Reference Material(18!6!064)Report of Impact Evaluation of Family Strengthening Programme

8/8/2019 Reference Material(18!6!064)Report of Impact Evaluation of Family Strengthening Programme

1/66

Draft Report of Impact Evaluation of Family Strengthening Programme-Nepal

Chapter 1

Introduction

1. 1 Background

As a major initiative since its establishment, SOS Childrens Village programmes have

been making substantial contribution to the children who have already lost the care of

their own family through the development of the SOS family childcare model. Taking

another initiative to address the situation of the children who are at risk of losing the care

of their biological family, SOS has introduced Family Strengthening Program (FSP)

aiming to prevent children from losing the care of their biological family for some four

years. The overall goal of this programme is children have their families strengthened and

as such, child abandonment or loss of family is prevented, and there is improvement in

their quality of life and protection of their rights. More specifically the FSP has the

following specific goals:

Increased numbers of children have access to essential services which

improve their quality of life and protect their rights.

Families have the capacity and commitment to care for their children

Ensure that communities have the capacity and commitment to respond

effectively to children at risk of being abandoned.

To have a network of partners able to provide services which will contribute

to prevent child abandonment

Hence, the ultimate goal of the program is that the children at risk have access to

essential services for their healthy development. Towards this end, the FSP has supported

in various areas of children, families, and communities of the target group. The areas

supported by FSP are:

- Nutritional support - Health support

- Educational support - Psychological support

- Living conditions - Promotion of child rights /parenting skills

- Legal support - Economic support

1


2/66

- Family development planning - Community based structures

- Other partners - Management /administration systems

- Human resources

The mechanism for supporting is through empowerment of families and communities

such that they have the capacity to protect and care for their children. Networking with

other partners to prevent children from losing the care of their families is also part of the

FSP strategy.

In Nepal, the Family Strengthening Programmes (FSP) has been part of SOS strategic

plan since 2003. The FSP is operating in all seven (eight) surrounding locations where

the SOS children's villages are established. The seven surrounding locations are

Bhaktapur, Gandaki, Itahari, Kavre, Bardia, Sanothimi and Surkhet (and Bharatpur). In

view of further developing the family strengthening approach, the present study came in

line with its global frame to make an attempt to evaluate the impact of the FSP operating

in Nepal.

1. 2 Objectives

The objectives of the impact evaluation were the following:

a. to find out what impact has the programme made in the lives of the participating

children within our target group, their families as well as in the community.

b. to know how relevant, effective, efficient, sustainable and participatory are the

programme interventions.

c. to draw lesson from the programme that can be taken to further develop the

programme

1. 3 Criteria for impact evaluation

The criteria set for impact evaluation are the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency,sustainability and participation (as given in the TOR). In each criterion the evaluator has

to answer the following questions:

Relevance

- To what extent is the programme focused on our target group i.e. the

children most at risk of losing the care of their family?

2


3/66

- To what extent the programme responds to the needs and priorities of the

programme participants?

Effectiveness

- To what extent are the objectives of the programme being attained (or

likely to be attained)?

- To what extent have children remained in their families instead of losing

their care? To what extent has their quality of life improved?

- To what extent have families successfully left the programme since the

beginning, i.e. became self-reliant? How many children and families have

been reached over the whole programme period?

Efficiency

- Is the relation between input of resources and results achieved appropriate

and justifiable (cost-benefit ratio)? What are the annual running costs and

the average costs per child per month?

- Have individual resources been used most economically? (e.g. tenders for

the purchase of goods)

- Are there any alternatives for reaching the same result with less input?

Sustainability

- To what extent can activities, results and effects be expected to continue

after SOS involvement has ended?

- Is there progress towards SOS withdrawing from its direct involvement

and handing over the full responsibility to run the programme to an

implementation partner?

- Has the capacity of the implementation partner been developed? If so, in

what areas and how?

Participation

- To what extent are stakeholders (participant families, particular children, partners,

local authority) involved in the design and implementation of the programme?

- To what extent is the programme designed to develop the necessary local

institutional (governmental and/or non-governmental) capacity to respond to the

problem?

3


4/66

1. 4 Methodology

The study was be primarily based on the survey design. Both types of data quantitative

and qualitative were sought. Impact evaluation methodology was developed involving the

programme implementers. Both the caregivers and the children of the programme were

included as respondents. More specifically, the data sources and the methodology to carry

out this impact evaluation study was as described below:

1.4.1 Data sources

As the study has to assess the relevancy, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and

the extent of participation in relation to the programme interventions, the data

required in terms of programme inputs, the data source and the method of eliciting

response is (are) presented in Annex 1 (Framework for the study). Annex 1 clearly

shows that the required information can be collected from the following sources:

- Programme documents and reports

- Programme staff

- Participants of the programme (Caregivers and children)

- Survey

- Local community people

1.4.2 Population and sample

As per the memorandum of understanding signed between SOS Children's Village

Nepal and Central Department of Education, University Campus, Tribhuvan

University, Kirtipur impact study was conducted on FSP of SOS Children's Village

Itahari.

Itahari is located in the south-eastern part of the Nepal in which 56 families are

participating in the FSP. The participating 56 families are scattered in four districts-

Jhapa, Morang, Sunsary (i) and Pe (a)rsa. The first three districts are located in

eastern development region and the last one Parsa lies in mid-development region. As

mentioned in the programme document of SOS children's Village Nepal, there were

altogether 201 individuals comprising of 71 school going children, 50 children and 80

adults (including caregivers) in those 56 FSP families. This indicates that there are, in

4


5/66

an average, 3 to 4 members in each family. Out of the total 201 FSP population in

Itahari, the sample of respondents were planned to be 56 caregivers (one from each

family) and one child from each family. However, due to unavailability of nine

caregivers on the day of interview, only 47 could be interviewed.

Out of 47 caregivers who were interviewed, 4 were males and 43 females. All the

caregivers who were interviewed were married except one. But amonf(g) the married

ones 30 were living without husband and 2 without wife. Their age ranged from 20 to

60 years above. Regarding children, only 50 could be reached. Among them 33 were

boys and 17 were girls. Their age ranged from below 8 years to above 16 years. Out

of those 50 children, only 46 could be interviewed. The remaining four were too

small for interview. Hence, only observation record was kept of those four small

children.

Besides, the sample of respondents were the local community people and program

implementers.

