The Care and Protection of Children in Crisis-Affected Countries (CPC) Learning Network seeks to strengthen and systematize child care and protection through the collaborative action of humanitarian organizations, local institutions, and academic partners. Further, the CPC Learning Network aims to inform practice and policy though the use of evidence-based findings.
In the year and half since its establishment in partnership with number of international and local NGOs, academic institutions, government agencies, and allied networks, the CPC Learning Network has built a cadre of child protection practitioners through its Global Technical Groups and Program Learning Groups, and through events like the Child Protection Action Summit.
The Global Technical Group on Livelihoods and Economic Strengthening is comprised of key members of the CYES Network, and links members of the CPC Learning Network to vital livelihoods expertise.
Some specific goals of the Learning Network are:
- Develop community protection program knowledge. Promote an organized, evidence-based process for examining NGO experience and generating global standards, strategies and practices to guide child care and protection programs.
- Foster organizational collaboration. Facilitate open, inclusive partnerships and collaboration at the global, regional, national and local levels to promote effective, scalable, community-focused care and protection programs.
- Promote effective programming and policies. Identify and disseminate NGO-tested innovations and local experiences to inform program models, and hence influence national, regional and global policy dialogues affecting children and their developmental outcomes in crisis-affected settings.
Please visit the CPC Learning Network at www.cpclearningnetwork.org
Further, you can get in touch with the CPC Learning Network Secretariat, which is seated at Columbia University, through Paul Kellner at pjk2119@columbia.edu or by calling (212) 342-5158.
Global Health Fellows Program
Technical Advisor III: Senior Technical Advisor for Monitoring and Evaluation of Assistance for Vulnerable Children
Bureau for Global Health, United States Agency for International Development
Location: Washington, DC
Assignment: Two year fellowship
GHFP-09-131
The Global Health Fellows Program (GHFP) is a five year cooperative agreement implemented and managed by the Public Health Institute (PHI) in partnership with the Harvard School of Public Health, Management Systems International and Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine. GHFP is supported by the US Agency for International Development (USAID).
The goal of GHFP is to improve the effectiveness of USAID Population, Health and Nutrition programs by developing and increasing capacity of health professionals in Washington, DC and overseas. This is accomplished through the recruitment, placement and support of junior, mid and senior level health professionals; a diversity initiative focused on providing internship and mentoring opportunities in international public health to underrepresented communities; and professional and organizational development activities to bolster USAID’s ability to maximize results and strengthen its leadership role in global health.
INTRODUCTION:
PL 109-95, the Assistance for Orphans and Other Vulnerable Children in Developing Countries Act, was signed into law on November 8, 2005. The Vulnerable Children’s Act calls for the US Government (USG) response to the global orphans and vulnerable children crisis to be comprehensive, coordinated and effective. USAID is the lead USG agency under the Act. Within USAID, The Bureau for Global Health (GH) is the locus of PL 109-95 leadership and the home of the Special Advisor for Orphans and Vulnerable Children, a position mandated by the Act.
Over the past three years there has been progress implementing the Act resulting from the collective efforts of six USG agencies and their partners to help children in need of assistance due to natural disasters, conflict, orphan hood, disease, abandonment, exploitation, abuse, or just simply poverty. But progress has been constrained by global economic developments which are making more children more vulnerable, the fragmented structure of US foreign aid which makes interagency coordination more challenging, and PL 109-95 itself, which is an unfunded mandate.
With increasing numbers of children in need and continued budget constraints it’s more important than ever to improve the coherence, efficiency and impact of the USG response to highly vulnerable children with the resources we have. Therefore, USAID is in the process of increasing attention to PL 109-95: a full-time Special Advisor was appointed and began work in mid-July 2008; a four-person PL 109-95 secretariat is being established; interagency coordination has been reactivated; links with key partners – old and new – are being strengthened; and a FY 2009 PL 109-95 strategy and work plan has been completed. The strategy acknowledges the vital importance of coordinating across USG programs which:
- provide humanitarian assistance to children in need of immediate help;
- ensure children survive the initial phase of their lives;
- prevent children from becoming orphans by keeping their parents alive,
- prevent children from abandonment by keeping their families intact;
- enable children to lessen their vulnerability through education; and
- build local capacity to provide sustainable services to children.
