Journey of Life - UNICEF

Journey of Life Community Awareness and Mobilisation Tool in Achieving Child Protection Results in Malawi

MAY 2016 The Governmentof MalawiThe Ministry of Gender, Children, Disability and Social Welfare

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Ministry of Gender, Children, Disability and Social Welfare (MoGCDSW), would like to thank and acknowledge the contributions made by various stakeholders in providing information during the review of the Journey of Life (JoL) community awareness and mobilisation tool. Special gratitude goes to all the children, caregivers and traditional leaders who provided information for this review to be successful.

Significant input and cooperation from the Malawi Police Service, the Ministry of Education Science and Technology (MOEST), Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and partners in Child Protection were very valuable. The information provided was vital to strengthening programming for the JoL tool.

The Ministry further wishes to acknowledge the crucial role that Penston Kilembe played in providing the technical guidance to the review of the JoL tool; and to a task force that worked tirelessly to validate and finalise the draft report. The team comprised Enock Bonongwe, Dina Gumulira, Annie Namagonya, Benjamin Chunga, Malla Mabona, Paul Sosono, Trophina Limbani, Derick Mwenda, Joseph Kalero, Mirriam Kaluwa, and Benjamin Kapuchi.

Lastly, the Ministry is highly indebted to United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) for the financial and technical support during the whole exercise without which it would not have been possible.

Cover photo: ©UNICEF/Chagara

_Prepared for: The Ministry of Gender, Children, Disability and Social WelfarePrivate Bag 330Lilongwe 3, Malawi.

© The Government of Malawi

August 2018

Permission is required to reproduce any part of this publication. Permissions will be freely granted to educational or non-profit organisations. Others will be requested to pay a small fee. Please contact:

The Ministry of Gender, Children, Disability and Social WelfareGemini House, City CentrePrivate Bag 330Lilongwe 3.Tel: +265 (0)1 770 411Fax: +265 (0)1 770 826Email: [email protected]

The Governmentof MalawiThe Ministry of Gender, Children, Disability and Social Welfare

Journey of Life ReviewCommunity Awareness and Mobilisation Tool in Achieving Child Protection Results in Malawi

ContentsList of Acronyms 3

Executive Summary 5

1INTRODUCTION 11

1.1 Background to Journey of Life 13

2OBJECTIVES OF THE REVIEW 16

3METHODOLOGY 18

3.1 Meetings with the Advisory Team and Preperation of the Inception

Report 193.2 Desk Review 193.3 Focus Group Discussions 193.4 Key Informant Interviews 203.5 Questionnaire Interviews 203.6 Data Collection 213.7 Data Analysis 223.8 Data Quality Check 223.9 Ethical Considerations 223.10 Limitations 23

4REVIEW FINDINGS 25

4.1 Relevance 264.2 Effectiveness 274.3 Efficiency 314.4 Impact 324.5 Sustainability 364.6 Scalability 384.7 Coherence 384.8 Coordination 39

JOURNEY OF LIFE REVIEW REVIEW 2016

1

5LESSONS LEARNT AND CHALLENGES 41

5.1 Lessons Learnt 425.2 Challenges 43

6CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS 45

ANNEX I References 50

ANNEX II Questionnaires and Interview Guides 51

ANNEX III Key Informant Interview List at National and District Levels 63

ANNEX IV Terms of Reference 64

JOURNEY OF LIFEREVIEW 2016

2

List of AcronymsAIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome

ARV Antiretroviral

CBCC Community-Based Childcare Centre

CBO Community-Based Organisation

CC Children’s Corner

CCPW Community Child Protection Worker

CDA Community Development Assistants

CPC Child Protection Committee

CCPJA The Child Care, Protection and Justice Act

CRC Convention on the Rights of Children

CSO Civil Society Organisation

CVSU Community Victim Support Unit

DSWO District Social Welfare Office

ECD Early Childhood Development

FBO Faith Based Organisation

FGD Focus Group Discussions

GVH Group Village Head

HIV Human Immune Deficiency Syndrome

JoL Journey of Life

KII Key Informant Interviews

LDF Local Development Fund

MoEST Ministry of Education, Science and Technology

MoGCDSW Ministry of Gender, Children, Disability and Social Welfare

MGDS Malawi Growth and Development Strategy

MTSP Medium Term Strategic Plan

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

NOVOC Network of Organisations for Orphaned and Vulnerable Children

NPA National Plan of Action

OVC Orphans and other Vulnerable Children

PSS Psychosocial Support

REPSSI Regional Psychosocial Support Initiative

SADC Southern African Development Community

SITAN Situation Analysis


3

SPSS Statistical Package for Social Scientists

ToT Trainer of Trainers

ToR Terms of Reference

TWG Technical Working Group

UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund

USD United States Dollar

VAC Violence Against Children

VAEN Violence Abuse Exploitation and Neglect

VSU Victim Support Unit


4

Executive SummaryThe MoGCDSW commissioned a review of the JoL, community awareness and mobilisation tool, to assess the extent to which the tool has contributed to the achievement of child protection results jointly agreed by UNICEF and Government of Malawi through its 2012-2018 Child Protection Strategy and other regional and national child protection priorities.

JoL was expected to have contributed to the achievement of the following key results:

• 830,000 children accessing Community-Based Childcare Centres (CBCCs).

• 10 percent reduction in Violence Against Children (VAC).

• 20 percent reduction in child labour (children aged 5-14).

• 2,500 communities adopting protective child protection practices.

• 40,000 children on antiretroviral (ARV) drugs with a case plan linking up the health and welfare sector response.

• 375,000 vulnerable children aged 6-18 utilising Children’s Corners (CCs)

The review was conducted from March 7 to April 11, 2016 in five of the ten districts that have been implementing the JoL tool in the country between 2012 and 2016. To compare the efficacy of the tool, five districts where JoL was never implemented were included in the review. This was done to establish whether the JoL tool can be considered as an approach to address issues of Violence, Abuse, Exploitation, Neglect (VAEN) and the impacts of Human Immune Deficiency Syndrome (HIV) and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) on children at family and community levels. In this report, the five districts that have implemented the JoL tool are referred to as the JoL districts, while the five comparison districts where JoL was not executed, are referred to as the non-JoL districts.


5

A. Findings

JoL Results for Children

The review found that the JoL tool had assisted in unearthing more cases of children experiencing various forms of VAEN. Increased awareness on children’s rights has among others, resulted in reduced corporal punishment amongst children, child labour, early marriages, absenteeism of girls from school and increased reporting on cases of VAC. Some teen mothers have returned to school. Perpetrators of violence or sexual abuse were being prosecuted.

There has been a change in social norms regarding reporting on cases of children in need of protection unlike in the past. For instance, 150 cases of violence were reported in TA Mabulabo, 412 cases in TA Chindi in Mzimba district, 76 cases in TA Njewa, 197 cases in TA Chadza and 60 cases in TA Malili in Lilongwe district compared to very few cases before the approach was introduced. This shows that communities are now more aware of what constitutes VAC as a result of the JoL workshops. Children reported that JoL had helped them to identify fellow children who are in need of care and protection and that they were able to refer to appropriate services.

The JoL approach has also facilitated access to education and other support services for vulnerable and disadvantaged children, through linking them to service providers which enabled them to benefit from school uniforms, school fees, medical care, legal aid and food supplies. Overall, JoL has encouraged communities to prioritise orphans, children from child-headed households, children with disabilities and those living with HIV in the provision of and referral to other services.

There has been an increase in the number of children enrolled in CBCCs and CCs due to the establishment of new centres. The tool has helped to increase the number of CBCCs in 5 JoL districts by 885, CCs by 607 and Community Based Organisations (CBOs) by 88. The new establishments benefited 88,500 children with Early Childhood Development (ECD) while 42, 490 accessed Psychosocial Support Services (PSS) through CCs bringing the total to 130,990 children. This is a significant contribution to the Government of Malawi, and UNICEF 2012-2018 planned results.

The review also assessed various variables to further digest the findings for in-depth lesson learning. Relevance

The review aimed to assess the relevance of the JoL tool in achieving child protection outcomes. The JoL tool was found to be simple to use and enabled community members and facilitators to quickly identify and refer children in need of care and protection to various service points. Communities have become resourceful and no longer wait for external support to address some challenges faced by children. The tool has brought awareness of child protection issues among parents and children.


6


7

Effectiveness

The second important focus area for the review was to assess the effectiveness of the JoL tool. Communities overwhelmingly acknowledged that the JoL tool raised community awareness on the rights of children, some of which they did not know before the JoL community workshops. This has led to reduced corporal punishment, early marriages, absenteeism of girls from school and cases of child labour. There is perceived change in attitude towards children in that children’s views were being taken into account when handling issues concerning them. Communities were able to formulate by-laws which were enforced by traditional leaders.

Efficiency

The review assessed whether the JoL tool had achieved or delivered child protection results with the best value for money. Information gathered from both individual informants and Focus Group Discussions (FGD) had ample evidence to show that the JoL tool is cost effective and achieved value for money. An investment of $200 (USD) per community facilitated the enhancement of commitment by people to support children, including through the establishment of community structures for children following from the workshop. Only food was provided. Weighing the costs against the benefits obtained; the tool can be said to have attained the best value for money.

Impact

The review also assessed the intended and unintended outcomes of the JoL tool on children. The tool has resulted in improved child care practices by JoL communities including reduced cases of corporal punishment, decreased incidences of VAC, reduced cases of child labour and reduced school dropout rates. Many children in JoL communities reported they felt safe to be receiving better treatment from caretakers; said to be getting advice from others in the community and played well with other children.

Sustainability

There were mixed views on sustainability. Positive outcomes on sustainability include:

• Small early gains of JoL have created ownership of the programme and maintained a commitment to implement activities at the community level;

• Creation of child protection structures at community level such as Child Protection Committees (CPCs) which offer continued implementation of activities; and

• Improved community understanding towards addressing children’s challenges is an advantage for sustainability which requires sufficient funding support.

