appendices for the formative evaluation of the children’ · formative evaluation of the...

Appendices for the formative evaluation of the Children’

Annex 1 Terms of Reference Annex 2 List of persons interviewed and sites visited Annex 3 Data collection instruments Annex 4 Team composition Annex 5 Evaluation Matrix Annex 6 Evaluability Report Annex 7 Analysis Matrix Annex 8 Media Tracking Report Annex 9 CA Related Seminars, Workshops, Events 2012-13 Annex 10 CA Related Publications and Reports 2012 -13 Annex 11 Status of Activities

Annex I: Evaluation Terms of Reference Individual / Institutional contract details:

Duration: Approximately 10 weeks Location: Mainland Total budget: $100,000 Budget Code:

Regular Resources

Start Date: September 2013 Supervisor: Roselyn Joseph

Title:

Formative Evaluation of the Children’s Agenda in Tanzania Background:

Children represent more than half of Tanzania’s population yet around 155,000 children under-five years are dying annually, the vast majority from readily preventable causes. Malnutrition, malaria and diarrhoea (largely caused by drinking unsafe water and poor sanitation and hygiene) are the biggest killers with nearly 50,000 deaths occurring in children less than one month old. About four out of ten children in Tanzania are stunted, denying these children the opportunity to develop to their full mental and physical potential. Malnutrition is also linked to one-third of all under-five deaths, making it the single largest cause of under-five deaths in Tanzania. Less than 70% of students actually complete all primary grades and only about 52% pass the Primary School Leaving Examination. The number of primary school teachers has not kept pace with the increase in student numbers leading to overcrowded classrooms, and four out five schools have no functioning hand-washing facilities. Although advances have been made in closing the gender gap in education, more than one-third of Tanzanian women aged 15-45 years are illiterate and about four in ten lack access to any form of mass media. Survey data further reveals that over 38% of married women report that their husbands make decisions about their healthcare, and nearly half that their husbands make all decisions regarding daily household purchases. Investing in children is an investment for families and communities, and the single most important investment for Tanzania’s future development. Beyond the societal obligation to nurture and protect children, their development is the single most important driver of national growth. Children also represent the foundation of a vibrant democracy and a cohesive, peaceful society. Young people need to be supported to grow up as informed and empowered citizens. The vision of an economically prosperous Tanzania can only be achieved if its children grow up healthy, well nourished, well-educated and protected from violence abuse and exploitation. The Children’s Agenda was established in 2010 to respond to these issues of inequity through a coalition of civil society organizations committed to advancing a child rights advocacy agenda in Tanzania. The Children’s Agenda is chaired by the Children’s Development Department of the Ministry of Community Development Gender and Children (MCDGC) with the Deputy Chair occupied by an elected member from civil

society and UNICEF acting as the secretariat. The key goals of the current Children’s Agenda 2012-2015 advocacy strategy are to influence party manifestos and policies through advocacy for increased resources and budget allocation, as well as commitment to children and to ensure child rights feature strongly on the policy agenda for the 2015 national and local elections. The strategy builds on experience gained by the operationalization of the Children’s Agenda from 2010, consultations with partners and children, and inputs from a strategic planning meeting convened by the Children’s Agenda in November 2011. During this process “The Top Ten Investments for Children” were defined as the core messages and focus of the Children’s Agenda as follows:

1. Invest to Save the Lives of Children and Women 2. Invest in Good Nutrition 3. Invest in Better Hygiene and Sanitation in Schools and Health Facilities 4. Invest in Early Childhood Development 5. Invest in Quality Education for all Children 6. Invest to Make Schools Safe 7. Invest to Protect Infants and Adolescent Girls from HIV 8. Invest to Reduce Teenage Pregnancy 9. Invest to Protect Children from Violence, Abuse, and Exploitation 10. Invest in Children with Disabilities

The Children’s Agenda aims to provide the tools and build capacity to enable organizations to advocate more effectively in whichever investment area they support. Some Children’s Agenda partners focus on advocacy around one dimension of a particular investment in one or two communities – other organizations may work across a number of investment areas, or cover all ten areas across a number of regions and/or at national level. The strategy does not define what any organization should do or focus on with regards to the Top Ten Investments. It seeks to empower organizations to advocate more effectively for child rights and in partnership with other organizations working in a similar field and/or in the same geographic location. To support implementation of advocacy objectives, a series of taskforces were established to coordinate the work of different organizations: Taskforce Membership Working with Parliamentarians

Ministry of Community Development Gender & Children (MCDGC) (Lead) Kiwohede, Save the Children, SOS, MYCN (Members)

Working with local government

Kiwohede (Lead) World Vision, CHESO, PACT, MCDGC, HUHESO, MYCN, Shalom Center, Children in Crossfire, Watoto Salama, PASADA (Members)

Working with the media Art in Tanzania (AiT) (Lead) Plan, MYCN, TWCWC (Members)

Child participation Children's Dignity Forum (CDF) (Lead) WVT, MK, AiT, GNRC, KIWOHEDE, CHESO, Watoto Salama, ANPPCAN, Compassion International, HUHESO, TUSEIS, MYCN, Right to play, Femina, Plan (Members)

Advocacy campaigns SOS Village (Lead)

AiT, WVT, EGPAF, Watoto Salama , VSO, TECDEN, Dogodogo Center, TENMET, CYDAD, Mkombozi, C-Sema (Members)

Current weaknesses in child rights advocacy, identified through consultation with Children’s Agenda partners, include insufficient understanding among many CSOs of the budget process at national and local government levels, inadequate knowledge of opportunities for advancing child participation and poor coordination/mobilization around child rights advocacy. The Children’s Agenda aims to build a strong, coordinated advocacy coalition that builds effective partnerships for child rights with Parliamentarians, with Local Government, with other important influencers and with the media. The Children’s Agenda also builds capacity in children as advocates for their rights by promoting quality Child Participation linked with the Baraza la Watoto (Children’s Councils) or other school or community-based structures that create platforms through which children may express their ideas and perceptions in ways that can potentially influence decisions that affect them. Purpose of the study:

Substantive investment and engagement has been made in nurturing the development of the Children’s Agenda since its establishment in 2010 with growing demands to better understand the results and achievements of the coalition’s work to date and how the efficient the coalition structure has been in building and mobilizing a common vision. An annual review of the Children’s Agenda in February 2013 drew attention to a number of issues concerning the current operational structure and some struggles in maintain alignment and commitment which would suggest an opportune moment for conducting a formative evaluation to support strategic learning and mutual accountability. UNICEF is commissioning an evaluation to assess the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, interim outcomes and sustainability of the Children’s Agenda in its pursuit of advancing an advocacy agenda for child rights at national and sub-national levels. The period under review is 2010 to 2012. Specific objectives include the following:

- To evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the programme with respect to the membership capacity of the Children’s Agenda;

- To evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the programme with respect to the capacity of the Children’s Agenda as an entity in and of itself;

- To document what progress has been made and their links to the Children’s Agenda;

- To evaluate the sustainability of the programme and their contributing factors; - To evaluate the extent to which gender dimensions have been taken into

account in the design of interventions supported by the Children’s Agenda and throughout the implementation process;

- To systematically document weaknesses, strengths, constraints, opportunities and lessons learnt in the project implementation, the capacity and reliability of existing monitoring systems, and make recommendations on strengthening the M&E framework as a result of this analysis.

The primary audience of the evaluation is the Children’s Agenda itself, both at an individual and organizational level and as a coalition entity. The findings of the evaluation will feed into future strategic planning and review processes and be used as the basis of advocacy for the Children’s Agenda through various fora. Scope and focus:

The evaluation covers the period of 2010 to 2012 and is expected to examine the degree to which the desired results have been achieved, or expected to be achieved (effectiveness); how efficient was the engagement (efficiency); and the contribution to the improvements, if any, toward advancing a child rights agenda in Tanzania. The evaluation will also seek to capture unintended consequences produced through the coalition’s existence and the probability of continued long-term benefits (sustainability). The evaluation will encompass activities taking place at the national level as well as the sub-national activities supported by Children’s Agenda members as follows:

Taskforce Output Activities Supported (2010-2012)

Geographic Coverage

Working with Parliamentarians

Advocacy strategy for increasing parliamentary understanding of child rights and investing in children developed and implemented

Child participation in

parliamentary

committees – Save

the Children

Children’s

consultations on

constitutional reform

– MCDGC

Consultation with

parliamentarians on

child – MCDGC,

Save the Children

and Kiwohede

Dar es Salaam, Dodoma

Working with local government

Advocacy strategy for increasing LGA understanding of child rights and investing in children developed and implemented

Advocacy on child rights through community meetings – TWCWC

Guide on budget planning and allocation developed and disseminated – UNICEF

All regions and districts

Working with the media

Mass media report regularly, ethically and accurately on

Media-based campaigns on child rights – Compassion,

Arusha/Moshi, Unguja/Pemba, Mwanza,

child rights issues GNRC

Young reporters network – UNICEF/ Save the Children, Mkombozi, ZAPHA+, MYCN, Huheso, World Vision, Plan International

Kahama, Kigoma , Ifakara (now dormant)

Child participation Child participation advanced in homes, communities, schools and through local government

Development of Children’s Council guidelines – MCDGC

Development of child participation toolkit – CDF

Support to Children’s Councils and clubs – GNRC, VSO, ANPPCAN, CHESO, C-SEMA, ANPPCAN

Ilala, Mbeya, Mkuranga District, Coast region

Advocacy campaigns

Understanding of children rights and Top Ten Investments improved among the public and key stakeholders

Development of Children’s Agenda webpage – UNICEF

Development and dissemination of monthly newsletters – UNICEF

Dar es Salaam

Generic evaluation questions expected to be refined during the inception phase include the following:

1. Relevance – What was the relevance of engaging through a structure such as the Children’s Agenda to address and improve relevant national policies in the best interests of children? To what extent was approach as presented in the logic model, relevant for addressing the needs of all children, including girls and other marginalized groups?

2. Efficiency – What strategies/core roles of the Children’s Agenda have been the most efficient in influencing systems change, for example, in being the “voice” for children and adolescents, in providing evidence on the situation of children and adolescents; and/or in providing policy advice and technical assistance? Were objectives achieved with best use of available membership resources? How efficiently are member contributions to the Children’s Agenda managed and coordinated, and converted into results (both in terms of technical know-how and financial inputs)?

3. Effectiveness – To what extent were interim outcomes achieved/likely to be achieved? What were the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of interim outcomes? Of the strategies and activities included in the logic model, are there any that have been found to have more effect than others

in terms of their contribution to achieving impact on the lives of children? 4. Sustainability – To what extent are the achievements of the Children’s Agenda

(in terms of their impact on children and outcomes at system level) made to date sustainable? What makes them sustainable? Is the strength of member and coalition capacity such that it would be expected to continue for the foreseeable future? How vulnerable are current successes (in impact and outcomes of reforms) to political changes, e.g. a change in government, or changes in the financial allocations?

Potential limitations which may influence the process and quality of the evaluation

include the limited and fragmented documentation of the work of the Children’s Agenda

due to the absence of a formalized workplan until 2012. This challenge may lead to

some difficulties in clearly discerning the work of the Children’s Agenda and those of

individual members.

Process and methodology:

The evaluation will apply the relevant internationally agreed OECD-DAC evaluation criteria of relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, and sustainability. UNICEF being a rights based organization, the evaluation should mainstream gender and human rights considerations throughout. Whenever possible, disaggregation of data by gender, age, ethnicity and social origin, should be made. Using models adapted by organizations such as TCC Group as well as a number of the methods outlined in UNICEF’s Advocacy Toolkit, the proposed evaluation will assess the various inter-relationships that converge into an integrated coalition seeking to achieve a desired outcome/s.

