A Review of 
Save the Children’s 
Urban Street Children 
Empowerment and Support 
Program 
May 2002 
Donald Whitson 
Cathy Savino 
The evaluation report was conducted under 
the auspices of the U.S. Agency for Interna￾tional Development. The evaluation was 
conducted by the Displaced Children and 
Orphans Fund and Leahy War Victims Fund 
Contract (HRN-C-00-98-00037-00). The 
opinions expressed are those of the author 
and do not necessarily reflect the views of 
the U.S. Agency for International Develop￾ment or Professional Resources Group In￾ternational, Inc. 
iii 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Abbreviations and Acronyms v 
Map of Indonesia vii 
Executive Summary ix 
Introduction 1 
Summary of the Urban Street Children Program 1 
Displaced Children and Orphans Fund 2 
USAID/Jakarta 3 
Indonesia Context 5 
Indonesian Government 6 
National Commission for Child Protection (NCCP) 
 and Provincial Child Protection Agencies (LPAs) 8 
UNICEF 9 
Others 9 
Trafficking and ICMC/ACILS 10 
ILO/IPEC 10 
Save the Children 10 
Save the Children’s Programmatic Approach 13 
The NGO Environment 13 
The Effect on the Budget 14 
Comments on Programmatic Areas and Strategic Objectives 15 
Capacity of NGOs to Deliver Assistance to Street Children Enhanced 15 
Health Status of Street Children Improved and Access to and Use 
 of Health Care Services by Street Children Improved 15 
Special Needs of Girl Street Children Addressed 17 
Alternatives to Living in the Street Developed 17 
Subgrants Details 19 
Displaced Children and Orphans Fund
Jakarta 20 
Surabaya 22 
Bandung 24 
LPAs 30 
General Comments on Subgrants 31 
Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) 31 
Conclusion 33 
Observations 33 
Recommendations 34 
Next Steps 35 
Appendix 37 
Contacts 37 
DCOF Assessment Visit Schedule 41 
v 
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 
ACILS American Center for International Labor Solidarity (AFL/CIO) 
ADB Asian Development Bank 
AusAID Australia Agency for International Development
BAPPEKO Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Kota (Central Jakarta Development Planning 
Board) 
BIP Bandung Indah Plaza 
CRC International Convention on the Rights of the Child 
DCOF Displaced Children and Orphans Fund 
DROC Democratic Republic of the Congo 
FHI Family Health International 
IDF Institutional Development Framework 
IEC Information, Education, and Communication 
GOI Government of Indonesia 
HPN Health, Population, and Nutrition 
ICMC International Catholic Migration Commission
ILO International Labor Organization 
IPEC International Programme for the Elimination of Child Labor 
LAHA Lembaga Advokasi Hak Anak 
LBH Yayasan Lembaga Batuan Hukum Indonesia
LPA Lembaga Perlindungan Anak Ja Tim, the provincial counterpart of the NCCP 
M&E monitoring and evaluation 
NCCP National Commission for Child Protection 
NGO nongovernmental organization 
PKK Family Welfare Movement 
PRO Program Office 
RESCUE Reaching Street Children in an Urban Environment program 
ROC Republic of the Congo 
SC Save the Children Federation/USA 
SEMAK Solidaritas Masyarakat Anak 
SO Strategic Objective 
SOAG Strategic Objective Grant Agreement 
SPMAA Sumber Pendidikan Mental Agama Allah 
STI sexually transmitted infections
TA technical assistance 
Displaced Children and Orphans Fund
vi 
UNDP United Nations Development Program 
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization 
UNPAD Universitas Padjadjaran
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund 
USAID United States Agency for International Development 
YMS Yayasan Masyarakat Sehat 
vii 
MAP OF INDONESIA 
Displaced Children and Orphans Fund
viii 
ix 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
Don Whitson, M.D., M.P.H., and Cathy Savino, M.P.H., traveled to Indonesia from May 12 to 
29, 2002, to assess the Urban Street Children Empowerment and Support Program, which is 
managed by Save the Children Federation/USA (SC) and funded through the Displaced Children 
and Orphans Fund (DCOF) of the United States Agency for International Development 
(USAID). This grant, awarded competitively in August 2000 (Cooperative Agreement no. 497-
0393), is a 3-year program with an end date of July 31, 2003, and a total estimated cost of 
$3 million. 
The team’s scope of work was to review the progress of the grant to date. This was the first 
DCOF visit to Indonesia since the grant began. In addition to an overall assessment, the visit pre￾sented the team members with an opportunity to learn about the Urban Street Children Program 
and to share the experiences of other DCOF-funded programs for street children. 
The team members based their observations on documents, interviews, and site visits, because 
there was not enough time to do a comprehensive review. Although the team visited two cities 
plus Jakarta, the team members were left with impressions of subgrantees, not concrete facts or 
data that were verified. Of 39 subgrants, the team visited 12 subgrantees. 
The team made recommendations to the Urban Street Children Program using the team’s ex￾perience with similar DCOF activities, the program’s contribution to the overall DCOF phi￾losophy, and its contribution to the improvement of the health of the most vulnerable children 
in Indonesia. 
Summary of the Urban Street Children Program 
The Urban Street Children Program aims to improve the health and welfare of children living 
and working on the streets in Indonesia’s urban areas. It is operating in four cities—Jakarta, Su￾rabaya, Medan, and Bandung—through subgrants to 39 organizations. It is a capacity-building 
program. As noted in the January–March 2002 quarterly report, “The program seeks to expand, 
strengthen, and mobilize local responses to meet the special medical, behavioral, educational, 
legal, and social needs of girls and boys living and working on the street.” The program aims to 
achieve four results: 
Displaced Children and Orphans Fund
x 
Result 1: Capacity of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to deliver assistance to street 
children enhanced 
Result 2: Access to and use of health services by street children increased 
Result 3: Special needs of girl street children addressed 
Result 4: Alternatives to living in the street developed 
There are 43 indicators to measure results in those areas. Both outcome and process indicators 
will be measured from baseline and end-line random sample surveys, a monitoring compilation 
tool, and quarterly reports and visits. 
The program also aims to improve the national level debate about children, working with the 
Ministry of Women’s Empowerment and the provincial level child protection agencies (Lem￾baga Perlindungan Anak Ja Tim, or LPA). 
Observations 
• The team members share Save the Children’s concern as to whether the children receiving 
services are those children who are most at risk. While the current grant represents remark￾able advances in getting subgrants out and reaching a broad variety of children, clearly pov￾erty is the most salient characteristic of the children seen. Most of those children and young 
people have parents whom they return to every night, and most are connected to their family 
in responsible ways. Because the program offers alternatives to kids who want to stay out all 
night (at a drop-in center where a child can stay) or where their rights are promoted in the ab￾sence of parental involvement, it is questionable whether the street kids program is helping or 
not. 
• Almost 2 years (as of August 2002) into a 3-year project, no clear successful strategy has 
emerged as a means to improve the health and welfare of street children. The slow start and 
the lack of attention by Save the Children leadership delayed progress. Only the personal de￾termination of the project director and her staff, as well as USAID’s ultimately forceful in￾tervention, have created the impetus to move this grant forward. 
• The large number of small NGOs requires inordinate amounts of technical assistance for in￾stitutional strengthening, while the long-term prospects for their survival as NGOs are weak. 
Clearly, Save the Children had to cast a wide net to see what could be accomplished in terms 
of programs and possibilities. And there are some positive experiences on which to build, but 
the next steps, involving analysis of what works and what does not, as well as strong criteria 
for those choices, will be critical in the next phase. 
• Community mobilization is repeatedly cited as a central strategy, but it was omitted from the 
design. Although Save the Children encouraged prospective recipients to include community 
mobilization strategies in their proposals, few did so. The project design may need to be 
modified somewhat to encourage prevention efforts, especially to reach younger children. 
• The project’s Results and intermediate results focus only on services and advocacy and do 
not include any mention of prevention and community involvement. Yet, more than 75 per￾cent of target children are 14 years of age and under, and strategies that either prevent those 
A Review of Save the Children’s Urban Street Children Empowerment and Support Program 
xi 
children from working on the street or reduce their time on the street should be as important 
as support on the street. 
• The effect of the grant has proved disappointing, both in terms of technical approach and in 
the slow progress. Some features of Save the Children’s original proposal are now absent: 
– Money spent on subgrants was supposed to be more than 50 percent of the grant—$1.75 
million—but subgrant spending may be much less. 
– Community mobilization was to be the heart of the strategy for street children. According 
to the proposal, “discussions have shown that [the] private business community, religious 
organizations, and others see the need to address the needs of street children now.” But 
there is very little community mobilization that informs the program and little business or 
religious support. 
• Save the Children (SC) has a strong leadership role that it has yet to play in Indonesia. In re￾sponse to weak NGOs, SC chose technical assistance (TA) as a means to strengthen capacity 
and programs. This decision translated into staff members doing TA most of the time and re￾quired inordinate amounts of time to monitor and evaluate. It is unclear whether that strategy 
will work. In the next phase, SC will have to identify partners to facilitate the process. Com￾munity leaders, progressive religious groups, teachers, business people, and groups like Ro￾tary are all potential partners for making the programs locally owned. SC’s national contacts 
in the Ministry of Women’s Empowerment also represent a promising relationship that needs 
to be nurtured. 
• Highlights of SC’s strengths: 
– The current staff members clearly are well qualified and well respected by all those with 
whom they met, and the staff seems well equipped to move into the next phase of devel￾opment. 
– Using SC’s experience in positive deviance may be a promising methodology in the area 
of prevention and community mobilization in support of children. That technique could 
perhaps be adapted to identify factors that encourage poor and troubled families to keep 
their children in school rather than sending them to beg so they can support the family. 
– Staff members have a good understanding of the population they serve and seem well 
aware of the challenges they face in reaching that segment of the population. 
Recommendations 
• SC needs to be more strategic as it progresses into the grant’s last year and possibly beyond. 
This approach means clearly articulating a plan of action. There are 39 grants in four cities. It 
appears that this range, both in terms of number of grants and number of cities, spreads the 
staff too thinly. By applying TA individually, as well, the effect is that equal amounts of time 
are spent bringing up the level of widely disparate groups. SC staff members are forced to be 
reactive rather than proactive and to be responsive to possible opportunities. 
• According to DCOF’s experience with similar programs, interventions directed at prostitu￾tion and juvenile justice are beyond the scope of the funding. Few interventions have 
worked; they are expensive and benefit very few. Ultimately, prevention comes to be the 
main focus, as efforts to get kids off the street fail, especially for younger street children. 
• In the event of a proposal to continue activities, the focus should be on supplying advo￾cacy, networking, and direct services to NGOs; on building on the enormous amounts of 
TA given; and on using demonstrated strengths and successes. Three years is too short a 
Displaced Children and Orphans Fund
xii 
time to exact change, but SC’s current strategy should be laying a strong base for the fu￾ture. SC’s role should be clarified in terms of advocacy at the provincial and possibly the 
national level. Any future DCOF funding will be judged against more stringent criteria than 
the original proposal. 
1 
INTRODUCTION 
Don Whitson, M.D., M.P.H., and Cathy Savino, M.P.H., traveled to Indonesia from May 12 to 
29, 2002, to assess the Urban Street Children Empowerment and Support Program, which is 
managed by Save the Children Federation/USA (SC) and funded through the Displaced Children 
and Orphans Fund (DCOF) of the United States Agency for International Development 
(USAID). This grant, awarded competitively in August 2000 (Cooperative Agreement no. 497-
0393), is a 3-year program with an end date of July 31, 2003, and a total estimated cost of 
$3 million. 