The work plan focuses on two interagency initiatives in FY 2009:
- ensuring limited USG resources are targeted on the most vulnerable children; and
- building child and family welfare capacity of partner countries.
For more information on the Vulnerable Children’s Act please see the first and second annual reports.
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES:
The Senior Technical Advisor for Monitoring and Evaluation of Assistance for Vulnerable Children is a senior level position within the PL 109-95 secretariat. S/he will provide key leadership in developing and implementing an M&E system across all the USG agencies involved in PL 109-95 programming. The Senior Technical Advisor position is an excellent opportunity for an experienced M&E specialist, skilled in working across multiple constituencies, to lead an M&E approach on a critical issue that cuts across many development areas (health, economic growth, child welfare, democracy and governance, etc.).
The Senior Technical Advisor will:
- Provide technical leadership under PL 109-95 with respect to Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) and ensure that USAID, as the lead USG agency under PL 109-95, is in compliance with statutory PL 109-95 M&E requirements. The Act calls for USAID to “…develop methods to adequately track the overall number of orphans and other vulnerable children receiving assistance, the kinds of programs for such children by sector and location, and any other such related data and analysis.” In order to maximize the sustainable development impact of assistance authorized, the Act requires an M&E system that establishes performance goals for the assistance; establishes performance indicators to be used in measuring or assessing the achievement of the performance goals; and provides a basis for recommendations for adjustments to the assistance to enhance its impact.
- Under the oversight of the PL 109-95 interagency working group and in close collaboration with M&E/Strategic Information (SI) teams in partner USG agencies and departments, especially the M&E team of USAID’s Office of HIV/AIDS (OHA) and the SI team at the State Department’s Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator, refine and upgrade the existing PL 109-95 M&E system, maintain the system, and, most importantly, assist the interagency team to use the system to better address the needs of orphans and other vulnerable children in developing countries.
- Assist the USG agencies working collaboratively under PL 109-95 to target resources on children most in need. PL 109-95 calls for USAID “…to improve targeting and programming of resources” and establish “…priorities that promote the delivery of assistance to the most vulnerable populations of orphans and children …” Assist the interagency group to target collective resources judiciously and to continuously improve its ability to identify and respond to the most vulnerable children.
- In collaboration with the USAID/GH communication and knowledge management teams and similar teams at partner USG agencies, maintain a readily accessible, one-stop shop website/clearinghouse with information on highly vulnerable children, USG assistance to such children (who’s doing what, where); lessons learned and best practices; M&E information, volunteer opportunities, etc. The website must entail minimal incremental costs; be integrated with and linked to existing sites and information systems and use data currently collected and reported by USG agencies. Using this clearinghouse, respond to internal and external ad hoc requests for information; provide data for the annual report to Congress, briefing documents, sites visits and other documents.
- Assist USG agencies working collaboratively under PL 109-95 to continuously improve the evaluationof OVC programs. Coordinate periodic USG efforts to update evaluation and research agenda to address priority questions of common concern to the USG and partners; coordinate or provide support in the development and implementation of USG-supported surveys and studies related to orphans and vulnerable children.
Support the interagency working group and OHA communication staff to prepare annual PL 109-95 reports. Ensure annual reports incorporate information generated by the PL 109-95 M&E system and ensure annual reports are used effectively and efficiently as the main means to disseminate best practice and lessons learned, and the main means to track progress against targets, analyze data sets and make recommendations for enhanced program planning, coordination and management of orphans and vulnerable children programs. - Present the PL 109-95 USG interagency group’s work to development partners regarding various M&E task forces, technical working groups and committees to ensure PL 109-95 M&E activities are well coordinated with ongoing partner and country-level M&E efforts; are consistent with internationally-accepted definitions and best practices (e.g., UNICEF); use SI currently collected and reported by USG agencies; and are integrated/compatible with local M&E systems.
Perform other duties as required that support the overall goal of monitoring and evaluating USG assistance for highly vulnerable children to improve the impact and effectiveness of such assistance.
REQUIRED SKILLS, KNOWLEDGE & EXPERIENCE:
- Master’s or doctorate level degree in program evaluation, public health, public policy, epidemiology, demography, social or behavior science or related field required. Post graduate training in monitoring and evaluation highly preferred
- Minimum ten years’ experience implementing public health, child welfare or other social sector programs, of which at least three years should be in a developing country directly related to monitoring and evaluation of programs for orphans and other vulnerable children or public health programs.