• The composition and capacities of individual members

Member Capacity

• The capacity of leadership to build and sustain a vision and provide overall direction

• The capacity of the coalition to adapt to internal and external changes

• The capacity of the coalition to technically and financially implement its programmatic objectives

Coalition Capacity

• The capacity of the coalition to advance a child rights agenda

• The ability of the coalition to become more effective in delivering upon its programmatic objectives

Outcomes

At the first level, the evaluation will examine individual members within the Children’s Agenda to better understand the mix of capacities brought to the coalition. The second level will focus on capacity of the Children’s Agenda as a collective, focusing on the areas of leadership, adaptive capacity, and technical capacity, and finally the final level will review the results achieved by the group since its establishment. Evaluation of advocacy initiatives through a coalition such as the Children’s Agenda presents unique challenges and opportunities associated with clarifying the unit of measurement, agreeing to common standards to gauge effectiveness, establishing consensus on the purpose of the coalition, determining attribution of both individual and group contributions, and the limits of replicability from the findings of such a context specific grouping. To this end, the proposed evaluation will use a mixed methods approach, benefitting from tested techniques in the field of advocacy evaluation including Bellwether methods, system mapping, citation analysis, public polling, focus groups discussions and social media analytics, with the objective of building up a picture of multiple points of contribution rather than a statistical demonstration of attribution. The methodology should demonstrate impartiality and lack of bias by relying on a cross-section of information sources (e.g. stakeholder groups, including beneficiaries, etc.) to ensure triangulation of information through a variety of means. The evaluation will go through the following interrelated processes: inception phase, design and testing, data collection phase, data analysis and report writing phase and, dissemination and follow-up. Inception Phase The main part of the inception work will be to conduct a desk review and evaluability assessment as the basis for selecting an appropriate evaluation design. On the basis of this ToR, additional information collected and discussions, the evaluation team will propose in its evaluation design plan including the following:

a) Any refinements to the evaluation questions, and clarify at the outset any limitations that can be foreseen in adequately responding to the questions.

b) Elaborate an evaluation matrix, that details sub-questions against the questions, indicators, and data collection methods that will be used. Detail to the extent feasible, the analytical frameworks that will be used to respond to the evaluation questions.

c) Elaborate a detailed weekly calendar for the duration of the evaluation. This detailed calendar will establish more precise deadlines for consultations and submission of outputs.

The inception report should specify the evaluation design, evaluation framework for analysis, approach to sampling to answer the evaluation questions, data management methods including how the quality of data will be assured and outline of the report.

Design and Testing On the basis of feedback and consensus on the inception report, the evaluation team

will:

a) Ensure the necessary communication with evaluation participants. b) Develop data collection instruments. c) Pilot test data collection tools. d) Refine and finalize data collection tools. e) Formulate dummy tables and mechanism for data capture.

Data Collection Phase Following the acceptance and signing off of the evaluation design plan, the evaluation team will undertake the necessary data collection activities as per the agreed schedule. If during the course of the fieldwork any deviations from the agreed methodology and/or schedule are perceived necessary, the evaluation team must receive approval of UNICEF before they can be applied. To support the desk review, the evaluation will make reference to available progress reports of the Children’s Agenda, advocacy briefs and materials, newsletters and annual reports. A mix of quantitative and qualitative methods will be used including techniques such as direct observation, informal and semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions where feasible and appropriate. Children, as the ultimate beneficiaries of this advocacy effort will also be included as key stakeholders in the process with efforts pursued for meaningful engagement and consultation throughout the evaluation process. The evaluation team will also interview UNICEF staff and partners (in government and CSOs etc) about aspects of the programme over the duration of the period under review. Data Analysis and Report Writing Phase The evaluation team will submit the draft final report in conformity with UNICEF standards and guidelines and present preliminary findings to the technical reference group. If the PME unit considers the report of sufficient quality, it will be circulated for comments to the reference group comprised of representatives from UNICEF Tanzania Country Office (Communications, Advocacy & Partnerships and Planning, Monitoring & Evaluation sections) and selected representatives from the Children’s Agenda. On the basis of comments expressed by the reference group, the evaluation team will make appropriate amendments. The UNICEF Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist will facilitate the process of consolidating the comments from the office. On the basis of the comments received, the evaluation team will prepare the final report. UNICEF will prepare a management response to the evaluation recommendations. Dissemination and follow-up After approval of the final report, the Planning, Monitoring & Evaluation unit in consultation with other UNICEF sections will proceed with the dissemination of the results of the evaluation to the Children’s Agenda.

Evaluation Standards and Ethical Considerations The evaluation will be conducted in accordance with the UN Evaluation Group (UNEG) Norms and Standards and Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation. The consultant is required to act with independent judgement, give a comprehensive and balanced presentation of strengths and weaknesses of the programme being evaluated, and demonstrate consistent and dependable findings and recommendations. Stakeholder participation:

A number of stakeholders will be closely involved in the evaluation. In gathering data and views from stakeholders, the evaluation team will ensure that it considers a cross-section of stakeholders with potentially diverse views to ensure the evaluation findings are as impartial (or representative) as possible. The Technical Reference Group act as the main professional interface between the evaluation team, UNICEF Tanzania Country Office and the Children’s Agenda. The group’s principal functions will be:

To provide the evaluation team with all available information and documentation

about the objectives of the evaluation;

To review the draft evaluation report;

To assess and evaluate the quality of work of the evaluation team.

Study team composition:

The institution will be responsible for the deliverables under the contract and field an appropriate team comprised of technical consultants, data analysis specialists and field staff.

Institutional profile:

A well-equipped research department with an at least 8 year old research portfolio with experience in household surveys, data processing and analysis capacities

At least three good quality research reports involving field level data collection The evaluation team leader will be responsible for managing and providing overall leadership and direction in the proposed evaluation. The team leader is expected to have specific competencies in planning and carrying out evaluations and performance measurement, including use of both qualitative and quantitative methods. The team leader should have proven experiences of previous assignments with development and implementation of evaluation plans and performance measurement in the field of advocacy evaluation as indicated below. Team Leader experience:

At least 8 years of experience in research, data collection, monitoring and evaluation, including specific experience evaluating advocacy strategies, partnerships/networks/collaborations and in conducting participatory evaluations.

Thorough knowledge and demonstrated experience with methods for advocacy evaluation including Bellwether methods, system mapping, citation analysis, public

polling, focus group discussions and social media analytics.

Familiarity with rights-based approaches and with principles of gender mainstreaming.

Strong analytical and project management skills.

Good communication skills and report writing abilities.

Good knowledge of English and Kiswahili. Accountabilities: Institution: Overall management, leadership and technical oversight. Design, review of data collection tools. Training of field staff. Data collection. Data compilation and cleansing. Liaison with the district offices, logistical arrangements and team supervision. Analysis and report writing. Communication of evaluation findings. Stakeholder role and responsibilities are reflected through the process/ methodology and stakeholder participation. The UNICEF M&E specialist will be responsible for supervision of the consultancy including approval of intermediary and final products, in consultation with the Communications Specialist and senior management as outlined in the process and methodology part of the ToR. Procedures and Logistics:

UNICEF is planning to sign an institutional contract based on the following conditions:

No work may commence unless the contract is signed by both UNICEF and the

institution.

The institution is responsible for making arrangements for office premises,

transport and equipment (laptop and other ITC equipment).

Should the institution require specific assistance/materials from the UNICEF

office and/or national partners, he/she should make the request at least 10 days

prior to the start of the mission.

Where necessary UNICEF and government counterparts will direct and or

facilitate necessary access to specific data/institution/personnel/location for the

purpose of this exercise.

The institution will be in regular communication with UNICEF designated focal

person for the assignment, the Monitoring & Evaluation Specialist.

UNICEF will provide venue and facilities for meetings with the Technical Reference Group comprised of representatives from UNICEF Tanzania Country Office (Communications, Advocacy & Partnerships and Planning, Monitoring & Evaluation sections) and selected representatives from the Children’s Agenda. Products:

Evaluation Outputs and Timing The evaluation is scheduled start during the third quarter of 2013 for a planned period of 10 weeks. The detailed evaluation outputs and timing including the payment schedule are shown in the table below. The payment schedule for the proposed evaluation consultancy is linked with the satisfactory delivery of the related outputs.

Phase Approx. Duration

Output Payment Schedule

Inception 3 weeks Inception Report 20% of contract value

Design and Testing 1 week

Data Collection 2 weeks

Data Analysis and Report Writing 3 weeks 1st draft of main evaluation report

40% of contract value

Finalisation and Dissemination 1 week Final evaluation report

40% of contract value

Evaluation management response prepared and disseminated by UNICEF

Reporting Framework The final report should include the following elements: an executive summary, background to the Children’s Agenda, a profile of the evaluated activities, description of the evaluation methods employed, the main findings in line with the DAC evaluation criteria, conclusions, recommendations and lessons learned. Conclusions, recommendations and lessons learned should be firmly based on evidence and analysis, be relevant and realistic, with priorities for action made clear. The team should avoid making recommendations that are too general or impossible to implement. The evaluation report will be reviewed and rated by the UNICEF Global Evaluation Report Oversight System (GEROS) Quality Assurance System based on UNEG standards for evaluation reports. Resource requirements:

Estimated budget: $100,000

Prepared by: (Requesting Officer)

Approved by (Head of Commissioning Section):

Approved by (Representative):

Signature

Name Roselyn Joseph Jacqueline Namfua Jama Gulaid

Title Monitoring & Evaluation Specialist

Acting Chief, Communications, Advocacy & Partnerships

Representative

Date

Annex 2: List of persons interviewed and sites visited People interviewed Organization Location Date

Sara Cameron, Former Director CAP UNICEF Dar es Salaam

Tue 3rd

Dec 2013 and additional electronic correspondence

Chris Mushi, CDO MCDGC Dar es Salaam

Thur 23rd

Jan 2014

Sheila Ally, Communications Consultant

UNICEF Dar es Salaam

Thur 23rd

Jan 2014 and additional electronic correspondence

Temeke Children’s Council (6) Temeke Municipal Council

Dar es Salaam

Fri 24th Jan 2014

10:00am

Koshuma Mtengeti, Executive director & CA Focal person

CDF Dar es Salaam

Fri 24th January 2014

Stephen Motambi, Ag UNICEF Focal Person

Mwalimu Karim Chacho, Education

Godfrida Clement, Children’s Committee member

PMORALG Dodoma Tue 28th

January 2014

International Children’s Parliament (8) World Vision Mundemu Wed 29th

January 2014 Habel Machinga, Village Executive

Officer Kisima Cha Ndege village

Mundemu

Chilala Elisei, ADP Coordinator

Amos Mnungu, Sponsorship facilitator

Rose Mguro, Sponsorship and program facilitator

World Vision International

Mundemu

Annual Meeting attendees (25) CA Dar es Salaam

Tue 28th

February and Wed 29

th February

2014

Kari Korhomen, Executive Director AiT Dar es Salaam

Thur 30th

January 2014

Michael Jackson, CA Focal person AiT Dar es Salaam

Pwani Child Rights Club (30) AiT Pwani Primary School, Dar es Salaam

Right to Play Teacher Coaches:

Zuberi Jamilla

Senge Yusta

Justin Joel

Joyce Ikanga

Rose Mzava

Right to Play Kaloleni Primary School, Dodoma

Hilda Mwasa, Deputy DCDO

Frazia Anthon, DSWO

Municipal Council of Dodoma

Dodoma

Sophia Temba, CA Focal Person KIWOHEDE Dar es Salaam

Fri 31st January 2014

Justa Mwaituka, Director KIWOHEDE Dar es Salaam

Kiwohede Children’s Rights Club (14) KIWOHEDE Dar es Salaam

Flora Masue, DSWO, Ilala Municipal council

Dar es Salaam

Susan Mwakuju, Center Director; Agnes Ndelwa, Counselor

KIWOHEDE Mbeya Sun 2nd

February 2014

Gerson Frank Mwandete, Chairman, Mbeya Ward Mbeya

Ward Committee

Kiwohede Children’s Council (42) KIWOHEDE Mbeya Mon 3rd

February 2014

Mbeya Village Chair Mbeya

Salome Sengunda, Executive Officer Mbeya Ward Mbeya

Godless Mwanga, Zonal Manager

Thomas Odhiambo, Partnership Coordinator

Compassion International

Mwanza

Reverend Keja Simpande, Bwiru Church Butimba

Lazaro Kawagema, Director children’s program

Thomas Odhiambo, Partnership Coordinator

Compassion International

Mwanza

Children’s Council (3) Compassion International

Mwanza

Onna Jefferey, DCDO Mbeya Municipal Council

Mbeya Tue 4th

February 2014

Chantal Andrew, DSWO Mbeya Municipal Council

Mbeya

Chonestina Ndunguru, Chemi Chemi

Muksi Mzege,Chemi Chemi

Sekela Richard, MYCN

Lovoatu Sosono, Amani girls centre

Aisha Mtumwa, Farijika

Patricia Kamugisha, Baraka Good Hope Orphan for Development

TECDEN member organizations

Mwanza

Perege Gumbo, Country Director AJAAT Dar es Salaam

Wed 5th February 2014

John Batista, National Advocacy Coordinator

Catherine Kasimbazi, Gender Officer

SOS Dar es Salaam

Kiiya JK, CEO

Michael Kehongoh, Child Protection Officer

C-Sema Dar es Salaam

Shaaban Ramadhani - Executive Chairperson

Richard Sekela, Assistant Children’s Officer

MYCN Mwanza

Elizabeth Mwase, Child Participation Officer & CA focal person

GNRC Dar es Salaam

Thur 6th

February 2014

Mussa Mgata, Sr. Program Development and Quality Manager

Dragana Strinic, Director of Quality and Advocacy Programme

Save the Children Tanzania

Dar es Salaam

Head of Community Development Department

Samuel Juma, Youth Officer

Davis Justin, Youth Coordinator

Sospeter Mtali, CDO

Erica Stephen, CHAC

Juliana James, Assistant CHAC

Mwanza City Council

Mwanza

Ndasa, Regional Community Development Officer

Regional Secretariat

Mwanza

Dr. Jama Gulaid, Tanzania Representative


Fri 7th

February 2014

Junior Council (8)

Young Reporters (7)

MYCN Mwanza

Sophia Simba, MP and Minister MCDGC

Tukae Njiku, Director of Child Development Department

MCDGC Dar es Salaam

Mon 10th

February 2014

Christina Praz, Former Communication, Advocacy and Partnership Officer


Tues 11th

February 2014

Jacqueline Namfua, Communications Specialist, UNICEF


Sandra Bisin, Chief of Communication, Advocacy and Partnerships UNICEF Tanzania


Wed 12th

February 2014 and additional electronic correspondence

Lediana Mngongo, Member of Parliament

Iringa CCM Telephone Wed 7th March 2014

Annex 3: Data collection instruments Children’s Agenda Formative Evaluation CSO/NGO Member Interview Guide

Date: Interviewer Name: Interviewee Name: Position: Organization: Location (town, county, region): Contact Info: Phone Email This interview is part of the formative evaluation of the Children’s Agenda being conducted by CfBT Trust between January 13th and March 14th, 2014. You have been selected to participate because of your knowledge and membership in the Children’s Agenda coalition. The interview will take about 1 and a half to 2 hours to complete. The information you provide herein will be strictly confidential. Copies of this survey will not be shared with anyone other then the researchers and answers will not be directly attributed to you in any reports released by CfBT Trust without your expressed written permission. Your participation in this evaluation is deeply appreciated. 1. How familiar are you with the aims and activities of the CA?