1.4.2 Tools for the study

The tools for this study were interview questionnaires and discussion guidelines to

collect both quantitative and qualitative data. Interview questionnaires were used to

collect data from children and caregivers. Discussion guidelines were developed to

collect data from programme staff and community people. Description about what

constitutes in each tool is presented below:

Interview questionnaires for children and caregivers

Interview with children and caregivers was carried out by using semi-structured

questionnaires. There was one questionnaire for the caregivers and a separate one for the

children. However, both questionnaires were mainly focus(ed) on to find out whether the

FSP children and caregivers are (were) provided support according to targeted inputs,

their level of satisfaction and its impact on living conditions, health status, nutritional

status, child rights protections etc. Children's questionnaire were mainly focused on the

key areas related to nutritional support, health support, educational support,

5


6/66

psychological support, living conditions and children rights protection (See Annex 2 for

the children's questionnaire). Similarly, the caregivers' questionnaire also incorporated

questions related to key areas of children's questionnaire in order to triangulate the data.

Besides, the caregivers' questionnaire incorporated questions related to other key areas

such as target group relevance, legal support, economic support, family development

planning, community based structures, other partners, management /administration

system and human resources (See Annex 3 for caregiver questionnaire).

More specifically, both questionnaires of children and caregivers tried to elicit responses

related to outcomes indicators and impacts in their respective areas of the programme as

indicated in the Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for FSP, January 2007.

The children and caregivers questionnaires were structured as follows:

Section 1. Demographic data (age, gender, location, data of entry in the FSP, status of

the FSP program etc.)

Section 2. Inventory of kinds of services/support received and satisfaction

Section 3 Questions about impacts of the FSP program:

nutrition, health support, education, psychosocial, living conditions, childrens

rights/parenting skills, legal support, economic support, family development

planning,

Section 4 Observations.

For caregivers: living conditions, cleanliness, nutritional status, legal documents

etc.

For children: nutritional status, health status, psycho-social well being,

educational skills, playing skills etc.

Both questionnaires were developed in Nepali language first and was discussed with the

programme staff before they were finalized for pilot testing.

Focus Group Discussion (FGD) guidelines for community people

6


7/66

To find local community people views regarding the FSP and its impact on local

community, a FGD guidelines was developed. The FGD guidelines tried to find

information about the impacts (including unintended impacts, and perhaps negative

impacts) of the FSP in the local community. There were 4 FGDs (one in each four

locations of Ithari FSP) conducted during the study.

1.5 Preparation of study team

A team of six people was composed for the study. The team consisted of one researcher,

two associate researchers and three interviewees. All of them were involved in the

development and finalization of questionnaire so that reliable data could be collected.

The study team consisted of the following persons:

Prof. Dr. Tirtha Raj Parajuli, Researher and team leader

Dr. Hari Maharjan, Associate researcher

Mr. Kiran Ram Ranjitkar, Associate researcher

Mr Bal Krishna Adhikari, Interviewer

Mr Sujan Parajuli, Interviewer

Mr Narayan Gyanwali, .Interviewer

1.6 Conduction of study

After finalization of tools in participation of the program implementers and the research

team , the impact study was conducted on the third week of September 2007. The overall

process followed in the study is presented in the next point.

1. 7 Study approach and process

To design and conduct the impact assessment the following approach and steps were

taken:

Step 1. Discussion meeting with SOS Children's Village Nepal staff to plan study design

and to fix logistics of the study

Step 2. Study of FSP documents

7


8/66

Step 3. Development of study design and methodology including time framework

Step 4. Finalization of study design and methodology in consultation with SOS

Children's Village Nepal staff

Step 5. Development of study tools in consultation with the SOS Children's Village

Nepal staff

Step 6: Pilot testing and finalizing the tools

Step 7. Training of field researchers to make acquainted with the study, data collection

procedures and method of using study tools

Step 8. Collecting data through interviews with caregivers, children and programme

supporters; FGD with community people; and through the use of survey form to identify

FSP school going children's attendance and achievement

Step 9. Development of data entry formats

Step 10.Data entry and verification

Step 11. Analysis of the data and calculating the indicators

Step 12. Report writing (draft)

Step 13. Discussion on draft report with the SOS Children's Village Nepal staff

Step 14. Submission of final report

8


9/66

Chapter 2

Analysis and interpretation of data

In this chapter, the data derived from field visit arediscussed in two parts. First, the

general characteristics of the FSP support receiving families are presented. Second, the

status of support with respect (to)different areas is discussed.

2.1 Characteristics of FSP support receiving families

Out of 47 caregiver respondents, 43 were females (about 92%) and 4 were males (about

8%). The marital status of the caregivers receiving FSP support is presented in table 2.1.

Table 2.1: Marital status of caregivers

Unmarried Married Living

with

husband

Living

without

husband

Living

with

wife

Living

withou

t wife

Reason of

separation

1 (rape case) 46 12 30 2 2 Widow 22

Spouse lost

(missing) 5Abandoned 4

Abroad - 1

Table 2.1 indicates that majority of the caregivers are single and they are either widow,or

spouse missing or abandoned or raped women.

The study group talked with the (SOS) officials about the process of identifying the target

group. According to them following target families were defined in terms of income

status, and family status such as death of spouse, abandoned by spouse, and other major

events such as death of the earning member of the family.

It was told that they followed the following process to identifying the participants.

SOS officials visit the different places where probable families were supposed to

live.

Applications were invited from needy families.

9


10/66

Applications were verified by making enquiry with the local people to ensure

that the FSP applicants were really needy ones.

In some cases, where major tragedy had occurred, the SOS chief (SOS

Children's Village Director) himself visits the place and recommended for the

support. For example, (in one of the cases) a wife after killing her husband cooked

the different parts of the body and ate up. Wife was jailed and children were left

helpless. SOS chief visited this place and recommended the FSP support to those

children.

There were altogether 110 children in those 47 caregiver's family. Highest number of

families had two children (19 families) followed by one child (12 families). Seven

families had three children, 6 had 4 children and 3 had 5 children.

As reported by the caregivers, the reasons given for seeking FSP support are mainly the

low income/poverty, death of husband, abandoned by husband, disabled wife and the like

( Table 2.2).

Table 2.2: Reason given by caregivers for seeking FSP support

Reasons Number

Low income/poverty 39

Death of husband 22

abandoned by husband 6

death of wife 2

abandoned by wife 3

disabled husband 1

disabled wife 4

family problem 1

Others:

death of son and daughter-in-lawdeath of daughter

death of son

death of both parentsdeath of father and abandoned by mother

missing of husband

11

1

21

1

The data presented above (Tables 2.1 and 2.2) indicate that those who were receiving

FSP support were almost from low income status and having the chances of losing the

10


11/66

care of the family by the children because of family structure. This implies that the FSP

of Itahari is focused in relevent target group.

2.2 Status of support

2.2.1 Status of nutritional support

FSP is at the initial stage in Itahari, Nepal. SOS Itahari has been providing only two types

of support at this stage. First, direct monitory help and second is educational support.

With regard to the monitory support FSP participants are getting a lump sum of money

ranging from Rs. 500/- to Rs.3200/- (Table 2.3). The table shows that highest number of

families (19 each) get either Rs. 500/ or 1000 per month. Rs 1200/- is received by 5

families and Rs 800/- and 700/- is received by 4 families each.

