 

• Internally displaced persons may be in transit from one place to another, may be in hiding, may be forced toward 

unhealthy or inhospitable environments, or face other circumstances that make them especially vulnerable. 

• The social organisation of displaced communities may have been destroyed or damaged by the act of physical 

displacement; family groups may be separated or disrupted; women may be forced to assume non-traditional roles or 

face particular vulnerabilities. 

• Internally displaced populations, and especially groups like children, the elderly, or pregnant women, may 

experience profound psychosocial distress related to displacement. 

• Removal from sources of income and livelihood may add to physical and psychosocial vulnerability for displaced 

people. 

• Schooling for children and adolescents may be disrupted. 

• Internal displacement to areas where local inhabitants are of different groups or inhospitable may increase risk to 

internally displaced communities; internally displaced persons may face language barriers during displacement. 

• The condition of internal displacement may raise the suspicions of or lead to abuse by armed combatants, or other 

parties to conflict. 

• Internally displaced persons may lack identity documents essential to receiving benefits or legal recognition; in 

some cases, fearing persecution, displaced persons have sometimes got rid of such documents. 

The multiple socio-economic disadvantages mentioned above that internally displaced persons experience makes 

them vulnerable. However, the operational definition of vulnerability here as applied to the most vulnerable IDPs 

covers those categories of internally displaced persons who may never recover from the severe shocks of the 

displacement and may become chronic poor, as such worsening the poverty situation in Nigeria. However, the task 

of identifying the most vulnerable groups is not an easy one. Besides there are multiple and complex factors of 

vulnerability with different layers and more often than once it cannot be analyzed in isolation. Based on the 

operational definition of vulnerability which covers those categories of internally displaced persons who may never 

recovered from a severe shock and are described as chronic poor, the following are identified as most vulnerable: 

-disabling illness 

-Those that have lost all their assets 

-Isolated elderly people 

-Women 

- Malnourished people 

-Children and frail 

-Unaccompanied children 

- Children used in hostilities 

- Physically challenged 

- Destitute people 

-People living with AIDS 

-Terminally ill 

- Widow 

-Chronic mental conditions 

- Pregnant and nursing women 

-The visually impaired 

-Women suffering from VVF 

-Those struggling with substance abuse 

-Homeless persons  

- Those maimed  

-Those with low/no levels of education  

-The unemployed 

6.1. Social Protection Framework for the Most Vulnerable Groups of IDPs 

In light of the  challenges identified in  the  social protection programmes in Nigeria, this paper attempts  to design a 

social protection framework for the most vulnerable groups of internally displaced persons. Drawing from Devereux 

and Sabates-Wheeler’s (2004),the full range of social protection interventions can be categorized under protective, 

preventive, promotive and transformative measures: 



www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aijssr               American International Journal of Social Science Research             Vol. 2, No. 1; 2018 

75 
 

- Protective (protecting households’ income and consumption, which includes social assistance programmes such as 

cash transfers, in-kind transfers, fee waivers to support access to basic and social services);  

Vulnerability 

Categories 

Examples of affected 

groups 

Leading indicators Category of 

interventions 

Types of 

programmes 

Exit strategy 

for  most 

vulnerable 

people 

Social 

Vulnerable 

 

 Children and frail 

 Blind children 

 Unaccompanied Children  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Children used in 

hostilities/Child soldiers 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Abducted children 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Women/women suffering 

from VVF 

 

 

 

 

 Pregnant and nursing 

women  

 

 

 Widows 

 

 

 

 

 Orphans 

 

 

 

 Destitute people 

 

 

 Physically challenged 

 

 

-  

-  

-  

- -Poor nutritional status, low pre-school 

program coverage, child molestation 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-Aggression, abusive, restless, stubborn, 

wild and harmful 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- - depression, recurrent infections, fatigue, 

vomiting 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- sexual assault and abuse, discrimination, 

gender-based violence, human trafficking, 

rape, wipe beating and corporal 

punishment, early marriage, genital 

mutilation 

-  

-slapping and kicking, no provision for 

antenatal care, poor oral hygiene 

- -widow rites 

-  

- -Neglect, harassment and abused 

 

 

-  

-  

- - maltreatment, abuse 

 

 

 