However, factors that are also likely to affect sustainability include:

• Fewer numbers of Community Child Protection Workers (CCPWs) to support the community initiatives; and

• The short span of the spirit of volunteerism by the communities, is given the low financial and supervisory support from the Government.

Scalability

Preceding the JoL workshops, there was strong enthusiasm and willingness by communities to continue mobilising other communities on child protection which is a sound basis for the continuation and replication of the tool to other areas. The knowledge gained was easily shared with other communities, and they were able to follow up on JoL results on their own. However, before scaling up, it is essential for the Ministry and other partners to build on the current gains and lessons learnt from the use of the tool.

Coherence

Coherence of initiatives to mitigate the effects of VAEN and the impacts of HIV and AIDS on children were noted to have a firm grounding in Government instruments in the form of policies, laws, rules and regulations on children. For instance, the National Plan of Action (NPA) for Vulnerable Children and the Child Care, Protection and Justice Act (CCPJA), emphasises prioritising the protection of children including the most vulnerable.

Coordination

Coordination of JoL initiatives at national, district and community levels remains elusive. There was no apparent coordination of JoL implementation between the District Social Welfare Office (DSWO) and other Government departments which carry out similar activities such as education, health and the police except when there was a need for referrals. At the community level, it was noted that there was lack of mainstreaming of JoL activities into existing programmes.


8

B. Recommendations

The use of JoL tool has made a positive contribution to communities to achieve child protection results. The review offers a sound case for the continuation and replication of the use of the tool in other areas. Overall, the report presents a set of summarised recommendations under each area of focus. The thematic proposals have further been expounded in the main text.

a. Coordination

• Improve coordination of JoL implementation at all levels through networking with other stakeholders;

• Streamline child protection structures at the community level to avoid duplication of efforts and wastage of resources.

b. Community Entry Strategy

• There is a need to develop a comprehensive plan on community entry and building rapport. This would prepare the community to know the objective of the initiatives;

• Adequately involve communities in the planning of workshops. This would help leaders identify participants who can add value. In addition to getting the right people for the workshops, community members would also be in a better position to contribute towards the activities and assume a sense of ownership.

c. Capacity

• There is need to enhance the technical capacity of CCPWs to be able to deliver the workshop contents effectively especially in the field of PSS.

• There is need to increase the number of facilitators to enable thorough coverage of all the communities. This will also reduce the long distances that CCPWs cover to reach communities with JoL;

• JoL activities should continue to be part of the District Implementation Plans (DIPs). This would ensure that Assemblies set aside funding for such activities. Additionally, ward councillors should be part of JoL workshops planning team since they represent community members.

d. Auxiliary Support Services

• Deliberate efforts should be made to make available JoL manuals at the community level. These could be used for reference purposes by community members whenever CCPWs are not available. For instance, these could be delivered to CBOs, churches or schools.


9


10© UNICEF/Pirozzi

From early 2000, the Government of Malawi through the MoGCDSW introduced the JoL tool as a component of the PSS initiative to mitigate the impact of HIV and AIDS on Orphans and other Vulnerable Children (OVC). The general perception during that time was that child vulnerability was explicitly caused by the HIV and AIDS pandemic which had rendered several children orphaned. However, following several studies, including the Vulnerability Analysis Study and the Situation Analysis (SITAN) on OVC 20141, it became apparent that child vulnerability is not caused by HIV and AIDS alone. Instead, it is a result of several social-economic factors such as poverty, family dysfunction and the weakening of traditional family coping mechanisms at community level occasioned by social change.

1 Government of Malawi (2014), Situation Analysis for Vulnerable Children in Malawi

Introduction

1JOURNEY OF LIFE REVIEW REVIEW 2016

11


12

This realisation broadened the perspective of vulnerability and brought about a strategic shift to adopting PSS as an all-encompassing strategy to address issues of vulnerability irrespective of its causes. Coincidentally, the change happened at a time when the country was drafting the Malawi Growth and Development Strategy (MGDS) II 2011-2016, which was to guide the National Development Agenda. While this strategy provides a roadmap for social-economic development, it also recognises child protection as one of the key priority areas. Critical interventions for child protection are further articulated in the NPA for Vulnerable Children 2015-2019 and CCPJA. All these instruments provide a framework on how communities are to be involved in the identification and protection of vulnerable children. In this vein, the Government of Malawi introduced JoL as a tool to enhance the promotion of the psychosocial well-being of children.

The JoL is a community awareness and mobilisation tool adapted from the Regional Psychosocial Support Initiative (REPSSI)2, an NGO in Southern Africa. The JoL tool was initially developed as an easy to use culturally appropriate method for use by families, and communities to facilitate in mitigating the impact of child vulnerability as a result of the HIV and AIDS pandemic. However, with the passage of time, and in recognition that vulnerability takes different dimensions, JoL was adopted in child protection programming. The JoL is a practical and straightforward tool that can be used by communities regardless of literacy levels. It uses participatory approaches to motivate communities to identify children’s needs and problems thereby assisting communities to conceive solutions and plans to solve them out.

JoL has three components that build on each other. The first component addresses issues of community awareness and mobilisation, and the second focuses on parenting skills while the third helps children to understand death and the processes that are required for them to overcome the trauma and build resilience. In Malawi, JoL tool has been in use since early 2000 under the auspices of the MoGCDSW. The Ministry, therefore, is reviewing the tool to measure its impact in contributing to achieving child protection results, particularly, as envisaged in the joint Government and UNICEF Child Protection Strategy of 2012-2018.

Conducted from March 7 to April 11 2016, the review covered the districts of Mzimba, Lilongwe, Mangochi, Zomba and Blantyre. These districts were amongst the first to use the JoL tool. However, considering that there was a need for comparison on the efficacy of the strategy, another set of five districts were not supported to implement JoL were included in the review, and these were Rumphi, Dowa, Phalombe, Chiradzulu and Neno. For the purposes of this report, the five districts implementing JoL are referred to as JoL districts while the comparison districts not supported are designated as non-JoL districts.

2 REPPSI Strategy 2011-1015


13

1.1 Background to JoL

Of the 18 million population of Malawi, half are children below the age of 18 years. Over 1.8 million children (53% girls and 47% boys) live in very vulnerable situations due to various factors including poverty, inadequate education for caretakers, orphanhood and poor living arrangements3. It has further been noted that significant proportion of children experience violence, sexual abuse and other forms of abuse, exploitation and neglect in homes, schools and community. Almost half of girls marry before they attain the age of 18 years. These statistics are an indication that violence continues to be prevalent in the country.

Significant drivers of abuse on children have been attributed to social, economic and ecological circumstances in which most children find themselves. Over 1.3 million children have been estimated to have lost one or both parents; 770,000 of them due to HIV and AIDS4. Apart from HIV and AIDS negatively impacting on children, household poverty also affects nearly one in every two children. According to the vulnerability analysis5, most of the children either drop out of school, enter into early and forced marriages or live in abusive situations. It is estimated that 47% of children have no access to three basic material needs (i.e. a blanket, one pair of shoes and more than one pair/set of clothing) and that one in every eight children are not living with their biological parents even if their parents are alive6.

In all circumstances in which children find themselves, two out of three are exposed to some form of violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect7. However, only less than 10% of them receive some assistance. Given the glaring conditions as portrayed by the reports on the well-being of children and the poor attendant services for children, it became necessary for Government as principal duty bearer to design and implement protection measures that address child vulnerability.

The genesis of the JoL tool in Malawi evolved as a Government’s initiative to intensify PSS services to OVC as a result of the HIV and AIDS pandemic. However, as Government was grappling with mitigating the impact of HIV and AIDS on children, family and the community, it became apparent that child vulnerability in the country was caused by several other factors other than HIV and AIDS alone. SITAN 20148 revealed that other than HIV and AIDS, children were also made vulnerable by other socio-economic shocks such as poverty, the breakdown of the family fabric and degeneration of the social support systems at community level occasioned by the rapid social change which affected the traditional social arrangement of child support. These conditions necessitated a paradigm shift by Government in addressing issues of child vulnerability. Amongst the changes, it meant that mitigation of vulnerability had to take into consideration all other emerging causes hence the extension of PSS interventions to include victims of violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect.

3 Government of Malawi, Situation Analysis of Vulnerable Children, 20144 UNICEF statistics info by country, 20125 UNICEF Malawi Child Protection Strategy (2012-2016)6 Ibid7 Government of Malawi, Report on Violence against Children and Young Women Survey 20138 SITAN 2014


14

The Government, therefore, adopted the JoL tool as a community awareness and mobilisation tool to capacitate the family and community to identify children’s needs and problems affecting them. The tool helps to build consensus and dialogue around children`s issues intending to address their psychological and social needs. In an attempt to achieve this goal, the JoL manual was adopted to mobilise communities and give them skills to meet the psychosocial needs of children.

From the global perspective, issues of children’s well-being have been at the centre stage of international relations since the United Nations adoption of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) in 1989. This enhanced advocacy for children’s rights and culminated in the declaration of a decade of the ‘World Fit for Children’ campaign (2002). This, amongst several initiatives, prompted national Governments to accord higher priority to issues affecting children. Increased attention to children’s rights and especially their rights to protection were supported prompted by the increased knowledge by Governments of the dynamics of harmful social norms that perpetuate VAEN and of the right actions that are needed to promote positive standards aimed at ending harmful practices9.

At a regional level, the available literature on issues of child protection and the use of JoL as community mobilisation and awareness creation tool is well articulated in the PSS Strategy 2011-1510. The strategy identifies two main instruments which influenced regional integration and adoption of PSS and the use of the JoL tool in child protection. These are ‘The PSS Conceptual Framework and the SADC Guidelines on Minimum Package of Services for OVC and Youth (OVCY) programming. Both the PSS framework and the Minimum Package of services for OVC and Youth provided the roadmap for harmonising services for OVC and Youth across the SADC Region, thus linking the JoL tool at country level with regional perspectives.

