participatory midterm review - mono.net · a participatory midterm review underpins the activities...

Strengthening of families and community in Gasaka sector, Rwanda

Participatory midterm review

Researchers in Kids’ group: NDAGANO Chanel, KURIKIYUMUKIZA J Pierre, MUHOZAWASE Hyacinthe,

MURAGIJIMANA Jeanne, MUNEZERO Christian, GAHUNGA Nzabakurana, USANASE Marie Louise,

NGABONZIZA Modeste, MUKAGATARE Alice, MUTUYIMANA Claudine. Adult facilitators: KALIZA Jacqueline,

Gasaka Project Field officer, MUTWARE Fidele, Advocay Project Coordinator at Gikongoro, and

UWIZEYIMANA Thérésie, Gasaka Project Coordinator. Translator: NTABAJYANA Boniface, Advocacy Project

Coordinator at Kayonza.

Researchers in Elders’ group: MUHIRWA Emmanuel, MUKAYISENGA Mediatrice, NYIRAMIHAMA Hilarie,

BAZIKI Marie, KABAYIZA Francois. Facilitator: MUHAYIMANA Vedaste, Gasaka Project field officer.

Translator: KAGAJU John, Kayonza Field Officer.

Facilitated, partly researched and compiled by: Lotte Ladegaard/Development Close-up

Photo: Lotte Ladegaard

Participatory midterm review: Strengthening of families and community in Gasaka sector, Rwanda. November 2014

2

Table of contents

Introduction ......................................................................................... 4

About the report structure ................................................................... 5

WHAT WE SAID WE WOULD DO ................................................................................................. 5

1. Aims and methods of the participatory midterm review ................ 5

2. Aims and strategy of the project ................................................... 7

WHAT WE IN FACT DID ............................................................................................................... 9

1. Review of the participatory midterm review methodology ............ 9

Recommendations for future participatory reviews ............................ 14

2. Midterm review of the project .................................................... 15

Summary of findings: Objective 1 ....................................................... 15

Detailed findings from Elders’ Group ....................................................................................................................... 16

Findings from test interviews................................................................................................................................... 18

Findings from staff self-review................................................................................................................................. 19

Staff wind-up – including staff from other projects ................................................................................................. 19

Recommendations for objective 1 ....................................................... 20


Detailed findings from the Kids’ Group .................................................................................................................... 22

Findings from test-interviews .................................................................................................................................. 25





Findings from authorities ......................................................................................................................................... 28

Findings on CBO cooperation ................................................................................................................................... 29



3



General recommendations ................................................................. 33



4

Introduction

The idea of having a participatory midterm review with children and parents as researchers emerged

already a year ahead of the actual midterm review. It came up when Programme Coordinator Camilla Torp

Olsen, SOS Children’s Villages Denmark, and I, Lotte Ladegaard, Development Close-up, were on our way to

facilitate a children’s participation training workshop as a part of the Strengthening of families and

community in Gasaka sector, Rwanda, in Gikongoro.

First and foremost, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that children have a right to

participate in any decisions regarding their own lives. Consequently, children are obviously entitled to

engage in the evaluation of activities that has an impact on their lives.

Then, there are a number of advantages of having project participants evaluate their own project. When

project participants engage in research it builds empowerment way beyond trainings and everyday

activities, and it helps increase the children’s status in their own communities. The status of children is

important if child rights and children’s participation are going to become and remain accepted features in a

society which is usually not prone to listening to children’s voices.

Children’s right to participation continue to puzzle and challenge adults all over the world. During the child

rights training and the children’s participation training included in the project it became clear that this was

also true for some of the adult participants in the two trainings. For the same reason it was hard for the

children to believe that they were really allowed to raise their voices. A participatory midterm review

underpins the activities already taking place, empower the children to speak out and provide space for the

adults to practice true children’s participation.

It is the first time SOS Children’s Villages Rwanda and Denmark have carried out a participatory midterm

review, but when presented for the idea the project staff agreed to try it out. To learn more about the

options, pros and cons, and to ensure a common understanding, Camilla Torp Olsen and I participated in an

INTRAC training on Impact Assessment arranged by SOS Children’s Villages Denmark.

The INTRAC training also inspired the overall headings in this participatory midterm review report where

we are looking at “are we doing what we said we would do?” This sentence originates from the INTRAC

guidelines to a staff self-review which was applied as a part of this participatory midterm review. The staff

self-review brought about much information about the project progress, and more importantly, a number

of recommendations from the project staff for how to make the project work even better.

Simultaneously other staff members of other projects have taken to the idea of participatory midterm

reviews, so two more participatory midterm reviews have already been planned.

Everything that entails a certain level of participation also entails a certain number of uncertainties. This is

what makes true participation challenging and what makes constant learning and documentation

absolutely necessary and therefore time consuming. To improve methods and close gaps ahead of these

coming participatory midterm reviews this report includes in detail the learning from this very first one if its

kind. The many details make this review more extensive than originally planned, but I believe that it is

important to include all major learnings and the method to avoid repeating mistakes in future participatory

reviews.


5

About the report structure

The midterm review has been carried out with a point of departure in the project’s three objectives, and

this structure has been maintained throughout the report. Summaries of findings and eventual analysis

applied in the summary are to be found at the beginning of each chapter evolving around each objective.

Recommendations are to be found at the end of each chapter, with a few general recommendations added

at the end of the report.

While segregating the detailed findings into separate sections makes the report fairly comprehensive, this

enables the project staff and others to trace the sources of information. I do believe that this will help them

work out strategies for how to strengthen the project and make it even better in the future.

The segregation of detailed findings will also help SOS Children’s Villages and I understand the weaknesses

and the strengths of the methods applied in this participatory midterm review and enable us to adjust

wherever necessary when engaging in participatory midterm reviews to come.

What we said we would do

1. Aims and methods of the participatory midterm review

The overall methodology worked out ahead of the midterm review states that:

A regular midterm evaluation was included in the project document. As the project has a strong child rights

and participation focus, and as staff and child and parent representatives have been trained in child rights

and participation it was decided to involve the children and parents of the project in the midterm review

research. The approach has several advantages:

The children and parents become further empowered by learning how to conduct research and by

taking on the role as researchers in their own communities.

Children and parents from a specific community are assumed to have access to more in-depth

knowledge about individual families and how they benefit – or not benefit - from the project.

Peer approaches generally work well. Children within a community are assumed to trust other

children more than an outsider or an adult and therefore provide more frank answers. The same

applies to parents.

Children and parents, who are themselves benefitting from the project, will know the weaknesses

and strengths of the ongoing project from their own lives and may therefore ask more critical

questions.

However, there may also be weaknesses in having relatively inexperienced researchers, who themselves

are participants in the project. Some of their questions may be biased, or they may more easily be

influenced by their own communities. They may also avoid asking certain questions because they worry

that they themselves may lose support if they are too critical. Jealousy and other internal mechanism in the

community may also impact the research. At the same time, relatively inexperienced researchers may not

be skilled enough to follow up on indications, answers that are not clear-cut or answers leading in several

directions.


6

To counteract such problems, and to ensure that triangulation may take place, focus group discussions with

child participants of the project, parents of the project and other community stakeholders will be carried

out by the facilitator.

Baseline survey, regular monitoring reports and community evaluations will also be analysed and used as

an input to the midterm review.

The midterm review will start out with a three-day preparatory workshop where all participants, the

facilitator and the Danish programme coordinator will participate. The workshop will decide:

Who are we doing the midterm review for?

What is to be measured?

Methods, tools, numbers of informants, roles and responsibilities. Everything will be planned in a

participatory manner.

Amongst the tools to be developed and applied could be:

Questionnaires which may be worked out on the basis of the children’s own questions.

Mappings, drawings, theatre and other child-friendly tools.

Semi-structured interviews with children and parents carried out by children and parents. Semi-

structured interviews may be developed into cases in the writing process.

Staff self-reviews.

Focus group discussions with parents, children and other stakeholders by facilitator.

Eventual randomized controlled trials if time and resources permit.

When the methodology, tools and plans have been worked out, the research teams will initiate the

research at field level. The facilitator will coach the initial interviews and help the teams refine their

research methods.

The facilitator will also carry out focus group discussions with selected stakeholders, and before she leaves

she will wind up with a half day workshop to help resolve eventual problems in the research design.

The research will be analysed and compiled into a 15-20 pages report by the facilitator.

Participants in research

1) Children who are already trained in child rights and children’s participation. From the family

strengthening programme in Gikongoro.

2) Parents who are already trained in child rights and children’s participation. From the family

strengthening programme in Gikongoro.

3) Staffs from the family strengthening programme in Gikongoro.

4) Facilitator from Denmark.