Table 2.3: Amount of money provided to the families

S.N. Amount/month No. of families

1 Rs.500/- 19

2 Rs.700/- 4

3 Rs.750/- 2

4 Rs.800/- 4

5 Rs.850/- 1

6 Rs.1000/- 197 Rs.1200/- 5

8 Rs.1500/- 1

9 Rs. 3200/- 1

As reported by caregivers, they do not know the purpose of direct monitory support they

are receiving. However, the SOS officials told the study team that the intention of the

monitory assistance is to support household expenditure including the food for children

so that the families are encouraged to admit and send their children to school instead of

involving their children in labor.

Although specifically mentioned in TOR, no nutritional support was provided to any

family and children in substance. The FSP program is at the initial stage and this support

program is yet to be launched. However, the study team tried to get information on the

11


12/66

level of nutritional awareness in the caregivers. In this regard, enquiries on following

aspects were made.

Support for food from FSP

Out of 47, 14 families told that they were getting support for food. But SOS informed

that families were provided a lump sum of certain amount monthly without specifying the

purpose. Therefore, the families who told that 'they were getting support for food' just

meant that SOS assistance have had been spent on the food.

Number of times a day familes have food

It is the general practice that Nepali people take food four times a day, but the timing of

(for) the food (meals) is not balanced. As responded by caregivers and children,

majority of the target families, however, have three meals a day (Table 2.4). About one-

fifth of the families take meal only two times a day.

Table 2.4: Number of meals per day the participating family takes

Times Number of caregivers Number children

One - -

Two 10 (21) 11 (22)

Three 26 (55) 35 (70)

Four 9 (19) 2 (4)

no indication 2 (5) 2 (4)

*number in parenthesis denotes percent.

Time the children had food are(a) early in the morning about 6AM or 7AM, (b) at 9

AM ,i.e., before going to school, (c) at about 2 PM, (d) and in the evening at about 7PM

to8 PM

Table 2.5: Composition or types of meal (as told by caregivers)

Types of food

Normally Sometimes

In Breakfast Rice

Roti

Channa

Bitten rice

6

5

1

4

Biscuit 4

In lunch Rice, lentil, Fish, meat 23

12


13/66

curry 47 Milk, curd

Roti

3

2

In supper (midday snacks)

(day time break)

Tea, bitten

rice(chiura),

rice

Biscuit,

corn,tea

25

7

Bread 4

In dinner(evening meal) Rice, lentil,

curry

47

Fish, meat-

Milk, curd-

Roti

26

4

3

The normal food the families had includes dal (lentil), bhat (rice) and tarkari (vegetable

or curry) (Table 2.5 and 2.6). For breakfast, most of the children had rice (cooked earlier

night), local bread, chana, or chiura (bitten rice). Not all families had breakfast. Only nine

families had breakfast. For lunch they had rice, and lentil and vegetable curry. There are

substantial numbers of families who had rice with either dal or curry, not both. Lunch is

generally taken at about 9 AM that is children get meal before going to school.

In the day time, at about 2 PM, children had break time during which they had tea, rice,

corn, or very few had biscuit or others. For dinner, children had similar food as in the

lunch.

Caregivers told that sometimes they had other foods such as fish, meat milk, and wheat

bread. However, it does not mean that they have these foods at regular interval of time

such as a week or two. When asked if they take (took) these foods in regular interval, for

example, in a week, they said that they cannot (could not) afford the food so regularly.

According to them, they take these foods during the special occasions or festival such as

Dashain, or other local festival. They reported that their income level does (did) not

permit them to have these foods regularly.

Caregivers and children do not seem unhappy with the food they have, however, they felt

that they have not been able to provide their children with sufficient food. In fact they did

not have idea of what nutritious food consist of(meant).

13


14/66

The responses of children on the food they have are not different from the responses

given by the caregivers. Their regular food generally consisted of the rice (bhat), lentil

(daal), curry(tarkari), roti, and other locally available foods (Table 2.6).

Table 2.6: Types of food they take in a day (as told by children)

Food Time Items Children (%)

Breakfast Fry rice

Bread

Tea, lito, milk

Fruits

7 (14)

4 (8)

3 (6)

1 (2)

Lunch Rice, lentil, curry 48 (96)

Supper Bitten rice, fry rice, channa 36 (72)

Dinner Rice, lentil, curry 48 (96)

Regarding the sufficiency of support for fooding, most of the caregivers (43 out of 47)

reported that the help they were getting is not sufficient and more should be provided.

This has created attitude of dependency in the part of the participants expecting

more help from program instead being self-reliant. When talked to the local

community and other agencies, almost all (would) asked for more help from SOS to those

needy people, but did not show any interest themselves in helping themselves the familiesin need.

Provision of kitchen garden

Kitchen garden is one for the sources of vegetables, which is essential for our good

health. However, only 12 out of 47 (about one forth) families have managed kitchen

garden. The reason for not having kitchen garden by most of the families was that they

do not have sufficient land. About 90 percent of the families were living on public (alani)

land. However, they called these houses their own.

Those who have managed kitchen garden have grown vegetables such as okra, potatoes,

pumpkin, ghiraula, beans, season vegetables, etc. These vegetables can be regarded as

(believed to) containing substances necessary for health.

14


15/66

Training, or counseling on nutritional management

Since nutrition plays vital role in growth and development of the child, it is desirable that

parents, caregivers be informed about the nutritional needs of the child. For this

counseling support might have been useful. But to the date, no such program has been

started. However, study team was told by the program staff that this program will (would)

be started in the future.

2. 2.2 Status of health support

Availability of health support

To the date, no health support program have (has) been found except the service provided

by the SOS health center. Therefore, the only health service available is in the SOS health

center.

Frequency of health checks-up

Practice of regular health check has not been developed in the society. The economic

status does not permit the regular health check-up, therefore the people, caregiver and

children, visit the health center or hospital only when they feel they are ill.

It is expected that people should have health facility from FSP; however, the FSP

participants were not getting health facilities from the program. Table 2.7 gives the

picture of where FSP participants go when they face health problems.

Table 2.7: Place of health check of FSP participants

Place Number of families

Pvt. clinic 6

Private Hospital 1

Public Hospital 20

Medical house 5Health post 11

SOS health center 12

Others, if any. 6

Only 12 caregivers told that they go to SOS health centers. Maximum number of families

go to public hospital and near by health posts for health treatment. Since SOS do es not

15


16/66

provide health program and health counseling to the FSP, participants , when become

ill , (they) go themselves to near by health post or public hospital for treatment. Only

those near to SOS village, go to SOS health center. The Another reason, for not going to

SOS health centeris that the center deals only minor health problems such as common

fever, cold, etc. In addition, for more participation, SOS village is not easily reachable.