At the country level, JoL as a community mobilisation and awareness tool has been shaped and informed by various policies and laws on children in general and child protection in particular. At the community level, in addition to creating awareness on child protection issues, the JOL tool has also been used to mobilise communities to take responsibility for children’s issues. All these initiatives are being implemented in line with the NPA for Vulnerable Children (2015 -2019) and the CCPJA. Corroborating the 2006 Global Report on Violence Children, REPPSI states that actions to address PSS issues enhances the capacity of children, family and community to achieve an adequate level of well-being and care for children which is essential for child survival and development11. Given this general understanding of the critical roles the family and community play in providing child protection measures from global, regional and country levels, prioritising interventions that build family and community capacities to support vulnerable children becomes the most appropriate option.

9 Medium Term Strategic Plan (UNICEF) 2006-201310 REPPSI Strategic Plan 2011-201511 REPPSI Strategic Plan 2011-2015


15© UNICEF/Pirozzi

The primary objective of the review was to assess the extent to which the JoL tool contributed to the achievement of the Government of Malawi 2012-2018 Child Protection Strategy and other regional and national child protection priorities.

Specifically, the review assessed the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, sustainability, scalability, coherence and coordination of JoL as a tool for community awareness and mobilisation in achieving child protection results.

Objectives of the Review

2JOURNEY OF LIFE

REVIEW 201616

JoL was expected to have contributed to the achievement of the following key results:

• 830,000 children accessing Community-Based Childcare Centres (CBCCs).

• 10 percent reduction in Violence Against Children (VAC).

• 20 percent reduction in child labour (children aged 5-14).

• 2,500 communities adopting protective child protection practices.

• 40,000 children on antiretroviral (ARV) drugs with a case plan linking up the health and welfare sector response.

• 375,000 vulnerable children aged 6-18 utilising Children’s Corners (CCs)

© UNICEFJOURNEY OF LIFE REVIEW REVIEW 2016

17

Methology

3A mixed-methods approach was applied to gather quantitative and qualitative data during the review for the following major reasons:

i. The nature of the data required for the study demanded the use of a variety of approaches and methods;

ii. To allow triangulation of findings which strengthens the reliability of results and ensures complementarity between the sets of data.

The detailed description of the methodology for the review is presented on the following pages.


18


19

3.1 Meetings with the Advisory Team and Preparation of the Inception Report

Several consultations were held with the Advisory Team (comprising officers from the MoGCDSW, Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) and UNICEF) from mid-January to mid-February 2016 to discuss the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the assignment and come to a consensus on how the review was to be conducted. The output of these meetings was the preparation of the JoL inception report by the consultant detailing the methodology of how the study was to be conducted, data collection methods and tools, timelines and logistical arrangements. The Advisory Team duly approved the report.

3.2 Desk Review

Relevant documentation relating to JoL tool was reviewed to enhance the understanding of the tool. The documents also assisted in the overall design of the review, development of relevant data collection tools and the organisation of field activities. The validation of findings from the study was supported by a discussion of literature available on both psychosocial support of vulnerable children and strategies that are being used to mobilise communities to take action in support of such children. The literature review utilised both internet and manual search methodologies to access peer review and some unpublished literature on the subject matter.

The research was supplemented by other secondary data which was obtained through the analysis of the findings of other field surveys. The review examined the available literature on child protection from global, regional and national perspectives to determine how JoL has been adopted in Malawi. This was necessary to create the linkage between the practice in Malawi and what the general landscape is in comparable jurisdictions. Annex I provides, a full list of the documents reviewed.

3.3 Focus Group Discussions

FGD were used to collect information from communities in JoL and non-JoL districts. FGD provide a relatively less intimidating environment to participants to discuss their views and experiences; they allow a reflection on viewpoints from individuals which results in gaining more profound insights on issues and facilitates social learning among participants. The analysis of the content of the conversations is done by drawing out the central themes as highlighted by the participants. The interview question guide used for FGD is shown in Annex II.


20

FGD with selected children and youth in Blantyre

One FGD (10-12 participants) was conducted in each of the Traditional Authorities visited for either adults or youths. In total, 12 FGD were conducted in JoL districts and 5 FGD in Non-JoL districts. The FGD for adults comprised parents, traditional/religious leaders, teachers, CBO members, Community Victim Support Unit (CVSU) members and Mothers Groups. For the Youth, FGD consisted of youth clubs, teen clubs, youth CBOs, AIDS Toto clubs and CCs.

3.4 Key Informant Interviews (KII)

KII was used to collect data from people perceived to have more information on the subject matter/field of study known as key informants to complement the FGD and questionnaire survey. Key informants were selected based on their role, experience and knowledge of child protection in general and their use of JoL tool in districts where the tool was used.

Participants of KII were drawn from national, district, community levels and included:

• Implementing partners (Social Welfare Office, Youth, Victim Support Unit (VSU), Child Protection Workers, and Police);

• Technical Working Group (TWG) members at district and community levels;• Traditional and religious leaders.

At the community level, 36 in-depth interviews were held with key informants in the districts using the JoL tool while 20 in-depth interviews were conducted with various informants at the district and national levels. KII were also conducted with key informants at community and district levels in the districts where the tool was not previously used. The list of participants to national and district KII is shown in Annex III.

3.5 Questionnaire Interviews

A questionnaire was administered to children 13-18 years of age and caregivers who participated in JoL awareness and mobilisation workshops to assess changes in behaviour, attitudes, opinions and knowledge about child protection. The same was done for comparison districts where JoL workshops were not conducted.The questionnaire was administered to a sample of 794 children and caregivers in all the districts. This sample size was large enough to provide statistically reliable estimates at 5 per cent level of significance. A total of 590 children and caregivers were interviewed in the districts that participated in the JoL community workshops while 204 children and caregivers were interviewed in the comparison districts.

Table 1 on the next page shows the distribution of the sample size.


21

District

No. of Children Interviewed No. of Caregivers Interviewed

Male Female Total Male Female Total

Blantyre 18 34 52 19 33 52

Lilongwe 28 29 57 17 40 57

Mangochi 28 26 54 27 28 55

Mzimba 38 52 90 41 48 89

Zomba 20 22 42 19 23 42

Total 132 163 295 123 172 295

District

No. of Children Interviewed No. of Caregivers Interviewed

Male Female Total Male Female Total

Chiradzulu 10 11 21 11 10 21

Dowa 9 11 20 6 14 20

Neno 12 9 21 10 11 21

Phalombe 10 10 20 8 12 20

Rumphi 10 10 20 6 14 20

Total 51 51 102 41 61 102

Table 1 Distribution of Sample Size in JoL Districts

Table 2 Distribution of Sample Size in Comparison Districts

3.6 Data Collection

Two field teams each comprising three research assistants and a supervisor were involved in data collection. The supervisors ensured that the completed questionnaires were checked for any errors or missing data before they moved to another destination. This enabled follow-ups to be done while working in the area. The consultant complemented the fieldwork by conducting KII at national and district levels.

Before embarking on fieldwork, the research assistants and supervisors were trained on how to administer the questionnaires and the interview guides respectively. The training lasted for three days. An interviewer’s training manual was prepared for this purpose. The surveys and interview guides were pre-tested. This enabled adjustments to the questionnaires where necessary and improved understanding of concepts to ensure uniformity in conducting interviews.


22

3.7 Data Analysis

The questionnaires were edited and coded before data entry. Data was entered using a statistical package called Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS). The analysis was done using the same kit to produce frequencies.

3.8 Data Quality Check

Adequate measures were undertaken to ensure data quality. The team conducting the data collection was trained and selected from previous field experience. The supervisors ensured that questionnaires were checked before moving to another area to make necessary follow-ups wherever errors or missing data were identified. Furthermore, consistency checks were run through the data before analysis was done.

3.9 Ethical Considerations

The study took into consideration the provisions within the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child on recognizing and upholding the rights of children. Ethics were followed in line with internationally recognized guidelines on participation during research.

Participants were informed on the nature and purpose of the study and how the study outcome would benefit them. Only participants who gave their written or verbal documented consent were included in the study. For children (i.e. under 18 years), consent was also sought from their parents and/or guardians.

Approval for this study was also sought at national, district and community levels; specifically, the MoGCDSW, District Councils, and traditional / community leaders respectively.

Confidentiality of the data was maintained and not be linked to specific individuals. Sensitive information regarding children was professionally managed whilst ensuring that referrals to services were made to respond to children that required immediate support.


23

3.10 Limitations

The major limitation of the review was that there was no baseline study before JoL was implemented which made it difficult to find the basis for the analysis. While the agreed alternative was to compare with other districts that did not undergo the JoL workshops, it was clear that spill-overs of the activities related to those districts which used the JoL tool could affect the results of the review. Moreover, many NGOs were working in districts which were implementing similar activities on child rights and protection. These included raising awareness on VAC, building of CBCCs, and promotion of CCs or youth groups. Other Government departments such as education, police and health had similar programmes in almost all the districts. Nevertheless, it was much easier to track the results from JoL because communities which participated in the workshop were aware of the workshops that took place and their results.

Additionally, when JoL was introduced, there was no functional and robust monitoring and evaluation framework in place. Documentation of activities since JoL started being used at all levels (national, district and community) was not satisfactory. CCPWs claimed to be sending reports to the districts while districts asserted reports are at the community level. The MoGCDSW, as the lead Ministry did not have any documentation on activities happening at district level.


24© UNICEF/Pirozzi


25

The key findings of the review have been presented to respond to review criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, sustainability, scalability, coherence and coordination. The findings are a synthesis of FGD, KII, questionnaire interviews as well as desk review. Quotes from interviewees to illustrate a point are shown in quotation marks. Wherever strengths, opportunities or threats have been identified, they are highlighted as such throughout the report.

Review Findings

4


26

4.1 Relevance

To assess the relevance of the JoL tool the review presents the findings of key themes in this area in achieving child protection outcomes.

a) Design, appropriateness and relevance of JoL manual in addressing child protection challenges

The purpose of JoL workshops was to increase community awareness about needs and problems of children and to organise communities to work on these issues. The JoL manual was designed in such a way that materials were relevant to the audience and the issues affecting them. Discussions around understanding children’s needs and challenges, identifying children in need, building their inner strengths and a spirit of working together in a community were delivered in a reflection, dialogue and action-oriented towards children, caregivers and concerned members of the community. This assisted the participants to understand the material easily.