- - depression, recurrent infections, fatigue, 

vomiting 

-  

 

-depression, neglect, violence, abuse 

 

 

 

- Social services 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-Social services 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-Social services  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- Social 

insurance 

 

 

 

 

 

- Social 

insurance 

 

 

 

-Social insurance 

 

 

 

 

-Transformative 

action 

 

 

-Social assistance 

 

 

 

 

 

-crèches/pre-schools 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-guidance and 

counselling, taming,  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-guidance and 

counselling 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-empowerment, 

promotion of health 

right, skill acquisition 

 

 

 

-Free antenatal care 

 

 

 

-Single-parent 

allowances, cash 

transfer 

 

 

-maternal benefit 

 

 

 

-disability benefit 

 

 

 

-disability benefit 

 

-Free education, 

access to 

nutrition, school 

feeding, school 

transporting, 

provision of 

braile for 

communication, 

reading,etc.  

 
- full scholarship,  
translating 

education 

acquired to 
livelihoods 

 

 
 

 

 
-access to school 

and learning, food 

for school, access 
to  nutrition, 

access to health 

facilities, book 

allowance, school 

transporting/after 

school training. 
 

 

-start-up funds, 

 

 

 

 

 

-health 

awareness and 

care 

 

 

- Start-up funds 

 

 

 

 

- Start-up funds, 

Starter packs 

 

 

-Start up funds, 

Starter packs 

 

 



www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aijssr               American International Journal of Social Science Research             Vol. 2, No. 1; 2018 

76 
 

 Older blind/visually 

impaired persons 

 

 

 

 

 

 Those maimed 

 

 

 

 Terminally ill 

 

 

 

 Sex workers 

 

 

 Isolated elderly 

people/Aged 

 

 

 

 The homeless  

 

 

 

 

 

 Those struggling with 

substance abuse 

 

 

 

 

 

 People living with AIDS 

 

 

 

 Malnourished people 

 

 

 

 

 Victims of domestic 

abuse 

 

 

 

 Those with low/no level 

of education 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-maltreatment, deceived, misled, cheated, 

neglected, undermined, ignored, 

harassment, abuse 

 

 

 

 

-Loss of employment, depression, 

neglect, frustration 

 

 

- - poor health care, no health insurance 

coverage 

-  

-  

-Violence, rape, kidnapping, murder, 

trafficking, slapped or stabbed 

 

 

-neglect, physical abuse, financial fraud 

committed against them by relatives, 

strangers and caregiver 

 

 

-hate crimes, killings, discrimination, 

criminalization of homelessness, victim 

of violence, accommodation problem 

 

 

 

Sudden change in behavior, mood 

change, withdrawal from family 

members, sniffy or runny nose, unusual 

excitement, aggressiveness, delusion, 

hallucinations, depression 

 

 

-stigmatization, discrimination, untold 

hardship 

 

 

 

Weight loss, frequent infections, 

depression, tiredness, sluggish, poor 

vision at night or in dim light 

 

 

-visible physical injuries, depression, 

alcohol or drug abuse 

 

 

 

-Cannot read and write, no skill  

 

 

-Social assistance 

 

 

-Social assistance 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-Social assistance 

 

 

 

-Social assistance 

 

 

 

- Social services 

 

 

 

-Social services 

 

 

 

 

-Transformative 

action 

 

 

 

 

Transformative 

action 

 

 

 

 

 

-Transformative 

action 

 

 

 

- 

 

 

 

 

-Transformative 

action 

 

 

 

-Transformative 

action 

 

 

 

 

-Allowance to help in 

their disability needs, 

counseling and 

guidance,  vocational 

rehabilitation or trade 

 

 

-disability benefit, skill 

acquisition 

 

 

- allowances 

 

 

 

-Skill acquisitions, 

training and 

entrepreneurship 

programme 

-health insurance 

 

 

 

 

-Refugee/IDP camps 

 

 

 

 

 

Prevention programme 

for drug abuse and 

violence, skill 

acquisition 

 

 

 

-anti-retrovirals 

(ARVs), counselling 

services and financial 

support 

 

-community based 

therapeutic care 

programmes, health 

nutritional programmes 

 

-Community based 

care, skill acquisition 

 

 

 