Assistance for health treatment from SOS

Out of 47 families, 11 told that they have obtained such assistance from SOS. However,

almost all those who made this claim told that such assistance was limited to the very

general health problem such as common cold, headache, and so on and they get such

medicine such anti inflammatory tablets (such as Paracetamol) , anti cold tablets etc.,In

fact assistance for health treatment is has notbeen made available to the date.

Health condition before and after FSP support

The comparative health condition of the caregivers do not indicate very much positively

different before and after FSP support (Table 2.8).

Table 2.8: Health status of caregivers

Caregivers Children

Status Before FSP After FSP Before FSP After FSP

Very good 2 -Good 23 22 43 (86) 46 (92)

Fair 17 14 7 (14) 4 (8)

Poor 5 11


The health condition of both, caregivers and children, is approximately same before and

after FSP support. Therefore, it can be concluded that FSP does not have any significant

impact on the health related situation. Instead, number of caregivers who claimed "poor"

raised from 5 to 11after FSP support.

Chronic health problem

16


17/66

No children were found with profound (serious or life threatening) health problem.

However, one was found with the retarded mental development. She was about four year

and can not (could not) talk as other normal children.

Specific health problem

The main health problems that the research team wanted to study were ear, dental, eye

and other problems. The responses of the children to these problems are shown in the

table below.

Table 2.9: Specific health problems reported by children

Problem Yes (%) No (%)

Eye problem 2 (4) 48 (92)

Ear problem 3 (6) 47 (94)Dental problem 4 (8) 46 (92)

Other: cough, stomach 1 (2) 49 (98)

Table 2.9 indicates that most of the children (more than 90%) do not have specific health

problems. Only a few children (less than 10%) who have health problems are related to

dental followed by ear, eye and cough or stomach problems.

Immunization to the childrenTo prevent children from different diseases, children should be immunized. Therefore, it

is important that parents and caregiversbe (are) aware enough to immunize their children

against diseases. The following tables explain the extent to which children were

immunized.

Table 2.10: Immunization to the children as reported by caregivers

Immunization Number of families

Yes No Don't know

DPT 41 (87) 2 (4) 4 (9)Cholera 41 (87) 2 (4) 4 (9)

Polio 41 (87) 2 (4) 4 (9)


17


18/66

About 87 percent had immunized their children against the DPT, Cholera and Polio. Four

percents did not immunize their children and 9 percent could not say whether their

children were immunized. About one tenth of the respondents even do not know whether

their children are immunized. Only two families who had immunized their children had

maintained the immunization record card.

Although many of the caregivers have immunized their children against different disease,

it was not the result of the FSP counseling. They did it before receiving FSP support.

According to the caregivers, FSP program staffs did not give any suggestion in this

matter.

2.2.3 Status of educational support

Type of educational and material support

Besides direct monitory support, FSP participants were also receiving other material anf

monitory assistance for their school going children (Table 2.11).

Table 2.11: Material and monitory assistance provided to school going children

Assistance for No. of families

1 School fee 25 (44)

2 uniform 49 (88)

3 Stationary 40 (71)

4 Books 25 (47)

5 School Bag 1 (2)

6 Admission fees 13 (23)


All types of material and monitory assistance is not provided to all families. Some

families have been provided only monitory help depending on the support they were

getting from others (do you mean "other families"?)for schooling of the children. Eight

participants were getting only monitory help from FSP. It is a positive sign that other

families are taking care of the "about to break away family".

In Dharan, a woman, unable to speak, was raped. A child (son) was born .Woman and

18


19/66

child both was left helpless. One family gave them shelter in their home. FSP provided

monthly amount of Rs.500/- to the woman and child. Child was admitted to the public

school. At present, child was regular in the school. However, shelter provider wished

that the amount provided by FSP be increased because, raped woman was suffering for

disease and the amount provided by FSP could hardly meet even the cost of the

treatment.

In total, 25 families were receiving school fees for their children's education. School

uniform costs were born for 88 percent families. Like wise, stationery has been provided

to 71 percent of the family children. Book, school bag and admission fees were provided

to 47, 2 and 23 percent respectively.

Number of school going children

During the visit of the study team, it was found that Children from 43 families were

continuing their study in school and children from only four families were not admitted to

the school because they were too young for schooling.

Table 2.12: Number of school going children

Number Number of families

One 13

two 19three 8

four 2

five 1

Not admitted (being too young) 4

It is a positive sign of the FSP support that almost all the beneficiary (families) have been

sending their children to the school.

Table 2.13: Grades and types of schools the children are studying in

Grades Types of school

SOS Public Private

Nursery

LKG/UKG 1 2

1 1 1 1

2 1 2 0

19


20/66

3 6 2

4 5 1

5 4 1

6 4

7 1 1

8 1 1 19 4 1

10 1 2 1

11 1

Total 5 30 14

The number of children in the above table represents only those who responded to the

study team. According to the table, only 5 children out of 50 were found to be studying in

L.K.G., grade 1, 2, 8, and 10 respectively. Similarly, 30 (60%) children were found

studying in public schools. The children seemed to be studying in different grades from 1

to 10. Only 15 (30%) children out of 50 were found studying in different grade of private

school. One child was had notbeen admitted.

Student regularity

One of the concerns of the research team was to find out the students regularity at school

in previous and current year. In response to this question, 46 (92%) of the children

responded that they went regularly in both the years (Table 2.14). The remaining 4 (8%)

of the children seemed irregular at school. not attending school regularly.

Table 2.14: Status of student regularity as reported by the students

Regularity Last year This year

Yes 45 41

No 4 4

Total 50 50

Tracking the children's attendance and staying enrolled(continuity) in the educationalsystem

SOS has not developed any mechanism to track the child children's attendance and

staying enrolled in the educational system. In addition, the families getting the support

are scattered farofffrom the SOS center and three officials working in this program are

not sufficient (only three at present) for these the entire job. The only way of tracking

20


21/66

been being used at the present is the annual examination result of the children. When

asked about this to the working officials, the study team was told that when the caregivers

of the children presented their mark sheets, and if children managed to get were through

the grade examinations, the assistance was continued. There was no regular mechanism

for monitoring the attendances and drop-out of the children.

2.2.4 Status of family development planning (FDP)

The study team attempted to know about the knowledge of Family Development

Planning in the caregivers. Forty-three percent told that they know knew about family

Development Planning. The table gives the number of families with the knowledge of

family Development Plan.

Table 2.15: Family having knowledge of family Development Planning

Family with

knowledge

Percentage Family with

out

knowledge

Percentage

20 43 27 57

When the study team asked them what does it FDP meant, they explained their daily

activities including the preparing their children to school, giving them food, and doing

their house hold chores. This is the clear sign that they have no idea of family

development plan.

Likewise, when asked if they have had prepared family development plan, forty three

percent said that they have family development plan. But their explanation included their

household activities only. However, one important component of their plan was about the

future of the children. All of the caregivers wanted to make their children able to stand on

their own.