According to respondents that participated in the JoL workshops, the JoL tool was relevant and appropriate because it was simple to use. It has encouraged communities to become resourceful such that they no longer wait for external support to address challenges faced by children. It has brought out crucial parenting issues to the attention of parents and children and has helped communities to acquire knowledge and skills in protecting children.

b) Adaptation and alignment of JoL tool to child protection programming practices

JoL aligns national practices with the global and regional paradigm on child protection. JoL has adapted very well to the situation of children in Malawi because, over the years, its scope and focus has broadened from solely addressing HIV issues to looking at children’s issues holistically. Previously, the focus was on helping children affected by AIDS to cope with the negative impacts of HIV and AIDS.

The current JoL tool looks at the child holistically. This augers very well with current trends in child protection programming which emphasizes comprehensive service provision for children. The JoL now focuses on all aspects of VAEN such as child marriage, child labour, school dropout in addition to HIV/AIDS.

The tool has also effectively supported programming of child protection services at the grassroots level, by bringing communities together to discuss issues affecting children. Participants stated that JoL had helped them to appreciate their roles and responsibilities in protecting children’s rights. Participants also asserted that the community meetings created a sense of belonging and has since improved community consciousness about what each can contribute towards children. Unlike in the past, communities perceived that the Government had the responsibility to look after their children. As a result of this, communities were able to establish child-friendly structures having acquired the knowledge for the benefit of their children. This has in turn improved child-rearing practices because communities are now able to identify conditions which are conducive for proper child growth and development.


27

c) The response of JoL tool to child protection interventions and strengthening of partnerships

The review found that the JoL tool has assisted in unearthing more cases of children experiencing various forms of VAEN which was not the case previously. Communities reported that through JoL, there has been an increase in the number of children withdrawn from early marriages, child labour and referred to relevant support services. Similarly, the perpetrators of violence or sexual abuse had been prosecuted. KII with beneficiaries and implementers revealed that partnerships had been strengthened, especially when it came to management of cases including referrals.

It was highlighted that the JoL tool has helped to enhance the partnership between Social Welfare, Health, Police and other NGOs like Youth Net and Counselling who work together in providing services in case of referrals from communities. The partnership has also been enhanced at the local level in the sense that communities have now realised the need to work together to address problems that children face.

However, communities were concerned that there was inadequate supervision by the JoL community facilitators. The review established that since the community workshops were conducted, there had been limited follow-ups to support and guide the communities in implementing the community action plans which they developed during the workshops. This affected community commitment to operationalise their plans. The review also established that some of the JoL community facilitators have limited capacity to deliver the material effectively. This was evident by the differences in the way communities understood the JoL concept. This was further corroborated by the District Social Welfare Officers, NGOs and partners who attended the validation workshop to review the draft study report.

4.2 Effectiveness

Another critical focus area of the review was to assess the effectiveness of the JoL tool. The following were key themes that were addressed in this area.

a) Achievement of goals and purposes of JoL tool

One of the primary objectives of the JoL tool was to increase communities’ awareness on issues affecting children and in particular, children at risk or living in difficult circumstances, by raising awareness on the rights of children. Both FGD and KII with the beneficiaries overwhelmingly showed that the JoL workshops raised community awareness on the rights of children some of which they did not know before the JoL workshops. One FGD participant narrates;

“We did not know that beating a child when she or he refuses to bathe or go to school is violating his or her rights.”

- FGD participant in TA Mabulabo, Mzimba.

© UNICEF/Noorani


28

In all the JoL districts visited, FGD participants expressed that because of the awareness of children’s rights, corporal punishment has diminished. Child marriages have also reduced, and young mothers are seen returning to school resulting in a reduction of absenteeism of girls from school. Reporting of cases of VAC has increased, and cases of child labour have been reduced, among others.

Furthermore, the participants to FGD and KII at community level reported more benefits of JoL than was the situation before JoL which included: change in social norms on child-rearing practices; change in negative perceptions towards children and that the tool created an opening for adults to listen to children’s views. Further, communities also have realised the importance of collaboration in protecting children as they assist each other to report to higher authorities or agencies when violence has occurred. Most communities have been able to formulate by-laws to curb school drop-outs, child marriages and child labour. Traditional leaders enforce these by-laws. If any parent violates the by-laws, they are required to pay a stipulated fine known as ‘Chindapusa’ - meaning a fine for acting inappropriately. There has been an increase in the number of children enrolled in CBCCs and CCs due to the establishment of new centres. One JoL workshop resulted in the establishment of a minimum of two CBCCs and a CC.

The second objective of JoL was to enhance the capacity of communities to develop strategies for supporting children to grow and realise their potential. During the JoL workshops, the communities were tasked to formulate community action plans which were to be implemented to support the children. Participants to FGD reported having implemented most activities on the action plans despite the problematic prevailing economic situation. Through these community action plans, communities were able to establish or revamp child-friendly structures such CBCCs, CCs, CPCs and CBOs. FGD participants in Lilongwe alluded to this as indicated in the caption below.

“In our area, the CBCCs and CCs were no longer active but because of JoL training, we have managed to revamp the old structures and establish new ones. Our children are now attending CBCCs and no longer stay idle in homes.”

- FGD participant in TA Malili, Lilongwe

The above statement came out frequently from all FGD conducted in the JoL districts. This was in contrast with remarks from FGD in non-JoL districts where CBCCs, CCs and other structures were there but not very active.

Table 3 shows the latest data obtained from the JoL districts. It is clear from the table that JoL was very useful in mobilising the communities to establish the child-friendly structures which are very important for the care and growth of their children. The tool has helped to increase the number of CBCCs in five JoL districts by 885, CCs by 607 and CBOs by 88.


29

District NewCBOs

NewCBBCs

NewCCs

NewCCPCs

Blantyre - 106 156 54

Lilongwe 58 277 247 98

Mangochi 6 165 72 77

Mzimba 8 210 54 109

Zomba 16 127 78 50

Total 88 885 607 388

Source: Data analysis from the Journey of Life Review, May 2016

Table 3 Support Structures/Activities Established as a Result of JoL Workshops

Community members were asked whether they were aware of child-friendly structures in their communities. Eighty nine per cent of the community members interviewed in JoL districts were aware of the supportive structures for children in the community.

Figure 1 Child Support Structures Caregivers were Aware of in their Communities

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Non JoL district %

JOL district %

Community based child care centres

Children corners

Mothers groups

Parenting programme

Community support groups

Others

Perc

enta

ge (

%)

As indicated, community members in JoL districts are more aware of available child-friendly structures than community members in non-JoL districts.

Source: Journey of Life Review, May 2016


30

Community members were further asked whether the structures adequately address the needs of children. The responses given indicate that the support structures for children did not adequately address the needs of children in the community. The main reasons given were inadequate resources for acquiring foodstuff to meet the increasing demand in CBCCs, play materials for CCs and inadequate support from Government and partners especially regarding building materials for permanent structures. Children were also asked whether they were aware of the CCs in their areas and whether they were attending the CCs. Seventy five per cent of the children interviewed in JoL districts were aware of these structures, and 74 per cent of these were attending the CCs. This was unlike in non-JoL districts where 31 per cent of children interviewed were aware of the structures, and 47 per cent of these were attending the CCs.

The third objective of JoL was to impart knowledge to community members to be able to identify children in difficult circumstances and address their needs. Participants to FGD and KII expressed that this objective was met to some extent. Communities were able to identify children under challenging circumstances using knowledge gained from the JoL community workshops. They were able to identify vulnerable children even if they were not from their families. However, participants reported that they referred such children to the appropriate agencies for assistance, but sometimes they were unable to address the needs of these children because of inadequate resources.

b) Linkage of JoL tool to other national strategic documents

The JoL tool is fully integrated into most of the national strategies. As a community awareness and mobilisation tool, JoL complements the NPA for Vulnerable Children through addressing some of the strategic objectives of the NPA. These include the building of capacities of families, parents and communities to improve child protection measures, preparing communities to provide services to vulnerable children through improved protection services, increasing awareness on children’s needs at community and household levels and encouraging communities to establish structures that address children’s psychosocial and protection needs. At the structural level, the use of the JoL tool has strengthened coordination of the referral system and case management.

c) Inclusiveness and gender responsiveness of JoL approach

The FGD of beneficiaries and KII of project implementers showed that JoL workshops were inclusive and gender responsive. The entry point for the selection of participants was Group Village Heads (GVH) and CBOs. Selection of participants to the workshops included women, men, boys and girls, community, and religious leaders, CBO members, caregivers and people in business. This approach ensured that there was an adequate inclusion of all people.

However, the observation on the ground showed that more women than men participated in the JoL workshops. This was also evident by the high attendance of women in the FGD. They were more involved in food preparation for JoL workshops than men which in some instances resulted in missing out on lessons. A probable explanation is that culturally, women in all communities in the country are considered to be the primary caregivers for children. Moreover, since the JoL workshops were about children, more women were inspired to attend as opposed to men.

© UNICEF/Noorani


31

d) Addressing equity issues for children in the JoL approach

The concept of equity is principally concerned with providing every child with access to fair, just and non-discriminatory protection and care. Interviews with children showed that among those that attended the community workshops, 28 per cent were orphans, 47 per cent of these were being cared for by mothers and 24 per cent were being cared for by grandparents. Participants to FGD reported that the JoL approach has helped vulnerable and disadvantaged children to receive school uniforms, school fees, medical care, legal aid and food supplies. Overall, JoL has encouraged communities to prioritise orphans, children from child-headed households, children with disabilities and those living with HIV in the provision of and referral to other services.

e) User-friendliness of the JoL tool and its effectiveness in supporting community-level interventions

Participants to FGD in all JoL districts unanimously expressed that the method used in delivering the content of the manual was user-friendly. The use of pictures, personal testimonies, story-telling, role plays and resource mapping provided the opportunity for participants to quickly grasp the concepts in the manual especially for those who were unable to read and write. This view was also agreed by CPWs who facilitated the workshops at the community level. They stated that the JoL tool helps to initiate discussion and dialogue on major child protection issues among community members. In addition to reporting of cases, communities have been able to establish child-friendly structures, though not permanent, to assist children. In some instances, communities have even used shades under trees as CBCCs or CCs.