-Access to adult 

education, skill 

acquisition, training 

and entrepreneurship 

programme 

 

-Start up funds, 

Starter packs 

 

-Job placement, 

start-up funds, 

starter packs 

 

 

 

 

-Start up funds, 

Starter packs 

 

 

-free waivers for 

health care 

services 

 

-microfinance 

scheme 

 

 

-old people’s 

home, 

recreational 

centre, 

 

-low cost 

housing 

facilities, Start-

up funds, Starter 

packs 

 

 

-Start-up funds, 

Starter packs 

 

 

 

 

 

-low cost 

housing 

facilities, Start 

up funds, 

Starter packs 

 

-allowance for 

purchase of 

supplements  

 

 

-Start-up funds, 

starter packs 

 

 

 

-Start-up funds, 

starter packs 

 



www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aijssr               American International Journal of Social Science Research             Vol. 2, No. 1; 2018 

77 
 

-Preventative (preventing households from falling into or further into poverty, including, for instance, health 

insurance programmes, subsidized risk pooling mechanisms);  

-Promotive (promoting household’s ability to engage in productive activities and increase incomes, for example 

through public works employment schemes, agricultural inputs transfers or subsidies); and  

-Transformative (addressing social inequalities and discrimination, which includes, for example, core social 

protection programmes which tackle gender inequality and promote child rights and linkages to awareness-raising 

programmes or tackling discrimination).  

 
Table 2: A Framework for Social Protection Programmes for  the most Vulnerable Groups of IDPs in Nigeria 

 

The framework above also shows how individuals or households can exit a social protection programme  or 

graduate. The term graduation is used to mean graduating out of poverty. However, not all social protection 

programmes aim to graduate beneficiaries (e.g. pensions), and some households lack graduation potential (e.g. those 

with chronically sick members) (Garcia and Moore, 2012). 

6.2. Roles and Responsibilities of Various Stakeholders 

Key Stakeholders and their identified roles in the Social Protection    for programme are: 

a) Federal Government 

•Provide necessary infrastructure and enabling logistics for effective implementation 

•Provide financial and technical support at state and local government levels and as well monitor the performance of 

the programmes through its agencies 

b) State governments 

•Mobilization for effective participation 

•Provide necessary infrastructure and enabling logistics for effective implementation 

• Assist financially 

c) Local governments 

•Mobilization for effective participation 

•Provide necessary infrastructure and enabling logistics for effective implementation 

•Financial support 

d)Local Communities 

•They should initiate, develop and implement specific social protection projects in their communities 

•They should render relevant infrastructural, human and material resources available 

•They should help in the identification of the most vulnerable groups 

e) Voluntary Agencies (Civil Society, CBOs, FBOs, etc). 

• They should assist in initiate, develop and execute specific social protection projects in their communities 

•They should provide relevant infrastructural, human and material resources  

•They should assist in the identification of the most vulnerable groups 

f) International Community/donor agencies 

 

Economic 

Vulnerable 
 Female-headed 

households 

 

-low income, low economic welfare - 

low  

 

 

-Social 

insurance  

 

 

-Crèches/pre-schools, 

- 

 

 

-microfinance 

scheme 

 

  Unemployed 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Those that have lost all 

their assets  

 

 

-wages, Inactivity (violence, substance 

abuse), financial problems 

 

 

 

 

 

-low income, low economic welfare 

 

-Social assistance 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- Social 

assistance 

 

 

 

-Unemployment 

benefits, skill 

acquisition, training 

and entrepreneurship 

programme 

 

 

-Unemployment 

benefits, skill 

acquisition, training 

and entrepreneurship 

programme 

 

 

Start-up funds, 

starter packs, 

job search and 

linkage 

 

 

 

-start-up capital, 

starter pack  

-microfinance 

scheme 

 



www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aijssr               American International Journal of Social Science Research             Vol. 2, No. 1; 2018 

78 
 

•They should collaborate with the government in the implementation of some specific projects at the federal, state or 

local government levels. 