Time frame

Preparations 3 days

Participatory midterm review preparatory workshop 3-5 Nov 2014


7

On-the-job test coaching, test of methods and adaptation 6-7 Nov

Focus group discussions conducted by Lotte 8 Nov

Focus group discussion continued + half day follow-up with teams 10 Nov

All research sent to Lotte (mail, DHL, by hand?) 8 Dec

First draft report (15-20 pages) ready for approval 2 January 2015

Comments from SOS to Lotte 12 January

Final report ready 19 January

2. Aims and strategy of the project The project Strengthening of families and community in Gasaka sector, Rwanda is designed to empower

families as primary duty bearers to protect and care for their children, and to reinforce existing safety nets

for orphans and other vulnerable children and their families. When families develop their competencies

and are supported in increasing their resources it impacts the entire community, which may then better

meet the needs of orphans and vulnerable children and their families in general.

Village savings and loan associations are an important part of the project. The associations enable

vulnerable families in stabilising their scarce household economy and improve saving habits. Members are

being trained in business plan development, loan and resource management. At an organisational level the

associations sign memorandum of understanding, have by-laws and annual plans.

When the family income improves caregivers can better meet the basic needs of children, including

education, health insurance and food. In the longer run it is foreseen that the economic empowerment will

help the families engage in income generating activities and become self-reliant.

The village savings and loan associations also serve as a platform for training in parental skills, child care,

child development, family planning, hygiene, sanitation and HIV and AIDS. At the same time, caregivers are

primed to potentially develop sustainable linkages with microcredit institutions and formal financial

institutions to ensure access to larger savings, lending and other services.

Literacy is not a precondition for participation in the village savings and loan associations, but an adult

literacy programme acts as a platform for mobilising participants of village savings and loan associations.

Civic education is an important part of the village savings and loan associations. Awareness raising on

human and democratic rights, child rights and child protection gradually makes the participants conscious

about their own situation and their rights. Being organised in an association also leads to the development

of democratic skills of the individual and the group and creates a sense of solidarity.

Strategic services may be needed to enable the most vulnerable families to participate. Service needs are

assessed on a case-by-case basis and individual mutually agreed Family Development Plans are worked out.

Services include support to access to education and health care, e.g. health insurance for a limited period.

When possible, these families are referred to other service providers. The provision of essential services is

short-term and will be reduced while capacities of the families strengthen.


8

The project works closely with community based organisations and local authorities and build capacity

through technical and material support and by strengthening networks for them to effectively respond to

the situation of vulnerable children and their communities.

Community based organisation (CBOs) are having their capacity built through trainings, engagement in

advocacy for child rights and involvement in the village savings and loan associations. This also works as an

indirect support to local mobilisation and grass root activities ensuring a wider participation in the

community development.

All project participants are selected in close cooperation with CBOs and local authorities. A steering

committee with representatives from local authorities, health workers, and women at cell level, youth at

cell level, religious leaders, and businessmen, headmasters of schools, project participants, NGOs and

financial institutions follows the project throughout.

Particular focus is on child rights, children’s participaton, awareness raising on child protection systems and

official lines of communication in the community. The project is exploring the available lines of

communication in relation to protection systems and assessing how effective the systems are and how

confident children feel using them.

The project will sensitise community, duty bearers and facilitate training for key stakeholders such as

teachers and local leaders. Moreover, SOS Children’s Villages Rwanda advocate towards the local

authorities to ensure the protection of child rights by developing strategies for lines of communication in

relation to child protection.

To engage the children themselves 10 schools are selected for annual campaigns with special messages

targeting children, parents and teachers. Child rights groups are formed to enhance sustainability in the

project and provide a platform for children’s voices to be heard. The child rights groups ensure democratic

involvement of children and youth; they inform the project and act as entrance points and multipliers of

knowledge on rights. By securing support from school management and teachers the project helps the child

rights groups achieve a certain status and enough knowledge for them to continue after the project

intervention.

In 2009, SOS Children’s Villages initiated a new international strategy with a special focus on advocacy. The

organisation is still in the process of building organisational competencies to work child rights based and to

do advocacy with the participation of children and local stakeholders and partners, networking and

participatory community development. Therefore, the project also aims at enhancing and embedding the

knowledge on child rights across the organisation, and it wishes to ensure learning on how use the child

rights based approach in the community. The project enables SOS Children’s Villages Rwanda to build

further capacity on child rights within the organisation, within the community based organisations and

other stakeholders.

The project approach is participatory throughout the project cycle. The target groups participate in

implementation, monitoring and evaluation of project activities. This includes child participation in the child

rights and children’s participation trainings included in the project, as well as in monitoring and evaluation.

To increase learning not only among the project staff, staff from other projects and the national office are

also engaged in trainings and other activities.


9

The advocacy officer from SOS Children’s Villages Rwanda’s national office is invited to participate in

workshops to learn more about the reality in this sector. This will qualify his lobbying for changes within

central authorities and vice versa - he may act as a trainer of advocacy.

Experiences from other projects have shown that it is difficult to find local expertise to build capacity within

SOS Children’s Villages Rwanda. Thus, the project is drawing on expertise from consultants in Denmark

whom SOS Children’s Villages have cooperated with before.

What we in fact did

1. Review of the participatory midterm review methodology

On Monday 3 November 2014 three project staffs, nine previously child rights trained youth from the

family strengthening programme and the SOS Children’s Village, four previously child rights trained parents

and an SOS mother and three staffs from other projects gathered in Gikongoro for a three-day midterm

planning workshop. One of the young participants was a newcomer, while a couple of previously trained

youth and parents could not participate due to education, work or not living in the area any longer.

Two staff from other projects acted as translators, but also participated to gather inspiration for their own

upcoming midterm reviews. For several reasons, the inclusion of SOS children and mothers had been a

recurring feature throughout previous trainings on child rights and children’s participation. First of all the

family strengthening programmes build on knowledge and resources in the children’s villages. However,

there is often a gap in the understanding among the SOS village staff and the family strengthening

programme, since the family strengthening programme is still relatively new. The participation in common

activities is believed to help close this gap. Then, some SOS village mothers themselves had requested to

participate, because they wanted to learn more about child rights and children’s participation.

During the first child rights training the youth of the family strengthening programme had complained that

they had a long way to go between the training rooms in the SOS school and their homes. Subsequently,

these youth were invited to stay with the SOS youth in the family houses. They did so too during the

midterm review and this helped remove any gaps between the two groups of youth. All the youth were

visibly happy to meet each other again after a year.

The fact that the youth had already participated in two trainings over the past one and a half years had

multiple positive features: First of all, they were not as shy to face the adults and other youth as they used

to be. Then, they had matured tremendously. Where it had been a precondition for participation during the

trainings that they youth were into adolescence, the oldest youth were now 17 years and had a very clear

grasp of their own situation and role in society. A couple of individual interviews made during the workshop

also showed that at least some of the youth had been very good at practicing their child rights knowledge

in reality.

The workshop started out with a small introduction to the aim of the workshop, the subsequent test

interviews at field level and the midterm review. To ensure in a fun way that everyone actually understood

what is was all about, a treasure hunt was arranged. Four posts made the participants come up with a small

presentation of what “key words you use when you ask questions,” “people you could imagine asking


10

about their opinions when you want to check how well a project works,” “different questions you could

imagine asking different groups of people when you check how well a project works,” and “different child-

friendly research tools.”

A number of exercises on body language were also included as energizers, because body language is a very

important, if often overlooked, part of research. Another exercise on listening was left out due to time

limitations.

Often, it is easier for children to relate to questions concerning their own everyday life. With one project

objective having a clear child focus I suggested that children review the objective and indicators concerning

children. Then, the parents could review another objective concerning caregivers. It was assumed that it

would be an added advantage having children and parents work in separate groups; with less adult

domination it would be easier to create space for true participation for the children.

The parents’ group soon renamed their group as “the Elders Group” and the youth called their group for

“the Kids’ Group.”

Each group had a translator and a project staff member added to the group. A recently joined staff member

and a staff member from another project also worked with the Kids’ Group. All adults were informed that

they were facilitators and not allowed to take decisions on behalf of the children and parents.

The third objective which has to do with advocacy, networking and cooperation with CBOs was reviewed by

me. It was anticipated that this objective was the most challenging to the project staff members, since

these activities are still fairly new to SOS Children’s Villages Rwanda. Therefore, these would also be most

challenging to look into for inexperienced researchers with little knowledge about advocacy, networking

and partnership. At the same time, having the youth and parents do research on yet another and more

difficult topic would put them at risk of feeling overloaded, and this would impact their learning, self-

confidence, as well as the outcome of the review.

In the process of distributing the objectives and indicators the coordinator and I found that the indicators

were mostly quantitative while very few focused on quality. Some were also not very concrete. What does

“on a regular basis” imply, for example? Many indicators were “inactive” in the sense that they were

focusing on awareness only, which does not necessarily lead to changes, rather than on action leading to

change.

