January 2004. 2 OUTREACH MOBILE TEAMS FOR CHILD PROTECTION PROJECT CONTENT I Project overview...

Evaluation of the ProjectEvaluation of the Project::

OUTREACH MOBILE TEAMS FOR CHILD OUTREACH MOBILE TEAMS FOR CHILD PROTECTIONPROTECTION

JanuaryJanuary, 200, 20044..

January 2004. 2

OUTREACH MOBILE TEAMS FOR CHILD PROTECTION PROJECT

CONTENT

I Project overview

1. History of the project2. Project description3. Project team4. Description of cases treated by MT

II Evaluation of the project

• Evaluation based on judgment of MTs• Evaluation based on impressions of the caretakers of children who were involved in the

project

III Conclusion

IV Annex: Results review of Evaluation based on impressions of the caretakers of children

January 2004. 3

I PROJECT OVERVIEW

1. History of the Project A decade of conflict, isolation and sanctions has resulted in widespread poverty, inadequate social services and infrastructure, and outdated equipment in industry and agriculture. In particular, Centers for Social Work (CSWs) in charge of the delivery of social services countrywide suffer from lack of funding, material and human resources to sufficiently meet the growing needs of the socially and economically vulnerable.

The lasting crisis has had a detrimental impact on the functioning of the family with particularly devastating impact on children as the most vulnerable. The CSWs currently cover about 150,000 children from families with disrupted relations, as well as some 5,000 children who are either permanently or temporarily deprived of parental care and placed in families or institutions. About 10,000 families with juvenile delinquents are under acute treatment. (Date from UNICEF “School for Parents” project proposal written in September 2000.)

UNICEF funded the project, and its direct implementing partner JEN, a Japanese NGO, was an umbrella to three local NGOs (Amity, Horizons and Sunce) which currently covers twelve selected areas in Serbia. Amity covers Belgrade area in 6 municipalities (Obrenovac, Pozarevac, Mladenovac, Valjevo, Smederevo, Bor), Sunce covers central Serbia in 2 municipalities (Jagodina, Nis) and Horizons covers southern Serbia in 4 municipalities (Bujanovac, Presevo, Lebane, Leskovac).

The project began as a pilot phase in July 2001, in 4 areas of Serbia, Obrenovac, Pozarevac, Bujanovac, and Presevo. It was one of the first projects that the governmental sector (CSW) and the non-governmental sectors (mobile teams of the local NGOs) worked together in collaboration to detect and resolve durable solutions for all the children in need of protection. It expanded to 8 more areas from May 2002, making the implementation to the 12 municipalities stated above.

January 2004. 4

2. Project Description

(a) Overview

The vision for this project, which is also the aim for the future, was “to provide the infrastructure for the governmental and non-governmental sectors to work together in the delivery of social services for child protection.”

In order to achieve this future vision, there were two goals that were set to achieve during the project:

• To involve the municipal government directly through the implementation of the project to set the foundations for a sustainable process,

• Awareness raising of children’s rights issues within the community through transparency within the Centers for Social Works and information campaigns.

In the initial stage, the concrete actions that the child protection Mobile Teams (MTs) took included:

• identification of the children, • organization of case management conferences by CSW and the MTs and relevant sectors to

find a solution best for the child, and • follow-up on all the individual cases.

However, the more the MTs became involved working with the CSWs, their roles and responsibilities have expanded.

The project activities also contained components of capacity building of the CSW through training and material support, such as office equipment, and the installment of the database to input the data for all the children protected.

Finally, this project intended to accord with the national reform strategy of the Ministry of Social Welfare and with other International organizations’ (NGOs) projects underway.

January 2004. 5

2. Project Description

(b) Training and Special Education

There were two phases for this project, the pilot phase and after. In the beginning of each phase, the project team (representatives from the CSW and the MT with the coordinators of the local NGOs) went under different training and education from the experts in the field for children issues. UNICEF and JEN organized these training sessions. The trainings are listed below:

• School for Parents• Systemic Family Approach• Child Abuse and Neglect• Public Relations – Fundamental Rules• Participative Approach Techniques• Juvenile Justice and Delinquency• System of Social Protection and Family Regulations• Media Relations

Additional training to the MT members and the coordinators included:

• Relations between Needs, Protection, and Children well being: Children protection process (for Bujanovac and Presevo)

• The Convention on the Rights of the Child

Besides the specific training for child protection, all members of the project team (and some others who work in the CSW) received a certain hour of computer training. They had the basic knowledge of using the computer, MS Word and MS Excel. This training was necessary to input the data into the computerized database for all the children who have been identified and followed-up in the course of the activity. It was held also to build the capacity in the CSW for the people who work there.