Sound knowledge of monitoring and evaluation methodology including frameworks, data quality assurance, analysis reporting and best practices in data dissemination and data use required - Demonstrated knowledge of data management processes and tools including web-based database systems required
- Sound knowledge and experience in information management systems preferred
Experience managing data, information and evaluations on large scale health, child/social welfare, education and or HIV/AIDS activities required - Demonstrated ability to develop positive working relationships with donors, other partners and host country officials in a cross-cultural environment
- Strong interpersonal skills and proven ability to develop and maintain effective working relationships across teams and organizations and with external partners in a complex international and multi-cultural environment
- Strong managerial skills with the ability to plan, organize, coordinate and implement work inputs from several sources and partners, and manage the simultaneous delivery of multiple outputs required
Ability to work independently with little supervision
Demonstrated ability to analyze data and make presentations to an audience; either written or oral in a clear and concise manner - Strong computer and writing skills with proven ability to produce concise well written reports and high quality presentations in word, Excel and Power Point with graphics
- US Citizenship or Permanent Residency required
SALARY AND BENEFITS:
Salary will be based on commensurate experience and earnings history. The Public Health Institute offers a comprehensive benefits package including professional development programs. More information is available here.
TO APPLY:
All applicants are required to apply for this position through GHFP’s online recruitment system at https://www.ghfp.net/recruitment/, which allows you to store your CV, profile and bio data form in our database. A separate cover letter describing your qualifications and experience, interest and familiarity with issues relating to this position, and how this position relates to your career goals is required for each application. All online applications must be submitted by September 8, 2009.
We are proud to be an affirmative action employer.
Malnutrition rates continue to climb throughout the world, and food/nutritional security interventions, particularly those targeting children, are increasingly turning to foreign food aid donations, economic development interventions, and agricultural subsidy programs to address the problem of malnutrition. Donors and implementers alike are asking whether the solutions to these problems lie in interventions involving fortification (adding nutrients to food), nutritional supplementation (provision of vitamins), commercialization (growing food on large scale to be sold in the market), and provision of food aid and therapeutic food (free or subsidized provision of food); or in promoting the use of local resources and traditional knowledge in local gardening or subsistence farming.
Operating in an HIV/AIDS-affected context magnifies the urgency of resolving these questions. People living with HIV (PLWHIV) are often at risk for food and nutritional insecurity due to the disease’s negative effect on individual and family resources. In response to this risk, Project Concern International organized the Africa Forum 2009 to strengthen the collective efforts of organizations working on the African continent in the areas of HIV/AIDS and Food and Nutritional Security. At the Forum, practitioners engaged in a debate about whether local gardens or fortification/supplementation/commercialization provide the most effective ways to address food and nutritional security in the context of HIV/AIDS. As with similar dialogues within and among organizations around the world, the debate at the Africa Forum generated much discussion, but little consensus.
The debate addressed questions such as:
- Can small-scale household gardens really meet the nutritional demands of the world’s increasing population, or are outside interventions necessary?
- Are nutritional intervention programs necessary for children in urban communities that lack access to land for farming and gardening?
- How do these two different approaches to food and nutritional security fit into the larger picture of sustainable development?
- Don’t children with specific diseases, such as HIV, require addition nutritional supplementation that cannot be obtained from simple household gardening systems?
- Are there particular situations where food aid and supplementation are appropriate?
- With the current downturn in the global economy, don’t people need safety nets to ensure health and nutrition?
A particular sticking point for participants was whether dire short-term needs or the demand for long-term sustainability should underpin the decision on which food and nutritional security approach to employ.
Arguments for greater use of food aid, nutritional supplementation, fortification, direct food transfers and commercial agricultural systems concluded that in the short term and the long term they are simply a cheaper – and easier – way to get food and nutrition to thousands of people, especially children. Gardens are risky: they take a long time to grow, they cannot be easily implemented at scale, they require energy to maintain that PLWHIV do not have or need to direct to other income-generating activities, and they need resources such as water, fertile soil and good quality seeds and seedlings, which may be hard to access. Furthermore, specific diseases such as HIV/AIDS, or specific circumstances such as pregnancy, require additional nutritional supplementation and therapeutic food, which cannot be obtained from simple household gardening systems. These are also often essential as immediate forms of treatment when situations reach their most dire: when children could die if they do not receive the nutrition from therapeutic food that they need; when people have illnesses that require special nutritional needs; and in post-conflict or post-natural disaster situations where there has been large population displacement.