So we reformulated some of the indicators and added some before the group work started. Especially the

indicators for objective three appeared to be unclear or misguiding, so we made entirely new indicators.

However, in the process of doing the research it was found that the new indicators for objective 3 were not

fulfilling either. I therefore suggest that one more indicator is being added.

Each group was provided with a copy of “its” objective and the associated indicators. Wherever some

indicator is changed, or added, this has been mentioned in the boxes:


11

The Elders’ Group:

1. By June 2015, at least 70% of the households/families of children participating in the project are

empowered educationally and economically and have the capacity to meet the developmental

needs of their children in Gasaka sector

Indicators:

- # of caregivers with none or limited literacy skills have received basic training. - # of caregivers are organised in village savings and loan associations. - # of caregivers contribute economically to their children’s school fees, school materials and health

insurance. - # of caregivers who are practicing good parenting skills (old version: # of caregivers have basic

knowledge relating to general parenting skills). - Good parenting skills have led to increased child rights fulfilment in families (added).

Kids’ Group:

2. By June 2015, at least 90% of the households and children and youth are aware of their basic

human rights and local authorities are capable of actively responding to community needs.

Indicators:

- 90 % of the children of school-going age participating in the project attend school and drop-out rates have decreased (old version: 90 % of the children participating in the project attend school on a regular basis)

- 90 % of the children participating in the project are covered by health insurance - Increased community fulfilment of child rights and child protection. - Improved child rights networks and reporting systems.

(the two previous stem from one original indicator: Improved community focus on child rights and awareness on child protection and lines of communication)

- 90% of the children participating in the project are legally registered - 90% of pupils in 10 primary schools claim their rights (Old version: 90% of the children of school-

going age in 10 primary schools have basic knowledge of their human rights).

Facilitators’ research:

3. By June 2015, SOS Rwanda and local CBOs have increased organisational capacities to protect

child rights and conduct advocacy activities.

Old indicators:

- SOS RW staff has acquired experiences with implementing projects focused on child rights in cooperation with CBOs and local authorities

- Increased level of participation of SOS RW staff and CBO representatives in local decision-making forums, national and regional conferences and forums.


12

Indicators developed during workshop:

- SOS Children’s Villages staffs are implementing advocacy activities locally to ensure the fulfilment of child rights in cooperation with CBOs and local authorities.

- SOS Children’s Villages staffs are implementing advocacy activities regionally and nationally to ensure the fulfilment of child rights.

Suggested new indicator to be added due to learnings during research:

- CBO work as strong and equal civil society partners of SOS Children’s Villages Rwanda

Both groups were requested to:

1. Find out who you will need to talk to as a part of the research.

2. Which tools you will use.

3. How many people’s opinions you are going to include.

4. Plan who will do what when.

5. Plan how you will register all the responses.

6. Plan how they will ensure that everything is translated into French or English so that I can read it.

7. How they will present their research methods and plans tomorrow morning.

8. Plan the first two days of research (6-7 Nov) where Lotte will work with both groups to help them

improve the tools and approach.

Only rules:

The final deadline for the research is December 1.

Everything should be translated before December 8.

On December 8 all the translated research should be sent by e-mail to Lotte.

Be realistic – you cannot do everything in such a relatively short time.

A youth-friendly research toolbox that I have worked out as a part of a Save the Children youth

empowerment toolkit was distributed to all, and each group were visited by the coordinator and me

throughout the preparations. The toolbox’s contents were explained to each group with examples of how

the tools may be used.

When the two groups had finished their planning, they demonstrated their research technique by role-

playing, and the other group and I provided feedback. The role-plays worked as an initial – and fun – test of

the methods developed by the groups.

After the preparation workshop the facilitator spent a day with each group at field level to further test the

research methods and practice interview technique. The two groups had wanted to join each other to learn

from each other, but they ended up agreeing that it would be too overwhelming for the interviewees facing

both groups at the same time.


13

Instead, it was decided that at the end of the day each group should provide an overall summery of their

learnings for the group that was not at the field. At field level, each interviewer got feedback from the

interviewee, his or her own group members, and I summed up and added my own comments and advice.

Both groups demonstrated clear progress throughout the day, although the Elders’ Group encountered

some problems with interviewees who became emotional and started crying when interviewed. We took

this as an opportunity to discuss how to deal with such situations in an ethical way; with the interviewee

being comforted and solutions to the immediate problems found so that the interviewee was not being left

behind miserable.

Both groups had prepared written questions, which is good when you are not a very experienced

researcher. However, if you rely too much on your questions and have prepared no follow-up questions,

the research tends to become too superficial. During the test interviews this was clearly a challenge. The

actual research results show that the challenge continued beyond the test interviews, although much

emphasis was put on providing follow-up question suggestions during the test interviews.

After having read the Bi-annual Progress Reports worked out by the project coordinator I have detected

that the questions posed during the midterm review research by especially the Elders’ Group are quite

similar to the questions posed during regular monitoring. At the same time, both groups initially chose to

use very traditional and less child-friendly research tools.

This could suggest that the project staff have taken a leading role rather than a facilitating role in the

groups. Then, the staff members are primarily learning to facilitate through learning by doing, so the

midterm review was yet another chance to exactly this.

However, during the Kids’ Group’s field test they realised that it was difficult to make children “just” talk, so

in the actual research they have included games and drama.

Amongst other problems discussed in the groups were:

Forgetting to present the researchers and the aim of the research.

Forgetting to take notes or not telling when there is not enough time to take notes.

Asking closed “yes or no” questions without following up with a “why” or “how” etc.

Unclear if the research was focussing on quality or quantity.

Providing no space for the interviewee to think, finalise his/her response, ask questions, add

information or concerns.

No follow-up on important information.

Non-measurable information – “less than before,” but what is less than what?

Sitting arrangements where the interviewer and the interviewee either cannot see each other, or

where a long line of interviewers sit in front of a single interviewee who consequently get nervous

because s/he feels like being in a courtroom.

Interviewing children with their parents present is usually not a good idea. Children are inherently

loyal to their parents, although child rights violations often pertain to parents. Very few children

would want to tell the truth when their parents are listening.


14

Empowered children risk creating the same power relationship gaps with less aware children as adult-

children relationships: The trained youth feel too aloof and less careful when interviewing other

children with less knowledge and awareness of child rights.

Forgetting to include all in a focus group discussion, but focusing on one or two participants only.

Forgetting the body language; the interviewers are sitting leaned back as if they are not interested,

while they forget to note how nervous that makes the interviewee.

Role confusion: Project staff suddenly starts advising and sorting out problems instead of focusing on

asking questions and listening to responses.

The group members forget to involve other team members.

Ensure privacy by closing doors, etc.

Jumping between issues and thereby confusing the interviewees.

No winding up and proper thanks and goodbye.

Throughout the process it was underlined that adults have the ultimate responsibility for the protection of

children. When youth venture into a public space and start asking questions it may provoke strong

reactions in a community where children usually are not to be heard. Therefore, it was underlined that the

Kids’ Group would always have to be accompanied by their adult facilitator.

In keeping with the original plan all the translated research was forwarded to the facilitator in the

beginning of December. However the project staff requested that the draft report should to be discussed

face to face instead of just by e-mail to maintain a participatory process throughout. It was agreed that the

project staff members would comment on the report together with the coordinator from Denmark during

her visit to Rwanda in February, and the final report will be ready towards the end of February instead of in

January.

As mentioned in the original plan the idea was also to have me carry out some interviews and focus group

discussions to ensure triangulation. However, as the staff self-review and the research concerning the third

objective took longer time than expected there was no time left for these interviews and focus group

discussions. Instead, as I was present for a number of test interviews at field level, I have included the main

findings from these.

Recommendations for future participatory reviews

Distinguish between qualitative and quantitative indicators: There is a discrepancy between the

project’s original indicators which were generally quantitative, whereas the research carried out is

partly qualitative, and to some extent quantitative, but without being statistically significant. During

the workshop we did add some qualitative indicators and turn some quantitative indicators

qualitative. In order to be able to monitor and evaluate this and other projects it is recommended

that both qualitative and quantitative indicators are developed from the beginning. Then, regular

monitoring may focus on quantity, while the midterm review may retrieve more in-depth, qualitative

information which may inform improvements and adjustments of the project.

Use child-friendly research tools: The groups chose very traditional research tools instead of using

child-friendly tools. This could be because the participants did not fully understand the child-friendly

tools, that they did not find them relevant, or that the research preparations were more adult-led

than child-led. It could also be because the staff members are not yet perfectly capable of facilitating


15

children in a child-friendly and participatory spirit. In future participatory midterm reviews is it

recommended to pay closer attention to the facilitation of the child researchers and the selection of

tools.