The team’s scope of work was to review the progress of the grant to date. This was the first 
DCOF visit to Indonesia since the grant began. In addition to an overall assessment, the visit pre￾sented the team members with an opportunity to learn about the Urban Street Children Program 
and to share the experiences of other DCOF-funded programs for street children. 
The team members based their observations on documents, interviews, and site visits, because 
there was not enough time to do a comprehensive review. Although the team visited two cities 
plus Jakarta, the team members were left with impressions of subgrantees, not concrete facts or 
data that were verified. Of 39 subgrants, the team visited 12 subgrantees. 
The team made recommendations to the Urban Street Children Program using the team’s ex￾perience with similar DCOF activities, the program’s contribution to the overall DCOF phi￾losophy, and its contribution to the improvement of the health of the most vulnerable children 
in Indonesia. 
Summary of the Urban Street Children Program 
The Urban Street Children Program aims to improve the health and welfare of children living 
and working on the streets in Indonesia’s urban areas. It is operating in four cities—Jakarta, Su￾rabaya, Medan, and Bandung—through subgrants to 39 organizations. It is a capacity-building 
program. As noted in the January–March 2002 quarterly report, “The program seeks to expand, 
strengthen, and mobilize local responses to meet the special medical, behavioral, educational, 
legal, and social needs of girls and boys living and working on the street.” The program aims to 
achieve four results: 
Displaced Children and Orphans Fund
2 
Result 1: Capacity of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to deliver assistance to street 
children enhanced 
Result 2: Access to and use of health services by street children increased 
Result 3: Special needs of girl street children addressed 
Result 4: Alternatives to living in the street developed 
There are 43 indicators to measure results in those areas. Both outcome and process indicators 
will be measured from baseline and end-line random sample surveys, a monitoring compilation 
tool, and quarterly reports and visits. 
The program also aims to improve the national level debate about children, working with the 
Ministry of Women’s Empowerment and the provincial level child protection agencies (Lem￾baga Perlindungan Anak Ja Tim, or LPA). 
Displaced Children and Orphans Fund 
The Urban Street Children Program is funded by the Displaced Children and Orphans Fund 
(DCOF). DCOF began in 1989 as a congressional mandate whose goal was to serve especially 
vulnerable categories of children. Those categories have been modified over the years but they 
include children affected by war, children affected by HIV-AIDS (although FY 2002 legislation 
notes that children affected by HIV-AIDS should now be funded exclusively through USAID’s 
HIV-AIDS bureau), and, finally, street children. 
DCOF works through NGO partners to provide services. Currently, SC is receiving DCOF funds 
in Kosovo (as part of a program for children affected by war) and Malawi (as part of a program 
for children affected by HIV-AIDS). 
DCOF currently supports street children programs in Brazil, Ethiopia, Democratic Republic of 
the Congo (DROC), Republic of the Congo (ROC), and Peru. DCOF has worked in Indonesia in 
the past, funding RESCUE, (Reaching Street Children in an Urban Environment) a project to as￾sist street children from 1995 to 1997. The project ended when USAID reduced the size and 
scope of its Indonesia presence, which was before the Indonesian financial crisis of 1997. 
DCOF has had modest success in helping identify models for children affected by war and for 
children affected by HIV-AIDS. DCOF’s least successful programs have been those whose focus 
has been street children for a number of reasons: “Street children” is a poor term of art. It en￾compasses too broad a definition and does not allow for the great varieties of street children and 
the needs that affect those children and young adults. As a buzzword, it is useful for conveying a 
sense of vulnerability and risk, but for describing as a target group, the word fails to convey 
much meaning. It is useful to mention this problem because, as can be seen in this particular pro￾gram, identification of who composes the target group of street children is open to interpretation. 
A Review of Save the Children’s Urban Street Children Empowerment and Support Program 
3 
USAID/Jakarta 
DCOF moneys are received in USAID/Washington through fund manager Lloyd Feinberg. Joy 
Pollock and Ratna Kurniawati of the USAID Mission in Jakarta manage the program. The Urban 
Street Children Program in Indonesia falls under Mission’s child health and nutrition component 
of the Strategic Objective Grant Agreement (SOAG) Protecting the Health of the Most Vulner￾able Women and Children. 

5 
INDONESIA CONTEXT 
The problem of street children in Indonesia has been receiving attention since even before Indo￾nesia’s 1997 economic crisis. Most observers agree that the situation has worsened since that 
time, mainly as a result of economic factors. Today, the Indonesian government estimates that 
about 40,000 street children are in Indonesia. Save the Children estimates that probably about 
20,000 street children are in its four target cities: Jakarta, Surabaya, Bandung, and Medan. The 
programs that Save the Children supports are reaching about 4,800 of those street children. In 
recent years, some SC staff members have observed a trend toward a higher proportion of 
younger children and more girls among children SC programs help. 
Aside from the Indonesian government, a number of other organizations have supported efforts 
to help street children in recent years: 
• USAID and DCOF have funded street children programs RESCUE I and II. 
• United Nations Development Program (UNDP) supported the development of an “open 
house” model for protection of street children (1994–1998 and 1998–2001). 
• United Nations Children’s Fund, or UNICEF (with majority funding from USAID/Indo￾nesia’s Democracy and Governance office) supported the development of National Com￾mission for Child Protection (NCCP) and its local counterparts, which are the provincial 
LPAs in five provinces, from 1997 to 2000. Currently, UNICEF provides limited support to 
the NCCP and LPAs, supports the passage of the national child protection law, and con￾tributes to efforts in the areas of juvenile justice and sexual exploitation of children. 
• The Asian Development Bank (ADB) provided loans for the Social Protection Sector 
Development Program from 1999 to 2001, which funded large numbers of NGOs in 12 
cities to provide services for street children, including drop-in centers, vocational train￾ing, nutrition, and microcredit. 
• ADB Japan Fund is sponsoring a $1 million pilot program in Yogyakarta that is serving 
500 street girls. 
• Australia Agency for International Development (AusAID) has provided support for pro￾grams for prostituted children. 
Many other agencies have contributed to programs that target specific areas affecting street chil￾dren, including programs for HIV-AIDS prevention, reproductive health services, education, 
child labor, and juvenile justice. 
Displaced Children and Orphans Fund
6 
The ADB program deserves specific mention, because it has profoundly affected Save the Chil￾dren’s project design and implementation. ADB funds for street children were channeled directly 
from the national government to NGOs through the Social Safety Net Fund. The program funded 
“packets” of services for street children that included funds for school scholarships, vocational 
skills training, small loans, and food supplements. Each NGO received funds according to a capi￾tation formula based on the number of street children served. The program reportedly led to the 
creation of many small NGOs whose sole aim was to secure those funds. 
The net effect was the creation of a large number of small NGOs with very similar programs for 
street children. The NGOs carved out territories, each serving the street children in a specific 
area; reportedly, there was poor cooperation between different NGOs, which often viewed each 
other as rivals. Their programs emphasized service delivery, and there was little discourse about 
risk assessment, prevention, or community participation. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Education 
endorsed a program to provide primary and secondary education for children outside of school 
through curriculum “packets” that could be administered by NGOs to prepare children for 
equivalency examinations. Debates still rage about the appropriateness of using the packets ver￾sus developing alternative curricula for street children. 
As the ADB project draws to a close, Save the Children’s project has inherited its legacy. SC has 
received many grant applications from small NGOs with rather homogenous programs and ideas. 
Drop-in centers with sleeping facilities and kitchens, outreach programs, small vocational train￾ing programs with little or no connection to employment opportunities, half-hearted alternative 
educational efforts, and programs without meaningful community mobilization strategies are 
common. Reportedly, there is little cooperation or collaboration between NGOs, and few NGOs 
have staff members with experience in prevention, community mobilization, or advocacy. This 
situation poses a significant challenge to Save the Children’s goal of fostering creative ap￾proaches and cooperation, and of shifting the focus away from service delivery toward preven￾tion and community mobilization. 
Indonesian Government 
Three important developments are shaping the Indonesian government’s response to the problem 
of street children: (1) the placement of child protection under the responsibility of the Coordinat￾ing Ministry of Women’s Empowerment, (2) the recent efforts to pass a national child protection 
law, and (3) the Indonesian government’s move toward decentralization. 
After the recent restructuring of the Indonesian government, it was unclear which agency would 
be responsible for child protection. In the past 2 years, the Coordinating Ministry of Women’s 
Empowerment has been given a mandate to assume such responsibility. The Ministry of 
Women’s Empowerment is the principal national government counterpart to Save the Children’s 
street children project and is the lead agency on the project’s SOAG advisory committee. 
As a coordinating ministry, however, the Ministry of Women’s Empowerment does not directly 
implement programs, but rather coordinates with other ministries, such as Education, Health, and 
Home Affairs, to implement the government’s policies and strategies. The Ministry has identi￾fied and prioritized problems in the area of street children. Those problems include the fact that 
street children are generally considered criminals rather than victims, and that current economic 
policies do not address core causes such as village-level poverty, lack of protection for children 
under the law, lack of access to services, and a lack of community-based efforts. 
A Review of Save the Children’s Urban Street Children Empowerment and Support Program 
7 
The Ministry has just begun to formulate its policy regarding street children. This approach in￾cludes discussion on areas such as public education and advocacy, improvement of resource mo￾bilization at the local level through decentralization, prevention at the community level, im￾proved legal protection at the local and national levels, increased services for recovery and 
reintegration, and improved monitoring and evaluation. The Ministry is discussing strategies that 
include increased child participation and community-based interventions, as well as strategies 
that encourage partnerships with NGOs, local government, and LPAs. Much of the Ministry’s 
work has reportedly followed SC’s lead and so is closely in line with the priorities of Save the 
Children’s project (although there are small differences, such as SC’s explicit emphasis on girls). 
At present, the Ministry is expending much of its effort toward ensuring the passage of the new 
child protection law. The Ministry of Women’s Empowerment and the Ministry of Social Wel￾fare were given the task of reviewing the draft law recently submitted by Parliament. The Minis￾tries are currently working to guarantee passage by Parliament this year on the International Day 
of the Child, July 27. Should this effort fail, an alternative approach being considered is signing 
it into law as a presidential decree. This approach, while expedient, is considered by UNICEF 
and others to be a less desirable option because it lacks the legitimacy that parliamentary passage 
would confer. 
The new law is reportedly modeled after the less controversial parts of the International Conven￾tion of the Rights of the Child (CRC), which was signed but never ratified by the government of 
Indonesia. (Indonesia ratified the CRC on September 5, 1990.) The law is important because cur￾rent law designates the family as primarily responsible for child protection and it assigns little 
responsibility or power to the government or society. It also provides little protection for children 
in conflict with the law and makes no provision for the children to participate in policy formula￾tion or implementation. Many contentious issues remain to be decided, including the definition 
of a child, the right of children to information, and the definition and interpretation of the adop￾tion or guardianship issue of adoption (which is not accepted as a concept under Islam). Passage 
of this legislation may facilitate Save the Children’s efforts in advocacy and protection. Fortu￾nately, none of the controversial issues are critical to Save the Children’s project as it was de￾signed. 