4.3 Efficiency

a) Achievement of best value for money in using the JoL tool

The JoL approach is an innovative way of assisting vulnerable children tangibly yet with minimum resources. The community awareness workshops which are usually considered as ordinary community meetings do not require many resources to organise. Only food at a cost of $150 (USD) is supplied to a community meeting of 60 people for three to five days. No allowances are given to participants. Though cheap and easy to organise, communities were mobilised to be resourceful in helping vulnerable children and establishment of support structures for children. Therefore the use of the JoL tool can be said to have achieved best value for money considering the costs against the achieved results.

b) Achievement of same results whether at a lower cost or by using different instruments or approaches

According to KII with national and district officers, it was confidently expressed that the results achieved by JoL cannot be achieved at a lower cost than what is currently available. This is so because there is still need for resources to carter for facilitators’ upkeep including transportation costs. Additionally, communities are facing food shortages hence the need to support them with food during JoL workshops. Despite this, JoL remains one of the most cost-effective community mobilisation approaches in Malawi.


32

4.4 Impact

One of the focus areas of the review was to assess the impact of the JoL tool. The following were key themes that were addressed in this area. a) Intended and unintended outcomes of the JoL tool on

children

Implementation of the JoL tool was anticipated to achieve many outcomes, such as the establishment of CBCCs and CCs, reduction of VAC, encouraging communities to adopt protective child protection practices and development of case plans for children identified to be in need of protection while linking them to existing services. Interviews with community members revealed that as a result of JoL, most communities had established CBCCs and CCs having noted the need for such services for their children. A spot check on the community action plans that were developed during JoL workshops attested to this. Interviews with district officers and community facilitators also revealed that although it was expected that one JoL session would result in one CBCC and CC, the results were overwhelming. In most communities, there were more than 5 CBCCs and CCs that were established from one workshop. As a result of the tool, the number of structures in five JoL districts that were reviewed increased significantly.

As highlighted earlier on, 885 more CBCCs and 607 CCs had been established thereby increasing the number of children accessing child care services due to improved awareness of children rights by communities. From past experiences, such results could not have been achieved without mobilizing communities. As a result of increased awareness of children’s rights, other structures such as CBOs, Mother Groups, Support Groups and Chiefs Councils were established by communities to ensure the protection of children against VAEN. According to district officers, these structures were not initially planned or thought out, but they emerged because of the mobilisation that was conducted through JoL. The type of structures varied from one community to another depending on their need.

The JoL approach has also helped to institutionalise identification, reporting, referral and management of cases of VAC in the communities. KII revealed that since the JoL workshops were conducted, there had been an increase in the number of cases of children in need of protection being reported and linked to relevant services unlike in the past. When asked, children stated that JoL had helped them to identify fellow children in need of care and protection and they were able to refer to appropriate services. For instance, 150 cases of violence were reported in TA Mabulabo, 412 cases in TA Chindi, in Mzimba district, while 76 cases in TA Njewa, 197 cases in TA Chadza and 60 cases in TA Malili in Lilongwe district were also reported. This shows that communities are now more aware of what constitutes VAC as a result of the JoL workshops. In addition to improving identification and reporting of cases, the JoL provided an opportunity for children to be heard because they were involved in planning and actual community meetings. This was evident in the community action plans that communities developed having understood their role in child protection. FGD and interviews with community members, community facilitators and district officials revealed that through JoL, communities developed by-laws to curb VAC.


33

While the JoL tool has increased the number of childcare structures and led to increased reporting of cases of VAC, communities were concerned with the lack of adequate support on cases that were beyond their capacity. While communities have established child-friendly support structures such as CBCCs and CCs, participants to FGD complained that they lacked trained caregivers. In the same vein, they lacked resources to build permanent structures, provide foodstuff to an increased number of children in CBCCs as well as playing materials in CCs. Participants expressed that sometimes they need direction from the district officers on how to proceed with implementation of activities. These sentiments were corroborated by CPWs who highlighted challenges in human and financial resources to meet the demand generated. This resulted in delays in the management and completion of some cases. Some CCPWs complained that, despite having a lot of work and movement in their vast areas, they did not have transport for supervision.

One of the JoL outcomes was improved psychosocial well-being of children. The indicators were outlined in the JoL manual. The review measured the indicators through interviews with children in JoL and non-JoL districts. The results are shown in Table 4.

Table 4 Psychosocial Well-Being of Children

IndicatorJoL districts

(%)Non-JoL districts

(%)

Children safe in the hands of caregivers 94 77

Children well cared for by caregivers and supported with necessities 72 55

Children play very well with other children 97 80

Children have a good relationship with peers 97 80

Children are confident and have hope for the future 83 66

Children set goals and put ideas into action 83 66

Children put every effort in work at home 93 76

Children put every effort in work at school 86 69

Children adopt values, norms and traditions of the community 72 55

Children take part in community activities 83 66

Children get help or advice from others in the community 81 64

Children discriminated against by any section of the community 23 6

Children continue with daily routines despite facing challenges 82 65

Source: Data analysis from the Journey of Life Review, May 2016


34

As outlined in Table 4, the results indicated that overall JoL districts ranked highly regarding the psychosocial well-being of children compared to non-JoL districts. For instance, 94 per cent of the children interviewed in JoL districts reported to be safer with caregivers against 77 per cent in non-JoL districts, 97 per cent were able to play very well and had a good relationship with peers in JoL districts as opposed to 80 per cent in non-JoL districts. Other indicators where children in JoL districts performed well include children being confident and hopeful about the future, children helping with work at home, adopting values and norms and traditions of the community, taking part in community activities as well as not being discriminated against by any section of the community.

However, despite the significant impact registered by the JoL tool, non-JoL districts scored higher on some indicators of the psychosocial well-being of children than JoL districts. This can be attributed to the existence of other programmes which are being implemented in non-JoL districts and are similar to JoL interventions. For instance, it was observed that other Government departments such as education, police and health were conducting awareness campaigns on child rights in schools and have established community structures such as Mother Groups and Youth Clubs which play a crucial role in preventing incidences of VAC. Further, NGOs like Action Aid, Blantyre Synod and Health Development Commission, World Vision, Save the Children, Livingstonia Synod AIDS Programme and Youth Net and Counselling were observed to be implementing child protection interventions that resulted in increased awareness and knowledge on child protection among communities in non-JoL districts.

© UNICEF


35

Another outcome of JoL was reduced VAC. During one on one interviews, children children were asked whether they had experienced any form of violence in the past 12 months before the interview, 41 per cent reported to have experienced violence in JoL districts. Out of these, 51 per cent were girls. The most common type of violence mentioned was physical assault (25 per cent) followed by emotional abuse (22 per cent) as shown in Figure 2 below. In non-JoL districts, 30 per cent of the children interviewed reported to have experienced any form of violence in the past 12 months before the interview. Out of these, 55 per cent were boys. The most common type of violence mentioned was verbal abuse (26 per cent) followed by emotional abuse (19 per cent).

Figure 2 Type of Violence Experienced by Children in the Past 12 Months

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Non JoL district %

JOL district %

Physical assault

Sexual abuse

Verbal abuse

Emotional abuse

Physicalabuse

Hazardousabuse

Child marriage

Other

Perc

enta

ge (

%)

Source: Journey of Life Review, May 2016 Source: Journey of Life Review, May 2016

It can be noted that there was a lower proportion of children who experienced violence in non-JoL districts than JoL districts. This was attributed to the fact that children were more aware of the types of violence in JoL districts than in non-JoL districts.


36

b) Role of JoL in strengthening child protection programming

JoL has improved child protection programming in the country. Results from FGD and KII showed that communities in JoL districts were more likely to report and refer cases of child violence than non-JoL communities. Further, the results also pointed towards improved case management and referral systems in JoL districts than non-JoL districts. Increased levels of coordination of child protection interventions created a better synergy for service delivery. Individual caregiver interviews showed that 80 per cent of the caregivers whose children experienced violence in 12 months before the interview reported the cases to authorities or agencies as opposed to 68 per cent of caregivers who reported in the districts that had not conducted the workshops.

c) Impact of JoL on community development approaches

The impact of JoL on community development was striking. Participants to FGD in the JoL districts showed that there had been increased social change in the manner that communities viewed children’s issues. The social change resulted in the paradigm shift in community social norms which had been critical in improving the perception communities have on children’s rights. In Mzimba, communities reported that, unlike before the JoL workshops, they were able to include children in decision-making processes in community development programmes especially those that have an impact on their lives. These sentiments were repeated in other JoL districts. This was a manifestation of positive attitudinal change which is more likely to improve child protection initiatives at community levels. Another notable change which was observed during FGD is that in patriarchal communities where women were never allowed to participate in development planning, they were able to present their views on what suits them best after participation in the workshops.

4.5 Sustainability

a) Sustainability of the JoL tool in Government financial and programmatic implementation

KII with central and district level officers gave mixed views as to whether the Government can sustain the JoL tool both financially and programmatically. At the central level, the view was that the JoL approach is cost effective, financially viable and sustainable. The general perception was that it does not require more resources to mobilise communities and that the structures which have been put in place through JoL can sustain interventions. It was, however, reiterated that continuous commitment of Government resources for follow up monitoring and ongoing mentoring would be critical in ensuring the sustainability of operations. At the district level, it was observed that the level of enthusiasm and support given by the communities is enough to sustain JoL operations. It was further suggested that for Government to sustain the JoL activities, there was a need for District Councils to include them in their work plans. On the other hand, it was felt that for the programme to be successful, numbers of human resources would need to be increased accompanied by capacity building.