Not familiar

Somewhat familiar

Very familiar

2. How familiar are you with your organization’s participation as a member the CA?

Not familiar

Somewhat familiar

Very familiar

3. What year did your organization join the CA? 2010 2011 2012 2013 4. What role does your organization currently play in the CA?

Member Taskforce Leader

Other (specify):

5. How would you describe your organization’s current activity with the CA?

Not active

A little active

Active Very active

Explain:

5b. Between 2010 and 2013, has your role or level of activity with the CA changed?

YES NO

If YES, describe the change:

6. Describe the reason(s) why your organization joined the CA: 7. To what extent were your expectations met after joining the CA?

Not met

A little met

Half met

Mostly met

Explain: 8. Please indicate in which of the following areas your organization worked between 2010 and 2013: AREA YES NO Maternal and Child Health Child Nutrition Hygiene and sanitation Early childhood development Formal or non-formal education quality School safety HIV and AIDS Teen pregnancy Violence, abuse, and child exploitation Children with disabilities Other (please indicate): Other (please indicate): 9. In what settings does your organization work? Mostly

urban Mostly rural

Urban and rural

equally 10. In what geographical areas does your organization work?

International In multiple regions of Tanzania

In one region of Tanzania

For all of the areas indicated above, please answer the following questions: 11. For the following areas, indicate if there been any changes in policy, changes in service delivery, or budget increases from the government since 2010. If so, please indicate if the CA or its members contributed to the change: AREA Policy Services Budget Maternal and Child Health

Child nutrition

Hygiene and sanitation

Early childhood development

Formal or non-formal education quality

School safety

HIV and AIDS

Teen pregnancy

Child protection from violence, abuse, and child

exploitation Children with disabilities

12. In the table below, indicate for each area if you believe it has improved, worsened, or stayed the same. You may also indicate if you don’t know. AREA IMPROVED WORSENED SAME DON’T

KNOW Maternal and Child Health Nutrition Hygiene and sanitation Early childhood development Formal or non-formal education quality School safety HIV/AIDS Teen pregnancy Child protection from violence, abuse, and child exploitation

Children with disabilities 13. On a scale of 0 to 5, rate your organization’s capacity to engage in the following activities, where 0 = inapplicability or no capacity and 5 = very strong capacity/accomplishment with virtually no room for improvement: Activity 0 1 2 3 4 5 Policy analysis and research Public consultation/constituency input Alternative policy formulation/service approaches Gender analysis Monitoring and evaluation Funding for advocacy activities1 Time for advocacy activities Public education/awareness raising Coalition building and networking Media relations Political lobbying and legislative relations

1 Advocacy can mean non-service related data collection and policy research, media relations, lobbying and

political activities, public/constituency consultations, coalition building, and awareness raising.

14. For each of the activities above, ask if they did any of them between 2010 and 2013 and if so, describe them. Then indicate for each if the CA provided support or technical assistance in their ability to carry them out. 15. On a scale of 1 to 5, indicate how well known you believe the CA and its activities are to the following groups, where 1=virtually unknown and 5=very well known. Group 1 2 3 4 5 Your organization’s executive leadership Your organization’s general staff The children and youth served by your organization Other, non-CA member CSOs/NGOs in your region Children and youth in your region Parents in your region The general public in your region Local government officials Local courts and judges Members of parliament representing your region Local newspapers and radio stations Businesses/private sector in your region The general public, nationwide National newspapers and radio stations The Prime Minister and his staff Relevant government ministries other than MCDGC National courts and judges

16. Do any of the groups above who you indicated have some knowledge of the CA have a NEGATIVE view of the CA?

YES NO

Please provide details or explanations for any of the above answers here:

On a scale of 1 to 5, rate the overall effectiveness of the CA in the following focus areas, with 1=no effect and 5=very effective. 17. Increasing MP’s understanding of child rights and investing in children.

1 2 3 4 5

Please explain: 18. Increasing PMOLRG’s understanding of child rights and investing in children.

1 2 3 4 5

Please explain: 19. Increasing LGA understanding of child rights and investing in children.

1 2 3 4 5

Please explain: 20. Increasing regular, ethical, and accurate mass media reporting on child rights issues.

1 2 3 4 5

Please explain: 21. Increasing child participation in homes, communities, 1 2 3 4 5

schools and local government. Please explain: On a scale of 1 to 5, rate the overall management of the CA in the following focus areas, with 1=no effect and 5=very effective. 22. Increasing the amount and quality of collaboration and sharing of expertise between coalition members.

1 2 3 4 5

Please explain: 23. Encouraging participation/involvement of coalition members in CA activities.

1 2 3 4 5

Please explain: 24. Implementation of joint activities of coalition members. 1 2 3 4 5 Please explain: 25. Communication between coalition members. 1 2 3 4 5 Please explain: 26. Financial support for CA-related activities. 1 2 3 4 5 Please explain:

27. Monitoring and evaluation of CA member advocacy activities. 1 2 3 4 5 Please explain: On a scale of 1 to 5, rate the effectiveness of the Chair (MCDGC) of the CA in the following areas, with 1=no effect and 5=very effective. 28. Convenes and chairs all the CA meetings. 1 2 3 4 5 29. Sets the agenda for all CA meetings in consultation with the co-chair and secretariat.

1 2 3 4 5

30. Strives to build consensus of joint positions among the CA members.

1 2 3 4 5

31. Represents and promotes the CA in other contexts. 1 2 3 4 5 32. Mainstreamed the CA in the Children’s Department of the MCDGC?

1 2 3 4 5

33. Facilitates CA member engagement with Parliament? 1 2 3 4 5 34. Supports the development and dissemination of the CA materials across the country

1 2 3 4 5

35. Trains and orients stakeholders on the goals and strategies of the CA?

1 2 3 4 5

36. Rate the overall performance of the CA Chair: 1 2 3 4 5 Explain your answers here:

37. What are the advantages of having a government ministry as chair? 38. What are the disadvantages of having a government ministry as chair? On a scale of 1 to 5, rate the effectiveness of the Deputy Chair (Compassion International) of the CA in the following areas, with 1=no effect and 5=very effective. 39. Presides at CA meetings in the absence of the Chair 1 2 3 4 5 40. Represents the CA in different forums. 1 2 3 4 5 41. Rate the overall performance of the CA Deputy Chair: 1 2 3 4 5 Explain your answers here: On a scale of 1 to 5, rate the effectiveness of the Secretariat (UNICEF) of the CA in the following areas, with 1=no effect and 5=very effective. 42. Drafts and distributes an approved agenda for the meetings 1 2 3 4 5

to the CA members 43. Ensures finalization and circulation of action-oriented minutes within one week of each meeting.

1 2 3 4 5

44. Prepares and files documentation related to the functioning of the CA, as well as background documentation, necessary for the decision making process of the CA members.

1 2 3 4 5

45. Maintains the communication and smooth coordination of information and exchange among the CA members.

1 2 3 4 5

46. Maintains an updated contact list for the CA members. 1 2 3 4 5 47. Develops visibility materials, communication and advocacy tools to support the CA activities.

1 2 3 4 5

48. Rate the overall performance of the CA Secretariat: 1 2 3 4 5 Explain your answers here: On a scale of 1 to 5, rate the effectiveness of your CA taskforce leader in the following areas, with 1=no effect and 5=very effective 49. Facilitates the sharing or gaining of expertise in the taskforce area.

1 2 3 4 5

50. Plans and leads monthly taskforce meetings. 1 2 3 4 5 51. Rate the overall performance of your CA Taskforce Leader: 1 2 3 4 5 Explain your answers here:

FOR TASKFORCE LEADERS ONLY: 52. What are the primary duties of taskforce leaders? 53. What the primary challenges in carrying out these duties and can the taskforce structure be improved? Please answer the following questions, YES or NO, and then explain your answer: 54. If UNICEF were to decrease it’s administrative role in the CA, do you think current coalition members would be able to take up these responsibilities for the CA?

YES NO

Explain: 55. If UNICEF were to decrease it’s financial role in the CA, do you think current coalition members would be able to take up these responsibilities for the CA?

YES NO

Explain:

Concluding remarks: 56. Please describe what you believe to be the primary STRENGTHS of the CA: 57. Please describe what you believe to be the primary WEAKNESSES of the CA: 58. In what ways can the CA improve its structure and/or focus: 59. What other recommendations do you have for the future of the CA:

Children’s Agenda Formative Evaluation CSO/NGO Member Survey

Date: Interviewer Name: Interviewee Name: Position: Organization: Location (town, county, region): Contact Info: Phone Email This survey is part of the formative evaluation of the Children’s Agenda being conducted by CfBT Trust between January 13th and March 14th, 2014. You have been selected to participate because of your knowledge and membership in the Children’s Agenda coalition. The interview will take about 30-45 minutes to complete. The information you provide herein will be strictly confidential. Copies of this survey will not be shared with anyone other than the researchers and answers will not be directly attributed to you in any reports released by CfBT Trust without your expressed written permission. Your participation in this evaluation is deeply appreciated. 1. How familiar are you with the aims and activities of the CA?

Not familiar

Somewhat familiar

Very familiar


Not familiar

Somewhat familiar

Very familiar

3. What year did your organization join the CA? 2010 2011 2012 2013 4. What role does your organization currently play in the CA?

Member Taskforce Leader

Other (specify):

5. How would you describe your organization’s current activity with the CA?

Not active

A little active

Active Very active

5b. Between 2010 and 2013, has your role or level of activity changed?

Increased Decreased Same

6. Describe the reason(s) why your organization joined the CA:

7. To what extent were your expectations met after joining the CA?

Not met

A little met

Half met

Mostly met

8. Please indicate in which of the following areas your organization worked between 2010 and 2013: AREA YES NO Maternal and Child Health Child Nutrition Hygiene and sanitation Early childhood development Formal or non-formal education quality School safety HIV and AIDS Teen pregnancy Violence, abuse, and child exploitation Children with disabilities Other (please indicate): Other (please indicate): 9. In what settings does your organization work? Mostly

urban Mostly rural

Urban and rural equally

10. In what geographical areas does your organization work?

International In multiple regions of Tanzania

In one region of Tanzania

11. Between 2010 and 2013, did your organization collect data about services you provide or the children you serve?

YES NO

11a. Did the CA assist in any way your organization’s capacity to carry out these activities?

YES NO

12. Between 2010 and 2013, did your organization obtain input from children, youth, or the communities you serve on the need for changes in policy or services in this/these area(s) listed above?

YES NO


YES NO

13. Between 2010 and 2013, did your organization use data or community input to decide that different policies or services in any of the areas you work in were needed?

YES NO


YES NO

14. Between 2010 and 2013, did your organization examine the gender-specific implications of the areas in which you work?

YES NO


YES NO

15. Between 2010 and 2013, did your organization devote its own resources (eg. time and money) for policy advocacy2 (non-service provision) activities?

YES NO

16. Between 2010 and 2013, did your organization conduct public education, awareness raising, or build public support (including through the media) for the area(s) in which you work?