The Indonesian government began a process of decentralization in 2001 that is scheduled to be 
completed by the end of 2003. Through that process, provinces are being granted much greater 
autonomy to formulate and implement policy and local legislation, even including the authority 
to accept loans from international agencies such as ADB (though with central government ap￾proval). While some of the current federal budget will be transferred to the provinces as well, 
most will reportedly be transferred to the district level. The Ministry of Women’s Empowerment 
has repeatedly encouraged Save the Children to coordinate closely with provincial- and district￾level authorities in its project implementation and has encouraged Save the Children to help fa￾cilitate access to Social Safety Net Funds by local government and nongovernmental agencies. 
Much of this latter funding is still coming directly from ADB’s loan at the national level and is 
going directly to NGOs for drop-in centers for street children. Whereas this source is coming to 
an end, funds for the Social Safety Net or another similar mechanism will reportedly continue to 
be available to local governments and NGOs. 
Provincial and district authorities are struggling to keep up with the rapidly changing situation. 
Funding for social programs will come largely from municipal governments, while provincial 
governments will provide policy guidance as well as support to rural areas left without coverage. 
Displaced Children and Orphans Fund
8 
There is evidence that districts are already beginning to meet to discuss regional problems, such 
as how to finance services for rural to urban migrants and internally displaced persons. Priority 
areas mentioned at the municipal level include support for the poor in general, back-to-school 
scholarships, educational packets, and updated data on street children. The Surabaya municipal 
planning board already holds quarterly meetings with donors involved with street children, in￾cluding World Vision, PLAN International, Save the Children, World Food Programme, and 
Family Health International (FHI). One indicator of the need for strengthening and advocacy at 
the local level is that reportedly in Jakarta half the funds allocated for street children were actu￾ally spent on police sweeps and arrests. 
National Commission for Child Protection (NCCP) 
and Provincial Child Protection Agencies (LPAs) 
The NCCP was created with the support of UNICEF (and USAID) to be the agency responsible 
for reporting on Indonesia’s compliance with the International Convention on the Rights of the 
Child. The NCCP’s board was elected by a range of organizations, including NGOs and govern￾ment. It was to be Save the Children’s chief national counterpart for advocacy and coordination, 
as well as the recipient of institutional strengthening efforts. Unfortunately, the NCCP has failed 
to live up to its promise. Internal dissent regarding the role and scope of the NCCP has consumed 
much of its energy and time, and it has remained entirely dependent on UNICEF funding, which 
is slated to end this year. 
Save the Children sponsored a strategy paper discussing options for the future of the NCCP. The 
paper recommends that the NCCP decide to become either a fully functioning government com￾mission or a coalition of NGOs, but not both. While this debate continues within the board, Save 
the Children has wisely suspended its efforts to strengthen or guide the NCCP, choosing instead 
to focus on its provincial counterparts, the LPAs. 
Many LPAs were established and supported by UNICEF through meetings with principal stake￾holders, who elected boards of directors. UNICEF has been providing most of the financial sup￾port for their operations; however, as with the NCCP, this funding is scheduled to end this year. 
The notable exception to this pattern is the LPA of Bandung, which received little financial sup￾port from UNICEF and was established in October 1999 at the initiative of local organizations. 
Save the Children has been providing financial support to the LPAs in Medan, Bandung, and Su￾rabaya. The district level counterpart to the LPAs is the Child Watch Forum, which until now has 
focused primarily on the issue of child abuse. 
Save the Children reports that the NGOs have insisted on the importance of the role of the LPAs 
in coordination, policy, and advocacy. Most NGOs reportedly do not feel that the leadership of 
another NGO in this role would be trusted by the others. 
The LPAs set their own agendas according to the priorities of their stakeholders. In Surabaya, the 
LPA is focusing on birth certificates, child labor, and children in conflict with the law. In Band￾ung, the LPA is focused on birth certificates, education, children in conflict with the law, and the 
monitoring of violence against children. Staff members feel their greatest successes to date have 
been in informing the Bandung city government about the CRC, the self-promotion of the LPA’s 
goals and activities, and the establishment of a regular radio program. 
A Review of Save the Children’s Urban Street Children Empowerment and Support Program 
9 
In the three cities where the LPAs are being supported, working groups to develop child protec￾tion regulations that specifically address street children issues are a primary activity. Save the 
Children also supports LPAs to facilitate city-wide networks and advocacy efforts among NGOs 
working with street children. 
UNICEF 
Although UNICEF does not directly support projects providing services to street children, it has 
played a large role in supporting the NCCP and LPAs, supporting the passage of the national 
child rights convention, and supporting work in the areas of child labor and juvenile justice. Al￾though UNICEF provides no support for the LPAs’ programs, it is the source of a substantial 
percentage of operational support for LPAs in eight provinces, including the three cities outside 
Jakarta targeted by Save the Children. UNICEF’s financial support for activities related to street 
children is divided about evenly between national and provincial levels. UNICEF is planning to 
end support to the LPAs this year. 
UNICEF’s efforts in juvenile justice at the national level have included support for establishing a 
task force to examine alternatives to imprisonment. UNICEF has sponsored a survey on juvenile 
justice and has supported the development of a training manual for police. At the provincial 
level, UNICEF states that several organizations are doing police training. UNICEF is not sup￾porting any activities relating to children in prison. 
UNICEF has been active in the arena of sexual exploitation of children, sponsoring the develop￾ment of a national agenda for action on the prevention of sexual exploitation of children together 
with the Ministry of Women’s Empowerment. Furthermore, a government team was sent to the 
Yokohama conference in October 2001 with UNICEF support. 
It is interesting to note that there is a great deal of complementarity but little overlap between 
UNICEF’s activities and Save the Children’s street children program. While UNICEF’s efforts 
are focused primarily at the national level and in areas of juvenile justice, sexual exploitation, 
and the child protection law, Save the Children is focused at the local level and in areas of pro￾viding services and strengthening the NGO. Only support for the LPAs is common to both. 
Others 
The Family Welfare Movement (PKK) is a nationwide para-governmental women’s organization 
that dates back at least 30 years and functions under the coordination of the Ministry of Home 
Affairs. It reportedly works through a network of village-level volunteers in support of local de￾velopment activities. The PKK is reportedly strongest in rural areas, but it is present everywhere; 
it is reported to be active in forming partnerships, public education, participatory research, and 
monitoring and evaluation. Save the Children has not identified the PKK as a strong potential 
partner in its target areas, although SC has mentioned that the PKK could play a potentially im￾portant role in prevention activities in rural villages of origin of street children who migrate to 
the city. 
NGOs play a critical role in providing services to street children, but programs do not reach all 
children. In Bandung, for example, of the estimated 6,000 street children, only about 40 percent 
are reportedly being reached by NGOs. Because of factors cited above, many NGOs are weak 
Displaced Children and Orphans Fund
10 
and ineffective. Of the 16 registered “street children” NGOs in Bandung, only 5 are active, and 4 
of those are receiving support from Save the Children. Turf wars and suspicion between NGOs 
are common, and cooperation is reportedly poor. 
Most experts report that there is little participation of the private business sector in matters con￾cerning street children. This lack is true even of the multinational corporations in all areas except 
child labor, where there has recently been some interest. 
Trafficking and ICMC/ACILS 
The issue of trafficking has received greater attention in recent years. In October 2001, a partner￾ship of the American Center for International Labor Solidarity (ACILS) and the International 
Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC) began a 2-year USAID-funded program to combat traf￾ficking. Project activities are focused primarily at the national level. ICMC/ACILS works 
through the Ministry of Women’s Empowerment to support the development of a national action 
plan with the participation of civil society and NGOs. The project will gather data and publish a 
report on trafficking in Indonesia. It even has a small amount for subgrants of $6,000–$9,000 
each to support NGO initiatives. There is little direct overlap of the ICMC/ACILS project with 
Save the Children’s street children project at this time other than the fact that both projects col￾laborate with the same office within the Ministry of Women’s Empowerment, but it remains a 
concern that the issue of overlapping grants, especially in terms of NGO capacity, must continue 
to be addressed. 
ILO/IPEC 
The International Labor Organization (ILO) is sponsoring activities in Indonesia as part of the 
International Programme for the Elimination of Child Labor (IPEC). Its activities are focused in 
five priority sectors: footwear, mining, prostitution, deep-sea fishing, and drug and child traffick￾ing. The ILO is working through the Ministry of Manpower and has sponsored the establishment 
of a committee on child labor with representatives from more than 40 agencies, including the 
Ministry of Education, the military, police, and the Ministry of Women’s Empowerment. This 
committee is elaborating a national action plan to eliminate child labor. The ILO has been pro￾viding support for the passage of a new manpower protection law in Indonesia. In addition, the 
ILO has been actively participating with the United Nations and the World Bank on the Interna￾tional Youth Employment initiative. 
The ILO works primarily through government and is convinced that there has been a great deal 
of progress in the area of child labor in Indonesia in recent years. Although the ILO occasionally 
partners with NGOs for specific activities, those initiatives are a small part of the overall activi￾ties. The ILO has had no activities specifically aimed at street children for the past 7 years be￾cause the problem of street children is viewed as a subset of the larger issue of child labor. 
Save the Children 
Given the rapidly changing situation at the national level (Ministry, law, decentralization, 
NCCP), Save the Children has wisely chosen to concentrate its efforts locally while continuing 
to collaborate with its national counterparts at the national level. As UNICEF withdraws its fund-
A Review of Save the Children’s Urban Street Children Empowerment and Support Program 
11 
ing to the LPAs, Save the Children’s support will be crucial to the LPAs’ development and sus￾tainability. It is apparent that, while many other programs have effects on street children in Indo￾nesia (including the youth employment initiative, manpower protection, and trafficking), few 
large organizations or initiatives are aimed specifically at the problem of street children. 
Save the Children is uniquely positioned to serve as a crucial link for information and coordina￾tion between the national and local levels. Save the Children’s contacts can serve as a bridge to 
more rapidly inform and socialize local agencies in this time of rapid policy change and devel￾opment while keeping the national agencies abreast of local problems, priorities, and activities. 

13 
SAVE THE CHILDREN’S 
PROGRAMMATIC APPROACH 
SC’s approach to managing the Urban Street Children Program has been shaped by several reali￾ties. As mentioned earlier, the actions of the NCCP and ADB both had an effect on how SC de￾veloped its strategy. 
The Urban Street Children Program is part of the Office of Health and Nutrition portfolio within 
the USAID Mission in Jakarta, and this placement helped define its health parameters very spe￾cifically. 
The grant was signed with the understanding that activities would take place in four cities. How￾ever, SC was reopening its Indonesia office after a long absence. It was too optimistic to assume 
that scale-up could occur so quickly. Given the difficulties that SC encountered getting started, 
though (the Country Director, Project Director, Finance Officer, and several program staff mem￾bers were all replaced), rapidly expanding coverage to other cities meant facing an even bigger 
problem of getting subgrants awarded. 
The NGO Environment 
In other ways, SC was finding the NGO environment substantially different from originally as￾sumed. The grant envisioned a total of 15 grants over the life of the project: 9 large grants in the 
range of $100,000–$200,000 and 6 smaller ones in the range of $50,000–$100,000. SC found no 
appropriate grantees at the smaller level. 
The lack of strong NGOs, coupled with management difficulties, meant that no subgrants were 
made until almost a year into the grant. With the arrival of a new director in April 2001, award￾ing subgrants became a priority. In July 2001, within months of being hired, the SC Project Di￾rector and members of her team revised the subgrant criteria and were able to award 20 grants in 
a 3-month period. The remaining 19 subgrants followed in quick succession. The decision to 
award smaller grants as quickly as possible was an understandable response to the long delays. 
