A MIDTERM REVIEW OF THE SCOPE-OVC PROGRAM IN ZAMBIA Conducted June 18–29, 2001 October 2001 Anne Sikwibele Chipo Mweetwa John Williamson ii The evaluation report was conducted under the aus￾pices of the U.S. Agency for International Develop￾ment. The evaluation was conducted by the Displaced Children and Orphans Fund and Leahy War Victims Fund Contract (HRN-C-00-98-00037-00). The opin￾ions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Agency for International Development or Professional Resources Group International, Inc. iii Table of Contents Page Abbreviations and Acronyns v Map of Zambia vi Executive Summary vii Community Mobilization and Capacity Building viii Need for a Strategic, Long-Term Commitment viii Education ix Economic Strengthening ix OVC Structures ix Response to Psychosocial Needs x Information as a Resource xi Management Issues xi Recommendations xi Introduction 1 Overview of SCOPE-OVC Program 2 The Displaced Children and Orphans Fund 4 Review of SCOPE-OVC 5 Overview of Findings 5 Community Mobilization and Capacity Building 6 Need for a Strategic, Long-Term Commitment 8 Education 9 Economic Strengthening 13 Examples of Economic Activities Observed 15 OVC Structures 18 Observations on DOVCCs 19 Observations on COVCCs 20 Displaced Children and Orphans Fund iv Page Response to Psychosocial Needs 22 Information as a Resource 23 Management Issues 25 Recommendations 27 Appendix 1: Scope of Work for SCOPE-OVC OVC Review June 18–30, 2001 33 Appendix 2: Itinerary and Contacts 35 Appendix 3: Community Schools 39 Appendix 4: Microeconomic Interventions and Target Households 43 v ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AIDS Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome BESSIP Basic Education Sub-Sector Investment Program CARE Cooperative for Relief and Assistance Everywhere CETZAM Christian Enterprise of Zambia CINDI Children in Distress CHIN Children In Need network CMO Community Mobilization Officer COPE Community-Based Options for Protection and Empowerment COVCC Community Orphans and Vulnerable Children’s Committee DCOF Displaced Children and Orphans Fund DFID Department of International Development–Great Britain DOVCC District Orphans and Vulnerable Children’s Committee FAWEZA Forum for African Women Educationalists FHI Family Health International FHT Family Health Trust HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus IGAs income generating projects IMPACT Implementing AIDS Prevention and Care MCDSS Ministry of Community Development and Social Services MCDSW Ministry of Community Development and Social Welfare MFIs microfinance institutions MOE Ministry of Education MYSCD Ministry of Youth, Sport, and Child Development NGO nongovernmental organization OVC orphans and other vulnerable children PCI/Z Project Concern International/Zambia PLA Participatory Learning and Action PMT Project Management Team SCOPE-OVC Strengthening Community Partnerships for the Empowerment of Orphans and Vulnerable Children UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund USAID U.S. Agency for International Development VSO Voluntary Service Organization ZCSS Zambia Community Schools Secretariat ZAMSIF Zambia Social Investment Fund ZECAB Zambia Education Capacity Building program vi MAP OF ZAMBIA vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Over the past decade, Zambia has experienced increasing crises as a result of the interrelated effects of HIV/AIDS and poverty. In 1999, the United States Agency for International Development’s (USAID) mission in Zambia allocated funds from USAID’s Displaced Children and Orphans Fund (DCOF) to Fam￾ily Health International (FHI) to support pro￾gramming for orphans and other vulnerable children (OVC).1 Through a request for appli￾cations process, FHI selected and funded a partnership between Cooperative for Relief and Assistance Everywhere (CARE) and Family Health (FHT) to implement a commu￾nity mobilization effort to mitigate the im￾pacts of HIV/AIDS on orphans and other vul￾nerable children. The joint proposal of CARE and FHT was “Strengthening Community Partnerships for the Empowerment of Orphans and Vulnerable Children” (SCOPE-OVC). The 33-month period for this agreement is January 29, 2000, to September 29, 2002. CARE receives funds from FHI, directly manages a portion of the SCOPE-OVC budget, and allocates a portion to FHT. Since the pro￾gram’s inception, USAID/Zambia has played an active role in the development of SCOPE￾OVC. The main purpose of SCOPE-OVC is to mo￾bilize, scale up, and strengthen community￾led responses and programs that benefit or￾phans and vulnerable children. The program’s 1 At a later stage, the mission used newly available HIV/AIDS funds to replace all but US$1 million in DCOF funds in this program. Project Management Team (PMT) includes the following senior staff members who are based in Lusaka: • Project Manager • Community Mobilization Coordinator/ Assistant Project Manager • Grants Manager • Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Coor￾dinator • Organization Development Specialist CARE employs all of these personnel except for the Organization Development Specialist. FHT is responsible for that position and for five of the seven Community Mobilization Officers (CMOs). Each CMO is based in the district to which he or she is assigned, and each is responsible for mobilizing and work￾ing with a District Orphans and Vulnerable Children’s Committee (DOVCC) and for mo￾bilizing and strengthening Community OVC Committees (COVCCs). At the time of the review, SCOPE-OVC was planning to estab￾lish the following new positions: • Two Senior CMOs • Additional CMOs for Lusaka and Kitwe • CMOs for Kasama, Mwense, Samfya, and Mansa • Economic Security Coordinator • Psychosocial Support Coordinator • Information Technology Officer Displaced Children and Orphans Fund viii By June 2001, SCOPE-OVC had initiated work in Kitwe, Lusaka, Livingstone, Mongu, Serenje, Kalomo, Chipata, and Masaiti Dis￾tricts and planned to start work in Mansa, Mwense, and Samfya by February 2002. For 2001, SCOPE-OVC had identified as its tar￾get to improve the situation of 10 percent of all orphans and other vulnerable children with regard to education, psychosocial well￾being, and economic and food security. With the cooperation of SCOPE-OVC and the or￾ganizations responsible for it, USAID/ Zam￾bia arranged for a midterm program review to be carried out in June 2001. The Scope of Work for the mid-term review is included in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 presents the itinerary and contacts made by the Review Team. The Review Team found that SCOPE-OVC is an extremely important initiative for Zambia and that it has made an excellent start toward the long-term goal of mobilizing and building the capacity of Zambian communities to pro￾tect and care for orphans and other vulnerable children. The program is doing some things very well but needs to improve in some areas. A fundamental recommendation is that USAID and other stakeholders in Zambia should find ways to establish a firm basis for ensuring the continuity of SCOPE-OVC be￾cause it has a key role to play in Zambia’s efforts to mitigate the effects of HIV/AIDS on its children. In some districts, SCOPE-OVC has built on and strengthened existing district-level and community structures. In others, it has helped those districts and communities to develop new structures. It is helping com￾munities to initiate activities to benefit or￾phans and other vulnerable children and to establish links with other organizations or resources that can help sustain or strengthen community efforts. SCOPE-OVC is, and should continue to be, a “work in progress” as it constantly learns, shares, and applies lessons about how to scale up and sustain effective interventions. Community Mobilization and Capacity Building It is important that SCOPE-OVC maintains a focus on its goal of mobilizing and strength￾ening community capacities and seeks to cata￾lyze among stakeholders a greater response than what it alone can deliver. Through in￾formation dissemination, persuasion, advo￾cacy, and training, SCOPE-OVC staff mem￾bers must continually work to enable other stakeholders to look beyond their individual programs and to develop approaches that match the magnitude of the problems in each district and in the country as a whole. SCOPE-OVC must play mobilization and ca￾pacity-building roles not only at community levels but also at district and national levels. Moreover, the work to be done in districts where SCOPE-OVC is present is much greater than the CMOs can expect to accom￾plish by themselves. They must mobilize and build the capacity of the DOVCCs and other stakeholders to engage in this work. Need for a Strategic, Long-Term Commitment USAID has been a leader in promoting and supporting community mobilization and ca￾pacity building as a fundamental response to HIV/AIDS in Zambia, but its funding of this approach has been for only relatively short periods. The Government of Zambia, USAID, and all stakeholders need to make strategic, long-term commitments to mobilize action and build capacities at community and district levels. The scale, duration, and complexity of the problems that SCOPE-OVC is addressing are unprecedented. Therefore, the program must engage in an ongoing cycle of first initi￾ating activities that make sense based on what is known, then learning from what works and what does not, and finally making adjust￾ments. It must continually evolve, which its relatively short project life makes difficult. Also, the relatively short-term funding limits the staff’s sense of job security. SCOPE-OVC may begin to lose staff members if the future A Midterm Review of the SCOPE-OVC Program in Zambia ix of the program and job continuity are not en￾sured soon. Education Promoting educational opportunities for orphans and other vulnerable children is a pri￾mary area of emphasis for SCOPE-OVC. Community schools have emerged as a grass￾roots response to the educational needs and aspirations of the orphans and other vulner￾able children. (See Appendix 3, Community Schools.) Many COVCCs operate such schools, and DOVCCs and SCOPE-OVC staff members are involved in strengthening them. Community schools are the only avail￾able option for many orphans and vulnerable children to obtain an education, and their quality is an important issue. One common feature among community schools is inade￾quate resources, especially insufficient class￾rooms, other infrastructures, chairs, and books. Those problems are compounded by volunteer teachers who struggle to assist or￾phans and vulnerable children while earning no salaries. The report identifies a number of potential sources of support for community schools. In addition to community schools, SCOPE￾OVC and the DOVCCs need to work with communities to identify other models for pro￾viding education. Economic Strengthening With mixed success, COVCCs are carrying out group income-generating projects (IGAs) intended to raise funds to support their efforts. In promoting economic empowerment through income generation, CMOs and the PMT have the task of carefully distinguishing among and encouraging use of the models and approaches that are cost-effective and that have the potential for being scaled up. Ap￾proaches fall into three general categories: economic strengthening of individual house￾holds, group fundraising, and on-going group IGAs. In the communities that the Review Team visited, an overwhelming preference was shown for individual household IGAs over group projects because IGAs provide for basic needs. Unfortunately, formal microfinance services seemed to be very limited in the communities visited. It would be useful for SCOPE-OVC to explore possibilities for expanding those services into communities with COVCCs. SCOPE-OVC should recognize the existence of informal, traditional models of credit and savings, such as the chilimba, that people in those communities already know. Appendix 4 provides an overview of IGAs in the commu￾nities visited. Another approach to economic empowerment is to link households to better markets. SCOPE-OVC should determine whether op￾portunities exist or could be developed in the districts where it is working to implement the Trickle Up (TUP) approach. TUP could be used to help households on the verge of desti￾tution to carry out some kind of income￾generating activity. Some community groups in Zambia and elsewhere have used periodic fundraising initiatives as a way to generate funds to provide relief assistance for orphans and other vulnerable children. SCOPE-OVC’s planned hiring of a new member of the PMT with expertise in micro￾economic strengthening should improve the review of proposals. More important, though, this staff member should be able to help SCOPE-OVC identify potential partners with which it can collaborate and to which it can link COVCCs. OVC Structures In the districts where it is present, SCOPE￾OVC has developed and strengthened both district- and community-level OVC commit￾tees with the objective of enabling those structures to improve the situation of orphans and other vulnerable children. SCOPE-OVC Displaced Children and Orphans Fund x has formed or strengthened seven DOVCCs and plans to do so in 12 districts by the end of the project period. In the four districts that the Review Team visited, the roles and responsi￾bilities of the DOVCCs were generally to co￾ordinate OVC activities at district level, to create links among NGOs, to guide OVC pro￾gramming in the district, and to advocate is￾sues relevant to orphans and other vulnerable children. The Review Team found significant varia￾tions among the three DOVCCs with which it met. The Kalomo DOVCC was the most organized and effective DOVCC with which the Review Team met. It had a well￾articulated strategic plan and work plan. The relationship with COVCCs was strong, as was the support to the COVCCs. Members of this DOVCC were elected from key stakeholder organizations. The DOVCC had also set up a database of all key stakeholder organizations in the area and keeps regular contact with communities. The COVCCs visited in Kitwe’s Mulenga and St. Anthony compounds were both very active and had a clear vision and plans for their ac￾tivities. The Sakubita and Nakatindi COVCCs visited in Livingstone appeared to be strug￾gling. In Kalomo, rather than start new COVCCs, the CMO and the DOVCC worked with already established community groups. The DOVCCs whose members were elected by the communities and the stakeholders ap￾peared to perform better and to have a stronger mandate than those in which NGOs nominated members from among themselves. SCOPE-OVC should consider strengthening DOVCCs financially and technically and then helping them to focus on improving the situa￾tion of orphans and other vulnerable children throughout the district. To be sustained and effective, DOVCC must have their own iden￾tity independent of SCOPE-OVC. Thus, SCOPE-OVC’s relationship to the DOVCCs should be supportive and not directive. The small grants program of SCOPE-OVC might be more effective and the role of the DOVCCs might be reinforced if the Grants Management Committee were to delegate some authority for grant approval to DOVCCs. The DOVCCs could learn from and emulate the approach of the more active COVCCs. The latter have assumed responsibility for giving attention to the situation of orphans and vulnerable children throughout their community. COVCCs have identified local capacities and resources and have sought re￾sources from outside. They have also bene￾fited from training that strengthened their ca￾pacities and are working to scale up responses to meet the needs of the most vulnerable chil￾dren in the whole community. Response to Psychosocial Needs Responding to psychosocial needs is critical for improving the situation of orphans and of children with a parent living with HIV/AIDS, but such action has received too little atten￾tion. For children who are fearful about the future, grieving the loss of their parents, or living in extreme poverty, the basic human contact and care provided by family and community members are vitally important. In the Kitwe, Lusaka, and Kalomo communi￾ties, were making efforts to address the psy￾chosocial needs of orphans and other vulner￾able children and their families, even where those needs were not defined using that ter￾minology. In Kitwe, in particular, the com￾munities had psychosocial committees that were providing outreach and counseling ser￾vices to households with orphans. Alangize, a community-based women’s group that is re-introducing some traditional ceremonies and support practices in urban areas, is a potential resource. Other forms of psychosocial support in the communities are provided by religious groups such as churches that are actively involved in spiritual support and counseling. Additional sources of psy￾chosocial support were reported to the A Midterm Review of the SCOPE-OVC Program in Zambia xi Review Team and included youth groups plus structured recreation and sports. To address the psychosocial