•They provide and support capacity building to enhance the success of  these social protection programmes 

•They should also assist in monitoring and evaluating the social protection programmes as well as bringing in 

innovations 

7.  Conclusion 
The many waves of displacement, both small and large scale, caused essentially by conflict, generalized violence, 

natural disasters and human rights have translated to an increase in the poverty levels in Nigeria. The internally 

displaced persons have now become a part of the poverty stricken populace.  A social protection programme will go 

a long way in reducing poverty. Social protection programmes have been introduced in Nigeria but the effect has 

been minimal and the coverage does not adequately capture the core poor who in the case of displacement are the 

most vulnerable groups among internally displaced persons. Hence, the need for a social protection response that 

would stop internally displaced people falling into poverty; stop the most vulnerable IDPs falling deeper into 

poverty and against livelihood risks. 

References 

African Development Bank, UK Department for International Development, US Agency for International 

Development and World Bank (2009). ‘International Development Association Country Partnership 

Strategy for the Federal Republic of Nigeria (2010-2013)’. Washington, DC: World Bank. 

Ajani, O. (2008).‘Gender Dimensions of Agriculture, Poverty, Nutrition and Food Security in Nigeria’.NSSP 

Background Paper 4. Washington, DC: IFPRI. 

Alderman, H., and Bundy, D. (2012). School Feeding Programs and Development: Are we Framing the Question 

Correctly? The World Bank Research Observer, 27(2), 204-221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lkr005 

Arnold, C.,  Conway, T., and Greenslade, M. (2011). Cash Transfers Literature Review. London: Department for 

International Development. 

Baird, S., Ferreira, F. H. G., Özler, B., and Woolcock, M. (2013).Relative Effectiveness of Conditional and 

Unconditional Cash Transfers for Schooling Outcomes in Developing Countries: A Systematic Review. 

Campbell Systematic Reviews 2013:8. The Campbell 

Collaboration.http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/lib/project/218/ 

Barrientos, A. (2010). Social Protection and Poverty (Social Policy and Development Programme Paper Number 

42). Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development. 

Barrientos, A., and Niño-Zarazúa, M. (2011).Social Transfers and Chronic Poverty: Objectives, Design, Reach and 

Impact.Chronic Poverty Research Centre 

Report.http://www.chronicpoverty.org/uploads/publication_files/socialtransfersfullreport.pdf 

Bhutta, Z. A., Das, J. K., Rizvi, A., Gaffey, M. F., Walker, N., Horton, S., Webb, P., Lartey, A., Black, R.E., Lancet 

Nutrition Interventions Review Group, & Maternal and Child Nutrition  Study Group (2013). Evidence-

based interventions for improvement of maternal and child nutrition: what can be done and at what cost? 

The Lancet, 382(9890), 452-477. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60996-4 

Bundy, D., Burbano, C., Grosh, M., Gelli, A., Jukes, M., and Drake, L. (2009).. Rethinking School Feeding – Social 

Safety Nets, Child Development and the Education Sector. Rome: World Food Programme and World 

Bank. (Executive Summary). 

Business Dictionary (n.d.). Poverty. http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/poverty.html 

Devereux, S., and Sabates-Wheeler, R. (2004).Transformative Social Protection, IDS Working Paper 232, 

Brighton: IDS. 

Devereux, S, Baulch, B., Macauslan, I., Phiri, A. and Sabates-Wheeler, R. (2006).Vulnerability and Social 

Protection in Malawi . Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex Brighton BN1 9RE 

UK. IDS Discussion Paper 387 

Fiszbein, A., and Schady,N. (2009). Conditional cash transfers. Reducing present and future poverty Policy 

Research Report, World Bank. 

Gavrilovic, M., Alder, H., Cali, M., Cullen, E., Harper, C., Jones, N., Samuels, F. and Niño-Zarazúa, M. 

(2011).‗The Impact of the Food, Financial and Fuel (3F) Crises on Women and Children in Nigeria‘. 

London: ODI 

Hagen-Zanker, J., and Holmes, R. (2012).Social Protection in Nigeria: Synthesis Report. 

ODI.https://www.odi.org/resources/docs/7583.pdf. 

Hagen-Zanker, J., McCord, A., and Holmes, R. (2011).Systematic Review of the impact of Employment Guarantee 

Schemes and Cash Transfers on the Poor.London: ODI. http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-

assets/publications-opinion-files/7161.pdf 

http://www.chronicpoverty.org/uploads/publication_files/socialtransfersfullreport.pdf
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60996-4


www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aijssr               American International Journal of Social Science Research             Vol. 2, No. 1; 2018 

79 
 

Harvey, P., Holmes, R., Slater, R., and Martin, E. (2007).‘Social Protection in Fragile States.’ Paper Prepared for 

OECD DAC Povnet. London: ODI. 