Now it was necessary for staff members to try to catch up with the awards. The first priority was 
getting grants out and services started. The follow-up involved applying capacity-building tools 
and starting to design some of the technical assistance authorized under the grant. What became 
apparent was that the need for technical assistance went far beyond the original plan. The techni￾cal assistance requested by the NGOs was extensive because of the weakness of the NGOs and 
Displaced Children and Orphans Fund
14 
the lack of alternatives. SC has tried to be responsive to that feedback, but without any other 
leadership, it is left solving the problems alone. 
However, not all of the original proposal’s ideas were overtaken by events. The idea of commu￾nity mobilization was always the foundation of the program, a concept that has been somewhat 
lost in the rush to get services going. The notion that NGOs are part of a larger community—and 
thus the responses need to be found in and around the communities being served—isn’t apparent. 
Without it, though, there’s little hope for a long-term effect. Given SC’s well-qualified staff, with 
long-standing connections to both NGOs and local communities, it will be important that the 
staff members use their connections to establish links in the local scene when further developing 
the program. 
There is also the sense that grantees and perhaps SC itself are isolated from other relevant go￾ings-on. There was no time to delve into SC’s representation of street children issues in broader 
venues, but given the monitoring and evaluation requirements alone, it is hard to see where they 
would have found the time. 
In terms of national strategy, the role of the NCCP, which is “to create and achieve a rational and 
comprehensive national strategy for the country’s most vulnerable children,” remains a necessary 
function. The team applauds SC’s resolve to stay informed on this front, helping where possible, 
so that the needs of vulnerable children are addressed whenever the timing becomes right. SC 
needs to continue to be proactive in promoting that kind of national leadership. 
The Effect on the Budget 
The original proposal for the Urban Street Children Program from SC was not much different 
from the current strategy as outlined in the May 2001 Detailed Implementation Plan, with the 
exception of Strategic Result 4, Alternatives to Living on the Street Developed. The original Re￾sult 4 suggested adoption, foster care, and supervised group living as a means to reach that goal. 
The current Result 4 framework lists intermediate results such as reducing criminality; providing 
street children with information, services, and activities; improving self esteem; and vocational 
or education training skills. What’s very different between the two plans is the cost to get there. 
The current operating budget for the Urban Street Children Program is being revised. Suffice it 
to say, the new budget will probably require significant changes from the original budget. The 
concern is that a grant that was designed to provide more than half its funds to subgrants may be 
spending much less than that on the subgrants. The revised budget is eagerly awaited. 
15 
COMMENTS ON PROGRAMATIC AREAS 
AND STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES 
This section contains some general comments about each strategic area in the project. 
Capacity of NGOs to Deliver Assistance to Street Children Enhanced 
SC has appropriately reduced the intensity of its work with the NCCP and has focused more at￾tention on the provincial LPAs and their networks. Nevertheless, SC’s involvement with the 
Ministry of Women’s Empowerment and the NCCP are important for two reasons. First, SC’s 
presence lends support for passage and implementation of the national child protection law. Sec￾ond, SC serves as a vital two-way link between the national bodies and policy initiatives and the 
local government and NGOs. One important role will be to help the LPAs attain financial sus￾tainability after the end of the project through assistance in accessing provincial government re￾sources. 
SC has completed its assessment of the institutional strength of its NGO partners using the modi￾fied Institutional Development Framework (IDF) tool and has plans to begin individualized tech￾nical assistance in August 2002. To date, the bulk of SC’s technical assistance has been focused 
on bookkeeping and financial reporting together with programmatic reporting. The planned ac￾tivities for institutional strengthening were based on the results of the IDF and include strength￾ening fundraising, human resource management and administrative systems, and NGO manage￾ment skills. Given the short time frame, limited budgetary resources, and large number of NGO 
partners, it is unreasonable to expect that the largest group of very weak partners will attain a 
level of good management, quality programming, and financial sustainability that will allow 
them to survive after SC’s funding is over. Some organizations simply will not make the cut. For 
others who are weak but have promising ideas, SC should consider encouraging partnerships, 
mergers, and mentoring arrangements that may help the weakest organizations improve while 
diminishing the number of subgrants that SC must manage. 
Health Status of Street Children Improved and Access to 
and Use of Health Care Services by Street Children Improved 
SC’s approach to the problem of health care access has been largely successful. Contracts with 
the municipal health departments rightly encourage the local governments to assume responsibil￾ity for health services for their citizens while at the same time bringing the health needs of street 
Displaced Children and Orphans Fund
16 
children to the attention of local authorities. Services are being provided at NGO facilities where 
youths gather, with referrals to higher level government facilities for more complex problems. 
The approach is sustainable and low cost; in Surabaya, the local authorities are embracing this 
strategy. The problem of health care access in Jakarta still needs to be resolved, but a similar ap￾proach is being considered. Meanwhile, SC has included support for physician services in sev￾eral of its Jakarta subgrants. 
At this time, services are available to NGOs for street children through the government only in 
Surabaya, but SC has signed agreements in both Bandung and Medan. Those contracts are inex￾pensive (about $5,000 per city for 18 months of service) and cover only transportation costs for 
the teams. In Surabaya, the teams consist of a physician, nurse, and dentist. The municipal health 
departments are providing tetanus vaccines to NGOs during campaigns for those children not in 
school. 
Technical assistance needs identified by SC and its partners include the need for better psycho￾social counseling, improvement of the quality of care, better health education materials (includ￾ing dental health), and effective plans to affect behavior change, especially in sexuality and sub￾stance abuse. Standards for providing a healthy environment at drop-in centers were also 
identified as a need. Those standards appear reasonable, will be addressed through SC’s TA plan, 
and will address intermediate result 2.2–2.5 regarding psychosocial well-being, risk, and self￾esteem. It remains to be seen how effective those interventions are and how success will be 
measured. 
Some outstanding problems with health services remain, however. In the cases that were ob￾served, examination space and equipment were inadequate. Privacy and confidentiality are criti￾cal to providing appropriate care to adolescents, but appropriate spaces for consults were not ob￾served. Little equipment was available to physicians or dentists, so all but the most basic 
problems must be referred. The issues of privacy, space, and appropriate equipment are espe￾cially important in the area of reproductive health. Although reproductive health services are of￾ten available in theory to adolescents through other agencies such as Family Health International 
(FHI), the youths are unlikely to use them spontaneously. Government agencies are prohibited 
from providing family planning services or contraceptives (including condoms) to adolescents 
themselves. It is encouraging, however, that in Surabaya, the municipal and provincial health 
departments acknowledge this problem and support NGOs that provide access to such services. 
Another problem identified by SC and its partners is the hours physicians work. Working chil￾dren are free in the late afternoon and evening, while physicians and nurses work mornings. Al￾ternatives are under discussion. 
One NGO (in Jakarta) complained that although medical services were available with SC sup￾port, medications were not (no further clarification was obtained on why this was so), so prob￾lems that were appropriately diagnosed often went untreated. The dentist was able to perform 
only oral examinations and referred all problems identified to the health center. Access by chil￾dren to health facilities is reportedly good in theory, but most report that even though the chil￾dren can gain access through their NGO health cards, few use the facilities when problems arise 
outside the days when the medical teams are at the NGO. 
SC may consider improving the quality of health services by supporting the purchase of the 
minimal equipment necessary for health workers to perform basic consults, such as curtains, ex￾amination tables, lights, or other related items. SC is already aware of the need for training and 
A Review of Save the Children’s Urban Street Children Empowerment and Support Program 
17 
TA for NGOs and health workers as they deal with health issues for street children and adoles￾cents. 
Special Needs of Girl Street Children Addressed 
SC has been successful in increasing the number of girl street children receiving services from 
NGOs. Explicit inclusion of girls in SC’s request for proposals was sufficient to increase the 
number of girls being served. Several NGOs added specific services for girls as part of their pro￾posals, some for the first time. 
While the problems of younger girls are similar to those of boys, most NGOs agree that serving 
older girls is a greater challenge. They cite the fewer options for older street girls, which are lim￾ited mostly to marriage, institutionalization (religious boarding school), or prostitution. SC and 
its partners have identified a list of technical assistance needs that are appropriate. Creative em￾ployment-based educational and vocational training opportunities would offer a solution for 
older girls, but few models are available. 
The problem of girls in the sex industry deserves special mention. NGOs are struggling to find 
effective strategies for this difficult subgroup. Many of SC’s partners have ties to Islamic groups 
and have an even more difficult time dealing with such problems effectively. The issues faced by 
this group of girls are most often intertwined with the issues of trafficking and of HIV-AIDS, 
and those issues are more complex than most NGOs are able to cope with. In addition, other pro￾grams and funds are specifically aimed at addressing those two problems. Given its limited re￾sources, the weakness of its NGO partners, and the availability of some other resources that may 
address such matters, Save the Children should not attempt to address the issue of girls in the sex 
industry in this project. 
Alternatives to Living in the Street Developed 
This objective is probably the most important of all, because it directly addresses the larger prob￾lems faced by children living on the street, working in the street, or both. There are really two 
very different groups facing this problem: older children and younger children. 
For the older children, few viable alternatives for “living on the street” or for improving the con￾ditions and prospects for children working in the street are evident in SC’s program thus far. Liv￾ing alternatives are largely limited to sleeping at drop-in centers or shipping children off to or￾phanages maintained by religious groups. Vocational training programs are small, are poorly 
developed, and lack connections with real employment opportunities. The business sector is al￾most completely absent from the picture. 
SC and its partners have identified a long list of technical assistance needs in this area of pro￾gramming. Those needs are aimed mostly at older children. Although the list is well thought out, 
the issues are complex, and it will likely be difficult to find creative solutions and to implement 
those new strategies, such as alternative living arrangements and effective vocational training for 
older children, within the limited time frame and budgetary constraints of this project. This diffi￾culty is especially true with regard to programs for older girls and for linking programs to appro￾priate employment opportunities and the private sector. 
Displaced Children and Orphans Fund
18 
Younger children pose a different problem. In Indonesia, the trend toward a higher percentage of 
younger street children and younger girls being pushed by their families to work on the street for 
economic reasons is not addressed by the intermediate results in the “alternatives” strategic ob￾jective as written in the proposal. Those children (under 14) make up more than 75 percent of the 
children being served by SC’s partners. The majority of those younger children live at home (not 
in the street) many are in school, they are not having sex or using drugs (except glue, in some 
cases), and they depend on their parents for food. Still, they are vulnerable and are being ex￾ploited. Solutions that aim to “fix the child” through counseling, vocational training, and “alter￾native living arrangements” are not appropriate for the growing group of younger children. 
SC and its partners alike repeatedly mention that those younger children most often come from 
specific neighborhoods of origin. However, most of SC’s partners limit “community involve￾ment” to explaining their programs to the drop-in center’s neighbors so that the neighbors won’t 
complain, or to encouraging the community to “understand the problem of street children” and to 
see them as victims instead of criminals. 
Creative community-based solutions are needed to prevent the younger children from being ex￾ploited by their families and communities. Several of SC’s partner organizations, such as 
Yayasan Dian Mitra, SEMAK (Solidaritas Masyarakat Anak), and Aulia, appear to have promis￾ing approaches, which should be developed further. Furthermore, this area lends itself well to 
SC’s experience with the positive deviance model that would help identify factors that allow 
poor families to keep their children at home and in school rather than sending them to work in 
the streets. 