January 2004. 6

3. Project team

UNICEF Svetozara Markovica 58, 11000 Beograd, 011/3602-100, e-mail: [email protected]

JEN Draze Pavlovica 1, 11000 Beograd, 011/ 2776-671, e-mail: [email protected]

JEN Sub Office Nis Dusanova 40, 18000 Nis, 018/547-734, e-mail: [email protected]

Three NGO take part in the project: Amity, Sunce and Horizonti.

The MTs consisted of 27 members in 12 municipalities. The mobile team members were psychologist, social workers, pedagogues, medical experts, or ethnic leaders.

January 2004. 7

3. Project team

AMITY Spanskih boraca 4, 11070 Novi Beograd, 011/131-261, e-mail: [email protected] Vesna Vicentijevic, Project Coordinator

MT PozarevacMilorad Jokic, psychologistSlobodan Jovanovic, psychologistMedzid Dzemaili, dervis

MT ObrenovacZivota Veljkovic, psychologistBranka Veselinovic, social workerMilena Nikolic, patronage nurse

MT MladenovacVera Knezevic, social workerVera Stevanovic, psychologist

MT SmederevoDejan Zivanovic, neuro-psychiatristVesna Emersic, social worker

MT ValjevoDragica Andjelkovic, neuro-psychiatristZivana Pantic, psychologist

MT BorMilojka Milivojevic, social workerSladjana Stanojevic, psychologist

January 2004. 8

3. Project team

HORIZONTITakovska 16, 32000 Cacak, 032/222-455, e-mail: [email protected] Vesna Kovacevic, Project Coordinator

MT BujanovacMilka Milanovic, psychologistDarinka Spiric, psychologistJakupi Seljami, pedagogue

MT PresevoGafur Hiseni, pedagogueNedzmedin Veliu, pedagogueMomcilo Stepanovic, social worker

MT LeskovacSnezana Stojanovic, psychologistVesna Apostolovic, social worker

MT LebaneGoran Stamenkovic, paediatricianBudimir Bogdanovic, pedagogue

SUNCELuja Pastera 17, 34000 Kragujevac, 034/362-700, e-mail: [email protected] Marija Stojadinovic, Project Coordinator

MT JagodinaSlavica Jakovljevic, psychologistValentina Kocic, pedagogue

MT NisLjiljana Stoiljkovic, social workerSladjana Velickovic, psychologist

January 2004. 9

4. Description of cases

NGO Municipality 2001 2002 2003 TOTAL

AmitY

Obrenovac 105 195 147 447Pozarevac 85 81 59 225Mladenovac 128 230 358Smederevo 145 181 326

Valjevo 72 150 222Bor 164 127 291

AmitY

Horizon

tiPresevo 72 33 33 138

Bujanovac 138 118 86 342Leskovac 98 111 209Lebane 75 123 198Horiz

onti

Sunce Nis 67 102 169Jagodina 91 154 245

400 1267 1503 3170Sunce

Total

During 3 years period 3170 cases have been involved in the project. 1516 children were paid more than one visit. Total number of visits to children by MTs is 8467.

January 2004. 10


1574

787

476

145

188No parental care

Behavior disorders

Special needs

Disfunctional family

Abused and neglected children

Child problems

New identified

cases67%

Previosly identified

cases33%

Identification of cases

Base:3170

High35%

Low20%

Medium45%

Breackdown by risk factors

Base:3170

Cases were sorted into 5 categories, according to the problems children were facing:

• Children without parental care • Children with behavior

disorders• Children with special needs • Children from dysfunctional

families • Abused and neglected children

67% of all cases were identified for the first time by MTs members. 33% of cases had already been identified by other institutions involved in helping children (Center for social work).

Risk factors were estimated by members of MTs during the first visits to children. According to their judgments, 20% of children fell within the category of low risk, 45% within the category of medium risk and 35% within the category of high risk.

January 2004. 11


male54%

female46%

Gender of child

Base:3170

6-10 y.o.33%

16-19 y.o.10%

11-15 y.o.31%

<12 mounth7%

1-5 y.o.19%

Age of children

Base:3170

Urban52%

Rural48%

Area

Base:3170

Children involved in this project were of both genders, up to 19 years of age. There was almost the same number of children from urban and rural area.

January 2004. 12

II EVALUATION OF THE PROJECT

Evaluation of Outreach Mobile Teams For Child Protection Project consists of two parts and is realized through two different methods.

