USAID/Zambia PCI Africa KidSAFE 
End of Program Evaluation Report 
December 2010 
 
Source: IRIN, 2006 
DISCLAIMER 
The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United 
States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.
Prepared by: 
Leonard C. Mulenga and Christian Chileshe with the assistance of Gibson 
Masumbu, Kelvin Mulungu, Daisy Kambandu
C
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT 
& 
ENTREPRENEURSHIP EXPERTS
No. 6052 Sibweni Rd, Northmead, P.O Box 32273 Lusaka, Zambia
Tel: +260 211 290185, 955 047243, E-mail: info.3C@iconnect.zm
Table of Contents 
Contents 
Acronyms ............................................................................................................................ 4
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... 5
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 6
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 8
1.1 Objectives of the Final Evaluation of the Program ................................................... 8
1.2 Evaluation Methods .................................................................................................. 9
1.3 Analysis of Data ........................................................................................................ 9
2.0 Performance and Achievements of the Africa KidSAFE Program ............................ 10
2.1 Performance and achievement of the program‟s goal ............................................. 10
2.2 Performance of the Program on Objective 1........................................................... 11
2.3 Performance of the Program on Objective 2........................................................... 13
2.4 Performance of the Program on Objective 3........................................................... 16
2.5 Performance of the Program on Objective 4........................................................... 17
2.6 Performance of the Program on Objective 5........................................................... 18
2.7 Summary of overall performance of the program based on targets met ................. 19
3.0 Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Sustainability and Impact of Program Activities20
3.1 Relevance of the Program Activities ...................................................................... 20
3.2 Effectiveness of the Program Activities ................................................................. 20
3.3 Efficiency of the Program Activities ...................................................................... 21
3.4 Sustainability of the Program Activities ................................................................. 22
3.5 Impact of the Program Activities ............................................................................ 24
3.6 Summary assessment of the program on the basis of key organizational performance 
indicators ....................................................................................................................... 25
4.0 Main Findings, Conclusions, Lessons and Recommendations ................................... 26
4.1 Main findings and Conclusions of the end-of-term evaluation .............................. 26
4.2 Lessons from the Program ...................................................................................... 27
4.3 Recommendations ................................................................................................... 29
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 32
Acronyms 
AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome 
CBO Community Based Organization 
CPU Child Protection Unit 
DCOF Displaced Children & Orphan Fund 
DSWO District Social Welfare Officer 
FCCGs Family Circles of Care Groups 
HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus 
KidSAFE Shelter, Advocacy, Food, Education 
LLT Lupwa Lwabumi Trust 
MCDSS Ministry of Community Development and Social Services 
MYSCD Ministry of Youth Sport & Child Development 
NGO Non-government Organization 
OVC Orphan and Vulnerable Children 
PEPFAR President‟s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief 
PCI Project Concern International 
SHG’s Self Help Groups 
USAID United States Agency for International Development 
VSU Victim Support Unit 
ZNS Zambia National Service 
List of Tables 
Table 1 Indicators and targets for assessing the achievement of the 
project goal over the mid and end-of term evaluations
10
Table 2 Indicators, baseline benchmarks, targets and achievements of 
the program with regard to reduction of number of at-risk 
children moving from families and communities to the streets
13
Table 3 Indicators, targets and achievements of the reintegration 
component of the program 
14
Table 4 Indicators, baseline benchmarks, targets and achievements of 
the program by the mid and end of-term evaluations for 
provision of high quality street and facility based services
16
Table 5 Indicators, targets and achievements by the mid and end-of￾term evaluations for increased public awareness and 
participation in the protection and promotion of the rights of 
street children 
17
Table 6 Indicators, baseline benchmarks, targets and achievements of 
the program by the mid and end of term evaluations for 
increased capacity of government, local implementing partners, 
civil society and private sector, for effective implementation of 
interventions to benefit street children
18
Executive Summary 
The Africa KidSAFE program sought to address the immediate and long-term needs of the at￾risk and street children. It was funded by USAID and implemented by Project Concern 
International and its local partners. 