YES NO


YES NO

17. Between 2010 and 2013, did your organization partner with other non-CA member CSOs or NGOs in joint action to advocate for children?

YES NO


YES NO

18. Between 2010 and 2013, did your organization work with any government ministries other than the MCDGC (such as education or health) in joint action to advocate for children?

YES NO


YES NO

19. Between 2010 and 2013, did your organization engage with Members of Parliament to advocate for children?

YES NO


YES NO



20. Between 2010 and 2013, did your organization engage with District Counselors to advocate for children?

YES NO


YES NO

21. Between 2010 and 2013, did your organization engage with PMOLRG staff to advocate for children?

YES NO


YES NO

22. Between 2010 and 2013, did your organization engage with LGA staff to advocate for children?

YES NO


YES NO

23. Was your organization successful in getting the local or national government to enact policy changes and/or devote new resources for needed services in the areas in which you work?

YES NO

23a. If yes, did the CA assist in any way in this accomplishment? YES NO

24. Are there any advocacy related activities your organization implemented or participated in that are not mentioned in the questions above?

YES NO

If yes, please list.

25. Did the CA assist in any way your organization’s ability to carry out these activities?

YES NO

26A. For the following areas, indicate if there been any changes in policy, changes in service delivery, or budget increases from the government since 2010. If so, please mark if the CA or its members contributed to the change: AREA Policy Services Budget CA

contributed? Maternal and Child Health Child nutrition

Hygiene and sanitation Early childhood development Formal or non-formal education quality School safety HIV and AIDS Teen pregnancy Child protection from violence, abuse, and child exploitation

Children with disabilities 26. In the table below, indicate for each area if you believe it has improved, worsened, or stayed the same. You may also indicate if you don’t know. AREA IMPROVED WORSENED SAME DON’T

KNOW Maternal and Child Health Nutrition Hygiene and sanitation Early childhood development Formal or non-formal education quality School safety HIV/AIDS

Teen pregnancy Child protection from violence, abuse, and child exploitation

Children with disabilities 27. On a scale of 0 to 5, rate your organization’s capacity to engage in the following activities, where 0 = inapplicability or no capacity and 5 = very strong capacity/accomplishment with virtually no room for improvement: Activity 0 1 2 3 4 5 Policy analysis and research Public consultation/constituency input Alternative policy formulation/service approaches Gender analysis Monitoring and evaluation Funding for advocacy activities3 Time for advocacy activities Public education/awareness raising Coalition building and networking



Media relations Political lobbying and legislative relations 28. On a scale of 1 to 5, indicate how well known you believe the CA and its activities are to the following groups, where 1=virtually unknown and 5=very well known. Group 1 2 3 4 5 Your organization’s executive leadership Your organization’s general staff The children and youth served by your organization Other, non-CA member CSOs/NGOs in your region Children and youth in your region Parents in your region The general public in your region Local government officials Local courts and judges Members of parliament representing your region Local newspapers and radio stations Businesses/private sector in your region The general public, nationwide National newspapers and radio stations The Prime Minister and his staff Relevant government ministries other than MCDGC National courts and judges On a scale of 1 to 5, rate the overall effectiveness of the CA in the following focus areas, with 1=no effect and 5=very effective. 30. Increasing MP’s understanding of child rights and investing in children.

1 2 3 4 5

31. Increasing PMOLRG’s understanding of child rights and investing in children.

1 2 3 4 5

32. Increasing LGA understanding of child rights and investing in children.

1 2 3 4 5

33. Increasing regular, ethical, and accurate mass media reporting on child rights issues.

1 2 3 4 5

34. Increasing child participation in homes, communities, schools and local government.

1 2 3 4 5

On a scale of 1 to 5, rate the overall management of the CA in the following focus areas, with 1=no effect and 5=very effective.

35. Increasing the amount and quality of collaboration and sharing of expertise between coalition members.

1 2 3 4 5

36. Encouraging participation/involvement of coalition members in CA activities.

1 2 3 4 5

37. Implementation of joint activities of coalition members. 1 2 3 4 5 38. Communication between coalition members. 1 2 3 4 5 39. Financial support for CA-related activities. 1 2 3 4 5 40. Monitoring and evaluation of CA member advocacy activities. 1 2 3 4 5 On a scale of 1 to 5, rate the effectiveness of the Chair (MCDGC) of the CA in the following areas, with 1=no effect and 5=very effective. 41. Convenes and chairs all the CA meetings. 1 2 3 4 5 42. Sets the agenda for all CA meetings in consultation with the co-chair and secretariat.

1 2 3 4 5

43. Strives to build consensus of joint positions among the CA members.

1 2 3 4 5

44. Represents and promotes the CA in other contexts. 1 2 3 4 5 45. Mainstreamed the CA in the Children’s Department of the MCDGC?

1 2 3 4 5

46. Facilitates CA member engagement with Parliament? 1 2 3 4 5 47. Supports the development and dissemination of the CA materials across the country

1 2 3 4 5

48. Trains and orients stakeholders on the goals and strategies of the CA?

1 2 3 4 5

49. Rate the overall performance of the CA Chair: 1 2 3 4 5 On a scale of 1 to 5, rate the effectiveness of the Deputy Chair (Compassion International) of the CA in the following areas, with 1=no effect and 5=very effective. 50. Presides at CA meetings in the absence of the Chair 1 2 3 4 5 51. Represents the CA in different forums. 1 2 3 4 5

52. Rate the overall performance of the CA Deputy Chair: 1 2 3 4 5 On a scale of 1 to 5, rate the effectiveness of the Secretariat (UNICEF) of the CA in the following areas, with 1=no effect and 5=very effective. 53. Drafts and distributes an approved agenda for the meetings to the CA members

1 2 3 4 5

54. Ensures finalization and circulation of action-oriented minutes within one week of each meeting.

1 2 3 4 5

55. Prepares and files documentation related to the functioning of the CA, as well as background documentation, necessary for the decision making process of the CA members.

1 2 3 4 5

56. Maintains the communication and smooth coordination of information and exchange among the CA members.

1 2 3 4 5

57. Maintains an updated contact list for the CA members. 1 2 3 4 5 58. Develops visibility materials, communication and advocacy tools to support the CA activities.

1 2 3 4 5

59. Rate the overall performance of the CA Secretariat: 1 2 3 4 5 On a scale of 1 to 5, rate the effectiveness of your CA taskforce leader in the following areas, with 1=no effect and 5=very effective 60. Facilitates the sharing or gaining of expertise in the taskforce area.

1 2 3 4 5

61. Plans and leads monthly taskforce meetings. 1 2 3 4 5 62. Rate the overall performance of your CA Taskforce Leader: 1 2 3 4 5 Please answer the following questions, YES or NO, and then explain your answer: 63. If UNICEF were to decrease it’s administrative role in the CA, do you think current coalition members would be able to take up these responsibilities for the CA?

YES NO

Explain: 64. If UNICEF were to decrease it’s financial role in the CA, do you YES NO

think current coalition members would be able to take up these responsibilities for the CA? Explain: Concluding remarks: 65. Please describe what you believe to be the primary STRENGTHS of the CA: 66. Please describe what you believe to be the primary WEAKNESSES of the CA: 67. In what ways can the CA improve its structure and/or focus: 68. What other recommendations do you have for the future of the CA:

Children’s Agenda Formative Evaluation LGA Interview

Date: Interviewer Name: Interviewee Name: Position: Organization: Location (town, county, region): Introduction: This survey is part of the formative evaluation of the Children’s Agenda being conducted by CfBT Trust between January 13th and March 14th, 2014. You have been selected to complete this survey because of your knowledge of and your organization’s membership in the Children’s Agenda coalition. The survey will take about 60 minutes to complete. The information you provide herein will be strictly confidential. Copies of this survey will not be shared with other coalition members and answers will not be directly attributed to you in any reports released by CfBT Trust without your expressed written permission. Your participation in this evaluation is deeply appreciated. 1. For the following areas, indicate if there been any changes in policy, changes in service delivery, or budget increases from the government since 2010: AREA Policy Services Budget Maternal and Child Health

Child nutrition




School safety

HIV and AIDS

Teen pregnancy

Child protection from violence, abuse, and child exploitation

Children with disabilities

2. Did any of the following groups contribute to any of the changes you identified above: International NGOs?

YES NO

Local NGOs or CSOs?

YES NO

Junior Councils?

YES NO

Other:

YES NO

3. Please indicate in your view if the following areas have improved, worsened, or stayed the same between 2010 and 2012: AREA IMPROVED WORSENED SAME Maternal and Child Health

Child nutrition




School safety

HIV and AIDS

Teen pregnancy

Child Protection from violence, abuse, and child exploitation


4. Please indicate in your view if the following areas have increased, decreased, or stayed the same between 2010 and 2012: Area Increase Decrease Same Parliamentary understanding of child rights and investing in children.

LGA understanding of child rights and investing in children.

Ethical and accurate mass media reporting on child rights issues.

Child participation in homes, communities, schools and local government.

Understanding of children rights and the Top Ten Investments among the public and key stakeholders.

Amount and quality of collaboration between coalition members and with other relevant organisations

5. Did any of the following groups contribute to any of the changes you identified above: International NGOs?

YES NO

Local NGOs or CSOs?

YES NO

Junior Councils?

YES NO

Other:

YES NO

6. Describe any other activities and approximate dates you have undertaken in partnership with JR. COUNCILS or JR. COUNCIL MEMBERS: 7. Describe any other activities and approximate dates you have undertaken in partnership with NGOs or CSOs in your region: 8. Describe any other activities and approximate dates you have undertaken in partnership with the CA:

9. Tell us about the best ways to going about influencing policies, services, and budgets concerning children’s issues at the LGA: 10. What recommendations do you have for improving the CAs ability to effectively advocate for children:

Children’s Agenda Formative Evaluation Chair (MCDGC) Interview

Date: Interviewer Name: Interviewee Name: Position: Organization: Location (town, county, region): Introduction: This survey is part of the formative evaluation of the Children’s Agenda being conducted by CfBT Trust between January 13th and March 14th, 2014. You have been selected to complete this survey because of your knowledge of and membership in the Children’s Agenda coalition. The survey will take about 60 to 90 minutes to complete. The information you provide herein will be strictly confidential and results will be presented as general descriptions of the data we collect from you and others. Copies of this survey will not be shared with other coalition members and answers will not be directly attributed to you in any reports released by CfBT Trust without your expressed written permission. Your participation in this evaluation is deeply appreciated. 1. How familiar are you with the aims and activities of the CA?

Not familiar

Somewhat familiar

Very familiar


Not familiar

Somewhat familiar

Very familiar

3. What year did your organization join the CA? 2010 2011 2012 2013 4. Describe the reason(s) why your organization joined the CA: 5. To what extent were your expectations met after joining the CA?

Not met

A little met

Half met

Mostly met

Explain:

6. What are the advantages of having a government ministry as chair of an advocacy coalition (which is seeking governmental change)? 7. What are the disadvantages of having a government ministry as chair of an advocacy coalition (which is seeking governmental change)? On a scale of 1 to 5, rate the overall effectiveness of the following responsibilities the MCDGC has in it’s leadership responsibilities of the CA, with 1=no effect and 5=very effective. 8. Convenes and chairs all the CA meetings. 1 2 3 4 5 Please explain: 9. Sets the agenda for all CA meetings in consultation with the co-chair and secretariat.

1 2 3 4 5

Please explain: 10. Strives to ensure harmonization and articulation of joint 1 2 3 4 5

positions among the CA members. Please explain: 11. Promoted the CA in other ministries and government contexts.

1 2 3 4 5

Please explain: In what ways has the MCDGC achieved the following: 12. Mainstreamed the CA in the Children’s department? 13. Elevate the visibility of the CA at national and local levels? 14. Facilitated CA member engagement with Parliament

15. Supported the development and dissemination of the CA materials across the country

16. Trains and orients stakeholders on the goals and strategies of the CA On a scale of 1 to 5, rate the effectiveness of the Deputy Chair (Compassion International) of the CA in the following areas, with 1=no effect and 5=very effective. 17. Presides at CA meetings in the absence of the Chair 1 2 3 4 5 Please explain: 18. Represents the CA in different forums. 1 2 3 4 5 Please explain: 19. Rate the overall performance of the CA Deputy Chair: 1 2 3 4 5 On a scale of 1 to 5, rate the effectiveness of the Secretariat (UNICEF) of the CA in the following areas, with 1=no effect and 5=very effective. 20. Drafts and distributes an approved agenda for the meetings to the CA members

1 2 3 4 5

Please explain:

21. Ensures finalization and circulation of action-oriented minutes within one week of each meeting.

1 2 3 4 5

Please explain: 22. Prepares and files documentation related to the functioning of the CA, as well as background documentation, necessary for the decision making process of the CA members.