2.2.5 Status on promotion of child rights /parenting skills

FSP has not yet started the child rights /parenting skills program. Therefore none of the

families have obtained such training and no one has participated in child right seminar.

21


22/66

Although the caregivers were not aware of the child rights, their children have some

information in this matter. Out of 50 children, 35 told that they have heard of the child

right.

The sources of information from which they heard of child rights are were (as informed

by the children themselves):

Table 2.16: Source of information knowing about childrights

Source of information Number of children

Audio-visual 8

teachers 12

NGO/GO 1

Books, magazine, papers 14


Although they have heart of the child rights, no opportunities have been provided to

participate in the child right program. Only four children who are were studying in SOS

center have participated in such program.

Exercise of child rights

The impact study is not a case study. Therefore the team did not have sufficient time to

observe the child right exercise in detail. However, during the visit, children were found

happy in their activities. They were not deprived of school education. Most of the child

respondents, as expressed by themselves, have following opportunities:

Table 2.17: Status of child right opportunities of the children

Opportunities Number of children with

opportunities

Number of children

without opportunities

play 43 3

use of leisure 43 3

asking when in confusion 35 11

self expression 37 15

participation in home

discussion

31 16

Remaining children could not express their view. However, they seemed happy with their

daily activities.

22


23/66

Table 2.17 indicates that children were spending their day and night activities normally

and they were not overloaded with the house hold (household) work load inappropriate to

their age level.

2.2.6 Status of legal support

FSP has not provided legal support to the caregivers as well as to the children. The entire

participants put unison voice regarding the legal help from FSP. The following table says

about the legal help to the families.

Table 2.18: Status legal support to the families

Number of families getting legal

support

Number of families not getting legal

support

0(0) 47(100)*number in parenthesis denotes percent.

Although FSP does not provided legal support, the families were sufficiently aware to

have the necessary legal documents.

Table 2.19: Status of legal documents obtained by the caregivers

Legal document Number of families

Citizenship 43 (89)

Birth registration certificate 43 (89)

Death Registration Certificate 24 (51)

House ownership Certificate 10 (21)

Others(such as passport) 1 (02)


However, not all caregivers have obtained necessary documents. Those who have no

(without) necessary documents told that they feel felt that these documents were not

necessary. The study team advised them to get these documents and they agreed to have

them later. Out of 47 families, only 10 have house ownership documents. Others do not

have because they were living on public (Ailani) land or other's house on rent or in kin's

house. All the families having holding above mentioned document had received these

documents before receiving FSP support.

2.2.7 Status of economic support

23


24/66

FSP has not launched economic support program other than providing monthly amount as

discussed above. It has not initiated any other program such as skill training, income

generation activities, debt payment, short term cash support or referral to employment

service.

FSP has just started working in collaboration with the HABITAT which supports the

needy family in house maintenance by providing tin sheet for roofing. At present, only

two families have received this support.

Almost all of the caregivers are involved in income generating activities, however most

of them are involved in low paying jobs such as labor (daily wage), worker in factory

(daily wage), peon, or slave types of farming. The job caregivers were involved in was

not the result of referral program of FSP because; such program was yet to be launched.

Table 2.20: Involvement of caregivers in income generating activities

Types of job number of families

No job (living on husband's pension) 1

Operator(garment factory) 2

Clerk 1

Worker (factory) 12

street business 1

shopkeeper 1

Telephone operator 1

office assistance 1helper in school 2

Peon 1

Farming, labor 20

Milk man/maid 1

servant 1

No job 2

Sufficiency of income to support the living

No family was satisfied with the present income. Almost all caregivers told that their

present income is not sufficient for their living. Out of 47 caregivers, only one admittedthat there was some saving. The main reason, almost all told, is that they are involved in

lower level jobs

Skill training from SOS

24


25/66

In addition to monitory support, training for income generating skills would be helpful to

the people to support their living themselves. Although in the plan, FSP has not launched

such skill training program. Official of the FSP told that it would be started in near future.

Assistance from other institutions (other than training)

Assistance from other institutions to the bereaved families was negligible (Table 2.21).

Table 2.21: Assistance from institutions other than SOS

Areas of assistance Number of families Name of institutions

Financial support 1 CDO

House maintenance 2 HABITAT, Rural bank

Only one family was receiving financial support form CDO .The beneficiary was conflict

victim. Other two families were getting support for house maintenance. One had received

loan from rural bank and the other done has had received from HABITAT. FSP is

planning to collaborate with HABITAT.

2.2.8 Living Condition

Living condition here refers to the environment of places where these people live. At

present, FSP has not provided shelter and other material support such as cloths, blankets

etc.

Families were living in their own community. Their living conditions were not

satisfactory. However their condition is similar to other local standard.

Types of house

This is concerned with what house is constructed with. Following table shows that types

of house

Table 2.22: Types of house the fimilies are living

Types of house Number of families

Pucci 9 (19)

Katchi 38 (81)

About 81 percent houses were katchhi and made of mud and hay and only 19 percentwere pucci.

Table 2.23: Types and number of rooms in the houses

25


26/66

one two Three Four

Sleeping room 19 15 4 3

Drawingrooms

1

kitchen 27

Bathroom - - - -

The targeted families had did not had have sufficient rooms to live in,. nineteen homes

has only one room for their household purpose.

They have to sleep and cook their food in single room. However some have managed to

cook food outside the home. But during the rainy season, they have to cook their food

inside the home.

A house constructed in public (Aalani) land. Plastered by soil, it looks clean in dry whether, in

rainy season, is becomes full of dire and mud.

Cooking environment

26


27/66

Many of the families used fire log to cook the foods. The homes they were living were

small with insufficient height. With insufficient ventilation; the smoke emitted by the fire

log may might have negative impact on health of caregivers and children. Only those

families who live on rent in pucci house do did not use fire log for cooking. They use

kerosene stove or gas. Number of such families is negligible.

Fifteen families live in homes where there were two rooms. One room was used as

sleeping and another as kitchen. Rooms were small. Except some pucci house, all other

homes do not have sufficient light and ventilation.

Sanitation

Sanitation is not different from their neighbor's houses. Goods were scattered here and

there around. Since the house around is full of mud, although it seems might seem clean

in dry days, in the rainy seasons, the whole environment wouldbecome full of dirt, and

mud. They had no good toilets. Most of the toilets seemed untidy. Cattles were tied

nearby. Sense of hygienic living is yet to be developed in people.

Those families who were from janajati( such as rai, gurung) were found more sensitive to

the hygienic living. Their living is neat and clean in comparison to others.

A mother with three children lives in a rented room (See figure below). Mother works in

a factory. The Room seems clean., But do does not have necessary facilities.