The end-of-term evaluation of the Africa KidSAFE program sought to establish the extent to 
which the program achieved its goal and specific objectives. The goal of the program was to 
consolidate and expand a safety-net of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and 
Community-Based Organizations (CBOs) that can effectively meet the immediate and long-term 
needs of the at-risk and street children. Attainment of the goal was also dependent on meeting 
two main objectives: (i) 12, 000 OVC receiving direct services from the program; and (ii) 1, 500 
caregivers trained in providing care to OVC by the end of the program. The attainment of the 
five specific objectives was similarly tied to meeting specific targets for each of the objectives. 
The evaluation found that 9, 678 children had received direct services from the program by the 
time it ended in September 2010. At the same time, the program had trained 5, 778 caregivers in 
providing care to OVC. The program therefore narrowly missed its first target for the goal, but 
exceeded the second target by 385%. We have therefore concluded that, the program achieved its 
goal. 
Performance of the program on its five specific objectives was however mixed, because whereas 
it met all its targets for objective one [reduced number of at-risk children moving from their 
families and communities to the street], it only met some of the targets for objectives 2, 4 and 5, 
and did not meet any of the targets for objective 3 (increased number of children benefiting from 
high quality street and facility-based services) at all. The program nevertheless reduced the 
number of at-risk children moving from families and communities to the streets. It also built the 
capacity of the Government of Zambia for provision and management of child protection 
services by training its frontline officers in child rights, child law, and in the child reintegration 
procedures and guidelines. The program also developed and tested the reintegration protocol and 
guidelines, and demonstrated that, reintegration was an effective strategy for addressing the ills 
associated with children living and working on the streets without social or public support. 
On the negative side, the program could not reach the set target for children benefiting from its 
high quality street and facility-based services, owing to the reduction in the population of street 
children. The program also failed to raise public awareness and participation in initiatives aimed 
at promoting child rights and welfare, due to a cut of its budget by USAID. 
The program, however, achieved its goal and most of the specific objectives. It therefore, helped 
consolidate and expand a safety net of NGOs and CBOs that could effectively meet the 
immediate and long-term needs of the at-risk and street children. This was evident from the 
continued provision of some services to the caregivers, at-risk and street children, by the local 
partners of the program, with neither the financial nor the technical support of USAID and PCI 
respectively. The program was also relevant, and to a great extent effective, efficient and 
sustainable. Some of its initiatives were in addition expected to continue having a positive 
influence on Zambia‟s child protection policy and administration for some time to come. 
The recommendation is that future child protection programs should consider promoting the Self 
Help savings led programs for middle level vulnerable households and cash transfers for 
extremely vulnerable populations as these have been shown to be effective in addressing child 
poverty. The Self Help savings led program works well for middle level vulnerable groups who 
are able to save a minimal amount weekly for future loan schemes within their groups. The 
Government of Zambia should also be encouraged to adopt the human rights and human 
development based paradigms for its child protection policies and programs.
1.0 Introduction 
This report presents the findings of the end-of-term evaluation of the Africa KidSAFE program. 
The program was funded by USAID and implemented by Project Concern International (PCI) 
and its local partners. The full list of the local partners of PCI is given in Appendix 1. 
The Africa KidSAFE program sought to address the immediate and long-term needs of street and 
at-risk children. Street children live and work on the streets of urban centers, while the at-risk 
children live in vulnerable urban households and communities. They are faced with the constant 
pressure of taking to the streets to provide for themselves and/or contribute to the welfare of the 
households in which they live. 
The overall goal of the Africa KidSAFE program was to “consolidate and expand a safety-net of 
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and Community-Based Organizations (CBOs) that 
can effectively meet the immediate and long-term needs of the at-risk and street children” in 
Zambian urban centers. 
Five objectives supported the overall goal of the Africa KidSAFE program. These were: 
(1) To reduce the number of at-risk children moving from their families and 
communities to the street; 
(2) To increase the number of children moving from the streets back to communities 
through family and community reintegration; 
(3) To increase the number of children benefiting from high quality street and facility￾based services; 
(4) To increase public awareness and participation in protecting and promoting the rights 
of children on the streets; 
(5) To increase the capacity of the Government of Zambia, local implementing partners, 
civil society organizations and the private sector to effectively implement 
interventions that benefit the at-risk and street children. 