needs of the or￾phans and of families dealing with orphans and HIV/AIDS, communities can use a com￾bination of traditional and informal activities, along with more structured counseling. Reviving some of the traditional values and attitudes toward children is very important. Information as a Resource An important area for SCOPE-OVC attention is better access to information, which could improve the effectiveness of COVCCs. The Review Team identified positive examples of information dissemination but determined that SCOPE-OVC needs to emphasize it more. By demonstrating and advocating the open shar￾ing of information, SCOPE-OVC may be able to influence other programs to do the same. To increase information flow to communities, the PMT must actively seek relevant informa￾tion and should share it with stakeholders at the national level and, through CMOs, with DOVCCs and with communities. One way that SCOPE-OVC could facilitate the flow of useful information to groups working with orphans and other vulnerable children would be through a newsletter. SCOPE-OVC might produce the newsletter or support the National OVC Task Force to do so. Management Issues FHT and CARE, as the partners responsible for SCOPE-OVC, need to resolve a few man￾agement issues. Having two organizations— one national and one international—jointly responsible for SCOPE-OVC greatly enriches the program. This arrangement, however, complicates lines of authority and supervision. PMT’s lines of reporting and administrative procedures need to be clarified and improved. Several CMOs flagged transportation as a concern. CMOs need adequate funds in an impressed account, which is replenished promptly upon submission of receipts. The partner agencies need to maintain regular and open communication regarding SCOPE-OVC and to resolve these and other issues in con￾sultation with SCOPE-OVC staff members. Action is needed by USAID, CARE, and FHT to ensure continuity of the long-term efforts undertaken by SCOPE-OVC. Recommendations The report presents recommendations on the following issues: • SCOPE-OVC’s approach to scaling up community mobilization • Long-term Government and donor com￾mitments to mobilize and strengthen community efforts • Emphasis on strengthening community schools • Quality enhancement for community schools • Ability of communities to lobby for the right of all children to an education • Need for paying teachers who work in community schools • Innovative learning models • Cost-effective approaches to microeco￾nomic strengthening • Access of communities to sound micro￾economic strengthening programs • Private-sector action to support economic strengthening efforts • Roles of DOVCCs • Representation of communities on COVCCs • Concentration by DOVCCs on improving the situation of orphans and other vulner￾able children district-wide • Respect for community efforts • Resource links for community groups • Authorization of district-level responsi￾bilities regarding small grants Displaced Children and Orphans Fund xii • Limited financial resources for use by DOVCCs to meet specified criteria • COVCC systems for managing resources • Identification of existing community structures • Development of community efforts to monitor, support, and protect vulner￾able children • Development of activities such as visit￾ing homes, counseling, attending sports and cultural activities, and participating in religious and traditional ceremonies • Traditional models of psychosocial sup￾port, counseling, monitoring, and pro￾tection. • Information gathering and dissemina￾tion • Identification of cost-effective local models • Development of systems for sharing information • Support of the National OVC Steering Committee • Community links to resources • Dissemination of information about best practices • Resolution of identified management issues 1 INTRODUCTION Over the past decade, Zambia has experienced increasing crises as a result of the interrelated impacts of HIV/AIDS and poverty. Of Zam￾bia’s 10 million people, two-thirds live below the poverty line and an estimated one in five is HIV positive. Because of HIV/AIDS, Zam￾bia can expect an increasing number of deaths among its most economically and reproduc￾tively active age groups. In 1996, some 4.1 million children lived in Zambia. According to the 1996 Living Condi￾tions Monitoring Survey, 13 percent were or￾phans (children below age 15 who had lost ei￾ther or both parents), or approximately 533,000 children. Children on the Brink 2000 by the U. S. Agency for International Devel￾opment (USAID) estimated a much higher rate of orphaning: 27 percent of all children in 2000, or a total of more than 1.2 million chil￾dren.2 The status of the Zambian child is likely to worsen because many are out of school, are undernourished, and lack access to health care. The Orphans and Vulnerable Children Situation Analysis of Zambia (1999) con￾cluded that any intervention to benefit or￾phans and vulnerable children should consider the family to be the best place for children and should seek to reinforce this primary 2 Susan Hunter and John Williamson, Children on the Brink: Strategies to Support Children Isolated by HIV/AIDS (prepared by the Health Technical Services Project for USAID, December 1997, Appendix I. safety net.3 Interventions must strengthen communities and families to cope with the crisis. The main findings of the situation analysis include the following: • Poverty is the primary problem many Zambian families and children face. • Zambian children, regardless of orphan status, are especially vulnerable to the effects of poverty. • Both qualitative and quantitative analyses indicate little difference economically when comparing orphans and other vul￾nerable children with other children. • Orphan children, however, face special psychosocial needs but are not necessarily more economically vulnerable than non￾orphan children. • Programs must take care to avoid stigma￾tizing children by treating orphans differ￾ent from other children, or by labeling them as orphans or, worse still, as “AIDS orphans.” • Currently, nongovernmental and commu￾nity-based organizations (NGOs and CBOs) provide the main response to the crisis as government builds its capacity to provide action proportional to the crisis. 3 USAID, United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), Swedish International Development Agency, and the Government of Zambia, Orphans and Vulnerable Chil￾dren: A Situation Analysis, Zambia 1999, November 1999, Lusaka, p. 8). Displaced Children and Orphans Fund 2 • The OVC issue is a family and commu￾nity problem, and the best solutions are community based. • Families and communities are addressing the problem, but are now under severe du￾ress. • Currently, the extended family structure is coping, but the question is whether or not it will buckle under increasing pres￾sures. • Zambian communities have exerted tre￾mendous strength to cope with the OVC problem alone, and it is time for the Gov￾ernment, the donor, and the development community to support and supplement their efforts.4 In November 2000, Zambia held its second National Workshop on Orphans and Other Vulnerable Children. More than 240 delegates from throughout the country took part. The workshop was initiated by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and USAID, and it was jointly sponsored by the Department for International Development–Great Britain (DFID). The Ministry of Sport, Youth, and Child Development and of Community De￾velopment and Social Services were involved in its planning, and the Permanent Secretaries from those two ministries chaired the work￾shop sessions. Delegates reached a consensus on key aspects of the situation and the way forward as they identified action to be taken at the national, district, and community levels over the following year. In 2001, Zambia established a National Steer￾ing Committee on Orphans and Other Vulner￾able Children. In recent years, Zambia has played a leadership role in sub-Saharan Africa by generating attention to the ways that HIV/AIDS is increasing children’s vulnerabil￾ity and by mobilizing action to address these impacts. Zambia carried out the first collabo￾rative national situation analysis on orphans 4 Ibid. and vulnerable children, an approach that stakeholders in several other countries have subsequently used. When UNICEF and USAID Zambia convened a regional work￾shop in November 2000, delegations from 14 countries in east and southern Africa partici￾pated. This workshop not only facilitated in￾formation exchange on methods and ap￾proaches, but also helped to build a consensus about the best way forward within the region and then enabled country delegations to plan for their own next steps. Overview of SCOPE-OVC Program In 1999, the mission of USAID in Zambia allocated funds from its Displaced Children and Orphans Fund (DCOF) to the Implement￾ing AIDS Prevention and Care (IMPACT) project of Family Health International (FHI) to support programming for orphans and other vulnerable children.5 FHI managed a request for applications process in October and No￾vember 1999. The joint proposal of Coopera￾tive for Relief and Assistance Everywhere (CARE) and Family Health Trust (FHT) was titled “Strengthening Community Partnerships for the Empowerment of Orphans and Vul￾nerable Children” (SCOPE-OVC) and was selected. CARE subsequently entered into a cooperative agreement with FHI for US$2.6 million (later increased to US$2.9 million) to implement a community mobilization effort that would mitigate the impacts of HIV/AIDS on orphans and other vulnerable children. USAID/Zambia has played an active role in developing SCOPE-OVC. The 33-month period for this agreement began on January 29, 2000 and will end September 29, 2002. CARE receives funds from FHI, manages directly a portion of the SCOPE-OVC budget, and allocates a portion to FHT. USAID/ Zambia has played an active role in the de￾velopment of SCOPE OVC. 5 At a later stage, the mission used newly available HIV/AIDS funds to replace all but US$1 million in DCOF funds in this program. A Midterm Review of the SCOPE-OVC Program in Zambia 3 Positions Managed by CARE Positions Managed by FHT • Project Manager* • Community Mobilization Coordinator/Assistant Project Manager* • Grants Manager* • Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Coordinator* • CMOs for Lusaka and Mongu • Office Manager/Secretary • Two drivers • Organization Development Specialist* • Community Mobilization Officers (CMOs) for Livingstone, Msaliti, Kitwe, Srenje, and Chipata • Two drivers *Members of the Project Management Team Project Purpose SCOPE-OVC is intended to mobilize, scale￾up, and strengthen community-led responses and programs that benefit orphans and vul￾nerable children. It was designed to accom￾plish the following objectives: • Support multi-sectoral district orphans and vulnerable children’s committees (DOVCCs) • Support partners to build the capacity of communities • Support partners to ensure that households improve the well-being of orphans and vulnerable children • Help partners to access internal and exter￾nal resources • Help partners become advocates for the rights of orphans and vulnerable children • Share lessons learned, and endeavor to scale up interventions Management Structure With its two partner organizations that are jointly responsible for SCOPE-OVC and vari￾ous stakeholders, SCOPE-OVC has an Advisory Committee “to provide broad rec￾ommendations on project directions, harness political support at both the national and dis￾trict levels, advocate for rights and care for orphans and other vulnerable children, and to foster government partnerships.”6 The board meets quarterly, plus ad hoc meetings as nec￾essary. Board members include senior repre￾sentatives from the two partner organizations, CARE and Family Health Trust (FHT); FHI’s local representative; the SCOPE-OVC team leader; representatives from USAID, UNICEF, and the Children In Need Network (CHIN); and representatives from the follow￾ing ministries: Community Development and Social Services; Sport, Youth, and Child De￾velopment; Education; Health; Agriculture; and Local Government and Housing. Staffing Structure Currently, SCOPE-OVC has 17 staff mem￾bers of whom 8 are employed by CARE and 9 by FHT. The Project Management Team (PMT) includes members of SCOPE-OVC’s Lusaka-based senior staff and provides direc￾tion to the project. The positions of the PMT are indicated in the staffing table, above. Each CMO is responsible for mobilizing and working with a District Orphans and Vulner￾able Children’s Committee (DOVCC) and for mobilizing and strengthening Community Or￾phans and Vulnerable Children’s Committees (COVCCs). Each of the CMOs is based in the district to which he or she is assigned. All 6 SCOPE-OVC Sub-agreement, p. 7. Displaced Children and Orphans Fund 4 other staff members are based in Lusaka in the SCOPE-OVC office that is in the same building as CARE. At the time of the review, CARE and FHT had plans to establish 13 new SCOPE-OVC positions: • Two senior CMOs • Additional CMOs for Lusaka and Kitwe • CMOs for Kasama, Mwense, Samfya, and Mansa • Economic Security Coordinator • Psychosocial Support Coordinator • Information Technology Officer • Two drivers A Grants Management Committee has also been established “to develop grant award cri￾teria, establish funding cycles, grant monitor￾ing mechanisms and reporting requirements, assess proposals and approve awards.”7 Its members include the Executive Director of FHT; the SCOPE-OVC Grants Manager; the SCOPE-OVC Project Manager; the FHI Pro￾ject Monitor; and representatives of USAID (as a representative of the SCOPE-OVC Ad￾visory Committee), the Zambia Integrated Health Project (ZIHP), and the Christian Medical Association of Zambia. Geographic Coverage The SCOPE-OVC project is phasing in its work and had plans to be working in 9 of Zambia’s 72 districts by December 2001. By May 2000, SCOPE-OVC was working in four districts: Kitwe, Lusaka, Livingstone, and Mongu. By October 2000, it was operating in 7 Ibid. three more districts: Serenje, Kalomo, and Chipata. By June 2001, it was initiating work in Masaiti and had plans to begin operations in Kasama by December 2001, which would bring the total to nine. By February 2002, SCOPE-OVC would add Mansa, Mwense, and Samfya, bringing the total to 12 districts by the end of the current project period. Target for 2001 For 2001, SCOPE-OVC identified as its target to improve the situation of 10 percent of all orphans and other vulnerable children with regard to education, psychosocial well-being, and economic and food security. SCOPE￾OVC estimates its current coverage at about five percent. A child’s situation is considered to be improved when he or she has “increased access to and utilization of psychosocial sup￾port services, increased access to basic educa￾tion, and/or improved food and economic security.”8 The Displaced Children and Orphans Fund Established in 1989 by an act of the United States Congress, the Displaced Children and Orphans Fund (DCOF) is administered by USAID’s Office of Health and Nutrition. The Displaced Children and Orphans Fund and War Victims Fund Project of the Professional Resource Group International support DCOF. The Fund has evolved into a program that fo￾cuses on issues of loss and displacement among children affected by armed conflict, street children, children orphaned and other￾wise made vulnerable by HIV/AIDS, and, more recently, children with disabilities. 8 SCOPE Vision, June 2001, p.2. 