• Evaluation based on judgments of MTs• Evaluation based on impressions of the caretakers of children who were

involved in the project

1. Evaluation based on judgments of MTs

Goal of the first part of evaluation was quantitative measuring of effects of MTs’ work. Its realization was based on the data that members of MTs entered into the data base. After each visit to a child, members of MTs evaluated level of risk for that child. Level of risk was evaluated on a 3-degree scale (1-low, 2-medium and 3- high risk level).

Evaluation was conducted through observing if there came to a change of risk level that could be eventually ascribed to the work of MTs, during the whole period when a child was offered help.

2. Evaluation based on impressions of the caretakers of children who were involved in the project

This part of evaluation refers to impressions of children’s caretakers of the MTs’ work. For that purpose there was a questionnaire made, with the aim to describe the impressions about Mts’ work from the angle of families themselves.

January 2004. 13


Difference between starting and final level risk depending on the sort of a

problem

2,52,4

2,3

2,0

2,2

2,32,2

2,01,8

2,2

1

1,2

1,4

1,6

1,8

2

2,2

2,4

2,6

2,8

3

Childrenwithout

parental care

Children fromfamilies with

disturbedreltionships

Children withspecial needs

Abused andneglectedchildren

Children withbehavior

disorders andin clash with

the law

Starting level

Final level

There is a difference between levels of risk noticed during the starting and the final visit. The difference is statistically important on level 0.01. (Analyses were conducted on 1407 children who had at least one repeated visit).No matter the sort of the problem, there came to a significant change (on level 0.01) in risk level– with all 5 sorts of problems observed, risk level was significantly decreased.

HIGH RISK

LOW RISK

January 2004. 14


Difference between starting and final level risk depending on the action for help to children

A sample of 240 children was formed for this purpose and categorization of applied actions was conducted.

For examining of the efficiency of actions, a sample of children was formed out of the total number of children MTs worked with. First, children were divided according to the kind of a problem and the sample was formed including all 5 examined sorts of problems (40 children without parental care, 40 children from families with disturbed relations, 40 children with special needs, 80 abused and neglected children and 40 children with behavior disorders and in clash with the law).

Only the newly identified cases with more than one visit were taken into consideration, but also with less than 7 repeated visits. Since there could be more different actions applied on one child, in this way there was 730 actions categorized into 7 categories.

This result has to be taken with reserve for the following reasons:•The sample of children that was analyzed is small and it might be possible to get different results on

a bigger sample

•The examining situation wasn’t experimental, but real – not all the children passed through the same treatment. It is possible for some usually efficient actions to have been applied on children with more difficult problems, therefore the effects of those actions are opposed to the degree of difficulty of problems children were facing.

There was not one significant difference between starting and final level risk found, depending on a specially applied action. In other words, and in accordance with the previous results, there came to risk level decrease, but that effect could not be ascribed to any specific actions, but, as it seems, the work with children itself led to decreased risk.

January 2004. 15



How was the efficiency of separate actions measured?

Evaluation was conducted through observing if there came to a change of risk level that could be eventually ascribed to the work of MTs, during the whole period when a child was offered help.

However, 1, 2 or more different categories of actions could have been applied to children. Therefore, during measuring effects of each separate action, effects of other actions were held constant.

It was also possible to apply the same category of actions on a child during several visits (for example, during 3 visits to the same child, help with documentation was offered). Analyses were conducted just regarding whether there was a certain action applied to a child or not, and not how many times that action was applied.

In order to measure the change between starting and final level risk for some child, a new variable was created: Risk change = Final risk – Starting risk

Since both starting and final risk levels are measured on a 3-degree scale (Low, Medium and High), the new variable Risk change can be measured on a 5-degree scale (from –2 to +2, where –2 means worsened condition of a child compared to the beginning , and +2 means improving of condition compared to the starting point of examination).

January 2004. 16



The analyses show that no action applied had separate statistically significant influence (on level 0.05) on decrease of risk level with children. There is also no interaction between applied action and kind of the problem (in other words, there are no actions that give results applied on one kind of examined problems, and not on some other).

The only decrease of risk level after some action applied that is on the edge of being statistically significant (0.05) is Help in gathering documentation in case of Children from families with disturbed family relations, and also Rounds (Gathering Information).