1.1 Objectives of the Final Evaluation of the Program 
The final evaluation of the Africa KidSAFE program had five objectives. These were: 
(1) To establish the extent to which the Africa KidSAFE program attained its objectives; 
(2) To assess the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and impact of the 
Program activities, especially in the following: (i) Capacity Building; (ii) Economic 
Empowerment (Micro-Finance and Self-Help Groups); (iii) Community Mobilization; 
(iv) Reintegration; and (v) Street-Based Services; 
(3) To document success stories (where such exist) from the four main thematic interventions 
of the program, namely: (i) Community Mobilization; (ii) Economic Empowerment; (iii) 
Reintegration; and (iv) Street Based Services; 
(4) To identify and document lessons learnt from the program; and 
(5) To recommend measures that could help strengthen the relevance, effectiveness, 
efficiency, sustainability and impact of future programs. 
The objectives of the final evaluation of the program were drawn from the Terms of Reference 
provided by USAID. They are reproduced in full in Appendix 2. 
The rest of the report presents the research methods used to address the objectives of the final 
evaluation of the Africa KidSAFE program, its findings, conclusions and recommendations. 
1.2 Evaluation Methods 
To address the objectives of the final evaluation of the Africa KidSAFE program, secondary and 
primary research methods were employed to obtain data to aid the evaluation. 
The review of literature was the principal secondary research method used. Most of the literature 
reviewed was on child social protection in low-income countries, because the Africa KidSAFE 
program was essentially a child protection program in Zambia, a low income country. Records 
held by the program were also reviewed, while interviews; focus group discussions; and a 
questionnaire survey were the main primary research methods employed in the evaluation of the 
program. 
The review of literature made it possible to assess the relevance of the program. Reviews of the 
program‟s records and documents, interviews and focus group discussions with caregivers, as 
well as a questionnaire survey of the street and at-risk children made it possible to assess the 
extent to which the program attained its goal and objectives. 
1.3 Analysis of Data 
Program reports and records were analyzed by thematic identification and categorization, while 
the data obtained through interviews and focus group discussions was subjected to meta-analysis. 
Data collected through the questionnaire surveys was first coded and then entered on Microsoft 
Excel spreadsheet program. After checking the data for inaccurate entries, it was processed and 
analyzed by running frequencies and deriving descriptive statistics. 
2.0 Performance and Achievements of the Africa KidSAFE Program 
In this section, we analyze the performance of the Africa KidSAFE program with regard to the 
extent to which it achieved its goal and objectives. 
Assessment of the extent to which the Africa KidSAFE program attained its goal and objectives 
was based on the analysis of changes in the performance indicators for the goal and each of the 
objectives. We therefore sought to establish whether the targets set for the attainment of the goal 
and each of the objectives were met. 
2.1 Performance and achievement of the program’s goal 
The goal of the Africa KidSAFE program was to establish a network of civil society 
organizations and Government institutions effectively meeting the immediate and long-term 
needs of the at-risk and street children. 
Two indicators were set for measuring change towards the attainment of that goal. 
The indicators, their baseline benchmarks, targets and achievements of the program on its goal 
by the mid and end of term evaluations are given in Table 1. 
Table 1: Indicators and targets for assessing achievement of the goal 
Indicators Baseline Target Mid-Term End of Term
Number of OVC 
receiving direct 
services
3,032 12 000 10 375 9 678
Boys: 5 612
Girls: 4 066
Number of 
Caregivers Trained 
in Caring for OVC
801 1 500 3 313 5 778
Table 1 shows that the target of 12 000 OVC receiving direct services from the program was not 
achieved by the end of the program, because only 9 678 children (of whom 58 and 42% were 
boys and girls respectively) had received direct support from the program. The targeted number 
of caregivers trained in caring for OVC was, however, nearly quadrupled, as 385% (5 778) of the 
targeted caregivers were trained. 
It is evident from table 1, that the program performed exceptionally well on the number of 
caregivers trained in caring for OVC than on the number of OVC that received direct services 
from the program. The targeted number of children receiving direct services from the program 
was marginally missed. 