1 2 3 4 5

Please explain: 23. Maintains the communication and smooth coordination of information and exchange among the CA members.

1 2 3 4 5

Please explain: 24. Maintains an updated contact list for the CA members. 1 2 3 4 5 Please explain: 25. Develops visibility materials, communication and advocacy tools to support the CA activities.

1 2 3 4 5

Please explain:

26. Rate the overall performance of the CA Secretariat: 1 2 3 4 5 27. For the following areas, indicate if there been any changes in policy, changes in service delivery, or budget increases from the government since 2010: AREA Policy Services Budget Maternal and Child Health

Child nutrition




School safety

HIV and AIDS

Teen pregnancy



28. Did the activities of the CA or CA members contribute in any way to changes in the areas indicated above?

YES NO

If yes, please describe which activities and how it contributed?

29. Please indicate in your view if the following areas have improved, worsened, or stayed the same for children between 2010 and 2012: AREA IMPROVED WORSENED SAME Maternal and Child Health Child nutrition Hygiene and sanitation Early childhood development Formal or non-formal education quality School safety HIV and AIDS Teen pregnancy Violence, abuse, and child exploitation Children with disabilities Other (please indicate): Other (please indicate): 30. Did the activities of the CA or CA members contribute in any way to any of the improved areas indicated above?

YES NO

If yes, please describe which activities and how it contributed? On a scale of 1 to 5, rate the overall effectiveness of the CA in the following focus areas, with 1=no effect and 5=very effective. 31. Increasing MP’s understanding of child rights and investing in children.

1 2 3 4 5

Please explain: 32. Increasing PMOLRG’s understanding of child rights and investing in children.

1 2 3 4 5

Please explain: 33. Increasing LGA understanding of child rights and investing in children.

1 2 3 4 5

Please explain: 34. Increasing regular, ethical, and accurate mass media reporting on child rights issues.

1 2 3 4 5

Please explain: 35. Increasing child participation in homes, communities, schools and local government.

1 2 3 4 5

Please explain: On a scale of 1 to 5, rate the overall management of the CA in the following focus areas, with 1=no effect and 5=very effective. 36. Increasing the amount and quality of collaboration and sharing of expertise between coalition members.

1 2 3 4 5

Please explain: 37. Encouraging participation/involvement of coalition members in CA activities.

1 2 3 4 5

Please explain: 38. Implementation of joint activities of coalition members. 1 2 3 4 5 Please explain: 39. Communication between coalition members. 1 2 3 4 5 Please explain: 40. Financial support for CA-related activities. 1 2 3 4 5 Please explain: 41. The taskforce leadership of the Children’s Agenda. 1 2 3 4 5 Please explain: Please answer the following questions, YES or NO, and then explain your answer: 42. If UNICEF were to decrease it’s administrative role in the CA, do you think current coalition members would be able to take up these responsibilities for the CA?

YES NO

Explain:

43. If UNICEF were to decrease it’s financial role in the CA, do you think current coalition members would be able to take up these responsibilities for the CA?

YES NO

Explain: Concluding remarks: 44. Please describe what you believe to be the primary STRENGTHS of the CA: 45. Please describe what you believe to be the primary WEAKNESSES of the CA: 46. In what ways can the CA improve its structure and/or focus: 47. What other recommendations do you have for the future of the CA:

Children’s Agenda Formative Evaluation MP/PMORALG/Party Official Interview

Date: Interviewer Name: Interviewee Name: Position: Organization: Location (town, county, region): Contact Info: Phone Email Introduction: This survey is part of an evaluation of children’s issues being conducted by UNICEF and CfBT Trust between January 13th and March 14th, 2014. You have been selected to complete this survey because of your knowledge of issues concerning children in Tanzania. The interview will take about 1 hour to complete. The information you provide herein will be strictly confidential. Copies of this survey will not be shared publically and answers will not be directly attributed to you in any reports released by CfBT Trust without your expressed written permission. Your participation in this evaluation is deeply appreciated. 1. What are the top legislative priorities concerning children for most of your colleagues among Members of Parliament/your political party/PMORALG officials (not necessarily your own personal priorities)? 2. What are your own personal priorities concerning children which you would wish to see reflected within your future (Parliamentary sessions/Political party’s manifesto/MTEF Plan for PMORALG)?

3. For the following areas, indicate if there been any changes in policy, changes in service delivery, or budget increases from the government since 2010: AREA Policy Services Budget Maternal and Child Health

Child nutrition




School safety

HIV and AIDS

Teen pregnancy



4. Did any of the following groups contribute to any of the changes you identified above:

International NGOs?

YES NO

Local NGOs or CSOs?

YES NO

Junior Councils?

YES NO

Other:

YES NO

5. Please indicate in your view if the following areas have improved, worsened, or stayed the same between 2010 and 2012: AREA IMPROVED WORSENED SAME Maternal and Child Health

Child nutrition




School safety

HIV and AIDS

Teen pregnancy

Child Protection from violence, abuse, and child exploitation


6. Have you worked with any non-governmental organisations or civil society organisations on any of the issues above?

YES NO

If YES, please describe: 7. Have you worked with any non-governmental organisations or civil society organisations on drafting your party’s campaign platforms?

YES NO

If YES, please describe: 8. Have you worked with any children or children’s groups such as Jr. Councils on drafting your campaign platforms or Party Manifestos?

YES NO

If YES, please describe:

9. Describe the process for drafting and finalizing policy and budgets around children’s issues and services: 10. How do non-elected officials influence policy and budget decisions on children’s issues? 11. Please indicate in your view if the following areas have increased, decreased, or stayed the same between 2010 and 2012: Area Increase Decrease Same Parliamentary understanding of child rights and investing in children.

LGAs understanding of child rights and investing in children.

Ethical and accurate mass media reporting on child rights issues.

Child participation in homes, communities, schools and local government.

Understanding of children rights and the Top Ten Investments among the public and key stakeholders.

Explain any changes:

12. Have you participated in any activities or consultations with the Children’s agenda?

YES NO

If YES, explain the activities and their approximate dates:

What is your opinion on the CA’s ability to effect change in the government on children’s issues? In what can the CA be improved to have a greater impact?

Children’s Agenda Formative Evaluation Secretariat (UNICEF) Interview Guide

Date: Interviewer Name: Interviewee Name: Position: Organization: Location (town, county, region): Contact Info: Phone Email Introduction: This interview is part of the formative evaluation of the Children’s Agenda being conducted by CfBT Trust between January 13th and March 14th, 2014. You have been selected to participate because of your knowledge and membership in the Children’s Agenda coalition. The interview will take about 1 and a half to 2 hours to complete. The information you provide herein will be strictly confidential. Copies of this survey will not be shared with anyone other then the researchers and answers will not be directly attributed to you in any reports released by CfBT Trust without your expressed written permission. Your participation in this evaluation is deeply appreciated. 1. In which years were you involved with the activities of the CA?

2010 2011 2012 2013

2. Describe your role with the CA as a UNICEF staff during this time: 3. In what ways was/has UNICEF been successful in supporting the CA to meet its goals and objectives at the time? 4. In what ways was/has UNICEF NOT been successful in supporting the CA to meet its goals and objectives at the time?

5. In what ways do the other departments/ sector offices of UNICEF Tanzania (other than Communications) contribute or collaborate with the CA? 6. Should there be additional support or participation from other departments/ sector offices of UNICEF Tanzania (other than Communications) or from the regional office or HQ, in the CA, and if so how? 7. In what ways has the CA chair been successful in supporting the goals of the CA (government as chair)? 8. In what ways has the CA chair NOT been successful in supporting the goals of the CA (government as chair)?

9. In what ways has the CA deputy chair been successful in supporting the goals of the CA (government as chair)? 10. In what ways has the CA deputy chair NOT been successful in supporting the goals of the CA (government as chair)? 11. For the following areas, indicate if there been any changes in policy, changes in service delivery, or budget increases from the government since 2010. If so, please indicate if the CA or its members contributed to the change: AREA Policy Services Budget Maternal and Child Health

Child nutrition




School safety

HIV and AIDS

Teen pregnancy



12. In the table below, indicate for each area if you believe it has improved, worsened, or stayed the same. You may also indicate if you don’t know. AREA IMPROVED WORSENED SAME DON’T

KNOW Maternal and Child Health Nutrition Hygiene and sanitation Early childhood development Formal or non-formal education quality School safety HIV/AIDS Teen pregnancy Child protection from violence, abuse, and child exploitation

Children with disabilities 13. Was the CA successful in influencing the 2011 election, or in influencing policies, services, or budgets concerning children?

14. Does the current structure of the CA support its mission (Leadership, taskforces)? 15. If UNICEF were to decrease it’s administrative role in the CA, do you think current coalition members would be able to take up these responsibilities for the CA?

YES NO

Explain: 16. If UNICEF were to decrease it’s financial role in the CA, do you think current coalition members would be able to take up these responsibilities for the CA?

YES NO

Explain: 17. Please describe what you believe to be the primary STRENGTHS of the CA: 18. Please describe what you believe to be the primary WEAKNESSES of the CA:

19. In what ways can the CA improve its structure and/or focus: 20. What other recommendations do you have for the future of the CA:

Children’s Agenda Formative Evaluation Youth/Junior Council Focus Group Protocol

If possible, separate interviews for boys and separate for girls is advised Date: Interviewer Name: Organization: Location (town, county, region): Number of boys: Number of girls: Introduction: Before we begin, I’d like to introduce my self…

This group interview is part of an evaluation of the Children’s Agenda (being conducted by CfBT Trust on behalf of UNICEF) and you have been selected to take part in this survey because of your participation in the Children’s Council. Our discussions today will take about 1 and half to 2 hours to complete. I will be asking a number of questions and listening to your answers. If there is anything you do not understand please ask me. When researchers like myself do interviews the answers are kept confidential and we will not write your names by any answers. While we can’t guarantee confidentiality because we’re all here in a group, I would like to ask all of you to respect the privacy of your fellow participants and not repeat what is said in the focus group to others. The information you provide will not be directly attributed to any of you in reports released by CfBT Trust. Your participation in this evaluation is deeply appreciated. Now, one at a time, everyone please say your first name, your age, the village you come from, and what career you want to pursue. (Thank them and explain you’ll now begin the interview – explain to the young people that if they can remember when things happened that would be very helpful) 1. Raise your hand if you are familiar with the Children’s Agenda? What can you tell me

about it? 2. Now raise your hand if you have participated in any activities with the children’s council

or young reporters group? Tell me about:

How long each of you have involved,

the activities,

it’s leadership structure,

meeting schedules,

participation in terms of gender, class, ethnicity

Were you successful in meeting your goals? 3. As some of you may know, one of the goals of the CA is to support the increase in youth

participation in the local government and in decisions about your community. Do you believe that young people have recently had an influence on the decisions taken by local

government? What about the National government? Can you give an example of when/how you has participated in government decisions in your community.

4. Raise your hand if you think youth participation has increased over the last few years? Tell me why you think so.

5. Now raise your hand if you think youth participation has NOT increased. Tell me why you

think so. 6. What issues do you think the voices and views of young people have most influenced in

local governmental decision making over the last few years, - mainly issues relating to children or other decisions? Please provide examples to support your response

7. Take a moment and think to yourself, What are the top three most pressing issues that

children and youth face today in your community. Now on these pieces of paper, please write them down. (Or, “Tell them to me and I’ll write them down.”)

8. Finally, I would like to get your advice. Our job is to make recommendations to the CA on how to advocate – ask the government – to make changes that will improve children’s lives. What should I tell them?

Thank you very much for spending your time with me today.

Annex 4. Evaluator Team composition Andrew Epstein – Lead Consultant

Kate Moriarty – Expert Advocacy Consultant

Julie Tumbo – Regional Consultant

Mathew Christian Kapongo – Translator

Ben Awinda – Data Entry Clerk

Alexia di Marco – Project Manager

Kate Vorley – Quality Assurance

Annex 5: Evaluation Matrix

Evaluation Questions

Type of Answer/ Evidence Needed

(Check one or more, as

appropriate)

Methods for Data Collection,

Sampling or Selection

Approach, (if one is needed)

Data Analysis Methods,

Data Source(s)

Method

1. To what extent have agreed activities taken place and interim outcomes achieved during the period 2010 to 2013, noting the absence of written plans in the 2010-2011 period?