The argument for local gardens countered that thousands of local resources can be used for foods and natural medicines. Furthermore, when food needs become dependent on outside funding and food provision, communities are vulnerable to external economic fluctuations, which local gardens can help guard against. Participants brought up cases of poor practices in the provision of food aid, such as long-term provision of minimally nutritious food. In terms of concerns about inputs and resources associated with gardens, it was argued that gardens require less space than people assume: “functional landscaping,” which utilizes all available space to grow food and takes advantage of the fact that many kinds of produce can be grown with little soil, opens gardening up to those who have little access to land, including households in urban areas. In addition, gardening has the potential to be accessible through organizations such as hospitals, churches, and schools. Gardening that utilizes local resources that have adapted to growing conditions over thousands of years helps eliminate the need for purchased seed and agricultural inputs such as synthetic fertilizer, hybrid seeds, and other chemicals. Gardening also carries benefits such as diversifying food crops, which is beneficial to households nutritionally. With a 12-month growing season, gardeners in Africa have the potential to access fresh food year-round with minimal need for cash, and the potential to expand production to the point of being able to sell produce as well as consume it.
Participants did come to one point of agreement: the issue is not one of selecting one approach over another, but marrying household food production with supplementation, fortification, direct food transfers, therapeutic foods, and commercialization in a way that is sustainable and meets communities’ and children’s needs. Identifying the best paths to achieving this goal, however, continues to challenge practitioners.
This post was written by Margie Brand and Jennine Carmichael. It draws on information presented during a debate at the Africa Forum 2009, led by Kristoff Nordin and Margie Brand.
- Margie Brand is Program Director for the USAID STRIVE program and Founder of EcoVentures International (EVI). She is an experienced trainer, author, speaker, and curriculum developer in the areas of innovative environmental and youth livelihood development.
- Kristoff Nordin has been living and working in Malawi, Africa in the areas of sustainable agriculture and health for more than a decade. Kristoff and his wife, Stacia, a registered dietician, have identified hundreds of local food plants that can be easily and freely utilized, but are often neglected due to stigma, outside influences, and an ever-growing loss of traditional knowledge.
This guest post comes from Chris Desmond and Linda Richter, contributors to the Joint Learning Initiative on Children and HIV/AIDS (JLICA). Among other conclusions, JLICA’s final report advocates that, in countries heavily affected by HIV, the most appropriate economic strengthening action to be taken in support of children is the establishment of a social protection plan to transfer resources to the poorest families. Given the range of activities pursued in the name of improving the economic security of children affected by HIV, CYES asked Chris and Linda to discuss their findings in more detail. To learn more about JLICA and to access the report in multiple languages, visit their website at www.jlica.org.
Although there is a great deal of controversy about the relationship between poverty and the risk of becoming infected with HIV, it is not debatable that HIV and AIDS place a financial strain on affected individuals and families. Over time, and often repeated shocks, AIDS is impoverishing. Many of the impacts which occur as a result of the epidemic, particularly those which affect children, result from this financial strain. For families already facing serious economic constraints, the added burden of HIV/AIDS can push them into destitution. Budgets are further constrained, food consumption may fall, children may be withdrawn from school, and less is available to spend on the health care of children and adults who are not ill.
Economic strengthening for individuals and families is an obvious response to financial strain, and there are a range of programmes which seek to do just this. These include, in an approximate order of rising complexity in delivery: cash transfers, in-kind transfers (such as food), livelihood development, micro- credit and public works programmes, among others. Identifying the most appropriate program to protect children in the context of HIV/AIDS and poverty was a major focus of the Joint Learning Initiative on Children and AIDS (JLICA). The JLICA concluded that cash transfers for the poorest families is the optimum policy choice given need, flexibility and capacity constraints. There are two parts to the JLICA recommendation: firstly, the provision of cash transfers as opposed to other forms of economic strengthening and, secondly, the targeting of the poorest families as opposed to orphans or people living with HIV/AIDS.