Avoid unclear responses: In the formats filled in by the researchers it is not clearly indicated if the

respondents have health insurance or not, if they are able to pay school fees, etc. In my summaries of

the findings I have taken the liberty to conclude that if it is not clearly stated that everyone in a family

has health insurance, it probably is because they do not have so. This is mainly based on the

experiences from the test interviews where health insurance was a great problem for most

interviewees. Probably the interviewers have not been asking sufficient follow-up questions – “does

that mean that everyone has got health insurance now, or only some?” A closer facilitation of the

development of interview formats are worked out and filled in is recommended for future

participatory midterm reviews. This will invariably make the review less participatory, but it will

increase the researchers’ learning, and it will ensure more reliable results.

Ensure relevancy of questions: Especially the Elders’ Group were asking questions that were not

absolutely relevant for the research. One overall question was: “How caregivers are contributing

economically to their children’s school fees, school materials and health insurance.” The group’s first

question was: “Are there any other projects that work with you? If yes, specify the support provided.”

Here, all children respond that they get support from the family strengthening programme, and then

they list the support they get from the project, not from the caregivers. They also divert into other

objectives and indicators. A closer facilitation of the development of the questions to respondents is

recommended for future participatory midterm reviews. This will invariably make the review less

participatory, but it will increase the researchers’ learning, and it will ensure more reliable results.

Conscious selection of samples: It is not clear from the formats how the sample populations have

been selected. If, for example, the staff members wanted to come out more positively in the review

they could stick to selecting those families they know are performing well. I do not think this is the

case, because the findings from the research do not deviate much from the Bi-annual and Annual

Progress reporting. However, for coming mid-term reviews it is important to ensure that samples

from “weak” as well as “strong” project participants are included in the research.

Additional research: As mentioned in the original methodology paper, there was to be a number of

research activities carried out by me too to ensure triangulation. Due to time constraints there was

limited time for this. It is recommended to add time to do this next time SOS Children’s Villages apply

a participatory approach to a midterm review.

2. Midterm review of the project

Summary of findings: Objective 1

Statistical significance: Generally, too few respondents have been interviewed to make the numbers

statistically significant. However, the overall trends found by the groups correspond more or less with the

gradual progress noted in the Bi-Annual and Annual Progress reports. Therefore this chapter also include

quantitative findings.


16

Payment of health insurance and education: Overall the findings show that it is still hard for most

caregivers to pay for health insurance and education. Then, the village savings and loan associations are still

fairly young, and the project is only half way. It basically takes time to generate enough money from a new

business; i.e. a goat has to mature and have kids before you can start selling the kids.

Fulfilment of rights: The caregivers show a high degree of awareness on the rights of children when they

are asked about what they know about child rights. However, there are less examples of how the caregivers

are ensuring that the rights are fulfilled. Many respondents say they have begun allowing children to

express their views. However, no one says that they allow their children to influence decision-making. This

is not surprising, since this is one of the rights that according to experience are hardest to practice for

adults, and not only in Rwanda. The gap between the relative awareness on child rights and the actual

fulfilment of child rights is confirmed by a number of local leaders interviewed by the group.

Basic literacy training: The basic literacy training has been delayed and has yet to provide results.

According to the respondents the main aim of participating in the literacy training is to use the knowledge

to generate further knowledge on how to best handle income in terms of keeping track of loans and

accessing banks. The basic literacy teachers say that the participation is very good, and that most students

are progressing well. This may be due to the teachers arranging the lessons around topics interesting to the

participants: Kitchen gardening, breast feeding, etc.

Village savings and loan associations: Most village savings and loan association members have invested in

their houses and in income generating activities. The group members are cooperating with a microfinance

institute, but the association has not yet asked the institute for loans. Added advantages, according to the

members are that they have learned to resolve conflicts, and that the associations “increase solidarity.” The

associations offer hope and help vulnerable people mingle with others instead of remaining at home – in

isolation.

According to the project staff members, the village savings and loan association members may be divided

into those who are strong and those who are very weak; who are old or very sick. The weak ones have not

managed to improve their living conditions significantly yet. However, the strong members have started

spending a day a week helping cultivate for the weak.

Detailed findings from Elders’ Group

The Elders’ Group carried out individual interviews with 10 children and youth aged 12 - 18 years

concerning “How caregivers are contributing economically to their children’s school fees, school materials

and health insurance.”

The group formulated three questions that the children responded to more broadly, so that the responses

also provide insight into the fulfilment of other indicators. Amongst the findings are:

Health: 4 children say that their parents are now able to pay health insurance, which was not the case

before.

Education: All 10 children are having school materials paid by the project, not by the caregivers. Only

one says that the parents will be able to pay with money from the village savings and loan association

when the project ends. 2 children responded that their parents have begun paying school fees after

entering the project. 7 children are able to show improved performance rates from before the project


17

till now. They say that this is due to having school materials provided, and because they are going to

school more regularly.

Other child rights: 7 children underline that they benefit in other ways from the project, especially in

terms of protection against exploitation, better food and participation at family level.

12 caregivers were also interviewed concerning “How caregivers are contributing economically to their

children’s school fees, school materials and health insurance.”

Again the group has formulated three questions that the adults respond to more broadly, so that the

responses also provide insight into other the fulfilment of other indicators. Amongst the findings are:

Health: 5 caregivers can pay health insurance for all or some family members, while 2 caregivers have

health insurance paid by the project.

Education: 3 caregivers are able to pay school fees for one or more children, and 1 caregiver is now

able to buy school materials for his/her children. 1 caregiver says that s/he will be able to pay for

school materials for the children when the project finishes. 2 caregivers are confident that his/her

children will continue going to school when the project ends. 3 caregivers have begun following their

children’s studies more closely.

Nutrition: 11 caregivers state that they are aware of healthy food and/or provide more and/or better

food for their children due to kitchen gardening.

Economic empowerment: 10 caregivers have bought land or established some sort of business and

thereby increased the family income considerably. Meaning that a number of those who are not yet

able to pay school fees, school materials or health insurance may be able to do so at the end of the

project. 4 caregivers have built a new house or improved the old one due to the option of having

loans.

Other child rights: 11 caregivers say they are more aware of child rights, talk about child rights or are

fulfilling more child rights than before.

The Elders’ Group invited another 12 caregivers for a focus group discussion on “How good parenting skills

have led caregivers to increase child rights fulfilment in families.” Amongst the main findings are:

Child rights awareness and parenting skills: The caregivers show a high degree of awareness on the

rights of children when they are asked about what they know about child rights. However, there are

less examples of how the caregivers are ensuring that the rights are fulfilled. One mentions that s/he

is now aware that it is a child rights violation to oblige his/her children to sleep outside at night as a

correctional punishment. When the caregivers are asked about differences from before to now, four

caregivers mention examples of how they act as role models for other families in terms of hygiene.

One has also confronted a neighbour who was spanking his/her child.

Child participation: Many responses focus on having begun allowing children to express their views.

However, no one says that they allow their children to influence decision-making.

The group has also looked into “How caregivers with none or limited literacy skills have received basic

training.” 12 literacy students have participated in a focus group discussion.


18

The participants have been going to the literacy centre for a relatively short time; the longest standing

student has been going for two months. Most students by now either know the vowels, or can read and

write short words.

Empowerment: Their main aim is to use the knowledge to generate further knowledge on how to

best handle income in terms of keeping track of loans and accessing banks. Some also just look

forward to “get out of ignorance” and to become less depending on others who can read and write.

Two looks forward to being able to read signs and billboards; as one states, “I will know where to buy

medicines… it was impossible to read and then locate where the pharmacies are.”

The group has also asked two literacy teachers about how the participants are doing. Both teachers say

that the participation is very good, and that most students are progressing well. This may be due to the

teachers arranging the lessons around topics interesting to the participants: Kitchen gardening, breast

feeding, etc.

The Elders’ Group has carried out a focus group discussion with 12 members of village savings and loan

associations concerning “# number of caregivers who are organised in village savings and loan

associations.”

The focus is on the outcome of the participation in the association; i.e. how the participation in the

associations has contributed to the family’s development:

Economic empowerment: Most association members have invested in their houses and in income

generating activities. The group members are cooperating with a microfinance institute. Loans are

paid back with a 10 percent interest. The surplus is deposited on the bank account with the

microcredit institute, but the association has not yet asked the institute for loans.

Civic education: The members state that they have learned to resolve conflicts, that they have

developed an increasingly good relationship in the associations, and that the associations “increase

solidarity.”

The Elders’ Group has also met with 8 local leaders whom they have asked about the rights situation in

their villages.

Child rights awareness: 6 leaders say that child rights are understood and respected to a certain

extent, but the awareness of some parents is still low, because some are sending their children to

work instead of to school, and due to poverty. 2 leaders say that child rights are completely

understood and respected.