37

b) Strength of systems put in place through national strategies to reach children through the JoL tool

From the viewpoint of programming, key informants at the central level were convinced that the systems that have been developed at national and district levels are strong enough to meet the goals and objectives of JoL and can ably sustain quality service delivery for children. One such system is the establishment of coordinating committees such as District Social Welfare TWG, CPCs and CBOs at district and community levels. These have helped to guide the implementation of JoL activities. The other opportunity is the availability of the human resources in the form of CCPWs at a community level. This, with the availability of structures at various levels, provides a firm basis for the sustainability of JoL. Further, key informants were of the view that the availability of the Child Protection Information Management System would enable programme implementers to track progress and guide the implementation of activities.

c) Lessons learnt on sustainability of JoL tool

The following were the lessons learnt related to sustainability:

• Small early gains of JoL create ownership of the programme and maintain the communities’ commitment to implementing activities of the programme;

• Creation of institutional frameworks such as coordinating committees at community levels including CPCs, offer continued implementation of activities;

• Change in community attitude towards addressing children’s challenges is an advantage for sustainability which should be supported with sufficient training of caregivers in CBCCs and CCs;

• Creation of caregiver and youth groups provide huge potential for building social networks which can sustain the JoL initiative;

• Communities’ high demand for support in the form of supervision in implementing JoL from the district offices shows the willingness to sustain the JoL initiative; and

• Spirit of volunteerism especially on the part of facilitators (CCPWs) who are not on Government payroll to continue with service provision on child protection, present an opportunity for sustainability.

d) Challenges

• There were few CCPWs compared to the workload that they handle.• Most extension workers at the community level such as Community

Development Assistants (CDA), Health Surveillance Assistants, Agriculture Extension Workers and NGO Extension Workers were not adequately involved in JoL activities, and this had a negative impact on sustainability.

• Temporary structures built to provide services to children especially CBCCs posed a safety risks to young children and discouraged others from attending.

© UNICEF/Noorani


38

e) Partners for Sustaining JoL Results

Participants to FGD and KII identified several critical partners that need to be part of JoL to ensure its sustainability. All extension workers operating at the community level were identified as critical in supporting JoL initiatives. The community further suggested that participation of both local and international NGOs. Organisations such as World Vision International, Plan International, Action Aid, Save the Children International, World Relief, and Norwegian Church Aid would be of benefit to the sustainability of JoL initiatives. Other organisations which were proposed to be critical by FGD participants in Blantyre, Mzimba, Zomba, Mangochi and Lilongwe, are the child protection arms of the Church of Central Africa Presbyterian Synods, Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace of the Catholic Church and Muslim Jamaat.

4.6 Scalability

Both the scalability and indeed the reliability to sustain JoL lied with the enthusiasm and support as demonstrated by the communities. Participants to FGD in all the districts indicated that the JoL tool should be scaled up. This was because it was felt that the outcomes of the initiative have created positive results in the community in the manner people view and understand issues of children. By extension, communities felt that they had been capacitated and empowered adequately to assist the most vulnerable children within their communities without waiting for external support.

4.7 Coherence

a) JoL coherence with policies and programmes for child protection

The coherence of initiatives to mitigate the effects of violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect have a firm grounding in Government instruments in the form of policies, laws, rules and regulations on children. JoL advocates for the rights of children that are outlined in the CCPJA, CRC and NPA for Vulnerable Children. These instruments have incorporated child protection interventions and ensured coherence in their application. As set out in the NPA (2015-19), the OVC and the ECD policies provide adequate guidelines on creating a conducive environment for the proper administration of child protection interventions. At the same time, the CCPJA sets out a strong normative framework for the coordination of child-related issues thereby ensuring coherence. For instance, during FGD, one member stated that case management and referral procedures at community and district levels should be attributed to the coherence created by JoL awareness campaigns and are, therefore, a manifestation of the influence JoL workshops have created in the child protection sector.


39

b) Effect of JoL tool on establishing a coherent Child Protection programme

The real outcome of the JoL tool in establishing a coherent programme for child protection is its ability to link up various players in child protection through networks at community and national levels. The synergy drawn from the community and NGOs is one such positive outcome which has enabled children to benefit from services offered from diverse sources. A key informant from a police formation in Lilongwe attested to the usefulness of the networks that have been created as a result of the coherent and coordinated system due to JoL as stated below.

“It is now very easy to handle cases involving children at community and district levels. Because all sectors have been sensitised on their respective roles on child protection…that at the Police VSU, different stakeholders take their responsibilities to ensure that children are assisted according to laid down procedures under the mandate of the stakeholder.”

- Key informant in Lilongwe

4.8 Coordination

a) Coordination of partners involved in the JoL activities

Coordination of JoL initiatives at national, district and community levels remain elusive. At the central level, coordination of child protection activities was observed to be fragmented within departments of the same ministry which was negatively impacting on service delivery. Further, it was noted that there are some NGOs that are implementing JoL activities. Among them, Norwegian Church Aid, Livingstonia Synod AIDS Programme, Network of Organisations for Orphaned and Vulnerable Children, Catholic Development Commission in Malawi and SOS Children’s Villages. However, not much was being done at central level to bring together such partners.

KII revealed that coordination between the DSWO and other partners both Government and NGOs are generally, more likely to be weak. It was noted that in JoL districts, the Social Welfare Department was working in close collaboration with other departments like Agriculture, Health, Education, Community Development and Police. This was reflected in the presence of Health Surveillance Assistants, CDA, Teachers, Agriculture Extension Development Officers and Police Officers in JoL activities. However, it was noted that more needs to be done for Social Welfare to involve NGOs in JoL activities at district level.


40© UNICEF


41

Lessons Learnt and Challenges

5The Review of JoL has uncovered some good lessons for programming. The JoL review unveiled several challenges that needs further consideration for better outcomes for children. These challenges transcend all levels of the use of the JoL tool starting from the central to the district and community levels. Adjacent is a snapshot of some of the key lessons learnt and challenges identified in the course of the review.


42

5.1 Lessons Learnt

i. The JoL tool has demonstrated and proven to be very strong in creating awareness in the community on matters that affect children’s lives. The strength of this tool derives from its approach of using real-life experiences and participatory tools within the community which helps to bridge the gap between those that are literate and those that are less literate or illiterate. This ensures the child protection support for the benefit of all children.

ii. The tool has demonstrated to be a good change agent for community development because it can stimulate action for communities to take up responsibility for child protection. This has been demonstrated through the self-help spirit to establish community structures such as the CBCCs, CCs and formation of community support groups.

iii. The use of the tool enables communities to quickly identify available services where they can refer and link children in urgent need of assistance and protection.

iv. The JoL tool empowers communities to participate in decision-making processes on matters that are crucial for community coherence.

v. The tool can be used for intergenerational transfer of life skills and knowledge from adults to children because the JoL meeting engages both children and adults. This is an empowering skills transfer which can build the character of children to be able to take responsibility for their well-being and that of others in vulnerable situations.

vi. The JoL tool has demonstrated that it enhances coordination at community level. JoL initiatives create proper linkages for service delivery for children. This was manifested in the linkages at the district level where issues of children are woven into and amongst several stakeholders programmes. Hence the success of the case referrals and the case management system.

vii. The use of the JoL tool has created community consciousness on the rights-based approach to addressing issues of children. In all communities, there were demonstrable deliberate efforts to target the most vulnerable children (i.e. orphans, children with disabilities and children living with elderly caregivers).


43

5.2 Challenges

a) Central level

i. The JoL tool was being used without any baseline study which could have set benchmarks for monitoring and evaluation of the efficacy of the tool.

ii. The review established that supervision from the central level to the districts is severely lacking. This has compromised the quality of service delivery as there are no checks and balances.

iii. There was general lack of review meetings for JoL which resulted in lack of uniformity in the implementation of the approach.

iv. Synergy with other stakeholders like Agriculture, Health and Education was found to be lacking as there was no tangible evidence on mainstreaming of JoL in other sectoral activities.

b) District and community levels

i. The human resource capacity concerning numbers and technical competence leaves a lot to be desired. It was observed that there were fewer community facilitators which resulted in JoL being conducted in selected communities thereby defeating equity principles.

ii. Lack of reasonable means of transportation also contributed to poor supervision of JoL.

iii. Knowledge impartation was hampered by the provision of food which people are not accustomed to, instead of monetary incentives.

iv. The non-inclusion of some CCPWs on Government pay-roll is a disincentive as those that are not on the payroll dedicate their time to personal survival at the expense of providing services to children.


44© UNICEF/Pirozzi


45

As a community awareness and mobilisation tool, JoL has very high viability for scale up. This assertion is based on the degree of enthusiasm communities have demonstrated in supporting its introduction and future participation in workshops. The impact of the JoL tool in the community has manifested multiplier positive effects on the number of cases of abuse and violations reported and how such cases have been resolved through available protection mechanisms. This fact alone is a measure of the level of knowledge communities have acquired as a result of the JoL workshops. While conditions for scale-up remain favourable, there will still need to ensure that the initiatives currently being undertaken by the communities are supported through the provision of resources and supervision.

Conclusion and Recommendations

6


46

Conclusion

Notable amongst the strengths that can be harnessed to ensure that the JoL tool is adequately sustained is to streamline structures at the community level to reduce collision and confusion that has resulted from poor coordination. For sustained intervention to succeed, there is also a need for some degree of support and supervision to communities implementing JoL activities, this will entrench virtues that will support child protection systems in the long run. On this basis, it is recommended that supervision should be at the centre of all JoL activity implementation.

Finally, it is a well-known fact that all community awareness initiatives bringalong expectations. In instances where communities have developed work plans,deliberate efforts should be made to follow up on actions that need to be done.Further, appropriate backstopping services should be made readily available forcommunities to fall back on. Such services could include, but not limited to,training of caregivers, stocking structures with materials that are culturally andlocally suited to the community and conducting ongoing refresher training tosustain the zeal of communities.