19 
SUBGRANTS DETAILS 
Save the Children has awarded a total of 39 subgrants each for a period of 18 months. The total 
amount committed thus far is about $775,000. The grants are divided as follows: 
Jakarta: 17 NGOs 
Surabaya: 7 NGOs plus LPA 
Bandung: 7 NGOs plus LPA 
Medan: 5 NGOs plus LPA 
The number of children being served by the NGOs is estimated at just under 5,000, divided about 
half in Jakarta, and about 15–20 percent in each of the other three cities. The distribution of 
beneficiaries between NGOs is uneven, however. More than half of the children are served by 
the seven largest projects, with the largest two alone responsible for 26 percent of all children. 
The 18 smallest NGOs serve fewer than 25 percent of the total. About 40 percent of beneficiaries 
are girls. 
Most grants are between $20,000 and $25,000 for 18 months, with the smallest NGO grant being 
$12,500 and the largest being $32,526. Although the grants are much smaller than originally 
planned, the Save the Children grant represents more than 80 percent of the total operational 
costs for over half of its recipient NGOs. 
Because grants were awarded in groups by city, they will end in groups at different times. A total 
of 21 of the grants will end between November 30, 2002, and January 31, 2003, a little over half 
of all partners. The rest (almost all in Medan) end in May and June 2003. Save the Children will 
consider approving follow-on grants for projects on the basis of earlier performance. 
Of the 39 projects being funded, 31 are direct implementation projects for street children; 3 are 
LPAs (Medan, Bandung, and Surabaya); 3 are legal aid organizations for children in conflict 
with the law (one each in Medan, Bandung, and Surabaya); and 1 is a listserv for street children 
issues (Medan). 
Save the Children is supporting a total of 20 NGOs to provide health services directly to children 
(mostly in Jakarta), whereas in Surabaya, Save the Children supports the Municipal Health De￾partment to provide those services with a small grant of about $5,000, mainly to cover travel ex￾penses. 
Save the Children received few proposals from prospective recipients that met SC’s criteria for 
vocational training, so few projects have such a component. SC decided not to fund the devel-
Displaced Children and Orphans Fund
20 
opment or dissemination of information, education, and communications materials because of 
the lack of NGO capacity to do so. Save the Children decided to fund only small amounts for 
direct health services because it preferred to work through contracts with the government health 
services. This approach has proved to be the most sustainable and cost-effective way to expand 
access to health services for street kids. 
The DCOF team visited the LPAs in Bandung and Surabaya, as well as nine NGO subgrant re￾cipients: two in Jakarta, two in Surabaya, and five in Bandung. The section that follows includes 
a brief description and comments about each of these. Some of this information was drawn di￾rectly from the excellent summaries prepared by Save the Children for this visit. 
Jakarta 
Yayasan Dian Mitra
Title: Reaching Street Children in Mangga Dua 
Amount: $19,076 
Estimated contribution of SC to overall budget: 30% 
Period: August 1, 2001–January 31, 2003 
Established: 1993; foundation status in 1995 
Beneficiaries in Mangga Dua neighborhood supported by Save the Children: 
 6–10 Years 11–14 Years 15+ Years Total 
Male 9 30 1 40 
Female 11 22 2 35 
Total 20 52 3 75 
This organization was a USAID/RESCUE partner. Yayasan Dian Mitra focuses on providing 
education using government sponsored “packets” both for education and for after-school educa￾tional reinforcement, complemented by religious or moral orientation. All children in formal 
school receive scholarships through matching funds. Dian Mitra also provides meals to children, 
operates a small credit scheme for parents, and refers interested mothers for sewing classes. Save 
the Children’s support allowed the organization to expand from its original neighborhood in 
Dian Mitra to the Mangga Dua neighborhood where, in addition to basic education, the organiza￾tion has begun a small sewing class for 10 children and has begun offering medical care once 
each month. 
At its older center in the Dian Mitra neighborhood, the organization serves 313 children, nearly 
all of the children in that neighborhood. In Mangga Dua, the organization serves about 50 chil￾dren (fewer than cited above because it lost some children recently when the government razed 
part of the neighborhood to make way for a road). In addition, the organization operates an or￾phanage outside the city for another 30 children from both the Dian Mitra and Mangga Dua 
neighborhoods who have parents but who want to leave the city. Both the Dian Mitra and 
Mangga Dua neighborhoods are narrow strips of houses illegally built along railway sidings. 
A Review of Save the Children’s Urban Street Children Empowerment and Support Program 
21 
Many residents and their children work as scavengers, and both neighborhoods have high rates 
of crime and drug dealing. 
Dian Mitra has an unusually high level of self-financing, raising about 50 percent of its opera￾tional support from the export of handicrafts made by mothers through a Dutch women’s group, 
as well as through sales of other services such as transportation, photocopying, a small store, and 
use of public telephone lines. In addition, it receives support through private donations and Is￾lamic groups. 
Save the Children is supporting the replication of the methodology it developed in the Dian Mi￾tra neighborhood in Mangga Dua, where Dian Mitra has been working for about 2 years. Dian 
Mitra has had some difficulty engaging the community in the new neighborhood. It rents its fa￾cility from the community leader, and it has managed to engage only about 30 percent of the 
neighborhood’s children in its programs. Whereas all children in Dian Mitra are also enrolled in 
formal school, fewer than half of those in Mangga Dua are. 
When asked about their recent successes, staff members mentioned that many ex-beneficiaries 
are now working in factories and shops, some have continued to high school, and one is in uni￾versity. They felt that without the project, many children would have become criminals or drug 
dealers. They felt that the best solution for children was to remove them from the neighborhood’s 
urban environment, and they would like to be able to place all the children in orphanages outside 
the city. 
The project demonstrates an interesting degree of community participation and prevention, a 
high level of self-financing, and the ability to replicate and scale up the methodology. Staff 
members are very dedicated and are willing to work for free between grants. Dian Mitra also 
demonstrates a focused approach that is likely to be successful, especially for younger children. 
It is not clear, however, that it has developed a focus on risk other than poverty as a factor in pri￾oritizing its interventions. 
Yayasan Perkumpulan Bandungwangi 
Title: Serving Children Working in the Sex Industry in Prumpung, East Jakarta 
Amount: $26,540 
Estimated contribution of SC to overall budget: About 80% 
Period: December 1, 2001–May 30, 2003 
Established: 1995 as group for adult sex workers, foundation status 1999 
 6–10 Years 11–14 Years 15+ Years Total 
Male 0 0 0 0 
Female 9 80 20 109 
Total 9 80 20 109 
Yayasan Perkumpulan Bandungwangi began as an informal network of women working in the 
sex and entertainment industry. After attaining NGO status in 1999, it shifted its programmatic 
focus and geographic area toward support for girls working in the sex industry in an area around 
a park in Jakarta. Bandungwangi provides outreach services, runs a drop-in center, and provides 
Displaced Children and Orphans Fund
22 
education and services related to sexually transmitted infections (STIs), HIV-AIDS, and orienta￾tion regarding the CRC, sexual harassment, and assertiveness. Through a grant from PLAN, 
Bandungwangi provides support for education toward primary or middle school equivalency (35 
girls). Bandungwangi has collaborated with psychology students at a local university to improve 
the curriculum and teaching methods using Save the Children funds. Finally, Bandungwangi has 
begun an experimental vocational training program in sewing (3 students), English (3 students), 
computers (3 students), and embroidery (20 students) for the girls, the last of which has proved 
very popular. The goal of the efforts is to transition the girls out of the sex industry to regular 
employment or marriage, but to date they have had only one such success. 
One serious constraint that Bandungwangi is encountering is the fact that many of the girls ap￾pear to have been trafficked from rural areas, many with the complicity of their families. The 
staff members estimate that about 80 percent come from a single province. They have little con￾trol over their time or destiny. Bandungwangi’s origins as a group of ex-sex workers shows 
promise, but its sincere efforts are probably too unfocused and insufficient to have a meaningful 
effect on the lives of girls who have been trafficked into the sex trade. Staff members also indi￾cate that they would have difficulty scaling up their operation if more funds were available. They 
estimate that they have contacted all of the girls in the current target area already. Fortunately, 
other organizations have shown interest in funding the organization, including ICMC/ACILS’s 
trafficking program. This sort of funding would probably be more appropriate than Save the 
Children’s street children project. 
Surabaya 
Yayasan Alang Alang 
Title: Reaching Street Children in Joyoboyo Terminal Area 
Amount: $17,550 
Estimated contribution of SC to overall budget: About 70% 
Period: June 19, 2001–December 19, 2002 
Established: 1998 
 6–10 Years 11–14 Years 15+ Years Total 
Male 18 21 9 48 
Female 19 19 6 44 
Total 37 40 15 92 
The team visited this NGO in the early evening. Upon arrival, the team saw many children 
around: younger ones at a table in the front area working on notebooks and older children in a 
room behind them doing the same. The atmosphere of the place was energetic and welcoming. 
Yayasan Alang Alang runs a drop-in center and limited housing for boys. It operates a tutorial 
program, helps children prepare for the education equivalency test, and provides guidance and 
support. 
This organization is run by a charismatic individual named Haji Didit Hape. The purpose is to 
help kids become musicians and to provide a basic alternative education. The musicians are good 
enough to perform and win a large number of competitions, and they are often invited to perform 
A Review of Save the Children’s Urban Street Children Empowerment and Support Program 
23 
at functions in and around the country. The NGO is committed to helping the children who par￾ticipate realize benefits from the activities. 
Haji Didit Hape has aspirations beyond the current activities. His philosophy seems to be to help 
children realize their talents, whether musical or not. He would like to offer training to parents. 
He is well connected to the community and is well respected. In the team’s estimation, this is a 
promising partner. 
Yayasan Sumber Pendidikan Mental Agama Allah (SPMAA) 
Title: Reaching Street Children in Nginden, Bratang, and Rungkut 
Amount: $23,187 
Estimated contribution of SC to overall budget: About 30% 
Period: June 19, 2001–December 19, 2002 
Established: 1995 
 6–10 Years 11–14 Years 15+ Years Total 
Male 16 38 16 70 
Female 18 45 17 80 
Total 34 83 33 150 
Yayasan SPMAA is a relatively long-standing organization that has received funding from many 
organizations, including international funders and local religious organizations. The organization 
operates an outreach program and a drop-in center that includes sleeping facilities. Its programs 
include educational support for all of its children, using alternative education for all children, 
plus scholarships for 25 children. About half of the children are still in school. The vocational 
training program for children includes music (15 students), recycled paper (50 students), and 
sewing (15 students). Through a partnership with the psychology faculty of a private university, 
the organization also provides counseling to children. SPMAA provides religious and ethical 
training to participants. The organization is not functioning at capacity. It still takes all who 
come, and the only criterion for “graduation” is turning 18 years old. 
Moreover, SPMAA has programs for parents. It has offered a 3-day small-business course for 
parents through partnerships with other NGOs specialized in this activity. It even provides small 
loans to parents. Through a grant from PLAN International, SPMAA is participating in a project 
of urban development in a poor industrial area that supports the development of small group 
businesses. 
SPMAA is one of the organizations in Surabaya with regular health services provided through 
Save the Children’s agreement with the Municipal Health Department. A team of one doctor, one 
nurse, and one dentist visits the drop-in center every 2 weeks. The health team was present dur￾ing this visit. Team members examine children in the open communal area of the drop-in center. 
Most diagnoses are related to skin problems and accidents. More complex problems are referred 
to the health center, where children are seen either by the same staff or the general health center 
staff. The dentist performs oral examinations and refers those needing treatment. 
