Summative Evaluation of “First Priority: No More ‘Invisible’ Children!” Evaluation Report
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
MINISTRY OF LABOR AND SOCIAL JUSTICE for every child National Authority for the Protection of Child′s Rights and Adoption Summative evaluation of “First priority: no more ‘invisible’ children!” Evaluation report International Consulting Expertise Initiative • Commitment • Energy MINISTRY OF LABOR AND SOCIAL JUSTICE for every child National Authority for the Protection of Child′s Rights and Adoption Summative evaluation of “First priority: no more ‘invisible’ children!” Evaluation report Contracting Agency and Beneficiary: United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), Romania Country Office Contractor: International Consulting Expertise in consortium with Camino Association Evaluation Coordinators (UNICEF): Viorica Ștefănescu, Voichița Tomuș, Alexandra Grigorescu Boțan Evaluation Team Members: Project Manager Alina-Maria Uricec Gabriela Tănase Team leader Irina Lonean Evaluation Experts Liliana Roșu Adriana Blănaru Alina Bîrsan Anda Mihăescu Ecaterina Stativă Oana Clocotici International Consulting Expertise Initiative • Commitment • Energy Bucharest 2017 SUMMATIVE EVALUATION OF “FIRST PRIORITY: NO MORE ‘INVISIBLE’ CHILDREN!” Contents List of tables .......................................................................................................................................VII List of figures ...................................................................................................................................... IX Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................. XI Key concepts used in the evaluation ........................................................................................................ 1 Executive summary ................................................................................................................................. 6 Background ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Evaluation objectives ......................................................................................................................... 6 Evaluation methodology .................................................................................................................... 7 MAIN FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................... 8 Project performance at the level of vulnerable children and their families ........................................... 8 Project is relevant in relation to the needs of children and their families ........................................ 8 Project is effective in identifying vulnerable children, assessing and addressing their needs, thus con- tributing to the realisation of their rights ...................................................................................... 9 The integrated approach proved effective and useful particularly in ensuring access to and informa- tion about health services............................................................................................................ 11 The project generated significant positive impact at the level of vulnerable children and their families ....................................................................................................................................... 11 Project performance at the level of local public authorities and county institutions .......................... 12 Project is relevant in relation to how the child protection and social assistance systems are organised at local and county levels ............................................................................................................ 12 Project is effective in developing the authorities’ capacity to provide the minimum package of inte- grated services ............................................................................................................................ 12 Project is partially effective in reducing pressure on the child care system .................................... 12 Project is sustainable at the level of the communities in which it has already been implemented .. 13 Project generated significant positive impact by building spas institutional capacity to deliver the minimum package of services ..................................................................................................... 13 Importance of project at national level ............................................................................................. 14 Project is relevant in relation to national, regional and european policies .................................... 14 Project helped strengthen national strategies, focusing on preventing child-family separation and violence against children ............................................................................................................. 14 Project is replicable at national level ............................................................................................ 14 Project makes efficient use of resources, including compared to other projects or standards ......... 15 Project can be replicated and extended nationwide with financial implications that can be covered by the state budget ..................................................................................................................... 15 LESSONS LEARNED .................................................................................................................... 15 The importance of a systematic use of the aurora methodology ................................................... 15 Need for early and long-term interventions and for ensuring available specialised services for most serious vulnerabilities .................................................................................................................. 15 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................... 16 Recommendations for Unicef ..................................................................................................... 16 Recommendations for the Government of Romania ................................................................... 17 I CONTENTS Recommendations for the GDSACP and other county-level structures ....................................... 17 Recommendations for mayoralties .............................................................................................. 18 I. EVALUATION BACKGROUND, OBJECTIVES AND DESIGN .................................................. 19 1.1. EVALUATION BACKGROUND ........................................................................................... 19 1.1.1. The situation of children in Romania and its evolution ..................................................... 19 1.1.1.1. Evolution of children’s situation according to statistics and related literature .................. 19 1.1.1.2. Regulatory and institutional framework ......................................................................... 23 1.2. Overview of the “First priority: No more ‘invisible’ children!” evaluated model ......................... 25 1.2.1. Analyzing the theory of change formulated in the project: Objectives, activities, expected outcomes .................................................................................................................................... 25 1.2.2. Model implementation ..................................................................................................... 27 1.2.2.1. Geographical coverage ................................................................................................... 27 1.2.2.2. Model development and implementation partners ......................................................... 27 1.2.2.3. Flow of main model activities ........................................................................................ 28 1.2.3. Project underlying assumptions and risks .......................................................................... 30 1.2.4. Main findings and recommendations of previous evaluations ............................................ 31 2. SUMMATIVE EVALUATION OVERVIEW................................................................................... 33 Key evaluation elements .................................................................................................................. 33 2.1.1. Evaluation objectives ........................................................................................................ 33 2.1.2. Evaluation coverage .......................................................................................................... 33 2.1.3. Evaluation questions ......................................................................................................... 34 2.1.4. Approach to stakeholder engagement ................................................................................ 35 2.2. Evaluation methodology ........................................................................................................... 36 2.2.1. General approach, by evaluation phases ............................................................................ 36 2.2.2. Inception phase, desk review and research tool development ............................................. 37 2.2.2.1. Inception phase ............................................................................................................. 37 2.2.2.2. Desk review and