Table 1 also shows that, the number of OVC receiving direct services from the program was 
revised downwards after the mid-term review. The revision was a result of data verification 
carried out in January 2010, to eliminate errors, due to multiple counting of children that 
received services from more than one partner. Data verification also showed that the program 
had not developed a very robust Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) System. 
A network of civil society organizations and Government institutions effectively meeting the 
immediate and long-term needs of the at-risk and street children, therefore, seem to have been 
consolidated. This conclusion was arrived at by accessing the extent to which the targets for the 
five objectives of the program were met. Assessments of the performance of the program on each 
of the five objectives are given below. 
2.2 Performance of the Program on Objective 1 
Reduced number of at-risk children moving to the streets:
The Africa KidSAFE program promoted social and economic empowerment activities for 
vulnerable households. Caregivers were, therefore, encouraged to mobilize resources through 
own savings, and to engage in viable income generating activities. Children, on the other hand, 
were made aware of the risks of street life, and provided with educational support, to encourage 
them to remain in school. 
In addition, the low-income urban communities were mobilized and encouraged to engage in 
activities aimed at preventing children from drifting to the streets. As a result, the program 
undertook prevention activities in 20 low-income urban communities in cities and towns along 
the old line of rail from Livingstone (1) to Kitwe (2), through Lusaka (13), Kabwe (2) and Ndola 
(2). The targeted low-income urban townships are given in Appendix 3. 
To assess the extent to which the program helped reduce the number of at-risk children moving 
from their families and communities to the streets, we examined the performance of the program 
on each of the 7 pre-selected indicators for objective 1. The indicators, targets, baseline 
benchmarks, and achievements of the program on objective 1 by the mid- and end-of-term 
evaluations are given in table 2. 
The Motivation Mentoring Programme
Like all schools under the Zambia Open Community Schools Secretariat, Chipata Community 
School in Lusaka seeks to meet the education needs of orphaned and vulnerable children. It was 
therefore one of the schools targeted for the Motivational Mentoring (MM) Programme 
undertaken by Lubuto Library Project. Forty pupils in grade seven, eight and nine participated in a 
12-week intensive mentoring programme. 
Mr. Honest Mutesha, a teacher at the school who participated in the programme observed that, 
most pupils in the school were either orphans or vulnerable children from deprived households. 
Most pupils in the school therefore had little hope of succeeding in life. The children selected for 
the programme were initially very inactive and could not easily speak out. In general, they were 
characterized by very low self esteem.
According to Mr. Mutesha, the MM programme changed the lives of the children that went 
through it. Their perspective of life changed. The once inactive children became active in virtually 
all school activities. Those who could not initially speak out, for example, became so confident 
that they had no problem with making sure their point of view was heard. The programme 
therefore contributed to the children becoming more assertive.
The children that had participated in the program mentioned a number of topics that they were 
taken through. These ranged from self esteem, honesty, perseverance, self motivation and 
discipline. Jane Daka, a Grade 7 pupil, for example, felt that she had become an honest person 
because of the program, while Bydon Mtonga, a Grade 9 pupil, said that he had developed a 
purpose for his life and wanted to become a lawyer.
Table 2: Indicators, baseline benchmarks, targets and achievements of the program on objective 
1: reduction of at-risk children moving from families and communities to the streets 
Indicators Baseline Target Mid-Term End of 
Term
No. of children in targeted communities 
benefiting from primary prevention 
activities
0 7000 11399* 7026
No. of Targeted Households participating in 
primary prevention activities
0 3000 4062 7389
No. of Targeted Communities with Early 
Warning Systems
0 1 15 20
No. of Community Prevention Plans 
Implemented
0 20 15 20
No. of Targeted Compounds with youth 
clubs serving as focal points for recreation, 
education and child rights services
0 20 15 20
Inter-institutional coordination and referral 
system developed
0 85% 0 100%
% of targeted communities with multi￾sectoral coordination for vulnerable 
households
0 85% 60% 60%
Note: Components of the early warning system are given in Appendix 4. 
