|
Background and Trouble Shooters Guide
Despite the best intentions, many OVC interventions have been inefficient in achieving the desired outcomes, have run high costs, and proven unsustainable. It is too simple to say that certain intervention types are wrong, since many models fail in some places and succeed in others. Some pitfalls, however, seem predictable.
It is helpful to keep these pitfalls in mind as you design your OVC intervention, so that you can adjust your model to maximize impact and minimize the harmful side effects of your project on OVC, minimize cost per beneficiary, and promote sustainability.
Projects that serve to promote income-generating activities at the household level, for instance, will not help OVC, unless properly designed. Many interventions that are successful at the piloting stage may fall short of their desired impact when scaled up. This can be explained, in part, by inadequate investment in important activities such as communication, training, follow-up and facilitation which may have been key ingredients to the success of the pilot, but may be lead to unsustainable cost in a scaled-up version.
The two tables below list some common reasons why 1) OVC programs fail to produce the expected improvement in the life situation of the vulnerable children targeted and/or 2) have serious negative side effects for OVC.
Table 1: Poor outcome: |
C |
Rule of thumb: OVC generally do not form strong interest groups, and therefore compete poorly for benefits and resources. OVC are, thus, particularly vulnerable to project intermediaries with conflicting interests. Such potentially biased intermediaries can be the implementing NGOs or people the project entrusts to handle the interests of the OVC, like mothers, caretakers, teachers, local leaders etc. |
Problem |
Why |
Example |
What to do |
The project benefits primarily other groups rather than OVC. |
Local partners /intermediaries do not fully agree with the donor on issues and strategies. |
Many local partners will hesitate to question the donors analysis of what the problem is and how best to solve it, in spite of more detailed local knowledge. Donors often fail to be perceptive of such doubts and falsely assume a common understanding. |
Communication, and mutual accomodations required until a real common platform between donor and partners is reached. Repeated training or networking events to facilitate mutual learning among partners and intermediaries. |
Conflict of interest between OVC and intermediaries |
Women, who are often the main caretakers of OVC, will have to do the work done by OVC if they send them to school. |
Pick intermediaries who identify with the target groups, and who do not have strong competing interests. Identify possible conflicts of interest and take measures to address them (e.g., introduce time-saving technologies for women). |
Local implementing partners have primary allegiance to groups other than the OVC targeted, or intermediaries have strong self-interests that exceed their concern for the OVC. Typical ex. Women, teachers, labor unions, farmers groups, NGOs primarily working with other groups of OVC. |
Women’s Income Generating Activities or micro credit projects aimed at supporting women’s ability to care for orphans may primarily benefit the women themselves and their own children, with little effect for the orphans. An NGO primarily working with street children may skew a project for victims of trafficking towards their original target group. |
Pick partners who are committed to the OVC target group. If not possible, ensure clear demarcation towards other projects. Discuss with the partner agency how this can be done, and why it matters. Keep this concern and explicit part of the M&E framework for the project. |
Project accustoms children to lifestyle that cannot be offered within extended family or community context |
Overspending and isolation accustoms the child to an unrealistically high living standard and interrupts the child’s social networks. |
Some orphanages run by western NGOs keep high standards compared to what the child can expect later in life, and destroy links to the child’s extended family and community institutions in general. |
Benefits to OVC should aim to keep them in line with their peers. Project should not replace functions that can still be performed by a child’s extended family and community, but, rather , it should nurture these links. |
Intervention has soup-kitchen effect – sustainability problems |
The warm-hearted charity factor strikes: It appears as so urgent to assist that sustainability and long-term recovery for the children is forgotten. |
Rescuing children off the street, they themselves not necessarily being very motivated, while not being staffed to provide necessary counseling and drug treatment to prevent dropout. |
Keep a healthy dose of cynicism alive and plan with your head not your heart! Learn from the experiences of others. You save more children if you spend scarce resources in a structured way, in line with proven methods. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 2: Bad side effects |
C |
Rule of thumb: OVC defined by group specificities are often, but not always the most needy and deserving in a community. Failing to understand who are the most deserving needy children, and thus use eligibility criteria that exclude many equally or more needy will cause demotivation and lack of ownership and commitment on the part of both community and intermediaries. |
| Problem |
Why |
Example |
What to do |
| Benefiting one OVC group negatively affects other OVC. |
Lack of understanding of the mechanisms that keep OVC in their current situation. |
Helping to remove family children (including in-fostered OVC) from labor can lead to use of even more disadvantaged unaccompanied children to cover their tasks. (Ex, traffic victims, street children, … ) |
Thoroughly scrutinize the causes of the OVC situation and prevent predictable consequences of altering their situation. |
| The project leads to increased stigma and discrimination of the beneficiaries. |
Eligibility criteria were narrowly OVC specific, and too explicit. |
To explicitly targeting HIV infected children announces their status to the entire community, and has led to exclusion from local schools. |
Chose more general eligibility criteria, or target several groups. Keep project interventions discrete. |
| The project produces jealousy and hostility towards OVC among non-beneficiaries. |
Others feel they are not properly consulted and listened to, and that they thus are not respected and kept informed. |
A project for children being exploited in workshops failed to properly involve their tutors. These reacted with jealousy, punished the children and took part of their benefits. |
Careful strategic communication and consultation with all likely to feel involved: Local leaders, OVC caretakers, tutors and other related children Repeated communication and consultation. |
| Other community children were equally or more needy and deserving of project benefits but were not considered eligible. |
Targeting only orphans in a community may not reach the neediest children. If many orphans are in good foster care, social orphans, children in very dysfunctional households and extremely poor children may be equally or more deserving and needy. |
Consider if targeting on child poverty or more general child vulnerability criteria could be more relevant than targeting on OVC specific criteria. |
| Project leads to child labor |
Project created a labor demand that that attracts children |
Micro credits that are used to start businesses and IGAs for women often produces a child labor demand, as women typically will hire their own children for their new business. |
Always consider potential risks for increased child labor demand when choosing intervention model. If you go for a model that may increase child labor demand, supplement with specific sensitization and monitoring. |
| The project leads to corruption |
Lack of commitment among partners and in communities. Demotivation among partners and communities. Lack of transparency and training, and poor follow-up. |
A foreign donor assumes to understand a local problem based on experience from other countries and international debate, and imposes his international understanding, concepts, definitions and methods on his local partner without creating the necessary local buy-in and ownership. |
Consider choice of partner carefully, and make sure you have a shared agenda. Listen well to your project partner’s local experience and do not impose your own ideas without ensuring adequate local ownership. |
|