27


28/66

Provision of drinking water

The major sources of drinking water were well and tap. Following table gives the

availability of drinking water

Table 2.24: Sources of wate for the families

Source of water Number of families

Tap 16 (38)

Well 31 (62)

River 0

Other 0

Purification of waterThe research team inquired whether the children drink purified water or directly from

well. The responses of the children to this question are as shown in the table below.

Table 2.25: System of purification of water in the families

Water purification type Children

28


29/66

Boiled 0

Filtered 6

Use purifier 0

As it is from the source 40

No response 4

Total 50

The table indicates that four-fifth of the families would drink directly from the source.

Only 6 (12%) families were found to have drinking filtered water. They believed that

source water do would not harm their health. Four children could not give answer.

2.2.9 Status of psychosocial support

Study team did not find any types of chronic psychosocial problems with the caregiver

and children. All the children were living normally, except one. One children of age

about 3 seemed to be retarded mentally. She could not express herself and can not speak

to other. Even such children had not been provided with the treatment.

Furthermore, no counseling for this purpose has (had been)provided. There are not any

regular home visits by the program. Only 7 caregivers said that the staffs (would) come to

them, but such visits were not regular.

In this matter, staffs said that it was not possible to visit every participant regularly due to

the insufficient number of staffing and the scattered ness of the beneficiaries. In addition,

presently working staffs were not oriented for such this purpose.

2.210 Improvement in family relationship

Almost all caregivers were of the opinion that the monitory support provided by FSP had

been great relief to some extent since such help had been used to feed their children. This

had kept their family relationship intact. Except two, almost all others the children were

living with the caregivers.

Children living with Caretakers the children are living with

In this study, in order to find out who the children were living with, the children were

inquired about their caretaker. The responses made by the children are shown in the table

below.

29


30/66

Table 26: Children living with

Living with Children

Mother 36

Father 2

Sibling 1

Aunt 2uncle( not caregiver) 1

Grandparents 5

The Table 2.26 illustrates that 36 (58%) children out of 47 were found living with

mother and only 7 with the siblings. Likewise the children living with mother and father,

father, grand parents, aunt and alone were 2,2,3,5 and 2 respectively. The children were

living with their parents or relatives. They were not left helpless. FSP support have

contributed positively in keeping the children with caregivers..

2.2.11 Involvement of supporting partners

Although in plan, SOS has not started working with the supporting partner in large scale.

The collaborated program is at the zygote stage, that is, SOS has just started working

with HABITAT for humanitarian, which has provided tin sheet for roofing to one family.

To the date there was not no other collaborated program either with international,

national or local agencyies. SOS program staffs told that in near future, such programwill wouldbe launched.

2.2.12 Attitudes of the local community

Local communities were positive toward the service provided by SOS and FSP. They

expressed that such organization is providing support to the needy people. According to

the local people, the support was really provided to the needy people and such support

should continue. The study team discussed with the local people in various places. The

discussion dealt with the following matter.

Understanding of community people about the FSP

Community people did not have any knowledge of the FSP. They had heard only of the

SOS, and they know that SOS is as organization giving shelter and providing education

to the orphans. However the FSP is new approach to them.

30


31/66

View of community people towards FSP

According to the community and local, the families getting the support were really needy

ones. They did not express any objection to the families getting the support.

Suggestions of community people for the improvement of FSP

The community people were of the opinion that FSP should increase such support and

present support is not sufficient. They demanded the increment in monitory and other

support. They also felt that other families and children at risks should also be identified

and provided with such supports.

Involvement of local people, organization and other organization

The local people told that they can help in identifying the people in need. But they think

that at present local people or organization can not provide any support. According to

them, it is the job of such organization as SOS and others. This is the clear indication that

FSP has not initiated the partnership program with other local community.

2.2.13 Attitudes of the beneficiary

All the present beneficiaries are continuing to receive support from FSP. Most of themwished that their children be admitted to the SOS and the caregivers (especially mothers)

be provided job in SOS. Likewise no caregivers wanted to quit support program, instead,

they were hoping more from the program. This indicated that the program has not been

able to develop sense of self reliance in on the part of the caregivers.

2.2.14 Management of FSP staff

At present FSP is being looked after by only three staffs. These staffs were not well

trained for the purpose. Based on the discussion with the working staffs, the study team

came to know that these staffs have had to look after various other programs inside the

SOS. In addition, they have not been specifically oriented for the FSP. At present their

job is to receive application for support, verify the applications and provide monitory

support to the caregivers and schooling support to the children.

31


32/66

The families who were getting support were scattered within about 30 to 40 kilometers.

Therefore, regular monitoring is not an easy job for three staffs. In addition, staffs

employed for this job included even a driver.

Chapter 3

Summary of findings, conclusion and recommendations

3.1 Summary of findings and conclusions

From the above analysis following summary of conclusions can be drawn.

1. Target groups are identified only after SOS receives application or reporting of

the people. There is no system of community needs identification process.

Because there is no systematic need identification process, those marginalized

people who can not apply and report have rarely got such support, for example

musaharfamily.

2. However, support program has been provided to really the needy families. The

local community also expressed that the support has been provided to needy

families.However they demanded that such support should continue. They did

not make any objection toward against the families getting the support.

3. At present FSP has been providing a lump sum of money ranging from Rs. 500/-

to Rs. 3200/- and per month depending on the family size and their earning

condition. Most of them are getting (school) uniform and stationery support for

school going children.\likewise about half of sthe families are also getting school

fees and book support. Some have also got admission fees. However almost all of

the families claimed that the monitory support they are getting is not sufficient for

their living.

The major impact of the FSP is that monitory and school material support

(including fees and uniform) has motivated the family to enroll their children to

school. Beside, the regularity and attainment level is also satisfactory.

4. One of the undesirable impacts of the direct support is the development of

dependency synddrom in part of the participating FSP families. Instead of strying

striving to be self reliant, almost all families demanded more support fdrom the

FSP.

32


33/66

5. Almost all families have been using the amount received from FSP for fooding,

treatment and other household expenditure. Most all have been able to have

normal food with the monitory support.

6. FSP though categorically mentioned the program about the psychosocial support,

support for living condition, support for promotion of child right and parenting

skills, legal support and family development planning support, such programs

have not been run yet. Only monitory and educational support program are in

operation.

7. Regarding formation of community based structure and involvement of other

partners for sustainable FSP, no follow up and provide regular service effectively

and efficiently.

8. such structure has been made to the date. However, recently, initiation has been

made to collaborate with HABITAT for Humanitarian which has provided tin

sheet for roofing to one family.

9. There is no separate administrative unit and staffs to look after FSP program in

SOS center. Three staffs working at present are assigned to look after it. Those

staffs have to look after other programs in the SOS village as well.

10. Although nominal, monitory and material support has been helpful in keeping

caregivers and children from disintegrating.

3,2 Recommendations

Based on above findings and conclusions, following recommendation can be

made.