*: numbers revised when Data Verification Excise was undertaken after midterm evaluation 
Table 2 shows that, the program achieved all its targets for objective 1, with the exception of 
one; 85% of targeted communities with multi-sector coordination for vulnerable households. The 
target for the proportion of communities with multi-sector coordination for vulnerable 
households was not met, because the program worked with existing multi-sector coordinating 
committees in the targeted communities. It did not therefore go out to establish multi-sector 
coordinating committees. The program‟s approach was consistent with the local government 
framework for the high density low-income urban settlements which states that settlements ought 
to have multi-sector coordinating committees to oversee social and economic development in 
their areas (GRZ, 2006). 
2.3 Performance of the Program on Objective 2 
Increased number of children moving from the streets back to the communities through 
family reintegration: 
Six targets were set for the reintegration component of the program. The indicators, targets, and 
achievements of the reintegration component of the program by the mid and end-of-term 
evaluations are given in table 3. 
Table 3: Indicators, targets and achievements of the reintegration component of the program 
Indicators Baseline Target Mid-Term End of Term
No. of Children reintegrated in families or 
communities
557 2000 409 508
Boys: 400
Girls: 108 
% of Reintegrated Children that remained 
in their homes for at least six months
20% 60% 71% 42.5% 
No. of Children withdrawn from the streets 458 3000 760 1187
No. of children withdrawn from the streets 
and referred for residential care in centers 
and govt. facilities
458 1500 401 808
% of KidSAFE members involved with 
tracing or reintegration trained in new 
protocols and guidelines
0 100% 50% 100%
No. of DSWOs trained and involved in 
implementation of reintegration protocol 
and guidelines
0 30 16 32
Reintegration – A Successful Story
Justina1
is a young lady who has lived on the street 
for the past 7 years and has experienced the brutality 
of street life. Many are the times she has had to 
engage into sex for a living, and the consequences 
of this have not been light. She has multiple
diseases resulting from the STIs. Though she looks 
shabby, she talks brightly under the hype of „sticka‟
(the street name for glue).
News about a mobile health service van has been 
spreading in town among the street children. Justina 
one day decides to make use of the service to have her 
STIs treated. As she goes into the van, the welcoming 
nurse and staff welcome her warmly and open up to 
her, she does the same and tells them of her ordeal. 
She says she got the STD from among the guys she 
sleeps with and some have now known and 
abandoned her. She is given medication and referred 
to outreach workers so they could check on her. The 
MS team also keeps track of her and administers the 
medication every time they are in town.
When she recovers from her STIs, she starts to engage 
in sex again, and gets pregnant. When the MHS team 
sees the pregnancy, they work with the outreach 
workers and refer her to a center in Chilenje (Tulumi) 
where she is taken care of. 
During this whole period, from the first day she went 
to the MHS, she has received counseling on how she 
could not have got the STD if she were at home. The 
due date finds her at the center and she is taken to 
UTH where she delivers safely. Unfortunately, some 
days after delivery, the child dies.
The tragic death of her much beloved daughter brings 
Justina to a place where she realizes the value of life. 
She then asks to be taken home in Kanyama and is 
successfully re-integrated. 
Justina is now a happy lady that has been noticed by 
a man that has proposed marriage. We can now only 
wish her all the best in her future endeavors.
1 Not her real name
Table 3 shows that the program met two 
of its six targets for objective 2, which 
sought to increase the number of 
children moving back to their families 
and communities through family 
reintegration. The indicators for which 
the targets were met are: (i) the number 
of DSWOs trained and involved in the 
implementation of the reintegration 
protocol and guidelines (107%); and (ii) 
the proportion of KidSAFE partners 
involved in tracing or reintegration 
trained in the new protocols and 
guidelines (100%). 
Although the program did not meet four 
of its targets for objective 2, it re￾integrated 508 children into their families 
and communities. This was 25.4% of the 
2000 children targeted for reintegration. 
Furthermore, 43% of the reintegrated 
children were successfully reintegrated, 
because they remained with their families 
for at least six months after reintegration. 
About 54% (808) of the targeted 1500 
children were also withdrawn from the 
streets and referred for residential care in 
centers and Government facilities, while 
a total of 1187 children were withdrawn 
from the streets by the end of the 
program. 