Child rights fulfilment: 8 leaders say that there are positive changes in the project participants’

families; parents becoming more responsible and paying health insurance, they are maintaining

hygiene and providing basic needs such as clean clothes; they also fight less.

Findings from test interviews

The Elders’ Group interviewed three mothers during the test interviews. None of them were able to pay

health insurance. One mother mentioned that she did not have medical insurance, and she did not have

any capital for income generating activities, because she had to spend money for new iron sheets for the

house. Her child rights awareness was limited to “children need to respect their mother” and “behave


19

well.” While she said that the access to loans means that the family now have enough food and clothes, the

children were very poorly dressed and dirty.

Another mother, who is blind, said that she has no medical insurance, but she is eligible to get it from

government. One child apparently dropped out from school because of lack of money for school fees, but it

was a bit unclear if this only applied to a daughter above 18 years, and who were not part of the project.

The mother says that although she has taken loans, the family will have to “eat their harvest” instead of

selling it.

The third woman interviewed was not yet able to pay insurance and school fees, but she planned to do this

when she would be able to sell a cow.

Findings from staff self-review

Economic empowerment: According to the staff members the project participants have become very

empowered via the village savings and loan associations. After the first one and a half years there is a clear

change in the way many participants are living.

Roughly, the participants may be divided into two groups:

1) Those who are strong.

2) Those who are very weak, because they are old or very sick.

The strong participants “give hope to the weak,” and the strong participants have taken initiative to spend

a day a week helping cultivate for the weak. This lead to commitment and friendships, and gradually all

participants are assumed to reach a good stage, according to the project staff.

Educational empowerment: One weakness in the implementation is a more than one-year delay in the

literacy training “due to bad planning” by the previous coordinator, according to the project staff. Meaning

that this component has to some extent not achieved what it was meant to achieve yet.

Staff wind-up – including staff from other projects

According to the staff members there is a lot of impact at various levels. For example:

Village savings and loan associations: The participants understood the idea of savings. The most

vulnerable – widows, families where the husband is in prison, families living with or affected by HIV

and AIDS – get hope and come out of their isolation. Some have started the implementation of

income generating activities such as small businesses, domestic animals like goats and pigs, and

agriculture. Some families in the same village savings and loan association also start joint activities.

One association has 10 bee hives made out of local materials, so the association has become

sustainable. Others can learn from them. Some can purchase medical insurance. Objective 1 and 2 are

connected, because if families have no regular income, they cannot pay for school, because there is

no food at home. Thanks to kitchen gardening children have become more regular at school.

Malnutrition will also end.


20

The parents’ path to empowerment The parents, who participated in the research for this report and in the two child rights trainings, were not part of the family strengthening programme when they were invited for the first training. The majority of them had heard about child rights in the radio, but one knew nothing about rights at all. As a father said, “I did not prioritise to spend money for school fees. Now, I manage to find the money so that all of my children can go to school. It is a priority in my family.” One mother found that the most important is children’s participation: “We have to give a role to children in everything. I am applying that lesson in my life. Earlier, I just bought clothes for my children. Now I bring the children to select their own clothes.” A father tells that his seven girls were not allowed to wear trousers before. “They are now allowed to wear trousers.” He now finds that, “I have to be a role model and respect the child rights.” Most parents were surprised when they heard that children were to be involved in the research for the midterm review: “I wondered how they could do that?” Other parents were equally surprised to know that they themselves were to do research: “I thought – how can I do this? But I am able! I know now,” says one father. And one mother added, “I have been thinking and thinking about how this can be done, but we did research at the field today, and we did it. I realise that it is all about being well prepared.” One mother states that, “I learned to think beyond. Any problem in life may be solved. I have the power to solve problems. I wish that these learnings could be extended to many more family strengthening participants. We now understand. They don’t.”

Focus group discussion with four parents from Elders’ Group

Recommendations for objective 1

Capacity development of village savings and loan associations: As village savings and loan

associations are still new with SOS Children’s Villages inspirational visits to other village savings and

loan associations could provide new ideas for staffs and CBOs supporting the village savings and loan

associations. Capacity development of the associations, including exchange visits, also ranks high

among the respondents interviewed by the Elders’ Group.

Capacity development of children and parents: The Elders’ Group has asked almost all respondents

about suggestions for improvements to the project. Knowledge turns out to be in very high demand;

the great majority of the respondents requested more trainings and knowledge about e.g. child rights,

reproductive health, gender, positive behaviour change and good parenting skills, agriculture,

financial management, and small income generating activities

Child-targeted activities: Some children suggested that children have their own village savings and

loan associations, small businesses such as animal husbandry, and regular child rights meetings for

children outside school clubs.

Access to banks: Some parents wish that the project would help them get their own bank account to

increase access to capital so that they may become financially independent from any project. This is,

as far as I understand, a part of the project, but I do not know if this part is not yet encompassing all


21

village savings and loan associations. In that case, it is recommended that all members are being

supported in having bank accounts as soon as possible so they are used to dealing with the bank

themselves when the project expires.


Community focus on child rights: While poverty, dysfunctional family life and children who are made to

work too hard, children who run away from home, lack of registration and school drop-out are still big

challenges in the communities, the project has helped alleviate some of these problems according to local

authorities,

Most local authorities state all project participants’ children have health insurance and go to school.

Parents and children confirm that all project participants’ children to school now, although many still do

not have health insurance, and not all children are legally registered.

Especially the children who participated in the two trainings have engaged in sensitisation and mobilisation

of others. The clubs who have some of those trained children as members have learned to participate in

decision-making. However, most of the children interviewed in the communities are not very clear about

the concept of child rights, but they are very aware of what child abuse is.

The parents interviewed say that they act when they witness child rights violations. One caregiver is telling

people to send their drop-out children back to school. When a family refused to prevent their child from

becoming a domestic servant a caregiver from the project went to the authorities, and the child was

returned to the family. Another caregiver went to the authorities to complain when a parent was beating

his child. The parent received a warning and never did it again.

School-going children claim their rights: Schools now have clubs where children are composing songs and

poems about their rights; they perform theatre about rights so other children may know their rights and

their parents may understand that they have to change behaviour.

Reporting systems: School principals and teachers say that child rights violations in schools have stopped,

because children are aware of their rights. A reporting system has been worked out: When a child has his or

her rights violated, s/he may complain to the headmaster and the teacher, who is the representative of the

club. If they can solve the problem within the school premises, this is done. Otherwise they proceed to the

family or local authorities, depending on the problem. So far, all cases have been managed, according to

the staff members. A child, for example dropped out, but was returned to school after a visit to the family.

When asked what a child would do in the event that a child’s rights were violated by a teacher or by the

principal, the response was that no such case was reported. This is not surprising, because there is nowhere

where the children can safely, anonymously and easily complain about abuse by teachers and principals.

Children attending school: The caregivers have received school materials and uniforms from the project,

and the parents are following their children’s education more closely, while the children are performing

better. Children, who dropped out of school, have returned to school. The caregivers say that the children

will continue in school even after the project stops, because they now are members of the village savings

and loan associations.


22

Health insurance: Many children are having their health insurance paid by the project, but the parents are

confident that thanks to the village savings and loan associations they will be able to pay themselves at the

end of the project where they foresee that they will have viable businesses established.

Legal registration: Numbers speak their own, clear language: In November 2014, the project had helped

register 1955 children and 84 legal marriages. According to the staff this has benefitted many more than

the project participants, because not only project participants got registered.

Local authorities: The project has helped the organisation develop a strong partnership with local

authorities.

Detailed findings from the Kids’ Group

The Kids’ Group has been looking into “Increased community fulfilment of child rights and child protection”

by the help of questionnaires to 8 Chiefs of Villages in areas where project participants are living.

While poverty, dysfunctional family life and children who are made work too hard and subsequently run

away, lack of registration and school drop-out are big challenges in the villages, according to the chiefs, the

project has helped alleviate some of these problems:

Education: The group has asked the local leaders if children in the families, who are participants in the

project, go to school. They all respond yes.

Health insurance: They group has also asked the local leaders if all children in those families have

health insurance. 3 chiefs say no.

Legal registration: The children asked if all children are legally registered. 3 chiefs say no.

Child rights: In 1 village a child rights forum has been established. Here, children may learn about

their rights. It is not clear who has established the child rights forum. It is assumed that it is a part of

the local governance system.

Community support: Families have got spaces to meet and receive support to solve family issues in

different ways in 3 villages. It is not clear who has established these parents’ spaces. In 5 villages the

chief says that leaders visit and sensitise parents to send their children to school, to legal registration

and about the consequences of overexploitation of children.

The Kids’ Group has also looked into “90 percent of pupils in 10 primary schools claim their rights” by

interviewing 4 school principals.