Recommendations

Several recommendations have been made based on the review of the JoL tool. These recommendations are drawn from lessons learnt and the identified challenges. If these recommendations are adequately addressed, they willresult in improved nationwide community mobilisation and awareness interventions that will mitigate the effects of child violence, abuse, exploitation, neglect and the impacts of HIV and AIDS. The following substantive recommendations have been expounded from the themes mentioned above.

a) Coordination

Since children issues cut across several sectors both at central, district and community levels, it is essential to strengthen coordination mechanisms at all these levels to ensure that children benefit from a cross-section of services that are available to them at each level. There is the need for a coordinated approach to the training of communities by using multi-sectoral service providers. This approach would avail to the community required information without being repetitive if each sector were to carry out their training. Secondly, such a coordinated approach would reduce duplication of efforts and avoid unnecessary wastage of resources especially if such resources are targeting the same child.

b) Community entry plan

The JoL community entry approach is supposed to follow the community entry protocol which is through the chiefs. The chiefs are sensitized on the need for the JOL meeting after which they are requested to call for a meeting to be facilitated by trained community workers. In most cases, this protocol was not observed. JoL facilitators could bypass the chiefs. This practice might lead to eroded community cohesion in addressing child protection issues.


47

c) Capacity

The review discovered several capacity issues surrounding the implementation of JoL activities. In this context, capacity looked at several issues that range from the human resource, technical, and financial capability to carry out JoL activities to deliver the required results. The review established that the districts suffer from an acute shortage of staff to be able to provide the requisite services. Notwithstanding, even at community level, the numbers of CCPWs who are the primary facilitators of JoL workshops is by no means diminished.

Given the above observations, it is proposed that the MoGCDSW should increase the number of staff at District Assembly level enable assemblies to deliver on their mandates. It is suggested that all CCPWs be considered to be on the Government payroll. This initiative will motivate those not on payroll to deliver. On technical capacity, in particular, for CCPWs, it is suggested that a rigorous training initiative is deliberately carried out to adequately ground all CCPWs in the requisite technical interpretation of PSS materials to avoid sending wrong information to communities.

d) Introduction of auxiliary support services

Before JoL is replicated or taken to scale, there is need to address the fundamental challenges identified by this review. It has been noted that communities have established structures but their efforts have not been adequately supported. A case in point is where CBCCs and CCs have not been resourced, neither have the caregivers been trained. In this instance, there is need to strengthen the District CPCs so that they are part of the facilitation team at the community level. Secondly, JoL activities should continue to be mainstreamed in the district implementation plans. This will ensure that activities are covered under the Local Development Fund (LDF) system. By implication, structures that communities establish can benefit from council funding thereby ensuring sustainability.

Thirdly, a cadre of community facilitators or network of Para-Trainers should be identified and oriented at the community level. These should backstop CCPWs, especially in the hard to reach areas to support communities identify children’s needs and refer them to where services may be provided. The Para-Trainers could be identified extension workers from NGOs and other Government departments including some leaders of CBOs and Faith Based Organisation (FBOs). Further, to ensure that materials are closer to the community, it is recommended that all training materials be placed in vantage centres like CBOs, religious centres, CBCCs, CCs and primary schools for easy reach and reference purposes.

e) Translation of JoL manual

The other gap that this review unearthed is a failure to effectively deliver the JoL content by facilitators because the tool is in English. This was tricky and difficult on the part of the facilitators as they were expected to conduct JoL community awareness workshops in vernacular especially Chichewa and Tumbuka. Therefore, there is need to consider translating the JoL tool in local languages to help community facilitators.


48

f) Regular review meetings

To effectively scale up and replicate the lessons learnt from JoL implementation, there is need to institutionalise review meetings at district and national levels. These will provide an excellent platform and forum for sharing of best practices since JoL is implemented in various social and cultural environments.

g) Refresher training

Drawing from lessons in the implementation of the JoL tool, it is imperative that refresher training for community-level facilitators be regularly conducted to build their capacity. Such training will help to address some of the gaps that have been identified concerning facilitation in the course of JoL implementation.


50

Annex I References

1. Erlendsson, J., 2002, Value For Money Studies in Higher Education.

2. Government of Malawi, National Statistical Office, Population and Housing Census, Population Projections in Malawi, 2008.

3. Government of Malawi / UNICEF: Report on the Situational Analysis of Vulnerable children in Malawi, 2014.

4. Government of Malawi: Child Protection Information Management System, 2014.

5. Government of Malawi: National Plan of Action for Vulnerable Children (2015-19).

6. Government of Malawi: The Journey of Life: Community Awareness and Mobilisation Workshop, 2012.

7. Hyland N: Preparing Early Childhood Teachers to Enact Social Justice Pedagogies, 2010.

8. Idele, P.A. et al, Redefining ‘Vulnerable Child’ in the context of HIV and AIDS, 2012.

9. Jewkes Rachel: Community Mobilisation in the 21st Century: Updating the Theory of Social Change, 2006.

10. REPPSI: Annual Report: Working together to ensure love, care and protection for all children, 2011.

11. REPPSI STRATEGY 2011-15: www.reppsi.org.

12. UNICEF Malawi/Government of Malawi: Child Protection Strategy (2012-2018).

13. UNICEF Malawi: Medium Term Strategic Plan, 2006-2013.

14. UNICEF Malawi: Thematic Report: Child Protection from Violence, Exploitation and Abuse, 2013.


51

Annex IIQuestionnaires and Interview GuidesChild Questionnaire

Section A: Child identification

A1: District

A2: TA

A3: GVH

A4: Location Rual Urban Peri-urban

A5: Sex Male Female

A6: Age of Child

Section B: Child questionnaire (13 years and above)(Interview the child in person)

No. Questions Coding Categories

B1 Are you in school?Yes

1

If no, skip to B3No

2

B2 What class?Junior primary (Std 1-5)

1

Skip to B5

Senior primary (Std 6-8)2

Secondary3

Tertiary4

Other (Specify):5

B3 Last class attended?Junior primary (Std 1-5)

1

Senior primary (Std 6-8)2

Secondary3

Tertiary4

Other (specify):5


52


B4 Why are you not in school?School very far

1

Lack of school necessities2

School environment poor3

Looking after children/animals4

Not interested5

Other (Specify):6

B5 Are your parents alive?Yes

1

If yes, skip to B7No

2

B6 Who passed away?Mother

1

Father2

Both parents3

B7 Who is now caring for you?Mother

1

Father2

Both parents3

Uncle/Aunt4

Grand parents5

Brother/Sister/Nephew/Niece6

Foster parent7

Sibling8

Other (Specify):9

B8 Have you ever attended a JoL workshop?Yes

1

No2

B9 Do you understand your rights?Yes

1

If no, skip to B11No

2


53


B10 Mention the rights you understand. (You may circle more than one response.) Children’s needs

1

Right to protection against violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect

2

The need to relate to peers3

Right to participate in community activities4

Other (Specify):5

B11 In the past 12 months, have you experienced any form of violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect?

Yes1


2

B12 In what form? (You may circle more than one response.) Physical assault

1

Sexual abuse1

Verbal abuse2

Emotional abuse3

Physical neglect4

Subjected to hazardous work5

Being forced to marry early6

Other (Specify):7

B13 Did you report the incidence(s)?Yes

1


2

B14 Whom did you report to? (You may circle more than one response.) Caregiver

1

Traditional leader2

Religious leader3

Child Protection Worker4

Police5

A Peer6

Other (Specify):7


54


B15 Were you assisted?Yes

1


2

B16 State type of assistance. (You may circle more than one response). Counseled

1

Referral 2

Received material support3

Other (Specify):4

B17 Are you aware of Children’s Corners in the community Yes

1


2

B18 Do you attend Children’s Corners?Yes

1

No2

B19: Child Psychosocial Well-being

Question Yes No

Are you safe in the hands of your caregivers? 1 2

Are you well cared for by your caregivers and support you with your necessities? 1 2

Do you play very well with other children? 1 2

Do you have good relationship with your peers? 1 2

Are you confident and have hope for the future? 1 2

Do you set goals and put ideas into action? 1 2

Do you put every effort in your work at home? 1 2

Do you put every effort in your work both at school? 1 2

Do you adopt the values, norms and traditions of your community? 1 2

Do you take part in community activities? 1 2

Do you get help or advice from others in the community? 1 2

Are you discriminated against by any section of the community? 1 2

Do you continue with your daily routines despite facing challenges? 1 2


55

Caregiver Questionnaire

Section C: Caregiver identification

C1: Name of Caregiver

C2: Sex Male Female

C3: Marital Status Married WidowedDivorced/seperated

Not married

C4: Relationship to Child Mother Father

Uncle/aunt Grandparents

Step-father/mother Foster parent

Sibling Other (specify):

N/A

Section D: Caregiver questionnaire(Interview the caregiver in person)


D1 Have you ever attended a JoL workshop?

Yes1

No2

D2 Do you understand children’s rights?

Yes1

If no, skip to D4No

2

D3 Mention the rights you understand. (You may circle more than one response.)

Childrens’ needs1

Right to protection against violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect

2

The need to relate to peers3

Right to participate in community activities

4

Other (Specify):5


56


D4 In the past 12 months, have there been any form of violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect against children under your care? Yes

1

If no, skip to D10No

2

D5 In what form? (You may circle more than one response.)

Physical assault1

Sexual abuse2

Verbal abuse3

Emotional abuse4

Physical neglect5

Subjected to hazardous work6

Forced early marriages7

Other (Specify):8

D6 Did you report the incidence(s)?

Yes1


2


57


D7 Whom did you report to? (You may circle more than one response.)

Traditional leader1

Religious leader2

Child Protection Worker3

Police4

Family member/friend5

Other (Specify):6

D8 Were you assisted?

Yes1


2

D9 State type of assistance. (You may circle more than one response.)

Counseled1

Referral2

Received material support3

Other (Specify):4

D10 Are you aware of the existence of supportive structures for children in the community?

Yes1

No2


58


D11 Mention the programmes. (You may circle more than one response.) Community Based Childcare

Centres1

Children’ Corners2

Mother groups3

Community support groups4

Parenting programme5

Other (Specify):6

D12 In your view, do you think these community structures adequately address the needs of children in the community? Yes

1

No2

D13 If no, why? (You may circle more than one response.)