The underperformance of the 
reintegration component of the program 
was largely due to extreme poverty levels 
in homes where children were coming 
from and being reintegrated. Poverty was 
the major factor for children running 
away from homes, and yet the children 
were being reintegrated in the same 
households without addressing the 
poverty levels which was the primary 
factor for taking to the streets. Moreover, this activity was the first of its kind in Zambia, hence 
partners did not have hands on experience in reintegration. The program nevertheless showed 
that reintegration was a viable and sustainable option for taking children off the streets. It also 
developed and refined the reintegration protocols and guidelines in line with the laws of Zambia. 
Although the developed reintegration protocol and guidelines were yet to be adopted by the 
Government, they were bound to be critical to any future reintegration efforts. Officials in the 
MCDSS were also confident that, the Government would in the near future adopt the 
reintegration protocol and guidelines developed by the program. 
2.4 Performance of the Program on Objective 3 
Increased number of street children benefiting from high quality street and facility-based 
services: 
The services, included: outreach; counseling; education; and health, as well as drop-in-centers; 
and residential care and support facilities for children awaiting reintegration or placement in 
long-term care. 
Three indicators were pre-selected for the assessment of the program on objective 3. Table 4 
shows these indicators, their baseline benchmarks, targets and achievements by the mid and end￾of-term evaluations. 
Table 4: Indicators, baseline benchmarks, targets and achievements on objective 3: provision of 
street and facility based services, by the mid and end of-term evaluations 
Indicators Baseline Target Mid-Term End of Term
Number of 
Children 
benefiting from 
street or facility 
based services 
3420 7375 4682
Boys: 2837
Girls: 1845
2473
Boys: 1665
Girls: 808
Number of 
Children accessing 
street based 
services 
1045 2500 1346 1613
Number of 
Children accessing 
facility based 
services
2 375 4875 3414 1713
Table 4 shows that none of the targets for objective 3 were met. The program did not therefore 
increase the number of children benefiting from its high quality street and facility based services. 
Table 4 also shows that, there were discrepancies between the achievements recorded at the mid 
and end-of-term evaluations. These discrepancies, as already observed, were due to multiple 
counting of children served by more than one partner. The recorded end-of-term achievements 
were, however, accurate and in line with the data verification undertaken in January 2010. 
Although the program did not meet its targets for objective 3, about 2, 473 children benefited 
from the street and facility-based services. About 67% and 33% of the beneficiaries were boys 
and girls respectively. A much lower number of children benefited from the street and facility 
based services than was expected, because of a decrease in the number of children living and 
working on the streets over the life cycle of the program. The decrease in the number of children 
living and working on the streets was due to the removal of a significant proportion of them from 
the streets by the Zambia National Service (ZNS). Those removed from the streets by the ZNS 
were taken to its camps for rehabilitation and skills training. 
2.5 Performance of the Program on Objective 4 
Increased public awareness and participation in the promotion and protection of the rights 
of street children: 
Table 5: Indicators, targets and achievements by the mid and end-of-term evaluations for 
increased public awareness and participation in the protection and promotion of the rights of 
street children 
Indicator Baseline Target Mid￾Term
End of Term
No. of initiatives by firms, faith-based 
organizations and the general public in favor of 
street children
2 10 28 30
Number of awareness and/or advocacy activities 
conducted
201 480 67 98
Table 5 shows that the targeted number of initiatives in favor of street children by the private 
sector, faith-based organizations and the general public was achieved. The targeted number of 
public and community awareness and advocacy activities were, however, not achieved. Getting 
at least 10 initiatives in favor of street children was certainly an easier target to achieve, as the 
initiatives could be one-off events. Raising public awareness on the plight of street children and 
advocating for their rights and well-being, on the other hand, were much harder targets to 
achieve, because a number of issues came into play, such as changing the perceptions of street 
children and substantial commitment to child rights. 
Activities aimed at raising public awareness were also undermined by a cut in the budget of the 
program made by the USAID. Most public awareness raising activities were consequently not 
carried out. The lack of public awareness raising activities was confirmed by a public survey 
carried out in the targeted communities. It showed that public awareness of the program was as 
low as 25%. Theater performed in the targeted communities did not, therefore, raise public 
awareness sufficiently, particularly among adults. This should not, however, be surprising, 
because the theater for development targeted children rather than adults. 