Displaced Children and Orphans Fund
24 
The organization is professional, can explain its programs and priorities clearly, works in a de￾fined geographic area, and is developing a community involvement and development strategy 
that may be considered prevention. It cited a need to improve the quality and professionalism of 
its outreach program. Still, SPMAA was somewhat unclear about its goals in working with street 
children—there was little focus on risk other than poverty, and there was no clear endpoint to its 
interventions other than a child’s reaching 18 years of age. 
Bandung 
Yayasan Bahtera 
Title: Reaching Girl Street Children Who Live in the Street, Who Work in the Sex Industry, and 
Who Live in the Slum Areas 
Amount: $25,449 
Estimated contribution of SC to overall budget: About 30% 
Period: July 1, 2001–December 31, 2002 
Established: 1995 
Beneficiaries supported by Save the Children (Bahtera serves a total of about 700 children): 
 6–10 Years 11–14 Years 15+ Years Total 
Male 90 100 75 265 
Female 50 70 93 213 
Total 140 170 168 478 
Yayasan Bahtera is a relatively old, large, and well-developed NGO that has also assumed a 
leadership position among a group of six other NGOs for street children in Bandung. It receives 
funding from United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) for 
nonformal education, funding from Microsoft for computers, and funding from the Indonesian 
government, as well as private funds. Bahtera reports that about one-third of its beneficiaries are 
from the urban area, another third from the periurban area, and the rest from other regions out￾side Bandung. 
Bahtera has a total of about 700 beneficiaries participating in two drop-in centers, which include 
sleeping facilities. The second of those is supported by Save the Children and has allowed 
Bahtera to expand its programming for girls. Many of the girls reached by Bahtera live on the 
street, are working in the sex industry, or both. Bahtera’s programming involves outreach, home 
visits to parents, development of community support system to support street children, advocacy 
to local government, and a referral system to other available services. 
Bahtera has a well-developed program, including a variety of vocational training courses: sew￾ing, baking, computers, handicraft, and batik, each for 20 participants. It has developed an alter￾native education curriculum in which 160 girls, who are supported by Save the Children, partici￾pate. It is also an active participant in advocacy activities with the LPA and is developing a 
module for training NGO partners with SC support. 
Bahtera cites its successes as being children who get jobs, get married, or finish school. It has 
dealt with having seven girls trafficked out of Bandung to Batam in the past 18 months, and it 
A Review of Save the Children’s Urban Street Children Empowerment and Support Program 
25 
was able to retrieve all of them through collaboration with NGOs and the police. After 2 or 3 
years of involvement, Bahtera claims a “failure” rate of about 20 percent with children who have 
been defined as becoming criminals, dropping out of school, or entering the sex industry. 
Bahtera is a well-organized NGO with a well-developed program and clear indicators. However, 
the depth of community involvement and prevention activity appears to be limited mostly to fos￾tering tolerance and understanding of the community where its drop-in centers are located rather 
than its having involvement and true support from the communities where the street children 
come from. In addition, its outreach workers, especially its female ones, probably lack the street 
experience needed to provide effective support to girls living on the street or working in the sex 
industry. Four of Bahtera’s girls were in the final weeks of pregnancy and still could not describe 
plans for what they intended to do once their babies were born. 
Yayasan Matahariku 
Title: Preventing Abuse and Providing Psychological Support to Street Children Who Have Been 
Victims of Physical and Sexual Abuse 
Amount: $24,818 
Estimated contribution of SC to overall budget: 100% 
Period: July 1, 2001–December 31, 2002 
Established: 2000 
 6–10 Years 11–14 Years 15+ Years Total 
Male 0 0 0 0 
Female 60 70 30 160 
Total 60 70 30 160* 
* Note that most of these are also beneficiaries of Bahtera. 
Yayasan Matahariku was founded by alumni of the Psychology Department and Public Health 
Department of UNPAD (Universitas Padjadjaran) University in Bandung. SC is its first donor. 
Matahariku operates a crisis center that is at its headquarters and that includes a hotline. 
Matahariku provides individual and group counseling for girls participating in other NGO pro￾grams, by far the largest of which is Bahtera. This counseling is done at the referring NGOs’ re￾spective sites. At least some of the girls receiving this counseling have been victims of physical 
abuse or sexual exploitation. As part of its program, Matahariku is producing educational materi￾als for NGO workers and children on prevention of abuse (an exception to SC’s policy of not 
supporting information, education, and communication), as well as providing training for NGO 
workers on abuse and its prevention. One of the more creative aspects of Matahariku’s program 
is counseling the girls’ boyfriends about prevention of abuse. 
Displaced Children and Orphans Fund
26 
It should be noted that the majority of girls receiving counseling are also counted under 
Bahtera’s or other NGOs’ programming. Bahtera has mentioned that the presence of Matahariku 
has freed its own outreach workers to spend more time in the street instead of counseling at the 
drop-in center. Nevertheless, the marginal value of this counseling, especially individual 
counseling, needs to be questioned in light of the cost. In addition, the same comment that was 
made above for Bahtera also applies to Matahariku: The counselors, though young and 
enthusiastic, probably lack the experience necessary to provide effective counseling to this espe￾cially difficult target group. 
Yayasan Masyarakat Sehat (YMS) 
Title: Reaching Street Children in Cicaheum, Kosambi, and Cileunyi 
Amount: $26,368 
Estimated contribution of SC to overall budget: 50% 
Period: July 1, 2001–December 31, 2002 
Established: 1975 as a health NGO, later a community-based clinic; child labor since 1993; street 
kids since 1997 
Note that YMS has a significant level of self-financing through its revolving health fund. 
 6–10 Years 11–14 Years 15+ Years Total 
Male 28 45 78 151 
Female 9 13 9 31 
Total 37 58 87 182 
This organization began as a community-based, primary health organization focusing on water 
and sanitation activities. It added a community-based clinic in 1991 together with a revolving 
health fund. Later, YMS added activities in child labor in 1993 and street kids in 1997. It has re￾ceived funding from a wide range of organizations, including IPEC/ILO, Misereor, Canada 
Fund, the Indonesian Department of Social Welfare, and Atma Jaya. Aside from its community 
clinic, YMS currently operates two drop-in centers, the second of which receives support from 
Save the Children and includes programs for girls. A significant percentage of the beneficiaries 
are homeless; typically, a total of 30–50 children sleep at the two drop-in centers each night. In 
addition, YMS provides meals for beneficiaries, though YMS provides only the staple of rice and 
vegetables and the children must contribute the rest. About 50 children each day receive their 
main meal from the center. 
YMS has launched a small vocational training program including a driving course for seven boys 
(all of whom have finished, three of whom have found work, and four of whom are still looking 
for work), plus an automotive course for ten boys (eight of whom are still studying). It has spon￾sored three children as interns in a chicken feed store, whose owner later hired two of the chil￾dren. YMS also sponsors a course in recycled paper (15 participants) and batik (15 participants). 
One girl participates in a sewing course at another institution. About half of the children are still 
in school, of which 38 participate in YMS’s educational support program. Save the Children is 
also supporting the cost of a physician at the YMS clinic. 
A Review of Save the Children’s Urban Street Children Empowerment and Support Program 
27 
YMS describes its approach as community-based. It socializes the program to key stakeholders 
and parents where it works, involves the children in programming, and provides individualized 
attention and support depending on each child’s needs. There seems to be little focus on preven￾tion or reintegration, however, and staff members describe their role as that of “surrogate par￾ents.” Indeed, one girl is living with one of the social workers. YMS is considering changing its 
internal organization to assign specific children to individual outreach workers. YMS describes 
its successes as being able to prepare a child for successful transfer to a religious boarding 
school, into the workforce, or back home. Staff members mention that, without preparation, chil￾dren do not adapt to the boarding school environment. In addition, most Islamic schools require 
primary school equivalency. YMS staff members say that they would most like to establish a 
residential transition center that would be outside the city and would provide vocational training. 
During the site, visit it was clear that this organization is working with difficult kids. Many, even 
among the youngest, appeared to be living on the street, and many said they were from areas far 
from Bandung. They wore dirty, tattered clothing; many were ill. It appeared doubtful whether 
effective care would be forthcoming in spite of YMS’s clinic. Although YMS describes its ap￾proach as community-centered, it appeared to be working as surrogate parents in large part. The 
drop-in center itself was dirty and disorganized. 
Nonetheless, this organization, by its age, experience, and selection of a difficult population, 
shows some promise. Its outreach workers appear to be more street-smart and experienced than 
in some other organizations visited. Strengthening the quality of its vocational training programs 
through better integration with private business and improving the quality of its community par￾ticipation would greatly strengthen its program. 
Yayasan Bias Kriya Nusantara 
Title: Reaching Street Children in Martanegara, Talaga Bodas, and Perempatan Lodaya 
Amount: $16,266 
Estimated contribution of SC to overall budget: about 100% 
Period: July 1, 2001–December 31, 2002 
Established: 2001 (SC is its first funder) 
 6–10 Years 11–14 Years 15+ Years Total 
Male 3 8 61 72 
Female 0 0 0 0 
Total 3 8 61 72* 
*Bias has a total of 123 children registered. 
This organization was founded in about 1999 by a group of college friends, the leader of which is 
an ex-street kid himself. Yayasan Bias was established with funding through the ADB program 
described previously. The founders are mostly artists and musicians, and they serve a group of 
older street boys, about 80 percent of whom reportedly sleep at home most of the time. About 25 
percent are still in formal school. Bias has a street-based strategy that includes outreach, as well 
as work in a drop-in center. Its program centers around music and drama training (or “therapy”), 
as well as woodworking, for a total of 35 of its beneficiaries. Bias has no formal education pro￾gram and no community participation component. 
Displaced Children and Orphans Fund
28 
SC admits that this partner is one of its weakest and more problematic. Bias has reportedly had 
continuous difficulty with financial reporting, documentation, data collection, and systematiza￾tion of its approach. The organization is lean, and the team met the group on a street corner 
where lots of children gathered. The kids were friendly and outgoing and appeared healthy. The 
team members followed them to another site to see more and observed the staff members danc￾ing in masks on the street, emoting while the kids took turns playing the accompanying drums. 
Those staff members had difficulty articulating the goal of their program, aside from encourag￾ing self-esteem and self-expression. The director’s long-term goal would be to open a school for 
street kids that included training in the arts. 
Unfortunately, Bias as an NGO lacks organization and focus and is unlikely to grow. 
Yayasan Lembaga Advokasi Hak Anak (LAHA) 
Title: Providing Litigational Support and Advocacy for Street Children in Bandung 
Amount: $22,726 
Estimated contribution of SC to overall budget: 100% 
Period: December 1, 2001–May 30, 2003 
Established: 2000; Save the Children is LAHA’s first funder 
Yayasan LAHA is an advocacy group working especially in the area of children in conflict with 
the law. It has a total staff of seven, including two lawyers. About 70 percent of its effort is spent 
on defense of children in conflict with the law; the rest is spent on advocacy work, legal review, 
and building the “Coalition for Children in Conflict with the Law,” which includes LAHA, LBH, 
(Yayasan Lembaga Batuan Hukum) other NGOs, and the media. LAHA has a memorandum of 
understanding with the much larger national NGO working in juvenile justice, LBH. Other 
NGOs in Bandung have expressed the need for an organization like LAHA to handle cases in￾volving juvenile offenders. 