Child rights violations by families: All 4 school principals acknowledge that children have their rights

violated. The main violations have to do with parents who do not pay school fees on time; that

children do not have school materials; or that parents do not care about their children’s education.

There also is a lot of conflict in the families, and some children are engaged in heavy work. They do

not have access to health care, or they are not having food during school hours.

Child rights violations by schools: The Kids’ Group also asks the principals if there have been cases of

school staff violating child rights. All 4 principals say that if anything happens they will look into it

immediately and, if necessary, bring the case forward to the authorities. 1 principal say that violations

at schools have stopped, because children are aware of their rights. Previously, a teacher had beaten


23

a child because the child had not done his/her homework, but the child called a free number provided

by the district to report the case.

Child rights fulfilment in schools: In all 4 schools there are “platforms related to children’s rights,”

clubs where children are composing songs and poems about their rights; they perform theatre about

rights so other children may know their rights and their parents may understand that they have to

change behaviour. All 4 principals appreciate the positive impact of the child rights awareness and the

solidarity it fosters. In one school, the children have saved money for their poorer peers, so they

could buy school materials. Problems are also solved more easily, even within the family, because the

children involve the school in finding solutions.

The Kids’ Group has also invited 12 children to a focus group discussion concerning “90 percent of pupils in

10 primary schools claim their rights.”

Child rights awareness: When asked “What do you understand by child rights,” they amongst others

respond: “What is done to children by their parents as their duties,” “that children are friendly to

their parents,” “the respect of parents.” Others mention “avoiding the engagement of children in

child labour,” “to fulfil child’s rights by parents such as studying, feeding children” and “when children

consult parents about productive health.”

Child abuse: When asked about child abuse, the children mention: “Prohibiting children to go to

school,” “overexploiting children,” “frustrating and underestimating a child while s/he is coming to

talk to you,” “parents do not permit children to play when they want to,” school drop-out, lack of

treatment in case of illness, lack of food and drunk parents.

Fulfilment of child rights: The format filled in by the Kids’ Group mentions a number of games and

dramas performed. The games and drama seems to have been inspired from one of the trainings. The

drama is two-fold: with one drama showing a situation where child rights are not practiced and a

similar situation where all rights are fulfilled. It is not clear if they did the games and drama took place

during the focus group discussion, but I assume that the Kids’ Group used the drama as a point of

departure for discussing child rights and what they have learned from watching the drama. The

children mention “to love one another,” “child participation,” “self-confidence,” “to be free” and

“good relationships.”

3 Executive Secretary of Cell have responded to questionnaires concerning “Increased community fulfilment

of child rights and child protection.”

Child rights fulfilment: According to the Executive Secretaries all project participants’ children have

health insurance and go to school. However, one states that not all children are legally registered.

Overall challenges in the cells are children who are given heavy work, children who are not having

their basic needs fulfilled, who are spanked and who run away, who are denied education, or who are

not legally registered. However, the project has raised awareness on child rights and helped empower

the families and children. Many children are now registered, and the children receive school materials

and health insurance from the project. Others have learned to save and access to loans. The Executive

Secretaries themselves mainly engage in sensitisation on rights and give advice.


24

The Kids’ Group also looked into “Improved child rights networks and reporting systems.” They invited 6

teachers for a focus group discussion where they amongst others asked if child rights violations are

reported to the teachers, and if yes, how they deal with them.

Child rights violations by parents: The teachers respond that, yes there are several cases of child

rights violations. Children are hungry, isolated, and this has negative impact on his or her education

such as irregular attendance to school, lack of health insurance, lack of school materials and lack of

parental support. Some children are having poor hygiene, and some are working instead of going to

school. There has even been an instance of one child sexually violating another child. The case was

reported to the local authorities, and the young perpetrator has been transferred to another school.

Parents are still challenging. They are not always following what their children are doing at school,

and they do not provide their children with school materials. Some children have learnt bad

behaviours from their parents; they are aggressive, insolent and undisciplined.

Child rights violations by teachers: When asked if teachers are also violating children’s rights they

respond “Today no.” Dialogue is now being used instead of correctional measures such as sending a

child home, and parents are being reminded several times to pay school fees.

Child clubs: Here, the children may talk about their problems and dance, sing and play about child

rights. That has led to lots of positive changes: The children are not shy any longer, they claim their

rights and report violations, they are open-minded and smart, and they support each other with e.g.

money when necessary.

The Kids’ Group has also looked into “how households enrolled in the project are aware of basic child

rights” with a special focus on education, health, legal registration and legal marriage. They have invited 12

caregivers for a focus group discussion.

Education: The caregivers have received school materials and uniforms from the project, and the

parents are following their children’s education more closely, while the children are performing

better. Children, who dropped out of school, have returned to school. The caregivers say that the

children will continue in school even after the project stops, because they now are members of the

village savings and loan association. The project apparently provides awards to children who perform

particularly well. However, that has caused some resentment amongst siblings who perform less well.

Health: Many children are having their health insurance paid by the project, but the parents are

confident that thanks to the village savings and loan associations they will be able to pay themselves

at the end of the project where they foresee that they will have viable businesses established.

Child rights awareness and fulfilment: The parents themselves may list a number of rights. They are

also aware of a number of child rights violations in their area. Then, they act when they witness these.

One caregiver is telling people to send their drop-out children back to school. When a family refused

to prevent their child from becoming a domestic servant, the caregiver from the project went to the

authorities, who returned the child to the family. Another caregiver went to the authorities to

complain when a parent was beating his child. The parent received a warning and never did it again.

Legal registration: The caregivers are also acknowledging that it is important to register children and

that couples marry legally.


25

The Kids’ Group has also interviewed KAYISIRE Samson, Acting Civil Status and Notary Officer concerning

“Local authorities are capable of actively responding to community needs” with a special focus on legal

registration, legal marriage and child protection.

The acting officer says that the project supports the authorities in mobilising people and in registering

marriages. The group asked him if there any linkages between child rights and legal registration and legal

marriage. He mentioned a number of linkages such as “it helps children to gain what is deserved by his or

her family and the national laws,” and “planning of the country is based on number of children registered.”

He says that the relationship between couples has improved and that there are fewer cases of domestic

violence when people are legally registered.

Findings from test-interviews

Child participants of a focus group discussion as well as individual children interviewed in the communities

knew very little about child rights. This is very much in line with Bi-Annual Progress reporting which states

that the children who are members of clubs are not sharing their child rights knowledge with others.


The staff members acknowledge that despite a number of trainings with different stakeholders there are

still weaknesses in people’s knowledge, but there is a strong partnership with schools and child right clubs,

according to the staff members. According to the staff, teachers are the representatives of the clubs. These

are engaged in sensitisation and campaigning arranged and carried out by children.

A reporting system has been worked out: When a child has his or her rights violated, s/he may complain to

the principal and the teacher, who is the representative of the club. Usually, they can solve the problem

within the school premises. Otherwise they proceed to the family or local authorities, depending on the

problem. The authorities react quickly in cases of child abuse, whereas the reaction is a whole lot slower in

cases of problems with health insurance, school fees, etc. So far, all cases have been managed, according to

the staff members. A child, for example dropped out, but was returned to school after a visit to the family.

When asked what a child would do if his or her rights were violated by a teacher or by the principal, the

response was that no such case was reported, because there is no system to handle such cases.

A big challenge is that a new national policy dictates that every child must pay 5.000 Rwandan Franc for

food at school, although it would be cheaper to eat at home. If a child cannot pay, s/he is sent home.

Members of village savings and loan associations may take a loan, but this is just a short-term solution,

because the problem will pop up again the next month.

Then, the staff members pointed out that while the provision of school materials and uniforms is very

valuable for the younger children the older children are victims of the boarding school system. If you are

having good marks in senior 3, you are supposed to go to boarding school, but vulnerable children cannot

afford this.

Within the project there are also money related challenges. The money for the first year of support to

medical insurance to selected participants was found to be misused. The money was paid directly to the

health centres, but the health centres provided the health insurances to participants of a previous project


26

due to miscommunication from the previous project coordinator. The project was also aiming at being

active during Community Days, but the money has been used for something else, according to the project

staff.

The project is struggling to create linkages and referral to other organisations and institutions. Each NGO

has its own beneficiaries and provide no service to others, so referral is almost impossible, according to the

staff members. The issue has even been discussed in the local NGO Forum, but without any breakthrough.

So far, the project has partnered up with SOS Children’s Villages own technical school in Kigali. The school

has accepted four children from the project for free so far.

The project also has established a good partnership with Dentists without Borders.


Legal registration: Numbers speak their own, clear language: In November 2014, the project had

helped register 1955 children and 84 legal marriages. According to the staff this has benefitted many

more than the project participants, because not only project participants got registered. “People live

on different hills. It is difficult for them to reach the sector office, so they are difficult to motivate. We

paid the transport and made the In-Charge of Civil Status come directly to the villages,” explained the

staff.