2.6 Performance of the Program on Objective 5 
Increased capacity of the Government of Zambia, local implementing partners, civil society 
organizations, and the private sector to effectively implement interventions that benefit the 
at-risk and street children: 
To achieve objective 5, the program had to meet seven pre-selected targets based on an equal 
number of indicators. These indicators, their baseline benchmarks, targets and achievements by 
the mid and end-of -term evaluations are given in table 6. 
Table 6: Indicators, baseline benchmarks, targets and achievements of the program by the mid 
and end of term evaluations for increased capacity of the Government, local implementing 
partners, civil society and private sector to effectively implement interventions that benefit the at￾risk and street children 
Indicators Baseline Target Mid-Term End of 
Term
No. of cities in Zambia where street children 
access KidSAFE services
4 10 7 9
No. of communities with a coordinating body 
identified and trained
0 20 10 13
No. of functional district street children 
committees chaired by the District Social Welfare 
Office
1 10 10 7
No. of DSWOs trained in child care/child law 2 10 10 10
% of KidSAFE partners whose services are rated 
satisfactory in terms of agreed quality standards
0 85% 50% 86%
% of partners implementing quality circles or other 
performance reviews to assess and improve on
their services on a quarterly or semi-annual basis
0 100% 50% 75%
Table 6 shows that, the program only met a third of its targets for objective 5. The targets met 
included 10 DSWOs trained in child care and child law, and 86% of KidSAFE partners provided 
services rated satisfactory on the basis of the agreed quality standards for child care facilities. 
The agreed standards for child care facilities are given in appendix 5. 
The program increased the numbers of districts providing services for street children to 9, and 
had 7 functional District Street Committees chaired by the District Social Welfare Officers by 
the end of the program. Redeployment of 3 of the 10 trained District Social Welfare Officers to 
other districts by the Government contributed to failure to have 10 functional District 
Committees chaired by the District Social Welfare Officers by the end of the program. 
Table 6 also shows that 75% of the local partners of the program carried out the quality circles, 
or other performance reviews on a quarterly or semi-annual basis. 25% partners did not therefore 
carry out any performance reviews, due to lack of skills amongst their staff. The program did not 
also provide training to the 20 targeted communities with coordinating multi-sector bodies, 
because the partners were unable to establish working relationships with some of the multi-sector 
bodies. 
2.7 Summary of overall performance of the program based on targets met 
The overall performance of the program in terms of the targets met was mixed. However, it 
achieved most of its targets for the overall goal. It also met all its targets for objective 1 and most 
of the targets for objectives 2, 4 and 5. The program did not, however, meet any of its targets for 
objective 3. Failure to meet the targets for objective 3 [Increased number of children benefiting 
from high quality and street and facility-based services] was attributed to the reduction in the 
population of street children over the life of the program. The program, nevertheless, helped 
consolidate and expand a network of NGOs that could effectively meet the immediate and long 
term needs of the street and at-risk children in Zambia. It also helped reduce the number of at￾risk children moving from their families and communities to the streets. The program also built 
the capacity of the staff of DSWOs, the partner organizations and caregivers for effective 
implementation of interventions in favor of the at-risk and street children. 
Although the program was not able to meet four of its six targets for objective 2 [increased 
number of children moving from the streets back to the communities through family 
reintegration], it helped reintegrate some street children in families or communities, and placed 
others in residential care. The program also helped establish procedures and guidelines for the 
reintegration of street children back into their families and communities. 
The program was also not able to extend its street and facility-based services to the expected 
number of children, let alone enhance public awareness, advocacy and participation in the 
protection and promotion of the rights of street children. The number of children taking up street 
and facility-based services could not reach the set target due in part to the ZNS skills training 
intervention which resulted in a reduction in the population of street children. Similarly, most 
activities aimed at raising public awareness of the plight of street children were not implemented, 
because the USAID had cut down the budget of the program. 
3.0 Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Sustainability and Impact of Program 
Activities 
In this section, we assess the performance of the program on the basis of key organizational 
performance indicators. The key organizational performance indicators include: relevance; 
effectiveness; efficiency; sustainability and impact. An assessment of the program is therefore 
attempted on the basis of each of these indicators in turn. 