There are a number of arguments in favour of cash transfers. Cash transfers are a proven means of improving the health and well-being of vulnerable families. They also require, relative to livelihoods or public works, less capacity to implement. Unlike in-kind transfers, cash provides some flexibility and avoids goods being sold by families so they can purchase what they feel they really need. Cash transfers respond to constraints in demand for services. While there is frequently a focus on the delivery of health and education services, the capacity of families to access these services has not been addressed. Perhaps most importantly, cash transfers recognise that the leading role in child care and protection is played by the family. Outside responses should support families rather than try to by-pass them.
A common objection to cash transfers is that they foster dependency. But the amounts of money involved are small and can only been seen as supportive of other forms of family income and livelihood. Even if there is dependency, it may well be legitimate. Cash transfers are typically intended to benefit children, the elderly or families affected by illness or disability with no one able to work – all of whom are legitimately dependent on their families and the state. It is curious that descriptions of old or very young caregivers of children affected by HIV/AIDS and poverty are accompanied by arguments in favour of livelihood or public works programmes, the very forms of economic strengthening of least benefit to these groups of caregivers.
The JLICA, as mentioned, recommends targeting the poorest families in HIV/AIDS affected communities. This is premised on the contention that, at the point of delivery, the only appropriate indicator of need is need itself. Families affected by HIV/AIDS may be more at risk of being pushed deeper into poverty, but this does not mean that they are all more at risk than all other families. The same applies to orphans. Needs arise because of poverty; therefore the targeting should be based on poverty. It so happens that targeting the poorest families has been shown to cover the majority of families affected by HIV/AIDS being covered.
The above summarises some of the main arguments behind the JLICA recommendations relating to cash transfers. There are, however, other important arguments in favour of cash transfers not directly related to HIV/AIDS. Key among these are the protection and promotion of human capital and their potential impact on economic growth. Far from fostering dependency, cash transfers have been shown to increase household productivity and labour force participation. Moreover, the injection of money directly into poor communities has the potential to increase economic activity which leads to benefits for others in the community, not only targeted families.
The United States government (USG) is establishing a four-person secretariat within USAID to further improve the coordination and effectiveness of USG assistance to orphans and vulnerable children, and maximize the impact on children of USG resources. The following positions are currently open for US citizens to apply:
- Orphans and Vulnerable Children Program Analyst (closes March 20)
- Senior Technical Advisor for Monitoring and Evaluation of Assistance to Vulnerable Children (closes March 23)
- Deputy Special Advisor for Orphans and Vulnerable Children (closes March 27)
This expert post comes from Lloyd Feinberg, Director of the USAID Displaced Children and Orphans Fund.
USAID's Displaced Children and Orphans Fund (DCOF) began as a relatively small ($1 million a year) U.S. Congressional earmark in 1989. In the years since, the Fund has supported a number of different programmatic directions, most of them focused on "categories" of children whose particular plight gained the attention of child protection practitioners, academics, humanitarian organizations, the media and/or political entities, within and outside the U.S.
Interventions have focused on street children, children in orphanages, children displaced from their families by armed conflict, children affected by HIV/AIDS, children with disabilities, etc. Strategies have focused on the development and trial of various types of "applied research" models, which could be replicated or expanded. Lessons learned about the appropriateness or lack of appropriateness of various methodologies, approaches, etc. have been gathered and disseminated, and various workshops, conferences and other venues for information sharing have been funded.
Almost from the beginning, however, DCOF has struggled to come to grips with a single, incontrovertible truth about successful child rearing: "It’s all about family." And, aside from survival in times of emergency, the single most critical challenge families generally face is the ability to develop and maintain assets and meet their financial obligations.
In recent years, we have been searching for and are now actively engaged in supporting a number of different approaches to strengthening the economic status of vulnerable families. The difference between most economic growth programs and DCOF’s, however, is that we have our "M&E eyes" fixed on the relationship between strengthened economic security and improvements (or lack there-of) in the health, educational performance and well-being of vulnerable children. The main activities that DCOF is funding in this area are the five country projects and the overall learning agenda of the STRIVE Program.
As these country programs develop over the coming three years and as lessons emerge from their experience, we look forward to exchanging information and views in future with you through this platform. Beyond that though, we are excited to be able to invite you to join us so that we can all improve our work and better support families in their quest to provide, healthier, more secure futures for their children. Through a combination of dialogue and practice, we can collectively improve the lives of many, many people around the world and I look forward to continuing to pursue that goal together.