5 Review of SCOPE-OVC The USAID mission in Zambia, with the cooperation of CARE, Family Health Trust, Family Health International, and staff mem￾bers of SCOPE-OVC, arranged for a mid￾term review of the program to be carried out in June 2001. (See Appendix 1, Scope of Work for SCOPE-OVC Review.) Rather than an outside evaluation, the exercise was conceived as an opportunity for SCOPE￾OVC staff members and other stakeholders to obtain outside perspectives on the pro￾gram and to discuss them with the review￾ers, with a view toward developing and re￾fining the program. The review was carried out June 18–28, 2001. Following initial discussions with sen￾ior SCOPE-OVC staff members who are based in Lusaka and representatives of CARE and FHT, the Review Team visited four of the eight districts in which SCOPE￾OVC is operating: Kitwe, Lusaka, Living￾stone, and Kalomo. Team members included Ms. Chipo Mweetwa, Ms. Anne Sikwibele, and Mr. John Williamson, with the latter serving as team leader. SCOPE-OVC’s resi￾dent CMO facilitated the visits to each dis￾trict. The team completed its field visits on June 26, returned to Lusaka on June 27, and carried out debriefings that day and the next. During the review, the team met with a large number of stakeholders at national, district, and community levels. (See Appendix 2, Itinerary and Contacts Made.) Stakeholders generally expressed very positive opinions about SCOPE-OVC and its activities. At the community level, awareness of SCOPE￾OVC as a program was not always high, which was as it should be because SCOPE￾OVC’s role is to mobilize local structures and to enable them to take action, rather than to do so directly. The team’s findings are presented in the following sections according to the major themes which emerged during the course of the review: • Overview of Findings • Community Mobilization and Capacity Building • Need for a Strategic, Long-Term Com￾mitment • Education • Economic Strengthening • OVC Structures • Response to Psychosocial Needs • Information as a Resource • Management Issues Based on the findings presented in these sec￾tions, the report concludes with recommen￾dations organized according to these themes. Overview of Findings The Review Team found that SCOPE-OVC is an extremely important initiative for Zambia and that it has made an excellent start toward the long-term goals of mobiliz￾ing and building the capacity of Zambian Displaced Children and Orphans Fund 6 communities to protect and care for orphans and other vulnerable children. SCOPE-OVC is doing some things very well but needs to make improvements in some areas, as would be expected with an endeavor as complex and ambitious as this one. This report pre￾sents recommendations on how to strengthen the program including a funda￾mental recommendation that USAID and other stakeholders in Zambia should find ways to establish a firm basis for ensuring the continuity of SCOPE-OVC. Community Mobilization and Capacity Building It is vitally important that Zambia mobilize and strengthen the capacity of families and communities to protect and care for its most vulnerable children because those social units are where the overwhelming majority of these children are living and because families and communities are continually being undermined by AIDS. The primary social safety nets for the overwhelming ma￾jority of Zambian children who have been orphaned or otherwise made vulnerable by HIV/AIDS are their extended families and communities. Although an estimated 27 per￾cent of Zambia’s children have lost one par￾ent or both, only a very small proportion of them are living outside their extended fami￾lies and communities.9 It is likely that in Zambia (and most other countries seriously affected by HIV/AIDS), less than one per￾cent of all children are living on the street or in institutional care.10 Stakeholders with 9 Children on the Brink, op. cit. 10 Zambia has approximately 4.5 million children under age 15, and 1 percent of that number is 45,000. A 1996 study estimated that 75,000 street children were in Zambia, but only about 6 percent (4,500) were living on the street full time. A recent survey has confirmed that a low percentage of children live on the street rather than with their families. Zambia has kept the number of residential institutions for children limited and has controlled placement in those facilities through District Social Welfare Offi￾cers. Only about 675 children live in Zambia’s 35 registered children’s institutions. whom the team met expressed their concern that the great majority of orphans and other vulnerable children do not benefit from any support other than from their own families. Stakeholders stressed the importance of scaling up responses that match the magni￾tude of the problems that they are seeing. As Father Michael Kelly of the University of Zambia wrote recently: The brunt of the orphans problem is being borne by the extended family and com￾munities, which despite the enormous pressures being placed on them are coping in truly heroic fashion. They have re￾sponded magnificently to the double crisis of losses to AIDS and increases in the number of orphans, standing fast in the face of the huge pressures being placed on them, and coping with the problems al￾most as part of their normal routine. Because the family and the extended fam￾ily provide the most important response to the orphans problem, all policies, strate￾gies and interventions should focus on strengthening their structure and opera￾tions, both as entities in themselves and as part of the community, so that they can adequately discharge their child protec￾tion and care roles.11 Such strengthening is not all that must be done; additional services are also needed to directly support children without adequate family care. But reinforcing the capacities of family and community must be the founda￾tion of a strategic response to the impacts of AIDS on children. The number of street children in Zambia is large and growing. Programs to assist them are already badly overstretched. If family and community ca￾pacities are not strengthened, the number of children slipping through these primary so￾cial safety nets and onto the streets will 11 Michael J. Kelly, “The Orphan Crisis in Zambia,” The Jesuit Center for Theological Reflection Bulletin, 42 (4th quarter 2001): 3. A Midterm Review of the SCOPE-OVC Program in Zambia 7 completely overwhelm any foreseeable pro￾grammatic responses. Observations SCOPE-OVC is a significant effort to mobi￾lize and strengthen community action that will identify and protect vulnerable children and will promote their well-being and de￾velopment. It has a key role to play in Zam￾bia’s efforts to mitigate the impacts of HIV/AIDS on its children. In some cases, SCOPE-OVC has built on and strengthened existing district and community structures that had been formed to address the needs of especially vulnerable children, and in others, it has helped districts and communities to develop new structures. SCOPE-OVC also helps communities to initiate activities that benefit orphans and other vulnerable chil￾dren and to establish links with other or￾ganizations or resources that can help sus￾tain or strengthen community efforts. In doing so, SCOPE-OVC has helped commu￾nity and district-level groups to develop a sense of ownership of the problems of such children and a sense of responsibility to work together to address the problems. Such “ownership” is difficult to quantify but was observable to the team in the way that most groups presented both themselves and their activities, and it is essential to the continuity and sustainability of community projects. It is very important that in all their contacts with district and community groups, CMOs and other SCOPE-OVC staff members con￾tinually reinforce a sense of capacity, accom￾plishment, and pride among participants and reinforce their sense of ownership. CMOs can model this approach to DOVCs and help members come to understand their role as enabling communities to protect and care for vulnerable children. The following are exam￾ples of ways to help achieve such goals: • Asking district and community groups what activities they have carried out and what they have learned as a result, then letting members know that their lessons will be shared with other groups • Arranging exchange visits among groups (at community and at district levels) for cross-fertilization of approaches • Encouraging DOVCCs to recognize, re￾spect, and publicly acknowledge the ac￾complishments of community groups SCOPE-OVC is, and should continue to be, a work in progress whose participants constantly learn, share, and apply lessons about how to scale up and sustain effective interventions to protect orphans and other vulnerable children and to promote their well-being and healthy development. No organization, in Zambia or elsewhere, has yet developed the perfect approach to mobi￾lizing and strengthening community action to protect and ensure the well-being of vulnerable children. Initiatives such as SCOPE-OVC, which are attempting to do this, are constantly moving into uncharted territory. Solutions must be formulated as the problems themselves become clearer and as lessons are learned from experience. It is important that SCOPE-OVC maintains a focus on the goal of mobilizing and strengthening community capacities and seeks to catalyze a greater response than it alone can deliver. At present, only a small percentage of the Zambia orphans and other vulnerable children receive assistance from anyone outside their extended family. For example, the COVCC in Lusaka’s Garden Compound estimated that only 5 to 10 per￾cent of such children in that area receive any support from programs, which is consistent with what others have found or estimated. The gap is huge between what children need and what is being done for them. A mobili￾zation approach must begin with enabling all stakeholders in the area to consider the situation of all the orphans and other vulner￾able children within their area (whether a village, compound, district, or country). Par￾ticipatory Learning and Action, Training for Transformation, the Triple-A Process, or Displaced Children and Orphans Fund 8 another methodology can be used to enable stakeholders to decide which children they are most concerned about, what makes those children vulnerable, what they can do to im￾prove the safety and well-being of such children, and how to plan and initiate col￾laborative action. Through information dissemination, per￾suasion, advocacy, and training, SCOPE￾OVC staff members must continually work to convince and enable other stakeholders to look beyond their individual programs and to develop approaches that match the magnitude of the problems in each district and in the country as a whole. SCOPE￾OVC must play mobilization and capacity￾building roles not only at community level, but also at district and national levels. It is appropriate that SCOPE-OVC’s CMOs work directly with some community groups, because it is important to demonstrate how mobilization and capacity building can be done. But the work to be done in the districts where SCOPE-OVC is present is much greater than what the CMOs can expect to accomplish by themselves. CMOs must mo￾bilize and build the capacity of other stake￾holders to engage in this work, which can be accomplished through both the DOVCCs and direct work with individual organizations. Likewise, at the national level the Project Management Team (PMT) must convince and enable additional organizations to en￾gage in mobilization and capacity building that will benefit orphans and other vulner￾able children. The National Steering Com￾mittee is, potentially, a forum through which SCOPE-OVC can promote this approach, but the PMT must also look for other oppor￾tunities, such as through partnerships with individual organizations or through NGO networks. The development and operation of commu￾nity schools over the past three years are extraordinary accomplishments that reflect the capacity of poor communities to initiate and—with only limited outside support— sustain activities that directly benefit vul￾nerable children. Some SCOPE-OVC staff members do not seem to fully appreciate the functioning of community schools as an example of successful community mobili￾zation and capacity building. Some CMOs were concerned that certain communities were only operating community schools and leaving unattended other needs of vul￾nerable children. To some extent, they may also feel that because most of the schools were started under a previous program, they are less significant to SCOPE-OVC than more recently initiated community efforts. It is important for CMOs, as part of their basic approach, continually to give com￾munities positive feedback on community schools, even as the CMOs encourage them to consider additional action. Need for a Strategic, Long-Term Commitment It is vitally important that the Government of Zambia, USAID, and all stakeholders make a strategic, long-term commitment to mobilizing action and to building capacities at the community and district levels. Zam￾bia has not been well served by relatively short-term commitments of funding to a long-term strategic process. For about a decade, HIV/AIDS has been undermining Zambia’s capacity to protect and care for its most vulnerable children. Even if near￾term success is achieved in reducing HIV infection, Zambia will still face exception￾ally high levels of orphaning and child vul￾nerability for at least two more decades (because the number of affected children and families is already so large and because of the lag between changes in HIV preva￾lence and in orphaning). The 33-month duration of the current program will allow sufficient time simply to start such a A Midterm Review of the SCOPE-OVC Program in Zambia 9 process, not enough to built a systematic, long-term solution. The patience of the HIV virus—its incuba￾tion period of about 10 years to progress from infection to death—is one of the keys to its insidious success and gives it a strate￾gic advantage over governments and NGOs, which are geared to support and op￾erate programs on shorter time lines, of typically two to three years. It is imperative that—through policies and programs—all stakeholders make a long-term commitment to the systematic strengthening of family and community capacities and to develop￾ing ongoing support of the collaborative national, district, and local structures nec￾essary to that effort. USAID has been a leader in promoting and supporting com￾munity mobilization and capacity building as a fundamental response to HIV/AIDS in Zambia. Observations The 33-month funding commitment that USAID made to initiate SCOPE-OVC (of which only 12 months remain) is ill-matched to the gradual, long-term progression of HIV/AIDS and to the ongoing task of mobi￾lizing and strengthening communities on the front line. A funding period that is too short in relation to the problems to be addressed and the tasks to be accomplished makes planning and developing an effective pro￾gram very difficult. Because of the unprece￾dented scale, duration, and complexity of the problems SCOPE-OVC is addressing, it must engage in an ongoing cycle of initiat￾ing activities that make sense based on what is known, of learning from what works and what does not, and of making adjustments. The program must continually evolve, and its relatively short project life makes this evolution difficult. Also, a relatively short￾term funding commitment limits the staff’s sense of job security. SCOPE-OVC may be￾gin to lose staff members if the program’s continuity is not ensured soon. Education SCOPE-OVC supports community efforts to promote or provide education for orphans and vulnerable children. Zambia’s situation analysis on orphans and vulnerable children indicates that It is perhaps in the area of education that government, donors and the development community have failed the Zambian child the most. Nearly half of primary school aged children are not enrolled. An obliga￾tion to provide an education should not wait for that child to become vulnerable. Furthermore, an impoverished child should not be provided with an inferior education. Education for children must have the first call on resources.12 A high proportion of these children drop out of conventional schools because of the in￾ability of parents or guardians to pay for fees and other school requisites such as uniforms, shoes, and educational supplies. Community schools are nonprofit, self-help schools that have been initiated and man￾aged so the community can provide educa￾tion to vulnerable children who cannot af￾ford to enroll in government or private schools.13 Typically, community schools in Zambia follow either a special, compressed 4-year curriculum, titled Skills, Participa￾tion, Access to Relevant Knowledge (SPARK), or the conventional 7-year Gov￾ernment curriculum. Most Copperbelt com￾munity schools follow the conventional cur￾riculum, except Lusaka where SPARK is predominant. Community schools have emerged in recent years as a community response to meeting the educational needs and aspirations of or￾phans and other vulnerable children. Using untrained volunteer teachers, community 12 USAID et al., Orphans and Vulnerable Children, p. 24. 