Yes/No CA member CSO and NGO staff

and beneficiaries; Government officials and

MCDGC staff; Jr. Councils

Surveys, semi-

structured interviews, focus group discussions, document reviews, media

tracking

CA membership consensus

Qualitative coding, basic

descriptive stats and frequency distributions

X Description

Comparison4

Explanation5

2. How efficient and effective is the Children’s Agenda, including its structure and activities, with respect to the membership capacity of the coalition?


and beneficiaries;


Surveys, semi-

structured interviews, focus group discussions,

advocacy capacity

index



descriptive stats and frequency distributions, multivariate regression analysis

X Description

X Comparison

Explanation

3. How efficient and effective is the Children’s Agenda, including its structure and activities, with respect to the capacity of the coalition as an entity in and of itself?


and beneficiaries;


Surveys, semi-


advocacy capacity

index




X Description

Comparison

Explanation

4. How relevant Yes/No CA member Surveys, CA membership Qualitative

4 Comparison – to baselines, plans/targets, or to other standards or norms 5 Explanation – for questions that ask “why” or about the attribution of an effect to a specific intervention (causality)




appropriate)





Data Source(s)

Method

have the activities and structure of the Children’s Agenda been to the needs and goals of its members?

X Description CSO and NGO staff



semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions,

media tracking

consensus

coding, basic descriptive stats and frequency distributions, multivariate regression analysis

Comparison

Explanation

5. Is the Children’s Agenda as it is currently structured sustainable6 over the longer-term?

X Yes/No CA member CSO and NGO staff

and beneficiaries;

MCDGC staff;

Surveys, semi-


advocacy capacity

index




X Description

Comparison

Explanation

6. In what ways has the Children’s Agenda supported advocacy efforts on behalf of marginalized populations and gender equity?


and beneficiaries;


Surveys, semi-


media tracking




X Description

Comparison

Explanation

7. What are the weaknesses, strengths, constraints, opportunities and lessons learnt since the Children’s Agenda



MCDGC staff; Jr.

Surveys, semi-


advocacy capacity index,




X Description

X Comparison

Explanation

6 Sustainability is understood as the ability of the CA to remain functional and effective with a decreased administrative

and financial role of UNICEF.




appropriate)





Data Source(s)

Method

implementation?

Councils media tracking

8. What is the capacity and reliability of existing monitoring systems, and how can these systems be improved?


and beneficiaries;

MCDGC staff;

Surveys, semi-

structured interviews, advocacy capacity index,

document reviews




X Description

X Comparison

Explanation

Annex 6: Evaluability Matrix 1. Quality of the programme documents

Rationale Documents Yes No

Justification and rationale of the intervention

Contained in multiple sources provided since 2010, but not all are aligned as they have been modified or changed twice since then.

Sept 2010, Oct 2012, March 2013 Power Points, CA News Letters between Oct and Dec. 2010, CA Brochure Sept 2010, CA 2012 Annual Report, CA Advocacy Briefs 2012, CA Monthly Meeting Minutes between Feb and Nov 2012, Campaign taskforce meeting minutes Aug 2012, Girl-child int’l day planning meeting minutes, 2012-2015 Strategic Plan and 2013 updated version, May 2012 Leadership ToR, CA Webpage plans, Feb 2013 Annual Review, April 2013 quarterly meeting minutes, July 2013 Mid-year review, October 2013 quarterly meeting, 2013 CA workplan, 2012 Child Partic. Strategy, various taskforce meeting minutes between April and Sept 2013.

X

Clear, realistic and commonly understood objectives

Objectives not well outlined in 2010-2011, but well outlined in 2012-2015 strategic plan

Sept 2010 Powerpoint, 2012-2015 strategic plan, interviews with former UNICEF staff

X

CA performance indicators aligned with CA vision

Indicators not outlined in 2010-2011, but outlined in 2012-2015 strategic plan, and aligned with vision outlined therein.

2012-2015 strategic plan X

Monitored performance indicators

Performance indicators not monitored

X

Flexible and responsive log frame?

Log frame outdated (a new one has been developed by the authors of this report that reflect the current causal chain)

X

% %

60 %40

2A. Availability of data

Explanation Documents Yes No

Baseline data No baseline was conducted

X7

Programme Document

Numerous programmeme documents produced between 2010- and 2013 have been made available, including toolkits and training booklets, visibility materials and issue briefs, member forms and some correspondence.

Sept 2010, Oct 2012, March 2013 Power Points, CA News Letters between Oct and Dec. 2010, CA Brochure Sept 2010, CA 2012 Annual Report, CA Advocacy Briefs 2012, CA Monthly Meeting Minutes between Feb and Nov 2012, Campaign taskforce meeting minutes Aug 2012, Girl-child int’l day planning meeting minutes, 2012-2015 Strategic Plan and 2013 updated version, May 2012 Leadership ToR, CA Webpage plans, Feb 2013 Annual Review, April 2013 quarterly meeting minutes, July 2013 Mid-year review, October 2013 quarterly meeting, 2013 CA workplan, 2012 Child Partic. Strategy, various taskforce meeting minutes between April and Sept 2013.

X

Progress reports

Quarterly and annual reports have been made available from 2012.

CA 2012 Annual Report, Feb 2013 Annual Review

X

Independent Project Evaluation reports

No independent evaluations have been conducted

X

Minutes of meetings

Meeting minutes since May 2012 are available

CA Monthly Meeting Minutes between Feb and Nov 2012, Campaign taskforce meeting minutes Aug 2012, Girl-child int’l day planning meeting minutes, April 2013 quarterly meeting minutes, July 2013 Mid-year review, October 2013 quarterly meeting, various taskforce meeting minutes between April and Sept 2013.

X

Studies

UNICEF and partner studies of advocacy projects in the region and globally have been made available.

2009 Violence Against Children Survey, 2012 Census, the 2010 Tanzania Demographic and Health Survey (DHS), and the 2010 UNICEF Children and Women in Tanzania (Situation) report, 2013 EFA Global Monitoring Report, UNICEF Advocacy Toolkit

X

7 There are some broad baselines established in an early work plan of the project, but these have since changed.

Presentations

Power Point presentations on the CA since 2010 have made available

Sept 2010, Oct 2012, March 2013 Power Points

X

Agreement(s)/ MOU

The templates of MOUs, TORs, and other agreements between the CA and its members have been made available

May 2012 Leadership ToR X

Financial documents (budget revisions)

Financial documents have been requested, but have yet to be provided

Funds disbursed to CA members 2011-2013 table

X

% %80 %20

4. Feasible, credible and useful evaluation

Explanation Yes No

Good evaluation timing (useful evaluation at that point in time)

Although this is the first independent evaluation of the CA in its 4 years, the timing is good because the project has new leadership at UNICEF and members have expressed the need for a re-commitment and re-focus of the project.

X

Pilots or earlier stages of the programmeme, if any, have been previously evaluated

No pilots were conducted X

The political situation is conducive to the evaluation (travels are possible to project locations and to stakeholders locations)

Travel is possible to all project locations and all project informants, except for MP’s, which has so far proven difficult to coordinate.

X

The security situation is conducive to the evaluation (travels are possible to project locations and to stakeholders locations)

Security is very good in all project locations.

X

The climatic situation is conducive to the evaluation (travels are possible to project locations and to

Travel is possible to all project locations X

stakeholders locations)

Availability of key stakeholders in the field (no national events, such as elections, holidays, during the evaluation time period)

All project informants are available except for MP’s, which has so far proven difficult to coordinate.

X

Adequate evaluation budget X

%

88 %12

Annex 7: Analysis Matrix

# Evaluation Question

Interim Outcome

Analytic Criteria

Tool Question #

Question n Findings

1 NGO/CSO Interview; NGO/CSO Survey; MCDGC Interview; DepChair Interview; Sec Interview.

Q1 How familiar are you with the aims and activities of the CA?

40 Many rspondents are newly appointed focal persons for the CA and thus the high number of "somewhat familiar" responses.


Q2 How familiar are you with your organization’s participation as a member the CA?

39 Despite one quarter of repsondents being newly appointed CA focal persons, most claim knowledge of their orgs current activity with CA


Q3 What year did your organization join the CA?

38 More than half of respondents represent orgs that joined in 2010.

4 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 2 R,E,Y,S NGO/CSO Interview; NGO/CSO Survey; MCDGC Interview; DepChair Interview; Sec Interview.

Q5 How would you describe your organization’s current activity with the CA?

37 Most respondents claimed that their orgs were either "active" or "very active" in the CA.


Q5B Between 2010 and 2013, has your role or level of activity changed?

40 More than half indicated that their activity with the CA has decreased since joining, although interviews indicate that activity for about a quarter of respondents has gone both up and down over the life of their membership.


Interim Outcome

Analytic Criteria

Tool Question #

Question n Findings


Q7 To what extent were your expectations met after joining the CA?

29 More than three-quarters indicate that their expectations of membership were half-met or less, although interviews indicate that expectations more highly met in 2010, and have since decreased significantly.

7 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7

5 C NGO/CSO Interview; NGO/CSO Survey; MCDGC Interview; DepChair Interview; Sec Interview.

Q9 In what settings does your organization work?

39 While three quarters indicate that their orgs work in rural areas, interviews indicate that the CA remains most active in urban and town centers, and rural and hard-to-reach areas are not served well by the CA.

8 1,2,3,4,6,8 2 E,Y,S NGO/CSO Interview; NGO/CSO Survey; MCDGC Interview; DepChair Interview; Sec Interview.

Q11 Between 2010 and 2013, did your organization collect data about services you provide or the children you serve?

26 Two-thirds of respndents claimed that their orgs engaged in this activity.

9 1,2,3,4 2 E,Y,S NGO/CSO Interview; NGO/CSO Survey; MCDGC Interview; DepChair Interview; Sec Interview.

Q11A Did the CA assist in any way your organization’s capacity to carry out these activities?

40 Of the respndents that claimed their orgs did engage in this activity, 80% of respondents claim that the CA did not contribute to this capacity. Three orgs alimed to be involved in helping to collect data and write reports for CA-related publications.

10 1,2,3,4,6 2 E,Y,S,C NGO/CSO Interview; NGO/CSO Survey; MCDGC Interview; DepChair Interview; Sec Interview.

Q12 Between 2010 and 2013, did your organization obtain input from children, youth, or the communities you serve on the need for changes in policy or services in this/these area(s) listed above?

39 80% of respondents claimed that their orgs engaged in this activity. Most said they consulted their own constituencies regularly.


Interim Outcome

Analytic Criteria

Tool Question #

Question n Findings



38 Of the respndents that claimed their orgs did engage in this activity, 60% of respondents claimed that the CA did not contribute to this capacity. Most identified the 2009 childrens consultations, the 2010 election campaign, and the 2013 constitutional consultations as CA-related activities that may have contributed to org capacity.


Q13 Between 2010 and 2013, did your organization use data or community input to decide that different policies or services in any of the areas you work in were needed?

37 35% of respondents claimed that their orgs engaged in this activity. Interviews revealed that this was not an activity that they engaged in and relied on outside research and "common sense" when formulating service and advocvacy approaches.



40 Of the respndents that claimed their orgs did engage in this activity, 100% of respondents claimed that the CA did not contribute to this capacity.


Q14 Between 2010 and 2013, did your organization examine the gender-specific implications of the areas in which you work?

29 72% of respondents claimed that their orgs engaged in this activity. Intervioews revealed that most orgs directly serve girl-children as a part of their missions and clained that these analyses were part of their normal operating proceedures.

15 1,2,3,4,6 2 E,Y,S NGO/CSO Interview; NGO/CSO Survey; MCDGC Interview; DepChair Interview; Sec Interview.




Interim Outcome

Analytic Criteria

Tool Question #

Question n Findings


Q15 Between 2010 and 2013, did your organization devote its own resources (eg. time and money) for policy advocacy (non-service provision) activities?

40 100% of respondents claimed that their orgs engaged in this activity. Interviews revealed that this was a source of contention with the CA, claiming that the CA supported a few members financially while most were forced to find their own funds to engage in CA-related activities, and this was was not sustainable.





Q16 Between 2010 and 2013, did your organization conduct public education, awareness raising, or build public support (including through the media) for the area(s) in which you work?

38 80% of respondents claimed that their orgs engaged in this activity. Interviews revealed that most participated in some way in the CA-sponsored international days, but that they also did other public education activities.



37 Of the respndents that claimed their orgs did engage in this activity, 15% of respondents claimed that the CA did not contribute to this capacity. Most cited CA-sponsoired public events as sources.


Q17 Between 2010 and 2013, did your organization partner with other non-CA member CSOs or NGOs in joint action to advocate for children?

40 90% of respondents claimed that their orgs engaged in this activity. The CA was one of many partnerships members engaged in.


Interim Outcome

Analytic Criteria

Tool Question #

Question n Findings



29 Of the respndents that claimed their orgs did engage in this activity, 10% of respondents claimed that the CA did not contribute to this capacity. Most interviewees cited the CA as a source for the non-member relationships, especially with their primary donors, with whom they claim to have more productive relationships as a result of the affiliation with UNICEF and a few of the other large international aid orgs.