Since January 2002, LAHA has handled of 14 of the 140 reported cases involving juveniles dur￾ing that period. Of those, six are still in process. LAHA staff members explained that the most 
effective means of intervening on behalf of juveniles is to negotiate with police for their release 
before they are formally charged. Although there is an existing law delineating proper proce￾dures for cases involving minors, those procedures are reportedly rarely followed, and there are 
no consequences for police or the courts if the procedures are not followed. Reportedly, juveniles 
are often denied representation and are treated as adults, in spite of laws to the contrary. In addi￾tion to this work, LAHA plans to review local legislation regarding juvenile justice and child 
rights and to socialize the findings through discussion groups with stakeholders. In addition, 
LAHA plans to produce a book on child rights and justice procedures, originally intended for 
children but probably to be aimed at NGO outreach workers. 
Although LAHA is thought to be important by other NGOs working with street children, and al￾though some of its advocacy work may be effective, its most significant effect will likely be re￾stricted to the individual cases it handles. The current state of legal protection for juvenile of￾fenders in Indonesia is too poorly developed to make effective systematic intervention 
productive. This lack is evidenced by the fact that LAHA itself claims to be most effective at get￾ting children released from custody before they are charged, and not through the successful ap￾plication of the law. Save the Children should support efforts to advocate for the rights of chil-
A Review of Save the Children’s Urban Street Children Empowerment and Support Program 
29 
dren and for child protection, including support for the child protection law and local initiatives 
through the LPAs. SC should steer clear of the expensive and limited area of juvenile justice. 
Solaridaritas Masyarakat Anak (SEMAK) 
Title: Reaching Street Children and Their Community in Sukapakir, Kiara Condong, and 
Bandung Indah Plaza (BIP) Area 
Amount: $21,900 
Estimated contribution of SC to overall budget: about 85% 
Period: July 1, 2001–December 31, 2002 
Established: 2000 
 6–10 Years 11–14 Years 15+ Years Total 
Male 15 25 20 60 
Female 10 30 25 65 
Total 25 55 45 125 
Although SEMAK is a new NGO, the four core staff members originated with the much older 
NGO Anak Merdeka, which was a leading NGO for street children in the early 1970s. The direc￾tor is an ex-street kid himself. SEMAK is currently working in three different areas. The first is a 
poor area with children at risk, but few are actually on the street. The second is a neighborhood 
where up to 40 percent of residents send their children out to beg, some as young as 4 years old. 
The third is a neighborhood where older children often work (as scavengers, in factories, or deal￾ing drugs) and younger children often tag along with them, while girls as young as 12 are often 
pushed out to marry. SEMAK is providing educational support to all 125 children it serves, as 
well as operating a drop-in center and sponsoring activities, including arts, music, and sports. 
SEMAK describes its work as community-based, and it appears to have the most coherent pre￾vention plan of any organization visited. SEMAK does not enter communities with a package of 
services, but rather works with communities to identify and address the reasons why families 
send their children to the street. SEMAK also maps communities so it can identify available 
community resources and define priorities. This approach aims to identify and mobilize commu￾nity resources that may ease the financial burden of having a child and thus lessen the pressure to 
send children out to beg. 
The organization is still developing its methodology, but it can already point to some small suc￾cesses. In the first neighborhood, of 20 children who previously worked in the street, 10 have 
either stopped or have reduced the frequency to less than once per week. SEMAK notes that it 
was necessary to work with other working children to keep them from encouraging their friends 
to join them in the street. 
Among all the organizations visited, the staff of SEMAK has the clearest idea of the reasons 
children end up on the street, as well as a creative community-based strategy for addressing the 
problem at the level of prevention while not ignoring the needs of those already on the street. 
Displaced Children and Orphans Fund
30 
LPAs 
LPA Surabaya East Java 
Title: Lembaga Perlindungan Anak Ja Tim 
Amount: $15,350 
Period: December 1, 2001–November 30, 2002 
LPA Bandung West Java 
Title: Advocacy on Behalf of Street Children in Bandung, West Java 
Amount: $12,565 
Period: December 1, 2001–November 30, 2002 
These two grants are listed for completeness. Their goals and priorities are described in the sec￾tion on the Indonesian context earlier in this report. It is clear that SC’s support for the three 
LPAs is critical to the coordination, networking, and advocacy efforts of this project. Both the 
Surubaya and Bandung LPAs have boards of directors who represent a broad base of society and 
who have clear, realistic goals and action plans. They are respected by their constituent NGOs, 
which agree on the importance of their role. One of SC’s biggest challenges will be to help the 
LPAs attain financial sustainability before the end of the grant. 
31 
GENERAL COMMENTS ON SUBGRANTS 
About half of the subgrants are up for renewal within the next 6 months or so. Yet, the technical 
assistance on which the institutional strengthening is supposed to depend will have only just be￾gun. It is unlikely that the changes needed to strengthen the weakest of those organizations, es￾pecially the ones that depend entirely on SC funding, will have been implemented and will have 
produced results. SC will be obligated to make decisions on the continuation of subgrants based 
on more qualitative factors. 
Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) 
SC has worked very hard to design a plan for monitoring and evaluating the project. SC’s project 
design includes 4 results, 18 intermediate results; its monitoring and evaluation plan intends to 
measure 43 outcome indicators, to track an even larger number of monitoring indicators, and to 
gather a wealth of qualitative information. Some outcome indicators are difficult to measure, 
such as “degree of conviction and knowledge regarding rights,” and some are not likely to 
change much in the next few months, such as “level of financial skills (ability to save money, use 
money wisely).” The indicator regarding condom use produced so few positive answers (only 15 
children) that the significance of any analysis will be questioned. In addition, many projects have 
dynamic populations entering and leaving, so interpretation of improvement or lack of improve￾ment in the psychosocial indicators will be difficult. 
Three of the four SOAG indicators are not working well and may have to be rethought. The indi￾cator on tetanus toxoid did not produce meaningful results because children have difficulty re￾membering their immunization status, and nearly everybody said they’d been immunized. So few 
children indicated they were sexually active and used condoms that the statistical significance of 
the results will be questioned. The “number of initiatives influencing local policy” may be too 
vague to yield meaningful information. It does not take into consideration the scope of the initia￾tives and whether or not they were successfully implemented. The indicator on adult support was 
creative and well thought out and will likely yield useful information. 
SC’s M&E specialist will visit the project in the coming weeks. It should be pointed out that the 
project will be judged by the results of the indicators that SC is measuring. Simplification of the 
number and types of indicators is in the project’s best interests, from the point of view of both 
leaner management and clearer evaluation criteria. 

33 
CONCLUSION 
Observations 
• The team members share SC’s concern as to whether the children receiving services are those 
who are most at risk. While the current grant represents remarkable advances in getting sub￾grants out and reaching a broad variety of children, clearly poverty is the most salient charac￾teristic of the children seen. Most of those children and young people have parents whom 
they return to every night, and most are connected to their family in responsible ways. Be￾cause the NGOs offer alternatives to kids who want to stay out all night (at a drop-in center 
where a child can stay) or because the NGOs promote the kids’ rights in the absence of pa￾rental involvement, it is questionable whether the street kids program is helping or not. 
• Almost 2 years (as of August 2002) into a 3-year project, no clear successful strategy has 
emerged as a means to improve the health and welfare of street children. The slow start and 
the lack of attention by SC leadership delayed progress. Only the personal determination of 
the project director and her staff, as well as USAID’s ultimately forceful intervention, has 
created the impetus to move this grant forward. 
• The large number of small NGOs requires inordinate amounts of technical assistance for in￾stitutional strengthening, while the long-term prospects for their survival as NGOs are weak. 
Clearly, SC had to cast a wide net to see what could be accomplished in terms of programs 
and possibilities. Although there are some positive experiences on which to build, the next 
steps, which involve analysis of what works and what does not plus strong criteria for those 
choices, will be critical in the next phase. 
• Community mobilization is repeatedly cited as a central strategy, but it was omitted from the 
design. SC has encouraged prospective recipients to include community mobilization strate￾gies in their proposals, but few did so. The project design may need to be modified somewhat 
to encourage prevention efforts, especially to reach younger children. 
• The project’s results and intermediate results focus only on services and advocacy, and they 
do not include any mention of prevention and community involvement. Yet, more than 75 
percent of target children are 14 years of age and under, and strategies that either prevent 
those children from working on the street or reduce their time on the street should be as im￾portant as support on the street. 
• The effect of the grant has proved disappointing, both in terms of technical approach and in 
the slow progress. Some features of SC’s original proposal are now absent: 
– Money spent on subgrants was supposed to be more than 50 percent of the grant—$1.75 
million—but subgrant spending may be much less. 
Displaced Children and Orphans Fund
34 
– Community mobilization was to be the heart of the strategy for street children. According 
to the proposal, “Discussions have shown that [the] private business community, reli￾gious organizations, and others see the need to address the needs of street children now.” 
But there is very little community mobilization that informs the program and there is little 
business or religious support. 
• SC has a strong leadership role that it has yet to play in Indonesia. In response to weak 
NGOs, SC chose technical assistance as a means to strengthen capacity and programs. This 
approach has translated into staff members doing TA most of the time and has required inor￾dinate amounts of time to monitor and evaluate. It is unclear whether that strategy will work. 
In the next phase, SC will have to identify partners to facilitate the process. Community lead￾ers, progressive religious groups, teachers, business people, and groups such as Rotary are all 
potential partners for making the programs locally owned. SC’s national contacts in the Min￾istry of Women’s Empowerment also represent a promising relationship that needs to be nur￾tured. 
• Highlights of SC’s strengths: 
– The current staff members clearly are well qualified, are well respected by all those with 
whom they meet, and seem well equipped to move into the next phase of development. 
– Using SC’s experience in positive deviance may be a promising methodology in the area 
of prevention and community mobilization in support of children. That technique could 
perhaps be adapted to identify factors that encourage poor and troubled families to keep 
their children in school rather than sending them to beg so they can support the family. 
– Staff members have a good understanding of the population they serve and seem well 
aware of the challenges they face in reaching that segment of the population. 
Recommendations 
• SC needs to be more strategic as it progresses into the grant’s final year and possibly beyond. 
This strategy means clearly articulating a plan of action. There are 39 grants in four cities. It 
appears that this range, both in terms of number of grants and number of cities, spreads the 
staff too thinly. By applying TA individually as well as to groups, the effect is that equal 
amounts of time are spent bringing up the level of widely disparate groups. SC staff members 
are forced to be reactive rather than being proactive and responsive to possible opportunities. 
• According to DCOF’s experience with similar programs, interventions directed at prostitu￾tion and juvenile justice are beyond the scope of DCOF. Few interventions have worked; 
they are expensive and benefit very few. Ultimately, prevention comes to be the main focus, 
as efforts to get kids off the street fail, which is especially true for younger street children. 
• In the event of a proposal to continue activities, the focus should be on advocacy, network￾ing, and direct services to NGOs; on building on the enormous amounts of TA given; and on 
demonstrated strengths and successes. Three years is too short a time to exact change, but 
SC’s current strategy should be laying a strong base for the future. SC’s role should be clari￾fied in terms of advocacy at the provincial and possibly the national level. Any future DCOF 
funding will be judged against more stringent criteria than was the original proposal. 
A Review of Save the Children’s Urban Street Children Empowerment and Support Program 
35 
Next Steps 
According to DCOF’s experience with other street children programming, some lessons may be 
learned that may apply to Indonesia. DCOF is opened to exchanges that allow programs to learn 
from each other. At a minimum, it would be useful to receive reports that are generated from 
other programs and to look to a broader forum where such lessons can be shared. Listed below 
are some broad assumptions about street children programs: 
• Offering a place to sleep has proven more problematic than helpful. 
• Drop-in centers per se are not always useful but need to be examined in context. 
• It is better to have space donated as part of a community contribution than for it to be 
solely funded by one donor. 