13 As defined by the Zambia Community Schools Secretariat in 1997. Displaced Children and Orphans Fund 10 schools enroll children who are between 9 and 16 years of age and who have never been to school or have dropped out. Prefer￾ence is given to orphans and girls. Children can attend without uniforms or shoes, and payment of fees is not mandatory. Many COVCCs operate community schools, and DOVCCs and SCOPE-OVC staff members are involved in strengthening many of them. In Kitwe, the CMO facilitated teacher train￾ing and provided educational materials. In other districts, CMOs have also pro￾vided commendable support to community schools. By 1999, about 219 community schools were registered in Zambia, serving more than 12,954 boys and 13,390 girls. They were staffed by 289 male and 276 female teachers. Formed in 1997, the Zambia Community Schools Secretariat (ZCSS) has been recognized by the Ministry of Educa￾tion (MOE) as the umbrella organization to facilitate coordination and quality control. ZCSS provides teacher skills training, ac￾creditation, and facilitates access to financial support, teaching and learning materials, and curriculum development resources. Recognizing the importance of the commu￾nity commitment evidenced by community schools, ZCCS and the MOE have signed a memorandum of understanding to help channel support to community schools from donors, NGOs, churches, and the Govern￾ment. Through the Basic Education Sub￾Sector Investment Program, the MOE has pledged support to the community schools because the MOE realizes that providing education for all cannot be achieved by Government efforts alone. Further, a 1996 MOE policy document emphasizes the roles of communities, partnerships, liberalization, decentralization, equity, quality, and ac￾countability in the provision of education. This policy document states Communities that wish to establish schools that would operate as community schools outside the government or District Education Board System will be strongly encouraged to do so. The Ministry will contribute to the running costs of such schools through the provision of teachers and teaching supplies, or through a sys￾tem of capitation. Community schools are, at present, the only available alternative for many orphans and vulnerable children, and their quality is an important issue. Ensuring that the learning and competencies of pupils in those schools are as good as, or comparable to, those of Government schools is an important goal. Improving the learning environment and quality of education through teacher train￾ing, supervision, provision of learning mate￾rials, and other interventions that focus on quality can help change the perceptions about these schools and the children enrolled. A CARE study of the Whole Child Health Project produced encouraging results as it compared basic learning by pupils from community and Government schools in Lu￾saka. This study found that community school pupils, both boys and girls, per￾formed better than their counterparts at Government schools in all the sections ex￾amined in the competency test. The study also identified weaknesses in both Govern￾ment and community schools, particularly regarding instruction on sets and measure￾ments, and the need for remedial action. More studies are needed to ascertain what actually is being achieved in terms of learning. Community schools can register with ZCSS by completing a form that provides essential background information about the school, by meeting some basic standards, and by pay￾ing an annual fee of K20,000 (approxi￾mately US$6). Registration entitles a school to receive free educational materials, SPARK training for teachers, training for parent-school committees, financial support from the MOE, possible placement of trained MOE teachers, Government salaries A Midterm Review of the SCOPE-OVC Program in Zambia 11 for trained community school teachers, and other benefits. Several community school representatives with whom the Review Team met confirmed that such support had been provided. Observations Community schools are, at present, the only available alternative for many orphans and vulnerable children, and their quality is an important issue. In all communities, people did not sit back and wait for others to solve their problem. Instead, they established community schools, found willing volun￾teer teachers, and found basic resources to keep the schools running. Community ac￾tion to initiate and operate such schools is tangible evidence of the importance and priority people attach to education, espe￾cially for children who would otherwise not attend school. The informal way in which community schools operate has attracted criticisms from some quarters, namely that the schools are a parallel, second-class system for orphans and vulnerable children. Often, children in community schools have been subjected to ridicule and stigmatization as reflected in the box below. Views on Stigmatization Expressed by Members of the Mulenga COVCC in Kitwe A very high proportion of orphans and vulnerable children do not attend school be￾cause of hunger, lack of clothing, lack of support, and lack of encouragement. In some cases, children do not go to school because they fear being stigmatized, laughed at, and made to feel inferior for attending community schools. Due to lack of uniforms, poor classrooms, and untrained teachers, the community schools are referred to by some as “bakabulanda schools,” which is translated as “schools for the very poor and vulnerable children.” This label is psychologically tormenting for the children, which is why we need support to be able to provide school uniforms so children can avoid stigmatization. In Kalomo, almost twice as many girls as boys attend community schools. This trend needs attention in Kalomo and in any other districts that may have a similar pattern. Community schools should not become, or be seen by communities as, either a second tier of primary education or one that is strictly for girls, while boys are sent to Government schools. Access to education is a major challenge for orphans and other vulnerable children in all communities that the Review Team visited, because expenses are forcing children to drop out of Government schools. One advantage of community schools is their short learning cycle of 4 years, which enables students with work or household responsibilities to attend school and complete their primary education before losing interest. In the communities visited by the Review Team, there were functional schools with par￾ent-school committees and, in some cases, special education and counseling subcommit￾tees to deal with specific needs and problems of children. Such subcommittees existed in Mulenga and St. Anthony compounds in Kitwe, and they focused on ensuring that children were doing well at school and had support at home. The statement below by a community school teacher in Kitwe’s Mulenga compound indicates how this over￾sight is provided: Displaced Children and Orphans Fund 12 As teachers, we are concerned about the or￾phans and vulnerable children whom we serve. If a teacher notices a child [who is] sleeping or not able to respond in class, we follow up at the child’s home to find out what could be the problem so that needed support can be given. We do this with peo￾ple from the counseling committee at least twice per month. We have a recordkeeping system where we indicate the name of the child and parents or guardian, date of the visit and findings, or follow-up action. Fol￾low-up visits are done on a case-by-case basis. Although the communities are managing the community schools, one common feature is inadequate resources, such as inadequate classrooms, other infrastructures, chairs, and books. Compounding these problems are vol￾unteer teachers who struggle without salaries as they assist orphans and vulnerable children. The contradictions and challenges of volun￾teerism in conditions of extreme poverty are immense. Yet their understanding and sense of ownership and responsibility have moti￾vated the teachers to an unquestioned com￾mitment to educate such children. Community schools also need information about other potential sources of support. To access most resources, communities must demonstrate that they are well mobilized, that they can develop proposals for the sup￾port needed, and that they can participate in all aspects of the project. Currently, many donors, bilateral organizations, and NGOs support community schools either directly or through ZCSS. Potential sources of sup￾port for community schools include the following: • The MOE, which has the Basic Education Sub-Sector Investment Programme (BESSIP) through which schools are be￾ing given annual grants of K2,050,000 (approximately US$570) to support school operations and requisites (these funds go to all registered conventional and community schools) • The ZCSS, which has teacher and school committee training, books, and other resources • The Zambia Social Investment Fund (ZAMSIF), which supports community￾initiated social programs including edu￾cation (Support has been given toward classroom construction and rehabilitation, teacher’s houses, furniture, water supply and sanitation, and other projects as iden￾tified by the community, as long as the community commits to contribute a cer￾tain percentage of the cost. This cost can be met in terms of labor, building sand, building stones, and other resources from within the community.) • The Alliance for Community Action on female education, which is under the Fo￾rum for African Women Educationalists (FAWEZA), which targets the girl child, and which provides teaching and learning materials and capacity building for com￾munity school committees • The Zambia Education Capacity Building program (ZECAB), which is supported by the European Union to facilitate scholar￾ships for orphans and other vulnerable children and can be accessed through the MOE, CINDI, Copperbelt Education Health project, and other designated organizations • Other donors and development organiza￾tions that provide support, such as Ireland Aid, World Vision International, CARE, the Royal Netherlands Embassy, Oxfam (on the Copperbelt), and Voluntary Ser￾vice Organization (VSO) • The Catholic, Anglican, and other churches, which provide additional sources of support (The Review Team vis￾ited the Libala Stage Two Catholic Church and the Anglican Street Kids pro￾jects, each of which has started a commu￾nity school.) • The service clubs such as Lions and Ro￾tary Santhija Sai (Copperbelt), which sometimes assist community schools A Midterm Review of the SCOPE-OVC Program in Zambia 13 • Other potential sources of support in the business community such as banks like Barclays Bank and City Bank; major retail businesses such as Shop Rite, PEP, Coca￾Cola, British Petroleum (BP), and others that often have community social invest￾ment funds These sources can work only as temporary measures, as ways of raising needed project capital, or as resources for other specific short-term projects. For sustainable develop￾ment, communities cannot go to external sources continually; communities need to find long-term solutions to become strong and self-supporting. These issues are examined in the next section. As stated, community schools play a major role in providing education for orphans and vulnerable children. However, SCOPE-OVC and DOVCCs also need to work with commu￾nities in identifying other models to provide education. Several other alternatives could be explored in terms of their pros and cons and their feasibility within a given context. For ex￾ample, some child-headed households or some girls may fail to attend even community schools because of the demands of household chores, the need to be economically active to support their households, and their responsibil￾ity for care of younger siblings. In this context, a home-based schooling approach may be the most appropriate. Other options include mobile schooling to benefit hard-to-reach children or a distance￾learning approach in which learning materi￾als can be made available with possibilities of having periodic teacher-pupil contacts. The distance-learning approach could also be suitable for teacher education programs. The interactive radio-learning approach currently being piloted by the MOE (with support from USAID/DCOF) may have the potential to benefit communities throughout the coun￾try. (Appendix 3 details the community schools in districts visited by the Review Team.) Economic Strengthening Zambia’s 1999 situation analysis identified as a priority the strengthening of economic secu￾rity at the household level. Families affected by HIV/AIDS struggle to cope with the cost, time, and resource demands of providing sup￾port both to the sick and to orphans and other vulnerable children. Economic stability is crucial if households are to provide adequate care. Microfinance services (such as savings, credit, and sometimes insurance), business development services, and grants are inter￾ventions that have been used to strengthen households economically or at least to prevent their sliding into destitution. A relationship exists between strengthening household economies and building the com￾munities’ capacity to sustain support for their most vulnerable members. These two ap￾proaches to empowerment compliment each other. The community empowerment model facilitates collective action, and the empow￾erment of households helps resolve problems at that level. Observations With mixed success, COVCCs are carrying out group income-generating projects (IGAs) to raise funds to support their efforts. IGAs were frequently cited by committee members as a way to assist both households and com￾munities. Some visited communities gave ex￾amples of successful IGAs at both household and community levels. Mulenga community in Kitwe tried sewing, knitting, baking, and gardening IGAs, from which income could be used to buy basic school requisites such as clothing, food, and other needs. A promising poultry project in St. Anthony compound in Kitwe was started with an initial loan from the Ministry of Community Development and Social Welfare (MCDSW). With average profits of about K500,000 (approximately US$139) per 120 chickens raised and sold, the COVCC has managed to pay back a por￾tion of the loan, to use some of the money to Displaced Children and Orphans Fund 14 procure school materials, and to contribute to a fund from which the community hopes to construct a block of three classrooms. Several individual and group activities were being promoted and supported at Libala Stage Two in Lusaka, but with additional emphasis on individual households. Supported with funds from SCOPE-OVC, those initiatives have in￾cluded both loans and business management training. Several types of IGAs were being used, and most communities had a mixture of ap￾proaches. In promoting economic empower￾ment through income generation, CMOs and the PMT have a task of carefully distinguish￾ing and encouraging the models and ap￾proaches, which are cost-effective and have potential for being scaled up. The current models being implemented are outlined in the table below: Table 1. Current Models of Economic Interventions Type Activity 1. Economic strengthening of in￾dividual households Designed to benefit resource-poor households to meet basic needs. May include microfinance services, business develop￾ment training, grants, material inputs, or other interventions. 2. Group fundraising A time-limited activity to generate funds, such as a cultural event, music show or a big walk. Proceeds are used by the group for community activities or assistance to vulnerable indi￾viduals or households. 3. Ongoing group IGA An ongoing micro-business managed by a community group to generate funds for activities or assistance to vulnerable indi￾viduals or households. The communities that the Review Team vis￾ited appeared to have an overwhelming pref￾erence for individual household IGAs as op￾posed to group projects, because individual IGAs enable households to have something to spend for food, clothing, health care, and school needs. In contrast, group or commu￾nity IGAs generally did not produce this kind of support, largely because the profits are minimal and insufficient to benefit all partici￾pants. The observed preference for individual income-generating activities may also reflect the rather poor rate of success (in the Review Team’s experience) of ongoing income￾generating projects by groups. The commitment of participants to income￾generating activities tends to be stronger when there is some personal gain. Unfortu￾nately, formal microfinance services seemed to be very limited in the communities visited, and some of the services that were available (e.g., the Christian Enterprise Trust of Zambia [CETZAM] in Kitwe) appeared to be target￾ing relatively better off community members. It would be useful for SCOPE-OVC to explore possibilities for expansion into com￾munities that have established COVCCs, par￾ticularly in urban areas. Those COVCCs should have microfinance services whose loans are small enough to attract the very poor households that are able to engage in some type of microeconomic activity. The hybrid outgrower scheme, which provides partici￾pants with day-old chickens, technical sup￾port, and market linkages, is another resource for SCOPE-OVC to explore. Apart from the formal programs, it is also im￾portant for SCOPE-OVC to recognize the A Midterm Review of the SCOPE-OVC Program in Zambia 15 existence of informal, traditional models of, credit and savings that people already know like the chilimba. It would be useful if SCOPE’s new Economic Security Coordi￾nator could assess whether encouraging chilimba might help improve the economic situation of participating households. The prominent roles played by women in both individual and community IGAs was evident. As the people most affected in the care for and support for children, those women were in the forefront in demanding assistance related to generating income and acquiring skills needed to effectively manage the projects. Also, because of the growing number of child-headed households (which now constitute 7 percent of the country’s 1,905,000 households), it is important for SCOPE-OVC to explore ways to increase opportunities for youths to find opportunities for paid work or to generate an income. Examples of Economic