This expert post comes from USAID/DCOF Senior Technical Advisor, John Williamson, a leading voice in the discussion on improving economic strengthening for vulnerable children.
Over the last year, we’ve seen the development of a critical mass of interest and programming activity focused on effective ways to use economic interventions as a key means to benefit impoverished young people.
For example, a review of child-focused economic strengthening programs in Uganda and Kenya led to the publication of Economic Strengthening for Vulnerable Children: Principles of Program Design and Technical Recommendations for Effective Field Interventions and more recently the Youth Livelihoods Program Development Guide.
In just over a year, Making Cents organized the first and second Global Youth Enterprise Conferences in Washington, DC. There has been a growing wave of attention to the security imperative of enabling youth in fragile states to integrate economically.
In January 2008, an inter-agency workshop focused on what we know and what we need to learn about economic interventions for child protection and well being, and in February, Project Hope convened a workshop on economic strengthening to benefit orphans and vulnerable children.
Also, in terms of programming, an increasing amount of PEPFAR funding for orphans and vulnerable children is being used to support economic strengthening, and USAID/DCOF has launched the STRIVE Program, which is testing a number of economic interventions and closely monitoring the actual effectiveness of these activities in improving the well being of children and youth. There have also been major developments regarding the use of cash transfers as a way to address the basic needs of orphans and vulnerable children. DFID and other European donors are working with several Africa Governments to pilot and scale up such programs.
Each of these developments was itself significant. Together, however, they indicate a strong and encouraging trend toward the use of economic strengthening to benefit vulnerable children. As I reflect on where this trend began and my experience with the development of CYES, the following events seem particularly significant:
- December 2000: First effort to purposefully bring together experts on programming for children affected by HIV/AIDS with experts in economic strengthening results in a “Town Hall” meeting organized by an informal group of donors
- Spring 2000: Jill Donahue (now Thompson) publishes the seminal paper “Microfinance and HIV/AIDS…It’s Time to Talk.”
- 2003: the International HIV/AIDS Alliance, as part of its Building Blocks Series, issues Economic Strengthening: Resources for Communities Working with Orphans and Vulnerable Children.
- 2004: USAID organizes a workshop in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania that that leads to the formation of the CYES Network and commissioning of three publications:
– A CARE review of existing tools and documents
– Economic Strengthening / Livelihood Tools and Literature Review by Hugh Allen and the Hope for African Children Initiative
– Economic Strengthening Activities Benefiting Orphans and Vulnerable Children in Africa by Carolyn Barnes, the first map of activities at the CYES intersection - 2004 – 2008: Jill, Maggie Alexander, Benedicte Moncenis, and finally myself each takes a turn at the helm of the CYES Network and listserv.
Regarding the last point, each facilitator of the Network focused on sharing documents and information we thought would be useful to the members and their work. Occasionally we organized face-to-face meetings. Yet, the “network” has largely been an effort by a small number of committed professionals to improve what we do though somewhat limited email exchanges. The past year has changed that.
I’ve been encouraged by the growing momentum to increase our collective effectiveness and scale in using the economic interventions to benefit vulnerable children and youth. I am also pleased that this has been coupled with increased dialogue and cross-sectoral communication of the sort I think is vital to our success.
I’m excited that through the STRIVE Program and other strategic partners, the CYES Network Learning Platform has been developed as a resource that will support the increasing use of economic measures to benefit vulnerable children. I expect this tool and the monthly newsletter will provide access to vitally important information and, perhaps even more importantly, facilitate the collaborative exchange of information and ideas needed to make a real difference for children and youth and the world they will inherit.
It is indeed an idea whose time has come, and I look forward to writing this exciting new chapter in the growth of the CYES Network with all of you.
I recently had the opportunity to attend the Orphans and Vulnerable Children Forum hosted on 25-26 June 2008 by Catholic Relief Services. The event showcased CRS’s work in OVC programming and, of particular interest to me, the tools the agency has used in monitoring and evaluating program effects on children. The following overview of key sessions on this topic is meant to provide some background for others who are interested. I would also like very much to hear from practitioners and researchers what tools you find effective for monitoring and evaluation and impact assessment with children.