Q18 Between 2010 and 2013, did your organization work with any government ministries other than the MCDGC (such as education or health) in joint action to advocate for children?

39 85% of respondents claimed that their orgs engaged in this activity



40 Of the respndents that claimed their orgs did engage in this activity, 90% of respondents claimed that the CA did not contribute to this capacity. Members cited a lack of productivity by the CA chair to make these connections.


Q19 Between 2010 and 2013, did your organization engage with Members of Parliament to advocate for children?

39 65% of respondents claimed that their orgs engaged in this activity.



38 Of the respndents that claimed their orgs did engage in this activity, 30% of respondents claimed that the CA did not contribute to this capacity. Interviewees refered to the 2010 election period as the time when they had stronger connecions to MPs.


Interim Outcome

Analytic Criteria

Tool Question #

Question n Findings


Q20 Between 2010 and 2013, did your organization engage with District Counselors to advocate for children?




40 Of the respndents that claimed their orgs did engage in this activity, 90% of respondents claimed that the CA did not contribute to this capacity. Member staff who worked at the district level and district government staff interviewed indicated infrequent interaction.


Q21 Between 2010 and 2013, did your organization engage with PMOLRG staff to advocate for children?

29 50 % of respondents claimed that their orgs engaged in this activity.





Q22 Between 2010 and 2013, did your organization engage with LGA staff to advocate for children?




40 Of the respndents that claimed their orgs did engage in this activity, 100% of respondents claimed that the CA did not contribute to this capacity. The relationships members claimed to have with LGA staff existed prior to their joining the CA.


Interim Outcome

Analytic Criteria

Tool Question #

Question n Findings


Q23 Was your organization successful in getting the local or national government to enact policy changes and/or devote new resources for needed services in the areas in which you work?

39 18% of respondents answered yes to this question. There was acknowledgement of progress, especially as measured by the MDGs and EFA GMR, but since 2010, they have generally not seen change in laws, policies, or budgets.



38 Of the respndents that claimed their orgs did engage in this activity, all respondents claimed that the CA did not contribute to this capacity.


Q24 Are there any advocacy related activities your organization implemented or participated in that are not mentioned in the questions above?

37


Q25 Did the CA assist in any way your organization’s ability to carry out these activities?

40


Q27 On a scale of 0 to 5, rate your organization’s capacity to engage in the following activities, where 0 = inapplicability or no capacity and 5 = very strong capacity/accomplishment with virtually no room for improvement:

39


Q27A Policy analysis and research 38 High capacity. Most claimed to have capacity for research and analysis, but not enough time or funding for it.


Interim Outcome

Analytic Criteria

Tool Question #

Question n Findings

38 1,2,3,4 2 E,Y,S,C NGO/CSO Interview; NGO/CSO Survey; MCDGC Interview; DepChair Interview; Sec Interview.

Q27B Public consultation/constituency input

37 High capacity, citing contact with their constituents.

39 1,2,3,4 2 E,Y,S,C NGO/CSO Interview; NGO/CSO Survey; MCDGC Interview; DepChair Interview; Sec Interview.

Q27C Alternative policy formulation/service approaches

40 Moderate capacity


Q27D Gender analysis 29 Moderate capacity

41 1,2,3,4,8 2 E,Y NGO/CSO Interview; NGO/CSO Survey; MCDGC Interview; DepChair Interview; Sec Interview.

Q27E Monitoring and evaluation 39 High capacity


Q27F Funding for advocacy activities 26 High capacity. Interviewees cited their donors, and those who received funding from UNICEF, also cited multiple sources of funding, as evidence that they had fundrasing capacity. All considered the time and resources they spent on CA-related activities as evidence of their "funding" activities, becasue many aspects of the CA align with those of their donors.

43 1,2,3,4 2 S NGO/CSO Interview; NGO/CSO Survey; MCDGC Interview; DepChair Interview; Sec Interview.

Q27G Time for advocacy activities 37 High capacity


Interim Outcome

Analytic Criteria

Tool Question #

Question n Findings

44 1,2,3,4 2 E NGO/CSO Interview; NGO/CSO Survey; MCDGC Interview; DepChair Interview; Sec Interview.

Q27H Public education/awareness raising

39 High capacity

45 1,2,3,4 2 Y NGO/CSO Interview; NGO/CSO Survey; MCDGC Interview; DepChair Interview; Sec Interview.

Q27I Coalition building and networking

38 High capacity

46 1,2,3,4 2 R,E NGO/CSO Interview; NGO/CSO Survey; MCDGC Interview; DepChair Interview; Sec Interview.

Q27J Media relations 37 High capacity

47 1,2,3,4 2 R,E,S NGO/CSO Interview; NGO/CSO Survey; MCDGC Interview; DepChair Interview; Sec Interview.

Q27K Political lobbying and legislative relations

38 Low capacity. Interviewees expressed disappointment in failing to take advantage of or reproduce the access and influence they'd gained in 2010.


Q28 On a scale of 1 to 5, indicate how well known you believe the CA and its activities are to the following groups, where 1=virtually unknown and 5=very well known.

39

49 2,4 1,2,4 E,Y,S NGO/CSO Interview; NGO/CSO Survey; MCDGC Interview; DepChair Interview; Sec Interview.

Q28A Your organization’s executive leadership

38 Low knowledge


Q28B Your organization’s general staff 37 high knowledge


Interim Outcome

Analytic Criteria

Tool Question #

Question n Findings


Q28C The children and youth served by your organization

40 high knowledge. This was corroborated by interviews and focus groups with children's council and YRN members.


Q28D Other, non-CA member CSOs/NGOs in your region

40 Moderate knowledge. Interviewees claimed that this had decreased from a higher level in 2010.


Q28E Children and youth in your region

39 high knowledge


Q28F Parents in your region 38 moderate to low knowledge. Both CSO/NGO staff, and government staff at all levels, recommended that parents be targeted not only for inclusion in the CA, but also as targets for advocacy, as paretns were cited as a large source of perpetrators of children;s rights violations.


Q28G The general public in your region

37 Moderate to low. 2010 was cited as a high point in this knpowledge.

56 2,4 1,2,3,4 E,Y,S NGO/CSO Interview; NGO/CSO Survey; MCDGC Interview; DepChair Interview; Sec Interview.

Q28H Local government officials 36 Low knowledge. Interviewees who worked directly with local communities claimed that while they knew their LGA staff and representatioves, there had not been very much interaction since 2010.


Interim Outcome

Analytic Criteria

Tool Question #

Question n Findings


Q28I Local courts and judges 29 Moderate knowledge. Interviewees talked about gender and children's desks at police stations and children's councils spoke enthusiatically about reporting children's rights violations.


Q28J Members of parliament representing your region

39 high knowledge. Among the MPs who are part of the Chamipons group and/or who regularly interact with CA members, this is true, but the national picture is low. MPs spoke of being too few in numbers who actively support childrens rights to effectivly influence legislation and bugeting.


Q28K Local newspapers and radio stations

40 Moderate knowledge. Interviewees claimed that this had decreased from a higher level in 2010. Media analysis indicates that there was high participation of journlaists in CA-sponsored training but low incidence of printed articles or presence in digial and social media.


Q28L Businesses/private sector in your region

39 Low knowledge. Interviewees claimed the private sector was generally not part of the CA strategy.


Q28M The general public, nationwide 38 Low knowledge. Interviewees claimed that this level had come down significantly since 2010.


Interim Outcome

Analytic Criteria

Tool Question #

Question n Findings


Q28N National newspapers and radio stations

37 Moderate knowledge. Interviewees claimed that this had decreased from a higher level in 2010. Media training was the most common activity in the CA annual reports for 2013. But the printing of articles was nearly non existant. Radio stations however, were broadcasting YRN call-in shows, and most participants seemed very positive about it. Broadcasts are on Soundcloud, but to analyze them would have required transcription and translation, which was not a part of the scope of this evaluation.


Q28O The Prime Minister and his staff 40 Moderate knowledge. Interviewees claimed that this had decreased from a higher level in 2010.


Q28P Relevant government ministries other than MCDGC

29 Moderate knowledge. Interviewees reports were lower then the survey respondents by a significant margin. Interviewees claimed that CA interaction with ministries other then MCDGC was low, even though members interacted with theses monisrties in other capacity.


Q28Q National courts and judges 39 Low knowledge

66 Overall effectioveness of CA


Interim Outcome

Analytic Criteria

Tool Question #

Question n Findings

67 1,2,7 2,3 R,E,S NGO/CSO Interview; NGO/CSO Survey; MCDGC Interview; DepChair Interview; Sec Interview.

Q30 Increasing MP’s understanding of child rights and investing in children.

40 Moderate effectiveness. According to the 2012 annual report, over 300 MPs signed pledges to actively support children's rights, but there is little eveidence that this has translated into changes in government laws, polciies, or budgets. MP's report being too small and idsorganiozaed in numbers to influence legislation or budgets.


Q31 Increasing PMOLRG’s understanding of child rights and investing in children.

39 Moderate effectiveness. Interviewees claimed this has decreased sime 2010.

69 1,2,6,7 2,3 R,E,S NGO/CSO Interview; NGO/CSO Survey; MCDGC Interview; DepChair Interview; Sec Interview.

Q32 Increasing LGA understanding of child rights and investing in children.



Q33 Increasing regular, ethical, and accurate mass media reporting on child rights issues.

37 Moderate effectiveness. Interviewees claimed this has decreased sime 2010. Media trainings were among the most common activities in 2013. But there have been few printed articles as a result.

71 1,2,7 2,5 R,E,S,C NGO/CSO Interview; NGO/CSO Survey; MCDGC Interview; DepChair Interview; Sec Interview.

Q34 Increasing child participation in homes, communities, schools and local government.

36 High effectiveness. Children's councils had multiplied and were invloved in multiple consultations sponsired bu the CA. Children claimed to be highly invloved in homes and communities through they're perceived role as reporters of children's rights violators including parents and school teachers. This smultaneously increased their interaction police. Interaction with LGA staff was low.


Interim Outcome

Analytic Criteria

Tool Question #

Question n Findings

72 1,2,7 Overall management of CA

73 1,2,7 2 E,Y,S NGO/CSO Interview; NGO/CSO Survey; MCDGC Interview; DepChair Interview; Sec Interview.

Q35 Increasing the amount and quality of collaboration and sharing of expertise between coalition members.

40 Low effectiveness


Q36 Encouraging participation/involvement of coalition members in CA activities.



Q37 Implementation of joint activities of coalition members.

38 High effectiveness.


Q38 Communication between coalition members.

37 Moderate effectiveness. Taskforce meeting absences among members were very high. Communication was good between partners durring joint activities, but interviewees generally reported consitently unanswered emails and waning activitiy among members.


Q39 Financial support for CA-related activities.

40 Moderate effectiveness. Staff of CA members expressed resentment of those who received UNICEF funding. Member staff who worked in the field expressed urgent need for small-amount funds to support CA-related activities like transportation for children's council members and LGA staff, training for local officials on using CA publications, and office supplies.


Interim Outcome

Analytic Criteria

Tool Question #

Question n Findings


Q40 Monitoring and evaluation of CA member advocacy activities.

37 Low effectiveness. A reporting form was developed in 2013, but has yet to be submitted to the secretariat. No evidence of any M&E system otherwise.

79 1,2,7 Effectiveness of CA Chair .

80 1,2,7 2 E,Y,S NGO/CSO Interview; NGO/CSO Survey; DepChair Interview; Sec Interview.

Q41 Convenes and chairs all the CA meetings.

38 Low effectiveness. Interviewees reported consistent absence and truancy of the chair at meetings.


Q42 Sets the agenda for all CA meetings in consultation with the co-chair and secretariat.

37 Low effectiveness. Interviewees reported that the secretariat set the agenda in the absence of contributions by the Chair


Q43 Strives to build consensus of joint positions among the CA members.

38 Moderate capacity

83 1,2,7 1,2,3 E,Y,S NGO/CSO Interview; NGO/CSO Survey; DepChair Interview; Sec Interview.

Q44 Represents and promotes the CA in other contexts.

37 Low effectiveness. Low interaction with other ministries and elected officials. Moderate effectiveness in communicating knowkledge about the CA to District CDO staff.


Q45 Mainstreamed the CA in the Children’s Department of the MCDGC?

35 Moderate capacity.


Q46 Facilitates CA member engagement with Parliament?

40 Moderate to low effectiveness. This has decreased since 2010.


Q47 Supports the development and dissemination of the CA materials across the country

39 Moderate effectiveness.


Interim Outcome

Analytic Criteria

Tool Question #

Question n Findings


Q48 Trains and orients stakeholders on the goals and strategies of the CA?



Q49 Rate the overall performance of the CA Chair:

37 Low effectiveness.

89 1,2,7 Effectiveness of CA Deputy Chair

90 1,2,7 2 E,Y,S NGO/CSO Interview; NGO/CSO Survey; MCDGC Interview; Sec Interview.