Activities Observed Table 2. Individual Household Income-Generating Activities Place Type of IGA Purpose Mulenga Knitting, sewing chair covers, and baking by women Support basic school requisites and basic other needs by strengthening the household Libala Stage 2 Poultry-rearing by child￾headed households Support basic needs of the household (fees, food, clothing) to improve household income and food security Libala Stage 2 Selling food items, tie-dyed cloth, and used clothes Strengthen households to be able to send chil￾dren to school and to provide other support Namianga Home-Based Orphanage Farming of maize, sunflowers, groundnuts, plus raising chickens Improve household food and income security to be able to procure basic needs (soap, clothes, blankets, school fees, books, uniforms) Mutala community Maize farming Enhance household capacity to care for and support children through increased maize pro￾duction leading to access to disposable income A Perspective on Income-Generating Activities “We have tried community IGAs but have had problems of ensuring time and labor commit￾ments from all. Above all, the profit margins from the group IGAs are very insignificant and cannot go to individual household levels. With an individual IGA, one can divide even a small profit between the household food needs and reinvesting into the IGA. It is for this reason that individual household IGAs are preferred over group IGAs.” A member of the Sakubita COVCC in Livingstone Displaced Children and Orphans Fund 16 Table 3. Community Fund-Raising Activities Place Type of IGA Purpose Mulenga Miscellaneous fundraising activities (e.g., soliciting from businesses and individuals, fundraising, and big walks). Open a bank account for the school Libala Stage 2 Annual brai (barbeque) Raise funds of the committee for needy children Table 4. Community Long-Term Income-Generating Activities Place IGA Type Purpose Mulenga Knitting, sewing chair covers, baking, and gardening Procure needed school requisites, support resource-poor households, and care for orphans and vulnerable children St. Anthony Poultry-rearing project and levying fees on market stands Procure needed school requirements and raise funds to construct a three-classroom block Libala Stage 2 Manufacturing door mats and chair covers Strengthen committee’s capacity to assist and support needy children Garden Youth skills, tie-dyed cloth making Enhance community empowerment and solve identified problems Sakubita Piggery project, sewing chair covers, and knitting Support construction of classrooms, support teachers, and buy school materials Nakatindi Knitting Raise money to procure title deeds, register school, and support teachers SCOPE-OVC has identified economic strengthening as one of the areas on which it will concentrate during 2001. This is ap￾propriate, given the dependence of many aspects of children’s well-being on house￾hold economic capacity and on the ability of community groups to provide relief assis￾tance to particularly vulnerable children and households. It is important for SCOPE-OVC to apply lessons learned in this area and to avoid pitfalls. When appropriately targeted to very poor par￾ticipants, microfinance services (e.g., saving and credit) are potentially a valuable approach to strengthening households economically. Targeting is done primarily through loan size and the rules of participation. Exploring pos￾sibilities for expanding such services to reach communities that have mobilized to address the needs of vulnerable children will be an important task for a SCOPE-OVC microeco￾nomic specialist. Finding ways that people can expand their options is also important when building community cohesion. For example, rotating saving and credit clubs can help to build trust and to generate local sources of capital. Such groups can also be sources of advice on microbusiness.14 14 Text in this and the two following paragraphs is adapted from draft material prepared by Jill Donahue for a report on her review of the unaccompanied A Midterm Review of the SCOPE-OVC Program in Zambia 17 Another approach is to link households to better markets, which is often done in farm￾ing communities by forming associations so individuals can pool their produce to bring to market or can make bulk purchases of raw materials more cheaply. For example, during the Review Team’s visit to Kaloma, mem￾bers of that district’s DOVCC met with beneficiaries of an agricultural grant made by SCOPE-OVC. They discussed the idea of bringing their maize together in one place for sale and negotiating with potential buyers for a good price. Thus, the DOVCC may be able to help facilitate this collaboration. One rule of thumb to guide SCOPE-OVC staff members in this area is first to look for economic activities that are working. In Liv￾ingstone, for example, the CMO indicated that the Widows’ Association had developed rotating savings and credit services in some compounds and that these services were helping participants to cope with their eco￾nomic demands a little more easily. Poten￾tially, this association—perhaps with support from SCOPE-OVC—could initiate similar services in compounds where COVCCs are working, potentially enabling vulnerable households to improve their economic situa￾tion and COVCC members to provide more help to their neighbors. SCOPE-OVC should also determine whether opportunities might be developed to use the Trickle Up (TUP) approach in districts where it is working. TUP might en￾able households on the verge of destitution (which are less able than other poor house￾holds to carry out income-generating activi￾ties) to initiate some kind of IGA. TUP typically provides small grants in two in￾crements (typically each is about US$50) and offers training to improve management capacity. To receive the first grant incre￾ment, a participant must develop a proposal with an acceptable business plan and must reach goals that it helps to set before obtain- children’s component of the International Committee’s program in Rwanda, April 2001. ing a second increment. Microfinance ser￾vices have the advantage over TUP, because they have the potential to become sustain￾able, which TUP does not. However, indi￾viduals already engaged in an income￾generating activity are in the best position to use microfinance services. Households that have been seriously weakened by AIDS or other factors may not initially be able to use microfinance services, but they might use TUP grants to begin economic activities. Once these grants are established, partici￾pants can move on to microfinance services. Households in crisis need immediate assis￾tance. A COVCC can take at least two ap￾proaches when responding to such emergen￾cies. It can respond directly with material resources and moral support. It may also help link those in crisis to gain help from Govern￾ment, NGOs, religious bodies, or other sources. To mobilize resources that respond directly, regional community groups in the region are taking steps such as identifying the skills and talents of local people, conducting periodic fundraising activities, mobilizing community contributions and action, collecting member￾ship fees, soliciting donations from organiza￾tions or religious groups, and engaging in income-generating projects. The latter ap￾proach has been tried often, but the rate of success is not high because running a small business demands time and skills that may not be available. However, the Review Team heard encouraging reports in the Libala Stage 2 compound in Lusaka about Christian Communities that have raised funds by mak￾ing and selling doormats, as well as about a chicken-raising project of the St. Anthony COVCC in Kitwe. Success with group in￾come-generating projects seems to be more the exception than the rule, however, because it takes time to run a successful business. Even when community members have the necessary technical skills and management expertise, they may not be able to devote time on an ongoing basis to economic activi￾ties from which they derive no direct benefit. Displaced Children and Orphans Fund 18 Also, disagreements often arise among members trying to run a group business. Periodic fundraising is another approach that groups have used to generate funds for pro￾viding relief assistance, and such activities avoid many of the problems associated with running an ongoing group business. Exam￾ples of fundraising include organizing a dance, a music show, or a drama and charg￾ing admission; establishing a community garden; doing piecework on a commercial farm; obtaining donated items from local businesses and holding a raffle; organizing a big walk; and soliciting financial or in-kind donations from local businesses or civic groups. Establishing a link with an external program is another approach being used. For example, the Community-Based Options for Protection and Empowerment (COPE) program in Ma￾lawi helped District, Community, and Vil￾lage AIDS Committees (which are address￾ing needs among orphans and other vulnerable children as well as other AIDS￾related issues) to obtain agricultural inputs from the Southern Africa Root Crops Re￾search Network (SARNET). SARNET’s LIFE program distributes improved varieties of sweet potatoes and cassava, which AIDS committees have used to establish nurseries that propagate and distribute both the cut￾tings and the actual produce to vulnerable households. It is important for SCOPE-OVC to recognize the inter-relationship between strengthening the economic resources of individual house￾holds and building the capacity of community groups to provide relief assistance to vulner￾able individuals and households. Helping poor, but economically capable, households to improve their economic coping capacities can help them “weather the storm” of future AIDS impacts. A COVCC or other structure can also put those households in a better position to assist community members who need relief assistance. Economic strengthening within poor communities can help prevent AIDS from pushing so many households into desti￾tution that their needs overwhelm the capacity of a COVCC to respond. SCOPE-OVC should partner with other pro￾grams and organizations rather than develop major microeconomic programming capacities by itself. SCOPE-OVC’s intention to hire a new member of the PMT with expertise in mi￾croeconomic strengthening is a good one and will help improve review of proposals in this area. More important, this staff member should be able to help SCOPE-OVC identify potential partners with which it can collaborate and to which it can help link COVCCs. SCOPE-OVC should seek a candidate for this position who could also be effective in training CMOs and other members of the PMT in using realistic approaches and in deciding which kinds of economic activities and opportunities to look for and which to avoid. (Appendix 4 presents microeconomic interventions and the type of household to which each is appropriate.) OVC Structures In the districts where it is present, SCOPE￾OVC has developed and strengthened both district- and community-level OVC commit￾tees with the objective of enabling those structures to improve the situation of orphans and other vulnerable children. All the DOVCCs were initiated through the work of SCOPE-OVC, except in Livingstone, where the DOVCC is a carryover from Project Con￾cern International (PCI). In its first few months, SCOPE-OVC concentrated on work￾ing with the DOVCCs. When it found that this approach was not producing much impact at the community level, its CMOs began to work directly with community committees. Because SCOPE-OVC has been granted USAID funding as a community mobilization and capacity-building initiative, its success will depend largely on the action eventually taken by DOVCCs and COVCCs to protect and care for vulnerable children. A Midterm Review of the SCOPE-OVC Program in Zambia 19 Observations on DOVCCs The SCOPE-OVC sub-agreement states: A District OVC Committee (DOVCC) will be created in each SCOPE-OVC OVC dis￾trict to lead and identify areas for partner￾ship, capacity building and commun￾ity mobilization activities; to promote and facilitate ongoing collaboration among all key actors to address needs and problems concerning OVC and to mobilize commu￾nity action to protect and increase the well￾being of OVC. The DOVCC will have a key role in identifying partner organizations and opportunities, and will participate in learning assessments. The DOVCC will be comprised of representatives from Minis￾tries, NGOs, religious institutions, and pri￾vate sector organizations (in urban areas). SCOPE-OVC has formed or strengthened seven DOVCCs, one in each of the following districts: Kitwe, Livingstone, Chipata, Lu￾saka, Kalomo, Mongu, and Serenje. In the four districts that the Review Team visited, the roles and responsibilities of the DOVCC’s were generally to coordinate OVC activities at the district level, to create linkages among NGOs, to guide OVC programming in the district, and to advocate on issues relevant to orphans and other vulnerable children. In the districts that the Review Team visited in Kitwe, the DOVCCs were at different stages of pursuing those broad objectives. The Kitwe DOVCC was fairly well motivated and active. There was a general sense of aware￾ness of its existence by the communities and there were good links between the DOVCC and the COVCCs through participation of the latter at the monthly DOVCC meetings. Three members were assigned by the Missionaries of Hope organization to work full time with the DOVCC. The links between the Kitwe DOVCC and key stakeholders were reasona￾bly strong, with representation from the key line ministries, the private sector, the church bodies, and the local government. The De￾partment of Child Welfare of the Ministry of Community Development and Social Services (MCDSS) hosts DOVCC meetings, and stakeholders elected the Kitwe DOVCC. The Lusaka DOVCC is comprised of key stakeholders, including the MCDSS; Ministry of Sport, Youth, and Child Development; the MOE plus USAID; and individuals from or￾ganizations actively working with orphans and other vulnerable children, such as Family Health Trust, Children in Need Network; and other NGOs. The Review Team did not have an opportunity to meet with this DOVCC. The Livingstone DOVCC is also comprised mainly of individuals from key stakeholder organizations. The Livingstone DOVCC had no action plan, and members of the Review Team had the impression that it was not very active. At the time of the team’s visit, there were no regular meetings and few ongoing activities, although the committee was trying to mediate a conflict over the community school in one of the communities, Nakatindi. This DOVCC was different from the others the team met in that it included members from the Provincial Government office (the Provin￾cial Social Welfare Officer) and the Army. There was little evidence of exchange be￾tween this DOVCC and the COVCCs. COVCCs with whom the Review Team met did not seem to have much knowledge or un￾derstanding of the role of the DOVCC. The committee appeared to have been quite active when PCI was working in the area and was providing monthly funds to the DOVCC to support its activities. The DOVCC cited a lack of financial and material resources as constraints, and the currently lower level of activity may be related to the end of PCI’s funding support. The Kalomo DOVCC was the most organized and effective DOVCC with which the Review Team met. Membership in this DOVCC is open to all stakeholders in the district. They, in turn, elect an executive committee that is responsible for much of the ongoing work. This committee had a well-articulated Displaced Children and Orphans Fund 20 strategic plan and a work plan. Its relationship with community groups was strong. The committee regularly circulates to community committees a list of all organizations that support activities for orphans and other vul￾nerable children, and it acts as a link. To pre￾vent duplication of effort, the DOVCC has also set up and distributes to everyone a data￾base of all key stakeholder organizations in the area, along with information on activities engaged in and contacts. The DOVCC keeps regular contact with communities that use re￾sources from the parent organizations of the members, such as the CINDI vehicle and of￾fice premises for meetings. Observations on COVCCs The COVCCs visited in Kitwe’s Mulenga and St. Anthony compounds were very active and had both clear visions and plans for their ac￾tivities. The St. Anthony Bwafwano OVC Home-Based Care organization (the COVCC in that compound) gave the Review Team a detailed report on its programs and activities for the period of September 2000 to June 2001, along with its action plan to address four key problems. Its subcommittees work in education, psychosocial counseling, educa￾tion, fundraising, and projects. It reported having regular meetings of subcommittees and of the main committee. It also had docu￾mented its activities, with records of meetings held and of monies raised and spent. The Sa￾kubita and Nakatindi COVCCs