Local authorities: The project has increased the visibility of SOS Children’s Villages and helped the

organisation develop a strong partnership with local authorities. The staffs also say that they have

managed to advocate that people, who turn up for legal registration, are not fined.

Children’s participation: Especially the children who came for the two trainings have engaged in

sensitisation and mobilisation of others. The clubs who have some of those trained children as

members have learned to participate in decision-making. That has an immediate impact at home.

Even for staff members participation is a new aspect that “we are going to internalise.” When we do

activities, we ensure that children have a voice. Even during an awareness campaign towards local

authorities the event was chaired by children and organised by children.

After the first training I decided that I MUST go to school “I was very surprised when I received the invitation for the first child rights training. Why me? I did not feel comfortable, and I wondered how I could speak to foreigners. I did not know about translators. With the games I felt things were good and SO important. I did not know anything about child rights, so I learnt a lot, and I have made strategies for how to spread the information. I meet with friends, and we talk about rights. I also talk to my family and neighbours. At the time of the first training I had dropped out of school. Then, I decided that I MUST go to school, so I began sneaking out in the morning, but then my sister beat me in the evening. After the second training I decided that I should not be beaten any more. I told my sister and my mother that there is a law against beating children, and that it also says that children must go to school. Gradually I have made them change. Now, they never beat me, and they do their part of the work.”

Boy, 16 years


27

We work to ensure that child rights are taught to other children “When I participated in the first training on child rights there were some aspects we did not know. Like the right to survival, and to identity. I also did not know which countries had ratified the convention. When we met the adults on the first day they told us to feel at home and not to worry. We played games, and we were all introduced, and it was amazing. We discovered how some children do not have their rights fulfilled, and we learned how to sensitize and mobilise the community. During the second training on children’s participation we learned how a child can participate in decision-making and express his or her views like adults. We also learned to break the silence if a child is abused by the family or community. It was so important that we participated, because we work as the foundation of the family strengthening programme – we work to ensure that child rights are taught to other children. In my area children gather at four o’clock in the afternoon, and I teach them. The local leaders help gather the children. The knowledge has also changed my personal life. My parents died when I was very young. First, my younger brother and I stayed with our uncle, but he made us drop out of school. He wanted us to look after his cows. I struggled. Finally, I went back to our old school and asked the headmaster if we could return. When that was settled we moved back to our parents’ old house and stayed on our own. After the first training I realised that I was over-working my brother. You know, I only had one role-model: My uncle. After the training I gave my brother a room to discuss, and I make him work less.”

Girl, 17 years


Further sharing of child rights knowledge: Parents and children, who participated in previous child rights and children’s participation trainings as well as in the review, suggested that the in-depth knowledge of child rights is spread further into the local community. They found that this knowledge had profoundly changed their lives, but that they were not able to carry it forward strongly enough themselves. This is a very positive outcome of the project and at a much earlier stage than foreseen. Therefore it is recommended that a training-of-trainers module is developed and included in either this project or a new project.

Secure constant child rights activities for children: When the project was initiated one and a half years ago and the first child rights training took place the staff had simply invited children from an old project, because they did not have “new” children yet. The trained children are doing a very good job of sharing their knowledge via clubs and in their communities, but some of them are growing up and moving away to boarding schools or other communities to work or study. At the same time, the number of trained children is too little to carry the knowledge forward to the great number of children in Gasaka Sector. Hence, the Rwandan project coordinator suggested that the project appoint a staff member as full time facilitator of children. This is a very good idea, since experience from similar projects with other organisations show that child clubs only seriously develop and become enabled to participate in advocacy when the level of activities and the facilitation reaches a certain constant.

Secure true child participation: As it is, teachers are currently the official representatives of the child


28

rights clubs. However, if the project is to secure true children’s participation, the child club representatives ought to be children – under facilitation of teachers.

Develop reporting systems for all kinds of violations: Although teachers say that child rights violations in schools is a past, experience from similar project shows that it takes a long time to change old habits such as corporal punishment. Therefore it is recommended that a system for handling complaints regarding child rights violations by teachers and principals is worked out. It could be a complaint box where children may complain anonymously. The box could be opened once a week by a committee consisting of representatives of child clubs, teachers, parents and principal. The children could also be made aware of existing government reporting systems.


This objective is not surprisingly the one that poses most challenges to SOS Children’s Villages. Advocacy

and partnerships with local civil society organisations are still fairly new concepts to the organisation, which

has been acting as a service provider for decades.

Advocacy: When exploring if the project is being perceived as being engaged in advocacy I took the point of

departure in the overall question “Is SOS changing government policy or practice?” I interviewed three

main government partners, who all frankly said that they perceived SOS Children’s Villages as a very

convenient and important service provider to the government, so that the government do not have to

spend resources for these services themselves. Apparently, when the national government takes an

initiative that has to be carried out by local or district authorities, these simply request support from SOS.

Evidently, the project staff members need more advocacy capacity building. A small advocacy briefing was

carried out during the final staff wind-up meeting by advocacy trained colleagues. These also promised to

help the Gasaka project staff work out an advocacy strategy.

Partnership with CBOs: Generally, SOS Children’s Villages is still working on a common understanding of

partnerships, and this also applies to the Gasaka Project. During the staff self-review it came out that the

staff members perceive the CBOs as both beneficiaries and volunteers, as civil society partners and as

service providers concerning monitoring and evaluation. At the same time, the staff felt that the CBOs were

not delivering what the staff expected them to deliver.

While the CBOs are generally not very strong, five CBO representatives invited for a focus group discussion,

on the other hand came across as extremely committed and humble. They felt themselves that they are

doing important tasks in the community on their own and on behalf of SOS Children’s Villages. Generally,

the CBO representatives felt that they had a huge responsibility, and although “SOS Children’s gives us

advice, and we have been trained and know how to monitor, it is not enough capacity building.”

While one of the CBOs have managed to organise itself into a village savings and loan association most

CBOs also struggle economically.

Findings from authorities

NYIRAZANA Chantalle, In-Charge of Gender and Family Promotion at district level labelled SOS Children’s

Villages a “government partner.” Her office is in charge of all NGOs working with children, and it carries out

a quarterly meeting for civil society to “check if each NGO fulfil their duties.” Her main cooperation with the

Gasaka project concerns legal registration and civil marriages. She says that SOS staff members go to


29

communities and facilitates that the registration happens. This “creates a good image for us, because

before there was not a hundred percent registration. Now, thanks to WorldVision and SOS Children’s

Villages, Gasaka is doing better than other areas. It was a priority for the government, and NGOs helped,”

she says.

NYIRAZANA Chantalle’s office also is in charge of reporting systems: “Through children’s platforms people

can report from village to district level and legal officer and inspector of ministry of labour and follow up.

These government structures have been in place for long, and we cooperate with SOS Children’s Villages.

We are also preparing the second Summit of Children in Eastern Africa. Children from grass root level raise

issues at national level.”

She said that all activities will continue even if the project discontinues, because “We have many NGO

partners.”

MUKAREMERA Francine, In-Charge of Education in the Sector Education Office, is cooperating with Gasaka

Project on basic literacy. She says that the project is paying for teachers and materials. The literacy centres

existed already, and “the government gave allowances to some teachers before, and they have also

received support from Care and other NGOs. SOS Children’s Villages is only working in locations where no

one else is funding right now. Before SOS started the support, there were very few participants in the

literacy courses, but the Gasaka Project motivated more. It should continue, because when people can read

and write, they can more easily generate income.”

KAYISIRE Samson, In-Charge of Social Affairs at sector level says that the project is supporting in three ways:

By paying health insurance; by sensitising people on malnutrition, kitchen gardening, planting of fruit trees,

hygiene and the importance of education. When children drop out of school, or when children are on the

street, the project staff “advocate towards us, so we can take action.”

Samson Kayisire says that his office needs the technical support: “When orphans drop out of school due to

lack of fees and materials, the project provides these. The project has also advocated that some children go

to SOS Children’s Villages’ technical school in Kigali.”

He says that, “We also need NGO support for our National Children’s Forum. We have no means, so we

request help from our NGO partners. SOS will e.g. provide transport and technical support. If we do not

receive such support, these activities will not happen.” He provides an example: “World Vision used to

provide shelter for vulnerable families. Now they are not doing this anymore so vulnerable families get no

housing.”

“When the Gasaka project stops there are different options: Another NGO may take over. Or we are able to

take over, because we know how to conduct the activities now. We know the importance of this project

now,” he says.

Findings on CBO cooperation

According to 5 CBO representatives they are mainly engaged in problem solving with village savings and

loan associations and family development plans; home visits and motivation of families and development

of children; collaboration with and advocacy towards local leaders and SOS Children’s Villages for further

support.