1. Since there is no need identification process, although the support have

been provided to needy ones, many others who have been living in

miserable conditions such as mushar, have not access to such program.

Therefore, a process of target group identification should be initiated.

2. The program has not initiated any program for empowering the caregivers

for making them self-reliant, and this has resulted into resulting the

dependency syndrome in the part of the FSP families. Therefore, programs

33


34/66

for non-formal education and skill development training. Should be

launched

3. Without a separate and permanent administrative unit should be formed to

effectively run the program.

4. The number of staffs presently working is only three in number and

families being served is about 56 scattered within the radius of about 40

kilometer. it is not possible for three staffs to look after these . Therefore,

number of staffs should be increased.

5. The presently working staffs are not trained in forFSP purpose. Therefore

they have not been able to deal effectively with the problems .They should

specifically be trained for this purpose.

6. Most of the programs envisioned in the FSP have not been implmented

yet. if the mission of FSP is to be achieved , other programs such as

psychosocial support, support for living condition, support for promotion

of child right and parenting skills, legal support and family development

planning support, such programs should also be implemented.

7. Although formation of community based structure and involvement of

other partners for sustainable FSP is necessary, no such structure has been

made to the date. However, recently, initiation has been made to

collaborate with HABITAT for Humanitarian which has provided tin sheet

for roofing to one family. If the FSP has to sustain its program, partnership

with other organizations and local community should be developed.

8. The families receiving support at present are scattered around about 40

kilometer covering about four districts from the SOS village Itahari. it is

not possible for the center to look after the families at such distance,

Therefore, area should be confined so that it become easily accessible for

follow up, monitoring, and supervision and provide regular service

effectively and efficiently.

34


35/66

Annex 1

Framework for the study

Progrmmme and

inputs

Data/Information required Data source Method

A. Target groupChildren who are

at risk of losing

the care of their

biological family

How the target group has been defined?How the participant families are identified,

verified and selected (criteria and process)?

- Programdocuments

- Program

reports

- Participant

families and

children,

programimplementers

and stakeholders

outside the

program

Reviewrecordsand

reports

Interview

with

caregivers,

children andprogram

supporters

Discussion

with

community

people

B. Nutritional

support

- 3 cooked

meals/day for

children

- Food package

- Community

gardening

- Vouchers

Number of children and caregivers receiving the

support if possible in proportion (number

should be proportionate to the total of those

who have been identified as needing such

support)

Type and appropriateness of nutritional support

provided for children by the programme directly

or through referral (i.e. food package, food

vouchers); identify the impact and if there is

something to be added, reduced or removed.

Any other support caregivers get from the

programme with regard to nutrition of their

children (e.g. cooking lessons)

Type of meals (composition), quantity, and

frequency per day

How long families receive food support; is food

support gradually reduced or are there signs of

dependency?

If caregivers and/or programme staff feel that

children have weight/height according to age;

any symptoms of malnutrition observed bymothers and/or programme staff; find out the

reasons.

Level of satisfaction of children and caregivers

regarding this support

Program reports

Children

Care givers

Program

implementers

Baseline survey

Review

recordsand

reports

Observation

Interview

with

caregivers,

children and

program

supportersDiscussion

with

community

people

C. Health

support

- Provision of

Number of children and caregivers receiving the

support if possible in proportion (number

should be proportionate to the total of those

Records Review

recordsand

reports

35


36/66

primary health

care

- Referral to

specialist /clinic

- Payment of

medication- Payment of

check -up,

vaccination

who have been identified as needing such

support

Type and appropriateness of health support

provided to children and/or care givers by the

programme directly or through referral; any

health education provided; identify the impactand if there is something to be added, reduced or

removed.

Access to medical care by children and care

givers; Frequency of health checks for children

as well as for caregivers; constraints for visiting

and undertaking regular health check-ups for

children and caregivers;

Capacity of the program to respond to medical

problems commonly experienced by the target

group (e.g. related to HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis,

drug addiction)How the health conditions of children and

caregivers in the programme are; did they

improve, decrease or remain the same since they

joined the programme?

What difference this support has made in the

participants lives

Level of satisfaction of children and caregivers


Care givers and

children

Implementation

partners

Base line survey

Observation

Interviewwith

caregivers,

children's and

program

supporters

Discussion

with

community

people

D. Educational

support

- School fees and

uniform

- School supplies

- Tutoring, after

school support- Child

development inday-care facilities

- Vocational

training

- Free access to

SOS HG schools

- Referral to

literacy classes

- Number of children supported to access formal

basic (primary and secondary) education as well

as informal education if possible in proportion(number should be proportionate to the total of

those who have been identified as needing such

support)

- Type and appropriateness of educational

support provided to children by the programme

directly or through referral; identify the impact

and there is something to be added, reduced or

removed.

- How is the track record concerning childrens

attendance, as well as staying enrolled in the

educational system- Level of educational performance of children

against their past performance and against

national standards/averages (explain the

parameters used for evaluating this)

- Level of satisfaction of caregivers and children


Records

Care givers andchildren

Implementation

partners

Base line survey

Reviewrecordsand

reports

Interview

with

caregivers,

children and

programsupporters

Discussion

with

community

people

Survey of

children'sattendance

and

achievement

E. Psychosocial - Number of children and caregivers being Records Reviewrecordsand

36


37/66

support

- Child

counselling

- Life skills

workshops

- Recreational &

social activities- Referral tospecialist / clinic

- Trauma

counselling

- Personal

development

courses- Women

empowerment

courses

- Individual

counselling

- Drug and alcoholcounselling

- Relationship

counselling

- Parent and childcounselling

- Regular home

visits

supported to access counselling services if

possible in proportion (number should be

proportionate to the total of those who have

been identified as needing such support)

- Type and appropriateness of psycho-social

support provided to children and/or care giversby the programme directly or through referral;

identify the impact and if there is something to

be added, reduced or removed.

- How children and caregivers have been

effectively supported to address relevant issues

- Participation of children in

seminars/workshops on life skills (if possible

provide their number and frequency and type of

participation)

- How the programme staff /SOS village and

other external specialists view childrenspsychological development (if possible

provide number of children who have improved

in their psychosocial development after the

intervention)

- Attendance level of children and caregivers to

counselling sessions and the impact of

counselling

- Frequency of family home visits by the

programme

- Participation of caregivers in community life

- Number of caregivers who have recoveredfrom drug and alcohol addiction

- Level of satisfaction of children and caregivers


Care givers and

children

Implementation

partners

Base line survey

reports

Observation

Interviewwith

caregivers,

children and

program

supporters

Discussion

with

community

people

F. Living

conditions

- Building

material

- Help in

accessing

services: heating,electricity

- Provision ofclothes

- Number of families/children supported in

shelter and other items related to childs living

conditions

- Type and appropriateness of support provided

by the programme directly or through referral

(e.g. shelter, clothes, blankets); identify the

impact and if there is something to be added,

reduced or removed.- How safe families living conditions are, and

how they feel about it

- Are living conditions adequate relative to

acceptable local standards? (relates to such

things as number of rooms, especially sleeping

rooms; size of house; sanitation; source of light

and heat; water supply, etc.)