visited in Liv￾ingstone appeared to be struggling. In Kalomo, rather than start new COVCCs, the CMO and the DOVCC worked with estab￾lished community groups, which included the CINDI subbranches that have been operating for several years, the Namianga Mission Home-Based Orphanage, and the Widows Association. The team met with the Mutala Village CINDI subbranch, which had bene￾fited from a SCOPE-OVC grant so the CINDI subbranches in the district could buy maize seed and fertilizer. Although the harvest had been fairly poor because of the weather, a spirit of cooperation was evident among the members. Many participants shared imple￾ments so they could cultivate their plots. The project had raised the awareness of the needs of orphans in the community and of the need to work together to solve problems. General Observations on OVC Structures The DOVCCs whose members are elected by the communities and stakeholders themselves, such as the Kalomo DOVCC, appear to per￾form better and to have a stronger mandate than those where NGOs have nominated members from among themselves. DOVCCs that are elected by communities and that form strong links with the COVCCs appear to achieve better results than those that have no links to community structures. Positive results can be achieved when DOVCCs support community groups (COVCCs and others) rather than attempting to implement activities directly themselves. Maintaining the active participation of all key stakeholders and the rapport among them and with COVCCs is critically important. SCOPE-OVC needs to review its support to the DOVCCs and should seek to strengthen them, both financially and technically, as it helps them focus on the chal￾lenge of improving the situation of orphans and other vulnerable children throughout the district, not just in the service areas of DOVCC members. While the DOVCCs can and should be strengthened, it is important for both the DOVCCs and SCOPE-OVC staff members to see the DOVCCs as independent structures. SCOPE-OVC has played a central role in or￾ganizing most of them, but DOVCCs should not be seen as part of SCOPE-OVC. To be sustained and effective, they must have an independent identity. Thus, there are limits to which SCOPE-OVC can or should pressure DOVCCs to make changes in the way they operate. Just as with groups at the community level, it is important that DOVCCs have a A Midterm Review of the SCOPE-OVC Program in Zambia 21 sense of owning the problems among orphans and other vulnerable children and of being responsible to address the problems. SCOPE￾OVC staff members must be careful not to undermine such ownership by exercising too much influence on DOVCCs. SCOPE-OVC’s relationship to the DOVCCs should be sup￾portive and not directive. One concern about the DOVCCs was that most seem to focus primarily on improving coordination among the activities of their members, rather than on mobilizing and building the capacities of the COVCCs and the communities to take action. Better coordi￾nation is a worthwhile objective but is far too limited in relation to the needs of the most vulnerable children. SCOPE-OVC has esti￾mated that around 5 percent of the most vul￾nerable children in the districts where it is working are benefiting from assistance from outside their own extended families. In this context, reducing duplication and making ex￾isting programs work better is not nearly enough. New approaches are needed to strengthen the capacities of families and communities that are the first line of response to the needs of the majority of vulnerable children. DOVCCs could learn from and emulate the approach of the more active COVCCs. The latter have assumed responsibility for trying to understand the situation of orphans and other vulnerable children through￾out their community. They have identified local capacities and resources and have sought resources from outside. They have benefited from training that has strength￾ened their capacities, and they are working to scale up responses to meet the needs of the most vulnerable children in the whole community. If DOVCCs were to adopt this approach, they would seek to develop a shared understanding of the magnitude and nature of the problems among orphans and other vulnerable children throughout their district and would assume responsibility for mobilizing resources and action to address such problems. The DOVCCs would inventory existing and po￾tential resources (including what the private sector could do or contribute), identify priori￾ties for action, work actively to mobilize and build the capacity of every community, and seek to benefit from the experience of other DOVCCs. An important lesson learned by district- and community-level groups that address OVC issues elsewhere in the region is that such committees are more effective over time when they seek to mobilize action by others rather than to address all problems them￾selves. Community mobilization is a process that should not stop at the level of the COVCCs. The DOVCCS and the COVCCs themselves need training in participatory skills so they can mobilize action within the areas that they serve. Committees that try to do everything themselves tend to become overworked and to burn out. If they recognize that each child is everyone’s child, they must see their role as advocating this traditional perspective and mobilizing a wider response to orphans and other vulnerable children. The small grants program of SCOPE-OVC might be more effective and the role of the DOVCCs might be reinforced if the Grants Management Committee were to delegate some authority for grant approval to DOVCCs. For example, a DOVCC might be given authority both to review and to approve proposals below a specified funding level, as well as to approve grants totaling up to a cer￾tain amount. SCOPE-OVC would retain re￾sponsibility for transferring funds directly to approved grantees, so the funds would not go through a DOVCC. Each district’s CMO, the PMT, or both could be given veto authority regarding any proposal with which they did not agree. With the support of the CMO, each DOVCC could be given responsibility for monitoring the use of funds and for reporting to the Grants Management Committee. Giv￾ing any decision-making authority to a DOVCC would have to be contingent on its having met criteria specified by the Grants Displaced Children and Orphans Fund 22 Management Committee regarding definition of its roles and bylaws, its representativeness, and the transparency of its functioning. A built-in incentive for DOVCCs to play their role carefully would be because their author￾ity to approve any future grants would be con￾tingent upon their having exercised such au￾thority well. DOVCCs would also have some incentive to ensure that the budgets of indi￾vidual proposals were not inflated because any funds approved for each proposal would reduce the total amount available to other groups in the district. Large donors are actively seeking ways to channel appropriate amounts of resources so community groups can protect and improve the well-being of orphans and other vulner￾able children.15 Development of a mechanism that not only channels resources to the grass￾roots level, but also includes local decision￾making and monitoring would have the poten￾tial to attract funds from such donors. Besides having the potential of attracting national or international funds, such an arrangement might be used by local companies that want to provide funds for grants within one of the dis￾tricts in which this mechanism had already been established. A DOVCC could approach local companies to donate funds to SCOPE￾OVC for the district’s grant “account.” Response to Psychosocial Needs Responding to psychosocial needs is critical for improving the situation of orphans and of children with a living parent who has HIV/AIDS, but such action has been ne￾glected in many programs, which tend to fo￾cus on material needs. For children who are fearful about the future, who grieve the loss of their parents, or who live in extreme poverty, the basic human contact and care provided by family and community members are vitally 15 John Williamson, Mark Lorey, and Geoff Foster, “Mechanisms for Channeling Resources to Grassroots Groups Protecting and Assisting Orphans and Other Vulnerable Children,” draft, 20 September 2001. important but often are undervalued by out￾side agencies. Zambia’s 1999 situation analysis recognized the importance of addressing the psychosocial needs of orphans and other vulnerable chil￾dren, and SCOPE-OVC identified this prob￾lem as one of its priority areas for action in 2001. The situation analysis recommended that more formalized counseling services be established throughout the country. While in￾creasing such services would be beneficial, the SCOPE-OVC staff members must recog￾nize that counseling is only one of many ac￾tivities relevant to children’s psychosocial and developmental needs and well-being. Com￾munity residents can carry out many of the most important psychosocial initiatives in￾cluding the following: • Regular visits to vulnerable children and their guardians to provide emotional sup￾port, advice, information, and practical help • Structured recreation and sports • Youth groups • Supportive religious groups • Traditional ceremonies Observations In Kitwe, Lusaka, and Kalomo, communities were making efforts to address the psychoso￾cial needs of orphans and other vulnerable children and their families, even though they did not use that terminology. In Kitwe, in par￾ticular, because of the PCI’s previous work, the communities had psychosocial commit￾tees that provided outreach and counseling services for families with orphans. In the rural communities, this activity was not as struc￾tured as in the cities, but psychosocial support was being provided through more traditional activities. When interviewed, community members said that village elders counseled families on caring for orphans and on strengthening the spirits of those affected by AIDS. A Midterm Review of the SCOPE-OVC Program in Zambia 23 For example, the Mulenga COVCC’s Coun￾seling Committee had an elaborately planned visiting program through which members counseled the guardians of orphans. The Committee also worked with teachers in the community schools to identify distressed or￾phans. Because the community recognizes the benefit of this group, residents often volunteer information to the Counseling Committee about distressed children who have been or￾phaned or are vulnerable. One example was a single young man who fled the compound when he discovered neighbors had reported him to the Committee for sexually molesting his niece in his home. This Committee works closely with bodies such as the Zambia Police Victim Support Unit and the Child Welfare Department. The visiting and monitoring done by such groups not only benefit children and guardians psychosocially, but also are vitally important as child protection functions. Traditionally, the word “orphan” does not have the same connotation and implications of social marginalization as it tends to have in the modern sense, because in a Zambian vil￾lage a child is everyone’s child and because the entire community has responsibility for each child. A child is never left abandoned to live on her or his own but is always adopted by someone, which reflects the traditional Zambian value of a child. In most traditional societies in Zambia after the death of some￾one who is married, rites and rituals are per￾formed with the surviving spouse, children, and other family members to protect them from any harm that may come to them from the spirit world. This form of spiritual healing is practiced in different ways from one society to another but each addresses what, in a mod￾ern sense, are considered psychosocial needs. Alangize is a community-based women’s group that counsels women about traditional values. It is reintroducing some traditional ceremonies and support practices in urban areas. SCOPE-OVC could explore the possibility of linking and collaborating with Alangize. Another group with a focus on men was also begun recently. Religious groups in many communities pro￾vide other forms of psychosocial support and church-based counseling support. Church or￾ganizations have long been a pioneer in pro￾viding home-based care, and they are actively involved in spiritual support and counseling. Other activities relevant to psychosocial sup￾port that communities reported to the Review Team included youth groups and structured recreation and sports. In the Sakubita and Mulenga communities, sports committees are responsible for ensuring that the children have some form of recreation after school. Those activities relieve stress and help children for￾get their problems. Even without proper foot￾ball or netball equipment, such committees have enabled children to have regular sports activities by simply tying waste plastics to￾gether into balls. To address the psychosocial needs of orphans and of families dealing with orphans and HIV/AIDS, the Review Team believes it is ap￾propriate for communities to use a combina￾tion of traditional and informal activities, along with more structured counseling. Reviving some traditional values and attitudes toward children is very important as a point of focus, particularly in towns where some people may have not have exposure to those traditions. Information as a Resource SCOPE-OVC is involved in communities that are very poor, and the importance of increas￾ing financial and material resources receives particular attention from SCOPE-OVC and other programs. However, it is also vitally important to recognize that information and ideas are also potentially valuable resources to such communities. The adage “information is power” reflects an important reality. Information is essential for the DOVCCs, COVCCs, and stakeholders to mitigate the impacts of HIV/AIDS on children. It is widely recognized that collaboration is essential for improving the situation of Displaced Children and Orphans Fund 24 orphans and other vulnerable children because no single stakeholder has the capacity to fully address the magnitude and wide range of needs and problems among those children. It is also essential to recognize that effective collaboration is possible only when there is an open flow of relevant information among stakeholders at the national, district, and community levels. This flow of information should not be limited to passing information down to the community level, but should in￾clude ways communities can share their con￾cerns and successes with others. Zambia’s 1999 situation analysis highlighted the need to increase community access to use￾ful information when it stated, “A key weak￾ness in developing effective community￾based responses to vulnerable children is the lack of grassroots access to information and skills. Communities are acutely aware of their lack of information, and their need for information.”16 Recognizing the tendency of agency programs to promote particular solutions and of com￾munities to attempt a limited range of activi￾ties, the situation analysis report recommended developing a tool kit to allow communities access to information on a range of both resources and possible approaches that would enable them to develop their own solutions to the problems of vulnerable children. Observations The Review Team observed that many COVCCs do not have information that they need to be as effective as possible, and this lack is an important area for the attention of SCOPE-OVC. For example, in Sakubita, the community members had identified recreation as important for the children but did not know where to get funds for sports equipment. They did not know that some business houses (such as the Coca-Cola Company) run community 16 USAID et al., Orphans and Vulnerable Children, p. 31. support programs that provide equipment and sponsor sporting activities in disadvantaged communities. The Review Team also identified positive ex￾amples of information dissemination. The Ka￾lomo DOVCC shared information on the Zambia Education Capacity Building (ZECAB) program with the communities, and a number of them applied for and received the funding. Information access obviously con￾tributed to the vibrancy in Kalomo. The Mulenga COVCC had received information about the priorities of Ireland Aid and was in process of an seeking support. SCOPE’s PMT had done excellent job of documenting pro￾ject progress, issues related to grants mecha￾nisms, organizational development, and issues about monitoring and evaluation. SCOPE￾OVC also played critically important roles in 2000’s national OVC Workshop, which helped to disseminate valuable information. The team found, however, that at both district and community levels, much more needs to be done to increase the flow of information, and this will be an important area for the attention of the CMOs and the PMT. This underscores SCOPE-OVCs need to hire an Information Technology Officer and the need to properly equip the districts with computers, and to facilitate establishing better mecha￾nisms