Heitzmann, K., Canagarajah, R. S., and Siegel, P. B. (2002).Guidelines for Assessing the Sources of Risk and 

Vulnerability.Social Protection Discussion Paper Series. No. 0218, Social Protection Unit, Human 

Development Network, the World Bank. 

Hoddinott, J., Gilligan, D., Hidrobo, M., Margolies, A., Roy, S., Sandström, S., Schwab, B., and Upton, J. (2013). 

Enhancing WFP’s Capacity and Experience to Design, Implement, Monitor, and Evaluate Vouchers and 

Cash Transfer Programmes: Study Summary. Washington, DC: IFPRI. 

http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/project_summary_final_july2013.pdf 

Holmes, R. and Akinrimisi, B. with Morgan, J. and Buck, R. (2012) ‘Social Protection in Nigeria: Mapping 

Programmes and Their Effectiveness’. Draft. London: ODI. 

Garcia M, and Moore, C.M. 2012.The Cash Dividend: The Rise of Cash Transfer Programs in Sub-Saharan Africa. 

Washington D.C: The World Bank. 

Gentilini, U., Honorati, M., and Yemtsov, R. (2014).The State of Social Safety Nets 2014.World Bank Working 

Paper. 

Gsdrc (n.d.).Types of social protection.  http://www.gsdrc.org/topic-guides/social-protection/types-of-social-

protection/ 

Ibrahim, J. (2014).Misery of Nigerian Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons. Premium 

Times.http://blogs.premiumtimesng.com/2014/12/22/misery-nigerian-refugees-internally-displaced-

persons-jibrin-ibrahim/ 

Lagarde, M., Haines, A., and Palmer, N. (2009).The Impact of Conditional Cash Transfers on Health Outcomes and 

Use of Health Services in Low and Middle Income Countries. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 

2009, Issue 4. Art. No. CD008137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008137. 

Manley, J., Gitter, S., and Slavchevska, V. (2012). How Effective are Cash Transfer Programmes at Improving 

Nutritional Status?A Rapid Evidence Assessment of Programmes’ Effects on Anthropometric Outcomes. 

London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London. 

http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/PDF/Outputs/SystematicReviews/Q33-Cash-transfers-2012Manley-rae.pdf 

National Planning Commission (2010). ‘Nigeria: Millennium Development Goals (MDG), Countdown Strategy: 

2010-2015’. Abuja: NPC. 

National Planning Commission and ICF Macro (2009).Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey 2008: Key 

Findings. Abuja and Calverton, MD: NPC and ICF Macro. 

National Health Insurance Scheme (2010) ‗NHIS-MDG/Maternal and Child Health (MCH) Project‘. Abuja: NHIS. 

Nigeriabar (2015). Strategies for Adopting National Policy on IDPs .http://www.nigeriabar.com/2015/11/strategies-

for-adopting-national-policy-on-idps#.Vx6cmtQrJdj 

Norton, A., Conway, T., and Foster, M. (2000). ‘Social Protection Concepts and Approaches: Implications for 

Policy and Practice in International Development’, Working Paper 143, London: Centre for Aid and 

Public Expenditure, Overseas Development Institute (ODI) 

Norton, A., Conway, T., Foster, M. (2001). Social Protection Concepts and Approaches: Implications for policy 

and practice in international development. Tech. rep., Centre for Aid and Public Expenditure, London, 

UK. 

Ojowu, O., Bulus, H., and Omonona, B. (2007).‘Nigeria Poverty Assessment’.www.pak-

nigeria.org/pdfs/24_Nigeria_Poverty_Assessment_2007_Table_of_Contents_Executi.pdf. 

Ortiz, I. (ed.), 2001, Social Protection in Asia and the Pacific, Manila: Asian Development Bank (ADB) 

Ortiz, I. and Cummins, M. (2011). ‘Global Inequality: Beyond the Bottom Billion. A Rapid Review of Income 

Distribution in 141 Countries’.Social and Economic Policy Working Paper. New York: UNICEF. 