30

The CBOs differ slightly in structure, but all 5 representatives said that the members were elected by

project participants. One CBO is, for example covering two cells. It has 15 members and is organised with a

chair person, a secretary, an accountant and two members of the advisory committee. This CBO was

established in 2008. The initiative came from SOS Children’s Villages, because the that time project staff

“had problems with project participants who provided false information about their property. We are from

the same community, so we know if the participants tell the truth.”

Generally, the CBO representatives felt that they had a huge responsibility, and although “SOS Children’s

gives us advice, and we have been trained and know how to monitor, it is not enough capacity building.”

While one of the CBOs has managed to organise itself into a village savings and loan association most CBOs

also struggle economically.

Yet, all the representatives appear extremely positive about their role as local civil society: “We are proud

of being volunteers. When a family is improving, we feel happy,” “We connect with local leaders. That has

increased our status,” “People appreciate us, and we have become popular. Even beyond the project we

will work as mediators when families are having misunderstandings,” “SOS has trained us and given us

skills. If the project ends, we will continue, because we work for our own people.”


One weakness, according to the project staff members, is that the CBOs are not very active. The staff

themselves suggested that they search for new, more active partners. The staff members find that the

CBOs must be strong, also economically.

CBO representatives have participated in five days’ trainings on child rights, advocacy and monitoring &

evaluation. The trainings were supposed to be training-of-trainers, but the CBO have not shared their

knowledge, according to the staff. The CBO members also do not meet regularly. The CBOs have no clear

structure and are not empowered. This is a problem, because the partnerships with CBOs are to help build

sustainability beyond the project duration.

There is very little budget for CBO training, and the CBOs receive no funding for any activities or for

transport. The project staffs arrange meetings with the CBOs “at least” four times a year.

The initial preparations of CBOs The 38 out of 45 CBOs attended this workshop, where they were informed on new approaches of the project. The CBOs are called to make follow-up of beneficiaries not only through family visits but also village savings and loan associations, the key activity organised by the project that can economically empower the families. And then the discussion was conducted on how the CBOs’ capacity should be reinforced. The action plan for their training was elaborated during this workshop. At the end, the participants had a greater appreciation on village savings and loan activity. They promised to make follow up and making monthly report on village savings and loan groups’ progress. In addition, they will initiate their own village savings and loan group in order to gain the income which should cover their expenses for the activities.

Adapted from Bi-annual Progress Report January – June 2013


31


According to the project staff members they work in partnership with authorities. These partnerships are

still new, and they are a challenge, because “they expect us to support and fund their activities,” explain

staff members.

The staff members report child rights violations to the authorities and the staff members are tracing the

source of the problem in the family and negotiate with the children and the family. Some children, who

have run away, have returned home.

The authorities’ acknowledgement of the project’s importance, and the staff members’ own assessment

that the partnership with local authorities as being good provide a good foundation for advocacy.


Clarify the roles of CBOs and strengthen partnerships with CBOs: The concept of “partnership” still

appears to be difficult to grasp for SOS Children’s Villages. During the staff self-review it came out that

the staff members perceive the CBOs as both beneficiaries and volunteers, as civil society partners

and as service providers concerning monitoring and evaluation. It is recommended that more

emphasis is put on developing understanding of and ability to work in true and equal partnerships.

Partnership policy: If SOS Children’s Villages Rwanda wants to build serious partnerships a clear

partnership policy has to be worked out and implemented.

Assessment of partners: To avoid “inactive partners” a partner organisation assessment of existing

relevant CBOS should be carried out and partners should be selected accordingly.

Capacity building of partners: The CBO partners are weak, because they have no money and no

capacity. The capacity support the CBO partners receive from the project is very thinly spread out. It is

strongly recommended that CBOs receive much more support and capacity building. One activity

could be exchange visits with more established CBOs in other SOS family strengthening programmes,

as suggested by one CBO representative during the research.

Economic support to partners: According to the initial Bi-Annual Progress Report, the CBO partners

were to be engaged in village savings and loan associations in order to generate funding for their own

CBO activities. However, this has apparently not happened, and the CBO partners do not receive any

other support for their activities – neither for their own activities, nor for the services they provide to

the project. A clear strategy for economic sustainability for partner CBOs should be worked out and

implemented.

Civic empowerment of partners: A number of suggestions for how to strengthen local civil society

organisations partnering with the project came up during the wind-up staff meeting. The project

could, for example support CBOs by strengthening the CBOs at organisational level; in either building

a strong network between them, or help them unite, so they become one strong civil society actor.

That will help secure sustainability of the CBOs and of the project activities.

Strengthen referral opportunities: The project staff members have found that it is difficult to refer

children to other organisations and institutions, because these have their own beneficiaries already. If


32

referral is going to work, close cooperation with other organisations, institutions and platforms has to

be ensured. At the same time, reciprocity has to be considered: If it is to be attractive for other

institutions, organisations and platforms to provide support to children and parents from the Gasaka

project, these possible co-operators also have to benefit from the Gasaka project. It could be either

through invitations for trainings, having their names included in common activities, cooperation

concerning advocacy, etc.

Advocacy capacity building: While staff members of other family strengthening projects was trained

in advocacy and had the development of advocacy strategies facilitated during a training just prior to

this midterm review, the Gasaka staff members were not included in the training. In order to make up

for this, a small advocacy briefing was carried out during the final staff wind-up meeting by trained

colleagues. These also promised to help the Gasaka project staff work out an advocacy strategy.

However, as advocacy is usually quite difficult to grasp, and the understanding is difficult to pass on if

you are not a trained trainer, it is suggested that all project staff dealing with advocacy are trained in

future projects. It should also be followed-up that trained staffs from other projects do help the

Gasaka team work out a strategy, and that the strategy is implemented.

Re-organise staff: It is recommended that the staff reorganise themselves to ensure that there is

enough man power to carry out the relatively demanding work of creating sustainable and strong

partnerships as well as advocacy.

Select advocacy issues: While there was no clear advocacy strategy worked out for the project at the

time of the research, a number of issues and problems came up that could be addressed by advocacy.

To select the most appropriate, an advocacy analysis and strategy should be worked out and one

realistic issue selected. Among the issues are:

o A new national plan has established that every child must pay 5000 Rwandan Francs every

month for food at school, although they could eat cheaper at home. If a child cannot pay, s/he

is sent home. The right to eat at home, or the right for the most vulnerable children to eat for

free at school, could be a good advocacy issue. As one staff member suggested – probably

partly as a joke, but I like the idea: That SOS Children’s Villages reports cases of drop-out due to

lack of food money to the district officer, because such cases are child rights violations.

o All people in Rwanda are by now covered by health insurance, according to the government. As

this midterm review shows, and as SOS Children’s Villages staff members know, this is not the

case. In the course of the visit I suggested that SOS Children’s Villages carry out a study on the

actual health insurance coverage, but the staff assumed that this would probably not be

permitted by the government. Somehow, has to be considered if the lack of health insurance

for everyone somehow could be explored without causing trouble with the government.

Otherwise, it could be advocated that SOS is being allowed to carry out such a study.

Or this project may join forces with other SOS Children’s Villages Rwanda projects such as

Promoting child rights in 4 Districts and the nation of Rwanda and Strengthening of vulnerable

families and building community response to HIV/AIDS in Nyamirama sector in Rwanda. Both

projects are funded by CISU. Together the projects may be able to advocate changes to the

national health insurance system or the way it is implemented locally.

o Staff members pointed out that while the provision of school materials and uniforms is very

valuable for the younger children the older children are victims of the boarding school system.

If you are having good marks in senior 3 you are supposed to go to boarding school, but


33

vulnerable children cannot afford this. The staff suggested spending some of the budget for this

purpose, but I suggested that free access to boarding schools for vulnerable children could be

an issue for advocacy. Alternatively, this could be paid by sponsorships or SOS scholarships.

General recommendations

Inclusiveness to ensure that “we are doing what we said we would do”: The previous project

coordinator apparently was not very good at sharing knowledge, and that has led to some gaps in the

project implementation. Therefore, the present staff suggested that new staff members should

always start out by going through the project document to ensure that they are aware of all

components and understand the strategy.

Create room for regular sharing: It is a very important with “room for sharing,” as it was put by one

staff member during the staff self-review. Apart from regular staff meetings, a room for sharing could

also be to carry out staff self-reviews a couple of times a year. This ensures that everyone knows all

components of the project document, and it enables self-reflection, brainstorming and eliciting ideas

from all that may lead to current adjustments in approaches and strategy. Or, as put by the staff: “A

project needs not one key person, but a team.”

Review of project steering committee: Future midterm reviews should also look into the

effectiveness and relevance of the project steering committee and similar structures. I forgot to

include this in the present review.


participatory midterm review - mono.net · a participatory midterm review underpins the activities...

Documents