for information sharing. For example, stakeholders such as the Kitwe DOVCC felt that SCOPE-OVC should use written materi￾als, radio, and television to disseminate in￾formation on the efforts being made at differ￾ent levels to meet the needs of orphans and other vulnerable children. By demonstrating and advocating open sharing of information, SCOPE-OVC can influence other programs to do the same. To increase information flow to communities, the PMT must actively seek relevant information (financial, material, technical resources, opportunities, successful tools and approaches, lessons learned, etc.) and must share it with stakeholders at the na￾tional level, with and through CMOs, with DOVCCs, and with communities. For exam￾ple, in Kalomo where the CMO linked A Midterm Review of the SCOPE-OVC Program in Zambia 25 community schools to ZECAB, a number of orphans and vulnerable children benefited from scholarship funds. CMOs can encourage further exchange by sharing information openly and routinely, encouraging collaborative efforts, and respecting all stakeholders. Strengthening the advocacy role of SCOPE-OVC will also help ensure that information reaches as many peo￾ple as possible at different levels. Problems of children affected by HIV/AIDS are not for communities and NGOs alone to solve. Because the unmet needs of those chil￾dren are a major national development prob￾lem, the roles of line ministries must be rec￾ognized. At the national level, SCOPE-OVC can help the new OVC Steering Committee to develop mechanisms that channel information to communities through both line ministries and NGO programs. One way that SCOPE-OVC could facilitate the flow of useful information to groups working with orphans and other vulnerable children would be through a newsletter. At the district level, information useful to com￾munities could be translated into local lan￾guages and disseminated by DOVCCs and other groups. Communities need information on agencies that work in different areas rele￾vant to children, such as bursaries, health and nutrition services, credit services, extension services, water supply and sanitation units, food relief, and ways children can link into and benefit from those agencies. Helping COVCCs and other community groups, local officials, and community leaders link with public and private community funds would be a way of reinforcing the efforts of families and communities. At present, this information is not reaching many of the people who need it most. SCOPE-OVC could regularly prepare and distribute a fact-filled newsletter or could help the National OVC Steering Committee to do so. The latter approach would raise the profile of the Steering Committee and estab￾lish a mechanism for regularly sharing in￾formation among all stakeholders about is￾sues related to orphans and other vulnerable children. Management Issues The Review Team found a need for FHT and CARE, as the SCOPE-OVC partners, to re￾solve some management issues. Having two organizations—one national and one interna￾tional—jointly responsible for SCOPE-OVC greatly enriches the program; however, it also complicates lines of authority and supervi￾sion. Because each of the two organizations employs a portion of the SCOPE-OVC per￾sonnel and seconds them to the program, about half of the program’s personnel must report to both their employing organization and their supervisor, who is employed by the other organization. Having two bosses causes some confusion. Also the different adminis￾trative procedures of the two organizations mean that some CMOs may wait longer than their counterparts (or at least have the impres￾sion that they do) when requesting authoriza￾tion for expenditures. These difficulties do not seem to be insur￾mountable, and the strengths that each organi￾zation brings to the SCOPE-OVC program make it worthwhile to resolve management and administrative issues. This resolution re￾quires regular and open communication be￾tween CARE and FHT. One measure taken has been to have all CMOs send their reports directly to the SCOPE-OVC management team, which then sends the reports to both partner organiza￾tions. CARE is responsible for submitting quarterly reports to FHI, USAID/Zambia, and DCOF. Transportation was flagged by some CMOs as a concern. Because CMOs have motorcy￾cles instead of vehicles, travel to some project areas is difficult, particularly during the rainy Displaced Children and Orphans Fund 26 season. CMOs sometimes need to arrange to travel in an enclosed vehicle. This might involve providing fuel for a ministry vehicle or hiring transportation. For those and other necessary operating expenses, it is impor￾tant for CMOs to have adequate funds in an impressed account, which can be replen￾ished promptly upon submission of receipts. The different levels of compensation between staff members employed by FHT and CARE (which have different pay structures) was an￾other concern that some personnel expressed to the Review Team. Differences in pay levels have the potential to cause serious motiva￾tional problems on the part of those personnel who are paid less than colleagues who do the same work. However, raising the pay of CMOs employed by FHT to equal the pay received by CMOs hired by CARE might lead to tensions within FHT. After the assessment, FHT decided to match the pay of the CMOs it employs with that paid by CARE. Because the task of mobilizing and strength￾ening community responses to orphans and vulnerable children on as wide a scale as possible is difficult and will be necessary for several decades, the 33-month funding pe￾riod of SCOPE-OVC is relatively short term. Members of the PMT, some CMOs, and rep￾resentatives of FHI and FHT expressed con￾cern about the project’s relatively short time frame in relation to the issues addressed and the negative consequences for staff motiva￾tion and retention. USAID is constrained by its rules, but for the sake of program ef￾fectiveness, it needs to find ways to ensure the continuity of SCOPE-OVC. Staff mem￾bers must have enough time to initiate and sustain long-term work (including learning from mistakes and successes and applying lessons) and enough sense of job security to permit the program to develop and retain its staff. The transition from PCI’s USAID-funded OVC activities to those of SCOPE-OVC in the same districts was attempted in good faith but did not go smoothly. This experience and the points made in this report under the head￾ing, “Need for a Strategic, Long-term Com￾mitment,” should be given serious considera￾tion by USAID in Zambia and Washington, as well as by other stakeholders, to ensure the continuity of vitally important community mobilization and capacity-building activities. CARE and FHT also need to consider what they can do about this problem. The situation would be improved if they were to diversify the funding base of SCOPE-OVC so it does not depend on a single donor. 27 RECOMMENDATIONS Community Mobilization 1. At national, district, and community lev￾els, SCOPE-OVC should seek to catalyze and scale up a greater response than its staff can produce. In addition to engaging in mobilization and capacity building at the community level, SCOPE-OVC CMOs should also advocate and train stake￾holders (members of the DOVCCs and others) to carry out these roles. Comment: Though it is appropriate for CMOs to spend part of their time working directly with communities to mobilize ac￾tion and to build capacities, CMOs and the PMT must devote part of their time to persuading and training other stakeholders to engage in community mobilization and capacity building to improve the safety and well-being of children and families. 2. The Government of Zambia and donors should make a strategic, long-term com￾mitment to mobilizing action and building capacities at community and district levels as a fundamental strategy to protecting children’s rights and promoting their well-being and development. In consulta￾tion with other stakeholders, the Govern￾ment should mandate the formation in every district of a collaborative group through which all stakeholders from line ministries, local government, and civil so￾ciety can work together to mobilize and support ongoing action in every commu￾nity. The National Steering Committee on Orphans and other Vulnerable Children should take a leading role in the develop￾ment and support of this structure. Comment: The Steering Committee should give careful attention to the exam￾ples of the developing DOVCC–COVCC networks in the districts where SCOPE￾OVC is working and to the AIDS Com￾mittee structure that is developing in Malawi. 3. In their contacts with communities, all SCOPE-OVC staff members should con￾tinually reinforce a sense of capacity, ac￾complishment, and pride among COVCCs and other community groups. Education 1. SCOPE-OVC should give particular at￾tention to strengthening community schools. Comment: Community schools are the only major initiative giving many orphans and vulnerable children a chance to have access to education. These schools are also a focal activity for community mobi￾lization. This strengthening should include helping COVCCs and community schools to link with the various resources identi￾fied in this report. 2. CMOs should facilitate the registration of community schools with the Zambia Community Schools Secretariat. CMOs Displaced Children and Orphans Fund 28 should also encourage DOVCCs to mobi￾lize local support for community schools, particularly from the private sector. Comment: Communities need to diversify sources of support so that SCOPE-OVC is not seen as the only source. 3. To ensure that pupils in community schools are not receiving an inferior edu￾cation, SCOPE-OVC should help commu￾nities to enhance the quality of community schools. Comment: This enhancement can be done through training and strengthening in￾service support of teachers and school management committees. Other critical aspects include supervising and monitor￾ing teachers in classrooms, securing an adequate supply of teaching and learning materials (especially basic items like chalk boards and chalk), and encouraging a conducive and child-friendly learning environment in classrooms. In addition, developing water supply and sanitation facilities is essential for children’s health and may prevent girls from dropping out of school as they come of age. 4. SCOPE-OVC CMOs should facilitate and strengthen the ability of communities to lobby for the rights of all children to edu￾cation and to exempt orphans and other vulnerable children from paying fees in conventional or community schools. SCOPE-OVC should support such com￾munity advocacy at national and district levels. 5. SCOPE-OVC should work with the MOE, ZCSS, DOVCCs, and COVCCs at national and district levels to help find lasting so￾lutions to the ongoing need for teacher remuneration. Comment: This issue poses a threat to what has been achieved so far by the community schools. Unless teacher reten￾tion is ensured, problems of quality will continue. The MOE must have the re￾sources from the central Government and must follow through on its promised sup￾port to community schools. 6. Recognizing that no one best model exists for accessing basic education, CMOs, DOVCCs and COVCCs should explore approaches such as distance learning, mobile schools, home-based learning, in￾teractive radio instruction, and other in￾novative learning models that can provide or enhance quality education. Economic Strengthening 1. CMOs and the PMT should continually identify and gather information about ap￾proaches to microeconomic strengthening that appear to be cost-effective and that have the potential for being scaled up or for being adapted and used in other sites. They should make relevant information available to DOVCCs and COVCCs and should seek opportunities for those com￾mittees to link with effective programs of economic strengthening. Comment: In these efforts, SCOPE-OVC staff members must distinguish the following: • Activities that benefit poor households individually • Group fundraising activities (time￾limited or periodic activities) • Group income-generating activities (ongoing business) Important issues include: • Diversifying sources of support to community activities • Developing skills at household level to carry out IGAs effectively • Advocating and facilitating agricul￾tural extension services to caregivers in agricultural areas CMOs should facilitate economic strengthening of households and families so they can more effectively care for or￾phans and vulnerable children. A Midterm Review of the SCOPE-OVC Program in Zambia 29 2. Through its new Economic Security Coor￾dinator, SCOPE-OVC should explore possibilities for improving the access of mobilized communities to sound micro￾economic strengthening programs. Comment: Examples of programs to ex￾plore include Pride Africa, Christian En￾terprise of Zambia (CETZAM), Peri￾Urban, CARE’s Copperbelt Livelihood Project, Lusaka Small Enterprises Devel￾opment Project (PULSE), and the hybrid outgrower scheme the new Economic Se￾curity Coordinator should explore with these and other organizations the possibil￾ity of their offering microfinance products that are appropriate to the needs of com￾munities seriously affected by HIV/ AIDS.17 3. The new Economic Security Coordinator should also help CMOs and, through them, COVCCs to explore possibilities for engaging the private sector in supporting economic strengthening efforts in mobi￾lized communities. 4. The new Economic Security Coordinator should help CMOs and DOVCCs develop practical ways of encouraging and sup￾porting traditional mechanisms of savings and finance. OVC Structures 1. CMOs should encourage DOVCCs to stress the following roles: • Mobilization and capacity building of communities • Information exchange • Collaboration between and among stakeholders 17 Jill Donahue, who previously carried out training with SCOPE-OVC, may be able to provide relevant information using her recent research in Uganda. She is based in Harrare as a regional technical advisor for Catholic Relief Services. Her address is . • Cross-referrals among stakeholders • Advocacy 2. DOVCCs should not seek to implement services themselves. 3. Each DOVCC should define its roles and its vision. Each should establish a set of bylaws and develop its strategic plan. 4. Each DOVCC should have significant representation from COVCCs and other community groups. Comment: Kalomo’s approach of open membership with an elected executive committee appears to be a good model. 5. CMOs should encourage DOVCCs to concentrate on improving the situation of OVCs throughout a district, not just on improving existing services. They should encourage DOVCCs to mobilize and ad￾vocate responses on behalf of orphans and other vulnerable children on as wide a scale as possible throughout their district. 6. CMOs should advocate recognition and respect of community efforts by DOVCC members. Comment: One of the most impor￾tant ways is to model this attitude and approach. 7. CMOs should encourage DOVCCs to identify and facilitate resource links be￾tween and among COVCCs and other community groups. Comment: Examples include the Zambia Social Investment Fund (ZAMSIF), the Community Health Initiative Fund, and the social welfare funds that many large companies have. For the latter, DOVCCs will need to identify how they can ap￾proach companies with a view toward identifying ways those companies can gain public relations benefits from provid￾ing such assistance. Displaced Children and Orphans Fund 30 8. On a pilot basis, SCOPE-OVC should de￾fine procedures and authorize specific re￾sponsibilities for DOVCCs in making de￾cisions about small grants. 9. The PMT should explore with CMOs the possibility of providing DOVCCs with limited allocations for expenses such as transportation to communities and for COVCC representatives to attend DOVCC meetings. The PMT and the CMOs should identify the pre-conditions and mechanisms appropriate for this. Comment: Access to use a limited amount of funds could increase the ability of DOVCCs to carry out their mobiliza￾tion, capacity-building, and information￾sharing roles at the community level. Ex￾perience with the original DOVCC in Kitwe suggests, however, that the amount provided must be carefully considered in advance and monitored. 10. CMOs should help COVCCs to develop accountable, transparent systems for ac￾cessing, raising, and managing resources. Comment: Resources are necessary for scaling up effective action, but inappro￾priate handing of resources can cause mis￾trust within community groups or can alienate the larger community. 11. Before a CMO or DOVCC seeks to form a new COVCC or to re-activate an old one, it should first identify existing community structures that are addressing or could address the needs of orphans and other vulnerable children, and consider working with these groups. Response to Psychosocial Needs 1. CMOs and DOVCCs should encourage communities to develop ways to monitor and support all their vulnerable children and to protect all children from abuse, neglect, or harm. Comment: This approach is in keeping with the traditional value that each child is everyone’s child. Mobilizing and strengthening such community efforts should be major roles of CMOs and DOVCCs. 