Source

Type III Sum of Squares df

Mean Square F

Significant level

Action 1: Counseling 0.258 1 0.258 0.598 0.44

Action 2: Documentation 0.044 1 0.044 0.102 0.75

Action 3: Material help 0.36 1 0.36 0.834 0.36

Action 4: Rounds (gathering information) 1.598 1 1.598 3.705 0.06

Action 5: Involving other services 0.005 1 0.005 0.012 0.91

Action 6: Directing – intervening with other services 0.082 1 0.082 0.19 0.66

Action 7: CSR 0.059 1 0.059 0.136 0.71

Interaction Counseling and kinds of problems 0.543 4 0.136 0.314 0.87

Interaction Documentation and kinds of problems 4.133 4 1.033 2.394 0.05

Interaction Material help and kinds of problems 1.562 4 0.391 0.905 0.46

Interaction Rounds (gathering information) and kinds of problems 0.472 4 0.118 0.274 0.90

Interaction Involving other services and kinds of problems 1.052 4 0.263 0.609 0.66

Interaction Directing – intervening with other services and kinds of problems 0.2 4 0.05 0.116 0.98

Interaction CSR and kinds of problems 1.25 4 0.313 0.724 0.58

January 2004. 17

2. Evaluation based on impressions of caretakers of the children who were involved in this project

GOAL: Goal of the first part of evaluation was quantitative measuring of effects of MTs’ work on children and families involved in the project. For that purpose there was a questionnaire made, with the aim to describe the impressions about MTs’ work from the angle of families themselves.

RESEARCH TECHNIQUE: quantitative field research –direct interviews at respondents’ homes. Respondents were parents and other caretakers of children involved in this project. Interviews were conducted by pollsters from an independent research agency (SMMRI). Creating of the sample and data processing were also conducted by the same research agency (SMMRI).

SAMPLE: For the evaluation of the project, there was a sample of 120 families visited by MTs formed. All the families in the sample had to have (according to the record) at least one repeated visit by MTs. These 120 families covered 12 municipalities where the project was realized, and the kinds of problems were equally represented in the sample. The sample structure was established in the following way:

Chi

ldre

n w

ithou

t pa

rent

al c

are

Chi

ldre

n fr

om f

amili

es

with

dis

turb

ed

re

latio

ns

Chi

ldre

n w

ith s

peci

al

need

s

Abu

sed

and

negl

ecte

d hi

ldre

n

Chi

ldre

n w

ith b

ehav

ior

diso

rder

s an

d in

cla

sh

with

the

law

1 Pozarevac 2 1 2 4 1 102 Obrenovac 1 3 1 4 1 103 Mladenovac 2 2 2 3 1 104 Smederevo 1 2 1 5 1 105 Valjevo 0 3 1 3 3 106 Bor 1 2 2 3 2 107 Bujanovac 2 3 2 3 0 108 Presevo 1 0 8 1 0 109 Leskovac 1 2 1 5 1 1010 Lebane 1 2 3 4 0 1011 Nis 1 3 1 4 1 1012 Jagodina 1 2 1 4 2 10

14 25 25 43 13 120

City

Table Total

Sample structureKind of the problem

Tot

al

January 2004. 18


MAIN RESULTS OF THE SECOND PART OF EVALUATION

All the respondents heard of Outreach Mobile Teams For Child Protection Project. All the families were also really visited by MTs. Average number of visits to each family is 4,8 (only the families with repeated visits were included into the sample).

In the respondents opinion, the most often mentioned reason for visits of MTs is poverty of a family (36% of all answers). Also, opinions of caretakers about problems of their children is highly related to classification of problems given by MTs.

4/5 of respondents think their children needed help. This number is even bigger for children with behavior disorders (95%). Only 3% of respondents think they didn’t need help.

Examined families are very satisfied with the work of MTs (average grade 4.23 on a 5-degree scale from 1 – not satisfied at all, to 5 – completely satisfied).

4%

13%

15%

30%

52%

75%Counseling

Material help

Involving other services intosolving of problems

Directing to other services

Gathering documentation

Health care

Offered help from MTsMTs, in the respondents opinion, most often offered help of counseling (3/4 of all cases), material help (in ½ of the cases), help in involving other services in order to solve some problem (1/3 of cases). In 15% of cases, MTs directed them to other services, and in 13% helped in gathering documentation.

Base:120

January 2004. 19


More than 80% of the families involved think they benefited from the MTs’ visits. MTs provided both emotional and material help to families.