• Children themselves have much to offer as spokespersons. 
• Groups whose philosophy is that they are better caretakers of children than parents are 
generally misguided. 
• Education, prevention, and vocational training are all options for effective programming. 
Given the aforementioned circumstances, it is easier to understand how the current program de￾veloped. From the DCOF perspective, what’s important now is how this groundwork will form 
future programming. The initial proposal contained important concepts that have not yet been 
implemented. It will be necessary to convince DCOF that those plans have a basis in reality be￾fore additional funding is offered. 

37 
APPENDIX 
Contacts 
USAID/Jakarta 
Jl Medan Merdeka Selatan 3-5 
Jakarta 10110 Indonesia 
Tel (62 21) 3435-9411 
Fax (62 21) 380-6694 
Molly Gingerich—Director, Health, Population, and Nutrition (HPN) 
Joy Pollock—NGO/HIV/AIDS Advisor 
Ratna Kurniawati—NGO/HIV/AIDS Advisor 
Sumali Ray-Ross—Chief Advisor, Program Office (PRO) 
Lynn Adrian—Program Officer 
American Center for International Labor Solidarity (ACILS) 
Cik’s Building, 2nd floor 
Jalan Cikini Raya 84-86 
Jakarta 10330 Indonesia 
Tel (62 21) 336-635 
Rudy Porter—Field Representative 
BAPPEKO 
Surabaya 
Mr. M. Taswin—Municipal Government Officer 
Dinas Kesehatan Daerah (Department of Health East Java and Surabaya) 
Surabaya 
Dr. Kuntarijanto—Subdin KESGA &GIZI 
Dr. Rince Pangalila 
Dr. Bambang Eko Prasetyo 
Displaced Children and Orphans Fund
38 
ICMC 
Jalan Terusan Hang Lekir 1/5 
Jakarta 12220 Indonesia 
Tel (62 21) 720-3910 
Ruth Rosenberg—Program Manager 
Counter Trafficking Project 
International Labor Organization 
Jl M. H.Thamrin Kav 9 
Jakarta, Indonesia 
Tel (62 21) 315-5575, Fax (62 21) 310-0766 
Alan J. Boulton—Director 
Mukda Sunkool—Deputy Director 
Pandji Putranto—National Programme Manager 
Anna Engblom—Representative 
Kios Informasi Kesehatan 
Bandung, Indonesia 
Irwanto—Principal Investigator 
LAHA-Bandung 
Distia Afiandari—Program Manager 
Fauzi—Finance Manager 
Yanti—Coordinator of Research and Public Education 
LPA Jatim 
Jl Barata Jaya VI/27 Surabaya 
Tel/Fax (031) 501-8701 
Nanang A. Chana—Executive Director 
LPA West Java—Bandung 
Ibu Roediono—Board Director 
Ministry of Women’s Empowerment 
The Republic of Indonesia 
Hj Sri Redjeki Sumaryoto—State Minister 
Ms. Sumarni Dawam Rahardjo—Deputy for Child Protection and Welfare 
Dr. Rachmat Sentika—Deputy Assistant Development of Program Policy 
Surjadi Soeparmam—Liaison with Save the Children 
Save the Children 
Jl Wijaya 11/36 
Kebayoran Baru 
A Review of Save the Children’s Urban Street Children Empowerment and Support Program 
39 
Jakarta 12160 Indonesia 
Tel (62 21) 7279-9579 x112 
Fax (62 21) 7279-9571 
Golda El-Khoury—Country Director 
Laurel McLaren—Project Director 
Carolus Rudy Rinem—M&E/Advocacy Officer 
Didid Adi Dananto—Program Specialist 
Wilson Sitorus—NGO Capacity Building Specialist 
Dr. Alphinus R. Kambodji—Health/Education Specialist 
Eko Kriswanto—M&E/Child Rights Officer 
Robert Giaon—Deputy Field Director for Finance and Administration 
SEMAK (Solidaritas Masyarakat Anak)—Bandung 
Jl Villa Asri Selatan II, #27, Block F-12 
Bandung, Indonesia 
Email: semakbdg@cbn.net.id 
Agus Nurdin—Director 
Mansur—Director 
Tatang—Coordinator 
UNICEF 
Wisma Metropolitan II, 10th floor 
Jakarta 12920 Indonesia 
Tel (62 21) 570-5816 
Julie Lebegue—Child Protection Officer 
Yayasan Alang Alang 
Perum TVRI, No. 2, Dukuh Pakis 
Surabaya 
Tel (031) 568-5261 
Fax (031) 563-1741 
Email: sanggar_alang_alang@yahoo.com 
Haji Didit Hape—Director 
Hidayat—Manager 
Wuri Pramesty—Program Director 
Mama—Key Staff 
Yayasan Bahtera—Bandung 
Tamami Zain—Director 
Arni—Program Manager 
Yayasan Bias Kriya Nusantara—Bandung 
Herman Purnomo—Director 
Displaced Children and Orphans Fund
40 
Yayasan Dian Mitra 
Jl Baru B Gg. Tongkang 
Rt. 015/01 No. 13 
Jakarta, Pusat, Indonesia 
Tel (62 21) 316-2317 or (62 21) 5975-0315 
Aulia Erfina—Project Director 
Suryana—Coordinator 
Yayasan Masyarakat Sehat (YMS)—Bandung 
A. S. Suyana—Director 
Dedy Junaedi—Program Manager 
Yayasan Perkumpulan Bandungwangi 
Prumping, Jakarta 
Nur Aziza—Director 
Ayi—Program Manager 
Ana Titing—Coordinator 
Yayasan Sumber Pendidikan Mental Agama Allah (SPMAA) 
Jl Bratang Wetan II #16 
Surabaya 
Tel/Fax (031) 62-322-324-472 
Email: spmaa_sby@plasa.com 
http://www.spmaa.com 
Glory Islamic—Director 
41 
DCOF Assessment Visit Schedule 
May 15–29 
Cathy Savino, 
Dr. Don Whitson 
Date Time Activity Place 
Status/ 
Contact 
Tuesday, 
May 14 
16:30 Don Whitson’s arrival on Thai 413 Met by Borobudur 
Hotel car 
Confirmed 
Wednesday, 
May 15 
8:20 
10:45 
11:00–12:30 
12:30–14:00 
15:00–16:00 
Cathy Savino’s arrival on GA 823 
Meeting with Joy Pollock at hotel 
Meeting with HPN staff members: Molly 
Gingerich, Joy Pollock. Also discussion of 
schedule and ticketing, etc. 
Lunch meeting with HPN and PRO 
Meeting with the USAID-funded Counter 
Trafficking Project, Ruth Rosenberg, Program 
Manager (ICMC), and Yuyon (ACILS) 
USAID 
ICMC Office 
Jl Terusan Hang 
Lekir I/5 
Kebayoran Baru 
Tel: 720-3910 
Confirmed/Ruth 
Thursday, 
May 16 
7:45 
8:00–16:00 
Departure from hotel 
Full-day meetings with Save the Children/US 
and Urban Street Children team 
Meeting with SC Field Office Director 
Meeting with Street Children team 
• General introduction to the program 
• Health programming 
• Program and institutional capacity build￾ing plan 
SAVE/US Office in 
Kebayoran Baru 
Friday, 
May 17 
8:30 
9:00–12:00 
Lunch 
14:30 
18:30 
19:00-20:30 
Departure from hotel 
Visit with Yayasan Dian Mitra (former 
RESCUE partner) with SC staff members 
Didid Adi Dananto and Eko Kriswanto. Meet￾ing at Senin office, followed by site visit to 
Mangga Dua to observe educational pro￾grams 
Meeting at UNICEF with Julie Lebegue; Joy 
Pollock and Sumali Ray-Ross also to attend 
Departure from hotel 
Visit with SC NGO partner Bandungwangi at 
evening entertainment site with SC staff 
members Laurel McLaren and Wilson Sitorus 
Senin Mangga Dua 
UNICEF office 
East Jakarta 
SC confirmed 
appt. 
Displaced Children and Orphans Fund
42 
Date Time Activity Place 
Status/ 
Contact 
Saturday, 
May 18 
 Weekend 
Sunday, 
May 19 
14:15 
16:00 
18:00 
19:00–21:00 
Departure from hotel for airport 
Flight to Surabaya on GA 318 with Joy 
Pollock 
Meet Dr. Alphinus Kambodji at Hotel 
Majapahit Mandarin Oriental 
Visit to Yayasan Alang-Alang for night street 
activity 
Surabaya 
Air reservations 
confirmed 
Hotel reservation 
confirmed 
Monday, 
May 20 
7:45–8:45 
9:00–10:00 
10:30–12:45 
Lunch 
13:45–15:00 
18:00 
Breakfast meeting with East Java Child Pro￾tection Agency (LPA) Director, Nanang 
Chanan, plus other LPA representatives 
Meeting with BAPPEKO 
Surabaya, Dr. Mukhlas Udin 
Meeting with Surabaya City and Province 
Health officers 
Visit to Yayasan SPMAA health service activi￾ties (Director: Glory Islamic) 
Return flight to Jakarta on GA 318 
Surabaya 
Tuesday, 
May 21 
AM 
Lunch 
14:00 
18:00 
21:00 
Meeting with the Ministry of Women’s Em￾powerment (MenegPP) Children’s Welfare 
Division with the Deputy (Ibu Sumarni) and 
the activity staff members 
Train departure (Argo Gede Executive Class) 
to Bandung with Ratna Kurniawati, Laurel 
McLaren, Didid Adi Dananto, and Wilson Si￾torus 
Train arrival in Bandung; overnight at Grand 
Hyatt Hotel 
Central Jakarta 
Gambir Station 
(Central Jakarta) 
Bandung 
Train reserva￾tions confirmed 
Grand Hyatt Ho￾tel confirmed 
Wednesday, 
May 22 
9:00–11:00 
11:30–15:00 
16:00–18:00 
Meeting with the West Java Child Protection 
Agency and LAHA legal aid assistance for 
street children activity 
Visit to Yayasan Bahtera and Matahariku to 
see activities that are designed for girls who 
had been forced into the sex industry 
Visit the outreach site at Yayasan Bias Kriya 
Nusantara 
Bandung 
A Review of Save the Children’s Urban Street Children Empowerment and Support Program 
43 
Date Time Activity Place 
Status/ 
Contact 
Thursday, 
May 23 
9:00–12:00 
13:00–15:00 
17:00 
20:00 
Visit YMS Drop-in Center 
Visit the outreach site at Yayasan SEMAK 
Return by train to Jakarta 
Train arrival in Jakarta 
Bandung 
Jakarta 
Friday, 
May 24 
AM 
PM 
Meetings with donors and experts 
Visit with SC NGO partners in Jakarta 
Jakarta 
Flight confirmed 
Saturday/ 
Sunday, 
May 25–26 
 Report writing 
Monday, 
May 27 14:45–15:25 
US holiday/report writing 
Flight confirmed 
Tuesday, 
May 28 
AM 
PM 
Discussion on monitoring and evaluation 
with SC team, HPN/USAID (Joy Pollock, 
Ratna Kurniawati, and Lynn Adrian) and 
USAID/PRO M&E officer 
SC/US office 
Wednesday, 
May 29 
9:30–11:00 
11:00–11:30 
12:30 
13:30 
Evening 
Debriefing with HPN and PRO and Acting 
Mission Director 
Lunch with SC and HPN team 
SC debriefing 
Depart Indonesia 
USAID 
TBD 
Confirmed with 
Putri