2. CMOs should encourage the develop￾ment and expansion of such activities as home visits, counseling, sports, cultural activities, and religious and traditional ceremonies, and, as appropriate, the inte￾gration orphans and vulnerable children with other children in the community within those activities. 3. CMOs should encourage the use and ex￾pansion of traditional models of psycho￾social support, counseling, monitoring, and protection. Comment: Groups such as Alangize may be helpful in this. Providing support and advice to caregivers and exchanging information with them are also very important. Information as a Resource 1. The PMT should actively seek relevant information and share this information with stakeholders nationally and through CMOs and DOVCCs. CMOs should en￾courage DOVCCs to disseminate poten￾tially useful information to communities. Comment: Examples of the types of information needed include financial, material, and technical resources and opportunities; successful tools and approaches; and lessons learned. 2. Within their districts, CMOs should ac￾tively seek to identify local approaches that appear to be cost-effective ways to provide protection and support to orphans and other vulnerable children. Comment: CMOs should share this infor￾mation with DOVCCs and communities and with the PMT. CMOs should promote A Midterm Review of the SCOPE-OVC Program in Zambia 31 information exchange among DOVCC members and between DOVCCs. 3. CMOs should continually demonstrate to DOVCCs and community groups the value of openly sharing of information, using collaborative approaches, and having respect for all stakeholders. 4. SCOPE-OVC should help all stake￾holders—the national and local govern￾ment structures, the donors, the NGOs, the business community, and the University— to develop systems for sharing useful information. Comment: The formation of a databank and the wide circulation of a newsletter could be ways of sharing information at different levels. 5. SCOPE-OVC should support the National OVC Steering Committee to exercise na￾tional leadership in mobilizing collabora￾tive action by governmental and civil so￾ciety stakeholders, should develop and advocate relevant policies, and should manage implementation of a national OVC plan of action. 6. CMOs should help link communities to potential sources of support such as ZECAB, ZAMSIF, and the World Food Program. 7. Through DOVCCs and COVCCs, CMOs should facilitate coordination among do￾nors to avoid duplication of efforts or ac￾tions that could undermine community ownership of problems and its sense of re￾sponsibility for action. 8. Through the National OVC Steering Committee, CMOs, DOVCCs, COVCCs, and other stakeholders, SCOPE-OVC should document and widely share the best practices that it identifies from its own work and from other groups address￾ing OVC issues in the region. 9. SCOPE-OVC should seek to help the Na￾tional OVC Steering Committee to de￾velop mechanisms that channel informa￾tion to communities through both line ministries and NGOs. Comment: One way to facilitate the flow of useful information to districts and com￾munities throughout the country would be through a newsletter on OVC issues. Management Issues 1. CARE and FHT should maintain regular, open communication on administrative is￾sues related to SCOPE-OVC to identify and resolve any difficulties that may hin￾der program performance or staff morale. 2. CARE and FHT, in consultation with the SCOPE-OVC staff, should give priority attention to adequately providing for timely procurement and transportation. 3. CARE and FHT should make long-term commitments to maintaining SCOPE-OVC as an ongoing program. Such commit￾ments should include diversifying the pro￾gram’s funding base and possibly adding other partners. 4. USAID should explore ways to ensure continuity of funding for the long-term ef￾fort of community mobilization and capac￾ity building to improve the protection and care of orphans and other vulnerable children in Zambia. 33 Appendix 1: Scope of Work for SCOPE-OVC OVC Review June 18–30, 2001 USAID/Zambia request that a three person Review Team, led by John Williamson, assist with an internal review of SCOPE-OVC’s work in Zambia to date, The purpose of the activity is to provide additional technical ad￾vice so that USAID/Zambia can more effec￾tively respond to USAID/Washington’s con￾tinuing commitment to strong country programs that support community-based ef￾forts assisting vulnerable children. The goal of the review is to strengthen pro￾gram initiatives and to provide practical recommendations to USAID/Zambia and SCOPE-OVC at the mid-point in SCOPE￾OVC’s implementation activities John Williamson, Displaced Children and Or￾phans Fund, Washington, D. C. will be the team leader. He will be joined by two Zam￾bian consultants with experience and interests in vulnerable children’s work in Zambia. The Review Team will be responsible for develop￾ing work assignments, a mutually agreed upon division of labor and schedule for com￾pletion of components of a draft report. The review will be based on site visits, inter￾views with staff and stakeholders, group meetings with community leaders, national and community partners, youth and telephone discussions (if needed). SCOPE-OVC will provide a set of documents for the Review Team including quarterly reports; sub-grants manual, workshop reports and site visit reports. The Review Team will make site vis￾its in Lusaka, Livingstone, Kitwe, and Ka￾lomo Districts. The end product of the review will be a 20–35-page document reviewing initiatives and progress at national, district and community levels undertaken through SCOPE-OVC. The document will identify strengths and challenges in SCOPE-OVC program work at community, district, and na￾tional levels and will include practical rec￾ommendations. A draft report will be submit￾ted to USAID/Zambia and all stakeholders by the three-member team on or before 20 July. USAID/Zambia would like to schedule a de￾briefing on 27 or 28 June at USAID, 351 In￾dependence Ave., with the three members of the Review Team prior to the team leader’s departure. The date and time will be estab￾lished at a time agreed to by the team and USAID/Zambia. USAID requests that 3 cop￾ies of a draft preliminary report of approxi￾mately 10 pages be submitted at this meeting. USAID/Zambia requests that the review– exercise cover community, organizational and technical perspectives on the following topics: the community mobilization/participation process, community needs and issues, com￾munity-level partners and their relationship with SCOPE-OVC, information sharing at community and district levels, progress of dis￾trict level OVC committee development, re￾source tools and program evaluation. Addi￾tionally, USAID/Zambia asks the Review Displaced Children and Orphans Fund 34 Team to cover topics regarding adequacy of the current SCOPE-OVC staff, effectiveness of management systems, effectiveness of cur￾rent communication systems between districts and SCOPE-OVC’s Lusaka office and, as time allows, SCOPE-OVC’s role in national OVC programs and policies and opportunities to strengthen partnerships at national level. 35 Appendix 2: Itinerary and Contacts Date Place Name of Person Organization/Position US Embassy, Lusaka Karen Shelly AIDS Advisor, USAID SCOPE-OVC office, Lusaka Daphetane Siame Mary Simasiku Mwewa Lufungulo Tenso Kalala Fines Munkonze Marily Knieriemen Project Manager – SCOPE-OVC Assistant Project Manager SCOPE-OVC Grants Manager – SCOPE-OVC Organization Development – SCOPE-OVC M & E Coordinator – SCOPE-OVC Assistant Country Director, CARE International Private home, Lusaka Karen Doll Manda Country Representative Family Health International June 18 FHT office, Lusaka John Munsanje Project Manager Family Health Trust Mulenga com￾pound, Kitwe Patson Mushili Catherine Kaumba Francis Mwansa Paul Kafwimbi Bornface Ngoma Pardon Kanchinyala Mwansa Kapeya Chikuwe Phyllis Megani Mupeni Edith Chilemba Loveness Nguni Vice-Chairperson Secretary OVC Education Sub-Committee Chairperson Projects Committee Chairperson Maintenance Treasurer Secretary Counselling Committee Youth Committee Youth Committee Chairperson – Finance Committee Vice-Secretary – OVC Chairperson – Mulenga OVC 19 St. Anthony com￾pound, Kitwe David Kalumbi Graddy Simukoko George Kapepala Moses Sampa Tedson Phiri Mary Zulu Bright Chibwe Veronica Govinder Stewart Mbewe Mary Chali Bernadette Mwaba Brendah Kunda Chairperson – COVCC Secretary – COVCC Treasurer – COVCC Project Coordinator Vice Chair – COVCC Teacher Teacher Teacher Health Secretary Committee member Committee member Committee member Displaced Children and Orphans Fund 36 Date Place Name of Person Organization/Position CINDI Kitwe office Terry Mukuka CINDI Project Coordinator District Social Wel￾fare Office, Kitwe Richard Mangani Senior Social Welfare Officer – MCDSW District Education Office, Kitwe Mrs. A.T. Ngula Mrs. R. Mongeza Mr. Mwamba Education Officer District Inspector of School Continuing Education Officer SCOPE-OVC office, Kitwe Chilobe Kambikambi Joseph S. Sinnah SCOPE-OVC-CMO Programme Officer – DOVCC 20 Mindolo Ecumeni￾cal Foundation office, Kitwe Cliren C. Katebe Josephine N. Mbilishi Dru Smith Mwangala Chiwala Chairperson – DOVCC Education Resource Officer – DOVCC Secretarial support Committee Member, DOVCC 21 Pamodzi Hotel Ms. Knieriemen Assistant Country Director, CARE Lubala Stage 2 compound Lusaka Mrs. Margaret Chirawa St. Charles Lwanga – Coordinator Committee for Needy Children Private home, Lubala Stage 2 compound Vincent Masuku Loan Recipient of the SCOPE revolving micro￾credit fund Private home, Lubala Stage 2 compound Sophia Banda Gertrude Banda Grandmother Caring for OVCs Asst. Community Coordinator – Angelican Children’s Project 22 Hope for Africa office, Garden Compound Rev. Charles Mwape Mike F. Namwaze Emmanuel Mubanga Eveless Phiri Joseph Daka Ricky Kunda Oscar Mulenga Lackson Banda Joshua Ntalanga Caroline Handia Chair – COVCC Counsultant to COVCC COVCC – Secretary Women’s Affairs, Chairperson COVCC Deputy Chair Teacher Teacher Pastor Pastor SCOPE-OVC-CMO – Lusaka 23 St. Francis Com￾munity residence, Livingstone St. Mary Courtney Charles Mulongwe Director, St. Francis Home Care Program Staff member, St. Francis Home Care Program 24 Hotel, Livingstone Mr. Siame Ms. Simasiku 25 SCOPE-OVC office, Livingstone Ali Mubanga SCOPE-OVC, CMO A Midterm Review of the SCOPE-OVC Program in Zambia 37 Date Place Name of Person Organization/Position Museum annex, Livingstone Jean Mweene Josephine C. Phiri Gwendoline Sampa Moses Sakala Dorothy Bwalya Masauso Mwale Alivie L. Muhongo Mutandalike Choonga Clement Chimpandu Monica Nyembo Williams DOVCC – Chairperson DOVCC – Treasurer DOVCC – Secretary District Social Welfare Officer DOVCC committee members (Child Affairs Officer) Livingstone Street Children Association Libuyu Skills Training Centre Libuyu Skills Training Centre Zambia Army – Clinical Officer Sakubita compound, Livingstone Kestone Lyambai Mr. Hampako Mrs. Lyambayi Mr. Ngelenge Mutinta Hampako Anna Siambala Cosmas Simasiku Mrs. Siambalo Theber Phiri Joyce Inambawo B. Siambala Mrs. Tembo Teacher COVCC – Chairperson COVCC – Vice Secretary Treasurer Teacher Teacher COVCC Secretary COVCC – Vice-Chair Member Member Member Member SEPO Center, Livingstone Akakulubelwa Ronald Aureen Katiba AIDS Coordinator Nurse/Psychosocial Counselor Temporary commumity school, Nakatindi compound, Livingstone K.K. Musakamui Buxton Mukuni Edward Aongola Maria Imbula R. Limwanya C. Muyunda Alice Chipango Geoffrey Masambo Mabvuto Phiri Teacher, Nakatindi Community school PTA, Nakatindi PTA, Nakatindi Teacher, Nakatindi OVC – Chairperson, Nakatindi OVC – Secretary, Nakatindi OVC Member, Nakatindi Community Health Worker, Nakatindi Peer Educator Ali Mubanga 26 Kalomo Scholastica Chisense Trevor Ntambale Margaret D. Siamasamu Cynthia Fezama Malumo Malumo Rachel C. Imuyema Charles T. Siame Timothy Kaluba Charles M. Imenda Betty Phiri Sebastian Chikuta DOVCC – Chairperson (CINDI ) DOVCC – Member DOVCC – Vice-Chair (Social Welfare) DOVCC Member/Widow’s Assn. DOVCC Member (Lets build together) DOVCC Member (Catholic Women’s League) DOVCC – Vice-Secretary (MOE ) DOVCC Member (ZECAB) DOVCC – Secretary (Human Rights Committee) DOVCC – member (WVI – Health Coordinator) SCOPE-CMO Displaced Children and Orphans Fund 38 Date Place Name of Person Organization/Position Mutala Village, Kalomo Monica Nankonko Jane Siluuma Eness Kalangu Queen Siachobe Mary Mulwani Sarafina Kanana Cathrine Madilayi Esther Siamwaze Alice Matimba Edina Siamakukuta Chairperson – COVCC Vice-Chairperson Secretary – COVCC Vice Secretary Treasurer – COVCC Vice-Treasurer Member Member Member Member Namianga cam￾pus, Kalomo Thomas Siatisiyo Mrs. Muuka Mrs. Mbewe Mr. & Mrs. Njebe Mr. & Mrs. Kadonga Mr. Kaliyangile Chairperson Namianga Home Based Orphanage Caregiver Caregiver Caregiver Caregiver Caregiver 27 USAID mission, Lusaka Robert Clay Karen Shelly Population, Heath, and Nutrition Coordinator 28 CARE office SCOPE-OVC PMT Mrs. Elizabeth Mataka Mr. Musange Stella Goings Mrs. Doll-Manda A. Chibwa Irene Banda Executive Director, FHT Project Manager, FHT Representative, UNICEF Representative, FHI CARE Health Sector Coordinator, CARE 39 Appendix 3: Community Schools Livingstone Community Schools in SCOPE-OVC Areas Name Population in Community Teachers Children in School Male Female Male Female Total Sakubita 405 61 79 140 Nakatindi 1,416 49 60 109 Zambezi Sawmills 1,700 48 51 99 Linda 2,300 88 64 152 Total 5,821 246 254 500 Kitwe Community School Information in Areas Visited Name Population in Community Teachers Children in School Male Female Male Female Total Mulenga 17,000 2 4 312 St. Anthony 4,580 2 2 113 118 231 Total 4 6 543 Displaced Children and Orphans Fund 40 Kalomo District Community Schools No. of Classes No. of Pupils Teachers School [*Levels] Boys Girls Total Male Female Total 1. Kalomo Central *1–4 58 70 128 0 4 4 2. Kabombo 2 78 108 186 2 0 2 3 Kaminya 2 24 36 60 2 0 2 4 Chikuyu 2 54 61 115 1 1 2 5. Chilwi 2 59 51 110 2 0 2 6 Chilubwa 2 29 55 84 2 0 2 7 Jokwe 3 69 60 129 2 1 3 8 Habulile 1 30 40 70 0 1 1 9. Katambo West 1 30 40 70 1 0 1 10. Katambo West 1 23 27 50 1 0 1 11. Chilala 2 20 25 45 0 2 2 12. Sikabombo 2 46 34 80 2 0 2 13. Buungashiya 2 96 84 180 1 0 1 14. Chikanta 2 47 37 84 2 0 2 15. Shaamba 2 59 51 110 1 0 1 16. Simukanda 3 74 63 137 3 0 3 17. Mwili 2 87 54 141 2 0 2 18. Maila-male 2 58 70 128 0 2 2 19. Nambihi 2 43 37 80 1 1 2 20. Matondo *1–4 80 83 163 2 2 4 21. Namabondo *1–4 57 95 152 2 1 3 22. Simakakata 3 65 66 131 3 0 3 23. Chitumbi 4 82 91 173 1 1 2 24. Chalinga 2 37 46 83 2 0 2 25. Nalubumba 1 16 17 33 1 0 1 26. Siamusunse 1 20 20 40 1 0 1 27. Chimpelele 1 12 18 30 1 0 1 28. Sindowe 1 20 22 42 0 1 1 29. Sikaunda 1 19 23 42 1 0 1 30. Nakanyanga 1 17 20 37 1 0 1 31. Nachombo 1 21 23 44 1 0 1 A Midterm Review of the SCOPE-OVC Program in Zambia 41 No. of Classes No. of Pupils Teachers School [*Levels] Boys Girls Total Male Female Total 32. Bogo 1 22 25 47 1 0 1 33. Mapampi 1 15 18 33 1 0 1 34 Lubombo 1 15 19 34 1 0 1 35. Namachele 1 10 18 28 1 0 1 36. Namdula 1 15 16 31 1 0 1 37. Konayuma 1 10 12 22 1 0 1 TOTALS 1,517 1,635 3,152 47 17 64 43 Appendix 4: Microeconomic Interventions and Target Households Type of Intervention Target Households (in terms of productive capacity and vulnerability to poverty) Linkage to microfinance in￾stitutions (MFIs) • Open to everyone in community who is eligible according to MFI’s criteria. • Has productive capacity • Is somewhat vulnerable and vulnerable to poverty (not-so-poor, and poor) ROSCAs • Open to everyone in community who is interested • Have some productive capacity, but is unable or unwilling to absorb debt. • Is vulnerable or very vulnerable to poverty (poor and poorer) Market Linkages • Open to everyone in community who is interested • Have some productive capacity, but is unable or unwilling to absorb debt. • Is vulnerable or very vulnerable to poverty (poor and poorer) Advice/guidance and training on economic opportunities. Perhaps coupled with provi￾sion of small grants. • Could be productive, but has sold off all assets and liquidated all savings (covering, for example, medical / funeral expenses, paying for care of orphans). • Is destitute, but has not always been so. Needs temporary boost to get back on feet? • Needs to switch to economic opportunity that is less demanding or time consuming Relief assistance (Permanent or temporary) • Needs temporary assistance to avoid break up of household or selling productive assets or is permanently disabled and needs assistance indefinitely (household or individual is coping with advanced stages of AIDS). • Is destitute and has no productive capacity (The table above is from, “A Review of the COPE Program and Its Strengthening of AIDS Committee Structures,” 2001, Jill Donahue and John Williamson)