Q50 Presides at CA meetings in the absence of the Chair


91 1,2,7 2,3,4 E,Y,S NGO/CSO Interview; NGO/CSO Survey; MCDGC Interview; Sec Interview.

Q51 Represents the CA in different forums.


92 1,2,7 2 E,Y,S NGO/CSO Interview; NGO/CSO Survey; MCDGC Interview; Sec Interview.

Q52 Rate the overall performance of the CA Deputy Chair:


93 1,2,7 Effectiveness of CA Secretariat


Q53 Drafts and distributes an approved agenda for the meetings to the CA members



Q54 Ensures finalization and circulation of action-oriented minutes within one week of each meeting.



Interim Outcome

Analytic Criteria

Tool Question #

Question n Findings


Q55 Prepares and files documentation related to the functioning of the CA, as well as background documentation, necessary for the decision making process of the CA members.



Q56 Maintains the communication and smooth coordination of information and exchange among the CA members.



Q57 Maintains an updated contact list for the CA members.


99 1,2,7 1,2,3,4 E,Y,S NGO/CSO Interview; NGO/CSO Survey; MCDGC Interview; DepChair Interview; Sec Interview.

Q58 Develops visibility materials, communication and advocacy tools to support the CA activities.



Q59 Rate the overall performance of the CA Secretariat:


101 1,2,7 Effectiveness of CA Taskforce Chair


Q60 Facilitates the sharing or gaining of expertise in the taskforce area.


103 1,2,7 2 E,Y,S NGO/CSO Interview; NGO/CSO Survey; MCDGC Interview; DepChair Interview;

Q61 Plans and leads monthly taskforce meetings.



Interim Outcome

Analytic Criteria

Tool Question #

Question n Findings

Sec Interview.


Q62 Rate the overall performance of your CA Taskforce Leader:


105 1,5 2 S NGO/CSO Interview; NGO/CSO Survey; MCDGC Interview; DepChair Interview; Sec Interview.

Q63 If UNICEF were to decrease it’s administrative role in the CA, do you think current coalition members would be able to take up these responsibilities for the CA?

30 45% of members believe there is adminstrative capacity among CA members to take up adminstrative functions, however all rated UNICEF's performance as secretariat very high and most believe a decrese in administrative support would have a negative impact.

106 1,5 2 S NGO/CSO Interview; NGO/CSO Survey; MCDGC Interview; DepChair Interview; Sec Interview.

Q64 If UNICEF were to decrease it’s financial role in the CA, do you think current coalition members would be able to take up these responsibilities for the CA?

30 Most members believe the CA is financially dependent on UNICEF and any decrease in financial support would have a negative impact.

Annex 8: Media Tracking Report – attached separately.

Annex 9: CA-Related Seminars, Workshops, and Events 2012 – 2013

Name of event Location Date Objective Target audience

Children’s Consultation on the 2012-2015 CA Strategic Plan

Dar 2nd June 2012

Save the Children organised a consultation meeting to seek for views and inputs of children on the Children Agenda Strategic Plan.

16 children (eight of them being Young Reporters from Kinondoni and eight children council members from Temeke). The meeting was also attended by staff from Save the Children, Radio Tumaini and Kinondoni municipal council.

Media Workshop on Budgeting for Children

Dar es Salaam

19 June 2012

To better understand the national budget process, why child-friendly budget matters and ensure child-friendly budget reporting year around on the front page.

Media professionals (26 attended)

Media Seminar on Water, Sanitation & Hygiene

Dar es Salaam

10 October 2012

To better understand the importance of hygiene and sanitation in schools/health facilities about Global Handwashing Day observed on October, 15 each year.

CA members and media (26 attended)

1st International day of the girl child

11 October 2012

Cities and Children – The Challenge of urbanization in Tanzania

Dar es Salaam

14 November 2012

An interactive media seminar followed by a field vist to Vingunguti (Ilala District) to better understand the challenges posed by urban growth and its impact on children.

Media (12 attended)

Gavi Alliance Partners Forum

Dar es Salaam

27 November 2012

An interactive media seminar to gain better understanding on the 5th GAVI Alliance Partners’ Forum that will take place in December 5-7, 2012 in Dar es Salaam.

Media (25 attended)

Children’s Agenda orientation Session

Dodoma 9 February 2013

To orient MPs who are child rights champions to the work of the Children’s Agenda

Members of Parliament (26 attended)

Capacity Building workshops with Jr. Councils (???)

March-December 2013

To train Jr. Councils Need info if these happened from CDF

Media Seminar on teenage pregnancy

Dar es Salaam

14 March 2013

To better understand the challenges posed by teenage pregnancy and its impact on girls’ education, health and future.

Print and electronic media (42 attended)

DAY OF THE AFRICAN CHILD

Dar es Salaam

15 June 2013

Child participation toolkit workshop

Moshi 16-18 October 2013

Familiarization workshop of the national child participation toolkit.

Children’s Agenda members (30 attended)

Children’s Consultations on the Constitutional Review

Arusha, Mtwara, Tanga, Kigoma, Dar es salaam and Mbeya

July-?? 2013

Obtain input from children on revisions to the Tanzanian Constitution. Included TOTs workshops to conduct consultations in 6 districts.

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF THE GIRL CHILD

Dar es Salaam

11TH October 2013

Media Workshop on Ethical Reporting on Children

Dar es Salaam

19 December 2013

A media workshop on ethical reporting on children and highlights of child protection system strengthening work

Child Rights Reporters (25 attended)

Annex 10: CA-related Publications and Reports 2012-2013

Name Date of release

Budgeting for Children 12/2012

Advocacy Toolkit 2013

Top Ten Investments Advocacy Briefs 10/2013

Children and Cities 2012

Child Participation Toolkit 01/2012

Children’s Voices Report

Child Rights Situation Analysis 2012

Ajenda ya watoto “Kwa nini muwekeze kwa watoto” (book)

CA web page on UNICEF Site

Annex 11: Status of Activities

OUTPUTS KEY ACTIVITIES Completion Status

1. Children’s Agenda formally established and operational

Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) or, alternatively, letter of commitment from MCDGC developed. The document should express MCDGC support to the CA members asking district authorities to assist the CA members in implementing their activities across the country.

COMPLETED

Annual CA workplans developed and implemented with key indicators to facilitate monitoring and evaluation.

Work plan developed in 2013

Organizational structure and branding guidance for CA defined

COMPLETE

CA contact list/mailing list developed and shared with CA members

COMPLETE

Calendar of CA meetings developed COMPLETE

Establish Task Forces of CA members responsible for managing the following: Memorandum of Understanding/Letter of

commitment Working with parliamentarians Working with local government Working with the media Child participation Advocacy campaigns

COMPLETE

WORKING WITH PARLIAMENTARIANS

2. Advocacy strategy for increasing parliamentary understanding of child rights and investing in children developed and implemented TASK FORCE LEADER: MCDGC

Parliamentary engagement plan developed. NOT COMPLETED

Introduction to the goals and strategies of the CA to key decision makers including:

Bunge Secretariat

Speaker of the House

Parliamentary Committees – Social Welfare, Community Development, HIV and AIDS. etc.

Influential caucuses and parliamentary groups – women MPs, regional groupings, etc.

Senior members of Ministries of Finance, Health and Social Welfare, Education, Water, Constitution and Legal Affairs, PMO/RALG

PARTIAL

Tanzania Constitution review consultations organized in five regions targeting 120 children to ensure children are given highest priority and their rights are safeguarded in the national constitution-drafting process.

COMPLETED

Sign-up campaign for the Children’s Agenda 2015-2020 launched in 2014

NOT COMPLETED

ADVOCACY WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENT

3. Advocacy strategy for increasing LGA understanding of child rights and investing in children developed and implemented. TASK FORCE LEADER: KIWOHEDE

Lead CA partners responsible for promoting the CA in collaboration with other CA partners in selected districts identified

PARTIAL

Advocacy briefs and other CA publications distributed to councillors and key officials and used in workshops with key professionals at district level

ONGOING

Local government budget analysis related to investment for child rights published

NOT STARTED

Children’s Agenda promoted through district level events commemorating special days

ONGOING

Field visits linked to the Top Ten Investments organized for councillors in selected districts – with local media coverage

NOT STARTED

Champions for Children identified at district level among councillors

ONGOING (27)

Sign-up campaign for the Children’s Agenda 2015-2020 launched in 2014 with the Champions for Children at District level

NOT STARTED

WORKING WITH THE MEDIA

4. Mass media reports regularly, ethically and accurately on advancing child rights TASK FORCE LEADER: Art in Tanzania (AiT) with support from UNICEF

Cadre of media professionals committed to accurate, ethical child rights reporting identified

PARTIAL

Workshop for media organized on ethical reporting and photography

ONGOING

Media seminars and field visits organized for media linked to the Top Ten Investments. Opportunities for child participation promoted.

ONGOING

National print and electronic media monitored to measure quantity and quality of articles, features and programmemes on child rights issues

NOT STARTED

CA Tanzania website developed and updated regularly

PARTIAL

Top Ten Investment promoted on the CA members social media platforms and/or websites

PARTIAL

Engaging, interactive children’s radio programmemes (through the Young Reporters’ Network) focusing on Top Ten Investments produced and broadcasted – aiming to reach/engage children and young people in and out of school at local (community radio) and national level

ONGOING

CHILD PARTICIPATION

5. Child participation advanced in homes, communities, schools and through local government TASK FORCE LEADER: CDF

Lead CA partners identified who are responsible for coordinating promotion of child participation at district level in collaboration with other CA partners

PARTIAL

Engage with policy makers to get the Child Participation Guidelines approved for roll-out.

PARTIAL

Child participation guidelines, code of conduct, national strategy and toolkit distributed and utilised by CA partners

PARTIAL

Production of a film on the impact of child participation produced and widely distributed

NOT STARTED

Building capacity within elected Children’s Councils, peace clubs and children clubs to support more effective child rights advocacy

ONGOING

Promoting/expanding the Young Reporters Network (YRN)

ONGOING

Develop opportunities for children representatives (Junior Council URT, Baraza la watoto, peace clubs, school councils/clubs…) to monitor budget allocation and implementation at local level

NOT STARTED

Compose song on child rights in partnership with selected artists

NOT STARTED

6. BRIEFS, REPORTS AND TOOLKITS

Guide on budgeting for children in Tanzania to support CSOs advocacy work in the budgetary process. The guide should provide useful information and strategies for influencing the budget allocation process with respect to children in mainland Tanzania and Zanzibar

COMPLETED

Comprehensive advocacy toolkit to support the CA members and other CSOs in Tanzania to plan and implement effective advocacy. The toolkit should contain a set of practical tools and guidance useful for the development and management of child rights advocacy in Tanzania

COMPLETED

Child participation toolkit to provide a simple set of practical guidance notes and facilitation methods to interact with children in participatory ways

COMPLETED

Advocacy briefs on each of the Top Ten Investments

COMPLETED

‘Why invest in children? Let’s listen to children’s voices’. The report should evaluate the progress made on Top Ten Investments from the children’s perspective and list a set of key recommendations to be presented to the President of Tanzania for advancing the Top Ten Investments

COMPLETED

CA annual report to showcase the activities of the CA members. The report, to be published in English, will be used for outreach and advocacy purposes.

2012 AND 2013 COMPLETED

’Cities & Children: The Challenge of Urbanisation in Tanzania’ – Formal Report and Youth Versions on the situation of children living in urban centres in Tanzania

COMPLETED

Regional/district profiles of children

NOT STARTED

Brief on the economic benefits of investing in Tanzania’s children

NOT STARTED

Mapping of policy gaps of some key policies with regards to the Top Ten Investments

NOT STARTED

7. TRAININGS

Workshop organised on funding opportunities and proposal/grants writing

COMPLETED

Workshop on budget planning to provide useful/handy budget-related information to influence the budget process with respect to children in mainland Tanzania and Zanzibar

NOT STARTED

8. FILMS, WEB SITES, MEDIA

Short film on the Top Ten Investments

NOT STARTED

WATOTO WIKI site launched with regularly updated data on the situation of children in Tanzania

NOT STARTED

CA website developed.

PARTIAL

Children’s Agenda promoted on CA members respective websites and Facebook pages through news stories about/related to the Children’s Agenda

PARTIAL

9. CAMPAIGNS & SPECIAL EVENTS

High-level meeting on ‘Nutrition for Growth: Beating Hunger through Business and Science’

COMPLETED

Day of the African Child (DAC) – ‘Eliminating Harmful Social and Cultural Practices Affecting Children: Our Collective Responsibility’

2012 AND 2013

International Day of the Girl Child

2012 AND 2013

Universal Children’s Day

??