Not well appreciated1

Lack of resources2

Lack of support from Government

3

Cultural barriers4

Other (Specify):5

Name of Interviewer:

Name of Supervisor:

Date:


59

Checklist for Focus Group Discussions (JoL Districts)

1. Have you ever attended a JoL workshop?

2. Are you able to understand children’s rights? Mention them.

3. What components of the JoL manual were well delivered? Was it user-friendly?

4. After the workshop, you developed Community Action Plans, were these implemented fully? If no, what were the problems encountered?

5. Was the workshop gender responsive? Were boys and girls included in the training and formulation of community plans? Are women actively taking part in implementing JoL Action Plan?

6. How do you rate the incidences of violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect of children in the community before and after the workshops?

7. In your view, what have been the benefits of JoL in the community?

8. Are there any support structures for children in the communities? If yes, mention them? If no, why?

9. Are there any bye-laws concerning children in the community? If yes, in what areas?

10. How are the bye-laws enforced? If there are no bye-laws, what mechanisms are there to protect children?

11. What services are available to vulnerable children such as orphans, children with disabilities and children infected with HIV and AIDS?

12. Is JoL the best approach to addressing child protection challenges? If yes, would you recommend this approach to other communities? If no, state the reasons.

13. In general, what are the positive and negative outcomes of the JoL approach on children?

14. Will the community be able to continue with JoL strategy with community resources and minimum contribution from Government and partners?


60

Checklist for Focus Group Discussions (Non-JoL Districts)

1. What are the common forms of violence, abuse, negligence and exploitation children face in this community?

2. What do you think are the causes of such incidences?

3. Do you know what Children`s Rights are? Mention them.

4. What structures do you have in this community that address issues of violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect of children?

5. Does your community have by-laws for children? Mention some.

6. How are children affected by violence and abuse assisted in your community?

7. Between girls and boys, who do you think is most affected by violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect?

8. Do you have specific life skills training for children affected by abuse, violence, exploitation and neglect violence?

9. In your view is violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect of children increasing or decreasing?

10. Where do you report cases of violence?


61

Semi-structured Questionnaire for Key Informant Interviews (JoL districts)

1. Have you ever attended a JoL workshop?

2. In your view, do you think the JoL manual being used in the community mobilisation and awareness workshops are appropriate and relevant for addressing child protection challenges? Give reasons for your response.

3. In your view, what changes would you want to see (if any) in the way the JoL workshop is done regarding content, methodology and material?

4. Which components of JoL can be easily scaled up?

5. Can JoL be sustained at the community level with minimum or no support from Government and partners? If yes, how would that be done?

6. Has the JoL approach created the required knowledge and skills amongst the communities to improve child protection services?

7. Has JoL assisted the community in identifying cases for referral and case management? If yes, estimate the number of cases in the past 12 months.

8. Has the district got the right capacity to support the JoL initiative?

9. Is there adequate coordination amongst partners in JoL? If not, what would you propose to improve the situation?

10. In your view, has JoL achieved its intended objectives, i.e. psychosocial support, community parenting skills and identification of children for case management? If not what is the problem?

11. Since the JoL workshop, has the number of reported cases of child violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect changed? Support your response.

12. In general, what would you consider to be the outcomes that JoL has created for children at the community level? Moreover, what would you consider to be the negative outcomes?

13. Has JoL approach created complementary or contradictory coherence between policies and programmes for improving child protection outcomes among stakeholders? Give reasons for your response.


62

Semi-structured Questionnaire for Key Informant Interviews (Non-JoL districts)

1. What do you think are the common forms of child abuse, violence, exploitation and neglect in this community?

2. In your view do these forms of violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect affect both boys and girls equally? Explain.

3. How does the community assist victims of child abuse, violence, exploitation neglect?

4. Are you and the community aware of some child protection measures by the Government including policies and laws on children? Explain.

5. Has Government helped the community in any way to support children affected by violence, exploitation and neglect?

6. Do organisations in this community coordinate their activities when it comes to issues of children? Explain.

7. In your view, do you think incidences of violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect in this community are reducing or increasing? Explain.

8. In your view, do you think the community can assist affected children without support Government?

9. What do you think should be done to improve the protection of children from various forms of abuse, violence, exploitation and neglect?


63

Annex III Key Informant Interview List at National and District Levels

District Name of Interviewee Designation

Lilongwe Headquarters Yotamu Chiwanda Acting Director of Social welfare

Enock Bonongwe Principal Social Welfare Officer/National Coordinator for Child Protection Case Management

Dina Gumulira Principal Social Welfare Officer/JoL Coordinator

Harry Satumba Principal Child Protection Officer

Lilongwe Jean Nthengwe DSWO

William Chirambo Child Protection Officer, Lilongwe VSU

Konzi Phiri Desk Officer Primary Education

Fred Vitsitsi Child Protection and Participation Coordinator, Plan International

Blantyre Catherine Ngomba Assistant Social Welfare Officer

Horace Chabuka Superintendent, Coordinator Community Policing, Blantyre Police Station

Emmanuel Kalungu Sergeant, Blantyre Police Station

Mangochi Macleod Mphande District Social Welfare Officer

Milton Moyo Station Community Policing Coordinator

Mzimba Joyce Mvula District Social Welfare Officer

Sara Manda Assistant Social Welfare Officer/Journey of Life Case Management officer

Hardy Chatsika District Project Coordinator/Community VSU, Save the Children project

Maxwell Chimphonda Community Policing Coordinator

Cliff Dzoole Youth and Outreach Child Protection Officer

Eddie Jere Primary Education Advisor

Zomba Joseph Kalelo DSWO

Ellen Kanyenda VSU Officer

Oster Chagamba Desk Officer Primary Education

Chiradzulu Mike Maulidi DSWO

Witson Nyalugwe Sub-Inspector, Research and Planning

Dowa John Washali DSWO

Brian Mzembe Sergeant, Coordinator and Child Protection Officer

Timothy Makalichi Data Officer, Planning

Joseph Chafukira Desk Officer Primary Education

Neno Peter Magomero DSWO

Alfred Mkwapatira Banda Primary Education Advisor

Zione Nyirenda Assistant Superintendent, Child Protection

Phalombe Cedric Saukila Assistant Social Welfare Officer

Rose Chiwaya Inspector, Coordinator of VSU

Rumphi Joshua Luhana DSWO

Charles James Mpezeni Senior Superintendent, Station Officer

Alison Mapanda Inspector, Coordinator of Community Policing

Webster Mkandawire Primary Education Advisor


64

Annex IVTerms of Reference

The objective of this consultancy is to review the Journey of Life community awareness and mobilisation approach to achieving the child protection results as outlined in the 2012-2018 (subsequently extended to 2018) UNICEF and Government of Malawi Child Protection Strategy as well as other national and Southern African Development Community (SADC) regional priorities.

Key results that the JoL is expected to have impacted by December 2016 are:

• 830,000 children accessing Community-Based Childcare Centres

• 10 percent reduction in VAC• 20 percent reduction in child labour (children aged

5-14)• 2,500 communities adopting protective child

protection practices• 40,000 children on ARVs with a case plan linking up

the health and welfare sector response• 375,000 vulnerable children aged 6-18 utilising CCs

Further, the review seeks to answer the following questions under the significant areas of an evaluation exercise which include relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, sustainability, scalability/reliability, coherence and coordination:

1. Relevance

• Was the design of the JoL manual the most appropriate and relevant approach in addressing child protection challenges?

• How has JoL approach adapted over time to reflect changes in global, regional and national child protection programming practices?

• How has JoL approach created change in comprehensive child protection services during the period of its operation?

• Has JoL approach addressed the problems experienced in the programming of child protection interventions and strengthening of partnerships?


65

2. Effectiveness

• Have the goals and purposes of JoL been achieved as initially envisaged and what gaps (if any) remain?

• How integrated was the JoL approach with other related national strategies such as NPA for vulnerable children, national guidelines of psychosocial support and HIV and AIDS response?

• How inclusive and gender-responsive was the JoL approach?• Did JoL approach address equity issues for children?• How user-friendly is the JoL approach and how effectively did it support

programming of community development and child protection services at grassroots levels of the response?

3. Efficiency

• What components in the JoL manual have been achieved or delivered with the best value for money and in what specific ways?

• What have been the costs per child beneficiary incurred through JoL funding?• Could the same results be achieved at a lower cost or could more or better

results be achieved with the same cost by using different instruments or approaches?

4. Impact

• What are the intended and unintended positive and negative outcomes of the JoL approach on children?

• Has the JoL strengthened the child protection programming in the country?• What has been the impact of JoL on community development approaches

nationally?

In general, the final report should clearly document has brought changes in the lives of children (positive, negative, intended or unintended); how it has influenced community development; and the degree it has been successful in improving the lives of children.

5. Sustainability

• Does the JoL strategy have the capacity to sustain its operations regarding financial and programmatic implementation by the Government?

• How reliable and sustainable are the systems put in place through the national strategies to continue reaching the children through delivering quality services to targeted communities using JoL approach?

• What lessons related to sustainability can we draw from the execution of JoL approach?

• Who are the critical partners that the Government needs to ensure sustainability of services delivery to children using JoL approach?


66

6. Scalability/Reliability

• What components of the JoL show greater likelihood for scalability and why?• How likely is the JoL or its components to be scaled up or replicated by

other agencies (nationally, regionally and globally) or by relevant ministries in Government?

7. Coherence

• How has the JoL approach influenced coherence between policies and programmes for child protection for critical stakeholders?

• What is the effect of the JoL approach on establishing a coherent programme for child protection?

8. Coordination

• Have the partners involved in the JoL been able to coordinate their activities successfully?

• Have these partners been able to coordinate their activities with other related sectoral interventions successfully?


67

Published by The Ministry of Gender, Children, Disability and Social WelfareGemini House, City CentrePrivate Bag 330Lilongwe 3.Tel: +265 (0)1 770 411Fax: +265 (0)1 770 826Email: [email protected]

© The Government of Malawi August 2018

The Governmentof MalawiThe Ministry of Gender, Children, Disability and Social Welfare

Journey of Life - UNICEF

Documents

Transcript of Journey of Life - UNICEF