Records

Care givers and

children

Implementation

partners

Outside

stakeholders

Base line survey

Reviewrecordsand

reports

Observation

Interview

withcaregivers,

children and

program

supporters

Discussion

with

communitypeople

37


38/66



G. Promotion of

child

rights/parenting skills

- Direct provision

of training

- Referral to

organisation

which provide

training

- Number of children and caregivers taking part

in education workshops in child development

and child rights- Type and appropriateness of activities provided

to children and/or caregivers by the programme

directly or through referral; identify the impact

and if there is something to be added, reduced or

removed.

- To what extent children, caregivers and

communities have knowledge on childrens

rights

- Any example where children have started to

exercise their rights

- If caregivers have improved their parentalskills (provide specific information on the

parameters used for improved parental skills)- Any changes or improvements in parent and

child relationship and child care practices (if

possible provide number of cases known)

Records


Implementation

partners

Outside

stakeholders

Base line survey

Review

recordsand

reports

Interviewwith

caregivers,

children and

program

supporters

Discussion

with

communitypeople

H. Legal

support

- Advice and

support to obtain

inheritance rights,

birth certificates

- Type and appropriateness of activities provided

by the programme directly or through referral;

identify the impact and if there is something to


- Number of families who have got the

necessary legal documents, and indicate the

documents obtained.

- Number of families who have secured their

property and assets through proper

documentation (e.g. wills, ownership

documents)

Records

Care givers and

children

Implementation

partners

Outsidestakeholders

Base line survey

Review

recordsand

reports

Interview

with

caregivers andprogramsupporters

Discussion

with

community

people

I. Economic

support

- Income

generationactivities

- Loans- Referral to

service providers

for income

generation

- Referral to

employmentservices

- Provision of

- Type and appropriateness of economic support

provided by the programme directly or through

referral (e.g. skills training, income generation

activities, debt payment, short term cash

support; referral to employment service);identify the impact and if there is something to


- The extent to which this support has changed

the lives of families; caregivers have jobs or

other income generation activities providing

stable and sufficient income

- Role of economic support in reducing

Records


Implementation

partners

Outside

stakeholders

Review

recordsand

reports

Interviewwith

caregivers and

program

supporters

Discussion

with

community

people

38


39/66

skills training

- Debt payment

Short term cash

support

dependency, stress and building confidence;

Appropriateness of the economic support

responding to the needs and expectations of

participants

- If loans are provided, how much and at whatrate, and to what extent repayment system is

working

J. Family

Development

Planning

- Number of families who have a family

development plan (in proportion to the total

number of participating families)

- To what extent families take responsibility

(ownership) in realising the goals set in FDP

- What constraints they encounter to take such

responsibility

- General improvement in life planning


regarding the FDP process

- Number of families who have exited the

programme broken down into how many

families successfully achieved goals in their

FDP; how many were dropped from theprogramme due to lack of commitment; and how

many simply moved out of the programme for

other reasons, e.g. move house.

Records

Care givers

Implementation

partners

Outsidestakeholders

Base line survey

Review

recordsandreports

Interview

with

caregivers and

programme

supporters

K. Community

based

structures

- Family

Committees

- Communitygroups

- Self-help groups

- Volunteer groups

- Type of community based structures and

activities the programme collaborates with

- Type and number of community structures and

activities established with the support of the

programme to support families to prevent child

abandonment

- Kind and number of community based

structures or activities which existed (e.g. family

committees, community groups, self help

groups, volunteer groups), but have been

strengthened by the programme (specify the type

of capacity building work carried out)

- Type and number of community based

implementation partners, and what interventions

they carry out.

- Is the capacity of community structures build

in a way that leads to sustainability? Is it

foreseeable that families will be supported by

community structures without SOS

involvement?

- Satisfaction level by the families of the

services provided to them by community based

structures

- Number of families entering & existing the

Records

Care givers

Implementation

partners

Outside program

stakeholders

Program staff

Support partners

Base line survey

Review

recordsand

reports

Interview

withcaregivers and

programmesupporters

Discussion

with

community

people

39


40/66

programme (turn-over rate)

L. Other

partnersEntering

programme

implementation

partnerships with- Local

government- Local NGOs

- INGOsForming

partnerships withother service

providers with

complementary

services

- Local

government

- Local NGOs- INGOsCooperation with

local governments

- Sharing

knowledge

- Building the

capacity (e.g.training)

Forming andparticipating in

networks

- Sharing

knowledge andresources

- Coordinatingefforts

- Advocating for

lasting positive

changes in the

situation of

children and their

families

- Type and number of other local

implementation partners (e.g. local government,

local NGOs, international NGOs)

- Is the capacity of the implementation partner

strengthened in a way that is sustainable? Is itforeseeable that families will be supported by

partners also without SOS involvement?

- Type of partnerships with other service

providers with whom the programme

collaborates; type of services they each provide

- Kind and number of local organisations that

have their capacity strengthened through the

programme; in what way

- The trend in number of families supported by

other service providers collaborating with the

programme (number in the increase or decrease)- Satisfaction level by the participants/clients of

the quality of services provided

Records

Care givers

Implementationpartners

Program staff

Support partners

Local

community

based

organizations

Review

recordsand

reports

Interviewwith

caregivers and

programme

supporters

M. Management

/

administratio

n systems

- How well the programme is structured and

staff is supervised

- To what extent the programme is supported byan appropriate management, monitoring and

evaluation system? Is this system geared

towards sustainability (with takeover of

implementation partner in mind)?

Program staff

Caregivers

ImplementersCommunity

members

Support partners

Interview

withcaregivers,

support

partners

N. Human

resources

- Adequate human resources in programme? If

not, where/how?

- Relationship between staff members and team

Program staff

Caregivers

Implementers

Community

- Observation

- Interview

with

caregivers,

40


41/66

work

- Relationship between staff and implementation

partner (including volunteers)

- Training of staff and volunteers

- Any training needs?

- Clear division of roles and responsibilitiesbetween the staff and between SOS and its

partners

members

Support partners

support

partners

Annex 2

k|efjsf/Ltf d"Nofg k|ZgfjnL -s]6fs]6L_

Impact Assessment Questionnaire (Children) of FSP

qm=;+=!= ltdL slt jif{sf] eof}

5, slt hgfnfO{


62/66

tgfj,kL/,lrGtf ;'/Iff cFlbsf]

cj:yfdf kl/jt{g NofPsf] 5

Documents

Reference Material(18!6!064)Report of Impact Evaluation of Family Strengthening Programme