Oxford Dictionaries (n.d.).Vulnerability.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/vulnerability. 

Ruel, M. T., and Alderman, H. (2013). Nutrition-sensitive Interventions and Programmes: How Can They Help to 

Accelerate Progress in Improving Maternal and Child Nutrition? The Lancet, 382(9891), 536-551. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60843-0 

Social Watch (2005).‘The Many Programmes and the Many Poor’. www.socialwatch.org/node/10946. 

Sterlacchini, S (2011).Vulnerability Assessment: Concepts, definitions and methods. Institute for the Dynamic of 

Environmental Processes. CHANGES-Workshop Meeting: Krakow, 22 September, 2011. 

Training on the Protection of IDPs (n.d.). Who is an Internally Displaced Person? 

web.mnstate.edu/.../Who%20is%20an%20Internally%20Displaced%20Pe.. 

US Agency for International Development (2009). ‘HIV/AIDS in Nigeria: A USAID Brief’. Washington, DC: 

USAID. 

http://blogs.premiumtimesng.com/author/jibrin/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008137
http://www.pak-nigeria.org/pdfs/24_Nigeria_Poverty_Assessment_2007_Table_of_Contents_Executi.pdf
http://www.pak-nigeria.org/pdfs/24_Nigeria_Poverty_Assessment_2007_Table_of_Contents_Executi.pdf


www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aijssr               American International Journal of Social Science Research             Vol. 2, No. 1; 2018 

80 
 

UN Children’s Fund Nigeria (2006). ‘Information Sheet: Child Labour.’ Abuja: UNICEF. 

UN Development Programme (2009). Human Development Report Nigeria 2008–2009: Achieving Growth with 

equity. Abuja: UNDP. 

UN Development Programme (2010). Human Development Report. Geneva: UNDP. 

UNICEF (2012).Integrated Social Protection Systems - 

Unicef.www.unicef.org/socialprotection/.../Full_Social_Protection_Strategic_Fra... 

UNICEF (n.d.).Social Protection Strategic Framework ,Integrated Social Protection Systems: Enhancing Equity for 

Children.www.unicef.org/socialpolicy/.../UNICEF_Social_Protection_Strategic_Fr... 

Van Ginneken, W. (ed.) (1999).Social Security for the Excluded Majority: Case Studies of  

Developing Countries, Geneva: International Labour Office (ILO). 

World Bank (1990).World Development Report 1990, Washington, D.C.: World Bank 

World Bank (1997).Poverty Lines, Policy Research and Poverty and Social Policy Department World Bank, No. 

6.Available athttp://www.worldbank.org/html/prdph/lsms/research/povline/pl_n06.pdf. 

World Bank (2000).World Development Report 2000/2001, Washington, D.C.: World Bank 

World Bank (2003).The World Bank and Social Protection in Latin America and the 

Caribbean.http://web.worldbank.org/archive/website00912B/WEB/OTHER/665B9E-

2.HTM?Opendocument 

 

 

Copyrights 

Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal.  

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 

license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) 
 

 

https://www.google.com.ng/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjv_5nt1cXMAhWFthQKHVR8CbkQFggaMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.unicef.org%2Fsocialprotection%2Fframework%2Ffiles%2FFull_Social_Protection_Strategic_Framework_low_res(1).pdf&usg=AFQjCNHQwj_33_d40K6ADVlSnI20DhaZTA&bvm=bv.121421273,d.d24
https://www.google.com.ng/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjv_5nt1cXMAhWFthQKHVR8CbkQFggaMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.unicef.org%2Fsocialprotection%2Fframework%2Ffiles%2FFull_Social_Protection_Strategic_Framework_low_res(1).pdf&usg=AFQjCNHQwj_33_d40K6ADVlSnI20DhaZTA&bvm=bv.121421273,d.d24
http://www.unicef.org/socialprotection/.../Full_Social_Protection_Strategic_Fra
http://www.worldbank.org/html/
http://web.worldbank.org/archive/website00912B/WEB/OTHER/665B9E-2.HTM?Opendocument
http://web.worldbank.org/archive/website00912B/WEB/OTHER/665B9E-2.HTM?Opendocument