Child Protection Needs
In the “Promising Practices for Child Involvement” session, Shepherd Mupfumi and Daphyne Williams addressed the need to include children in OVC research and project design, while at the same time protecting them from harm. Children’s lack of power in research settings due to their youth and limited capacity to provide informed consent is compounded when working with OVC by factors such as the loss of one or both parents, poverty, displacement, and stigma associated with HIV/AIDS. (An overview of risk and ethics in human research is available here, and background on the ethics of research involving children can be found here). In large part due to the HIV/AIDS crisis, development practitioners have grown increasingly sensitive to the importance of child protection within ethical research design.
Child Protection Mechanisms
CRS employs a variety of mechanisms to protect children in project research and implementation. For example, in rural Zimbabwe, CRS partners work with Child Protection Committees composed of child representatives, caregivers and community representatives throughout the program cycle, seeking their input on decision making, project design, implementation and monitoring (see Mr. Mupfumi’s presentation, “Involving Children” for further detail). This is in keeping with the agency’s “Do No Harm” principles, which mandate that risk to OVC must be assessed and addressed throughout the project cycle. CRS has also instituted guidelines for HIV-related research in field projects. These include recommendations about when it is necessary to seek external review of proposed research activities, as the agency, like most non-profits, does not have its own internal review board (IRB) process. (Refer to Ms. Williams presentation on the “Do No Harm Implementation Strategy” for more information.)
In a subsequent session, “Making a Difference: Documenting Results” the focus was on specific tools used to gather information from children themselves. Featured tools included:
- The Child Status Index (CSI) Tool
- CRS’s OVC Wellbeing Tool (OWT)
- The “Station Days” data-collection methodology used by CRS in Zimbabwe.
The Child Status Index (CSI)
Karen O’Donnell of Duke University Medical Center presented the CSI. The index was developed in response to OGAC’s need for a simple, child-centered tool that would show change in child well being over time, identify current and future child needs, and guide longer-term program interventions. The CSI uses a community-based, participatory methodology to gather data on children’s food and nutritional status, shelter and care, protection, health care, psychosocial well being, and education and vocational skills. See Dr O’Donnell’s presentation on the OVC Forum resource sitefor further detail on the CSI methodology and indicators.
OVC Wellbeing Tool (OWT)
Shannon Senefeld presented the results obtained from the CRS OWT during a pilot which incorporated the tool into 5 PEPFAR country evaluations. In conjunction with other measurement tools, the OWT, a self-reporting tool for the 13 – 18 year-old cohort, helped identify issues important to children. For example, through the OWT, OVC in institutions in Haiti reported stronger and more consistent feelings of self-worth and self-confidence than children in communities because they felt connected to their peer group, whereas many children living in communities were more likely to feel isolated from their peers. The OWT also helped identify gender disparities in OVC well being – while orphans overall suffered more negative nutritional impacts, maternal orphans fared even worse, and boys overall had better nutritional results than girls. For more information on the OWT, download CRS’s presentation on the tool at the International AIDS Conference in Mexico City in August, or download the OWT at CRS’s website.
"Station Days" Methodology
Finally, Joyce Tamuka Chitemere of CRS Zimbabwe presented the “Station Days” methodology, which provides OVC aged 5 to 18 with information and material assistance while also collecting quantitative and qualitative data about their well being. On a quarterly basis, “Station Days” brings children to a central location (such as local school) where they pass through a series of stations, providing information and receiving care. For instance, at the station where children’s weight and height is measured, staff perform small personal care tasks for the children. School performance is assessed by reviewing children’s exercise books. Interactions with counselors and elders both provide and check the effectiveness of psychosocial support. On a quarterly basis, the CRS Zimbabwe program uses this approach to sample approximately 180 OVC per day, involve their technical staff more directly in monitoring and evaluation, and provide the children with an opportunity for self-expression and direct input into program goals. The “Station Days” methodology has been effective at raising awareness of issues affecting children but is not without risks, including encountering emotional triggers (particularly in the counseling stations) and raising children’s expectations (staff have found that children anticipate that their feedback will be quickly incorporated, which is not always feasible).
All in all, the day offered insight into a number of tools and current initiatives to improve M&E for child-focused programming by using methods that directly involve children. To see what else was covered and/or learn more about the sessions I described above, visit the OVC Forum resource page, where both presentation slides and video of the presentations are archived. Have you used any of these tools or techniques? What was your experience with them? What other tools for involving children in M&E and research have you used?