• The guardians spontaneously mentioned benefits from the following services of MTs:

Material help – help in clothes, toys, food, products for hygiene, medicationsHelp at school – help with learning, intensifying motivation for learning and better marks, providing school material, help with adjusting, help with choosing an occupationHelp in child’s treatment- help with acquiring medications, help with child careImprovement of relationships within the family - counseling, putting a caretaker in a treatment institution (in case of alcoholism, drug addiction), getting over conflictsPsychological help to children - counseling, helping parents with their approach to children, help with trauma experiences of children and families, helping children become independent, decreasing insecurity and aggression of children Help in gathering documentation – gathering documentation for custody, humanitarian help - MOP, children’s allowance, getting a passport, enrolling to schoolHelp with living conditions – material help, keeping clean, acquiring basic devices and furniture (stove, heater, wood, beds, sheets)Getting in contact with other institutions – CSW, Home for abandoned children, counseling offices, speech therapists

4%

3%

9%

52%

59%Yes, completely

Mostly yes

Neither yes nor no

Mostly not

Not at all

Do You think that You and Your family benefited from MTs' visits?

Base:120

January 2004. 20


The caretakers’ statements:

“They helped us put a parent alcoholic in an institution for treatment”. “They talk to us, give advice, treat the child, help us in everything.” “They helped me get custody of my nephew who was abandoned by his parents.” ”They solved the problem of custody, they comfort us, advise me how to raise my children”. “They gave me the sense of security, understanding. They help me solve my problems”. “They brought over people from Center for Social Work to help us.” “They help us when children are sick, when we have problems they tell us what to do and who to turn to”. “My child’s problems with adjusting at school have stopped and he has better marks now”.“They helped us get material help from the Center and get children’s papers out.”

• Only 8% think the work was in vain, but they usually ascribe it to family’s bad material situation, and not MTs. These families, in their own opinion, are in need of material, but also continuous counseling help.

The caretakers’ statements :

“We don’t live any better,we’re poor,we need someone to take care of us, we have neither work nor apartment.”, “Except for the advice that had really positive influence, they didn’t help us much.”, “They brought us only things, but we also need money.” “The team has fulfilled all its promises, but we expect further support”.

January 2004. 21


I 'm not sure6%

Yes93%

No1%

Would You, in future, turn to MT for help?

Base:120

I can't judge11%

I don'y notice any difference

14%

I think the condition has

improved75%

In what way has the work of MTs influenced Your child's condition?

Base:120

¾ of the caretakers think that their child’s condition has improved through the MTs visits. 14% don’t notice any difference, while 11% couldn’t judge.

3%

8%

11%

15%

33%

52%

69%Counseling

Material helpInvolving other services in

solving the problemsRefering to other services

Gathering documents Help with employment and

apartmentHealth care

For what kind of problems would You turn to MTs?

Base:120

Almost all the families (93%) would again turn to MTs for help. MTs would be expected to offer the same kind of help as before.

January 2004. 22


½ of the respondents heard of the Convention of The United Nations for the rights of a child. The most familiar rights of children are Right to education (56%), Right to health (45%) and Right to fun and games (39%).

1/3 of respondents think their rights are, at least partly, not respected. In case of threatened rights, they would first turn to Center for social work (57% of respondents) and non-governmental organizations, first of all MTs (40%). Police, courts and other institutions are ranked much lower.

70% of respondents involved in this project had heard for UNICEF, 38% for JEN organization, and 59% for local non-governmental organization that participated in this project (Amity, Horizont or Sunce).

¾ of families think that the main function of CSW is to provide material help for persons in need. ¾ of families examined had already turned to CSW, but only somewhat more than one half received help. Material help was asked for most often (51%), allowance for care and help (23%) or help in intervening between parents and children (21%).

Caretakers were not ready to talk about aggression directed to their children.15% of caretakers said that children had been punished by members of their family, that’s more often the case with abused and neglected children (25%).

2%

3%

5%

15%

17%

18%

52%

58%Center for social work

NGOs

Police

Domestic courts

I don't know

No one

Municipality and other institutions

School

Who would You turn to if Your and Your family's rights were threatened?

Base:120

January 2004. 23

III CONCLUSION

•Based on evaluation of MT members themselves, it can be concluded that there had come to improvement in the condition of children who were in contact with MTs.

•Families were very satisfied with the help of MTs that was offered. That help was both of emotional and material nature to children and families, as well as help in getting in contact with other institutions (CSW). They were also provided assistance in gathering documents.

•MTs discovered a large number of children who needed help, and who hadn’t been identified before (over 2000 cases).

•Families who were in touch with MTs were ready to turn for help, in the future, to CSW or NGOs (MTs).

Based on all the issues presented, the following may be concluded:

Date post:	27-Mar-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	benjamin-larsen
View:	226 times
Download:	1 times

January 2004. 2 OUTREACH MOBILE TEAMS FOR CHILD PROTECTION PROJECT CONTENT I Project overview...

Documents