3.1 Relevance of the Program Activities 
The relevance of programs is assessed on the basis of its interventions being relevant to the needs 
of its primary beneficiaries. The relevance of the Africa KidSAFE program is therefore assessed 
on the basis of whether its interventions met the needs of vulnerable households, at-risk and 
street children. 
Low-income urban households were in general the primary beneficiaries of the Africa KidSAFE 
program in Zambia. These households were vulnerable because of lack of wage employment 
and/inadequate incomes, and capital to invest in profitable income generating activities on a 
sustainable basis. Their plight was worsened by poor access to essential infrastructure and 
services (CSO, 2006). 
The Africa KidSAFE program was relevant to the needs of vulnerable urban households, at-risk 
and street children in Zambia, because it helped address some of their needs. In that regard, the 
program made it possible for the caregivers to engage in income generating activities by 
facilitating access to micro-finance services for some and mobilizing others into Self-Help 
Groups, though the Self Help savings program could not work for the ultra-vulnerable, Engaging 
in income generating activities enabled the vulnerable households to improve the living 
standards of their households, and thereby helped prevent the at-risk children from taking to the 
streets. Similarly, the provision of educational support to the at-risk children helped keep them in 
school and away from the streets. Provision of street and facility-based services, on the other 
hand, helped address vital immediate and short-term needs of the street children, and protected 
their rights and integrity as human beings. The Africa KidSAFE program was therefore relevant 
to vulnerable households, at-risk and street children. 
3.2 Effectiveness of the Program Activities 
Section 2.0 of the report, which provides an assessment of the performance of the program with 
regard to whether it met its set targets for the goal and each of the five objectives, clearly shows 
that, the program was effective. This was evident from the proportion of the targets the program 
met for its goal and each of the five objectives. The program met nearly all the targets for the 
goal and most of the targets for four of its five objectives. 
The targets associated with the program‟s capacity building activities were met in full, while 
those associated with reintegration and public participation were only met partially. Thus, the 
capacity building activities were the most effective components of the program, while 
reintegration and public participation components were also effective to some extent. The Street 
based services were, however, ineffective, as none of the targets for their attainment were met. 
We have, nevertheless, concluded that the Africa KidSAFE program was on the whole effective. 
3.3 Efficiency of the Program Activities 
Efficiency of the Africa KidSAFE program was assessed on the basis of optimal use of financial 
resources with specific reference to the utilization of budgetary allocations, and timeliness of the 
disbursements in relation to the implementation of the program activities. 
Table 7 shows the program‟s budgetary allocations, actual expenditure and the proportion of the 
budget spent by budget lines. 
Table 7: Africa KidSAFE Program: Budgetary allocations, expenditure and proportion of the 
budget utilized 
# Description
PCI 
Budgeted 
Contributio
n
Original 
USAID 
/DCOF 
Budget
Total 
Budgeted 
Funds
Actual 
Expenditure
Proportion 
of Budget 
Used
1
KidSAFE II Overall 
Totals 2,599,190 6,215,780 8,814,971 4,073,205 46%
KidSAFE I & II 
Overall Totals 5,198,380 12,431,561 17,629,941 5,694,871 32%
2
KidSAFE II Direct 
Charges Only 2,260,544 5,370,128 7,630,672 3,463,214 45%
KidSAFE I & II Direct 
Charges Only 4,521,088 10,740,256 15,261,344 4,809,914 32%
3
KidSAFE II Sub￾grants Only 484,256 2,519,029 3,003,285 1,035,555 34%
KidSAFE I & II Sub￾grants Only 968,512 5,038,059 6,006,571 1,224,407 20%
4
KidSAFE II Training 
Only 39,042 244,647 283,689 357,016 126%
KidSAFE I & II 
Training Only 78,084 489,294 567,378 549,900 97%
It is evident from table 7 that, the program was characterized by gross under expenditure of 
budgetary allocations for all the budget lines, except training. All the budget lines apart from the 
training budget line spent less than 50% of their budgetary allocations. The training component 
was also the only one that recorded an over expenditure of 126% during the second phase. It was 
also the only budget line that nearly used its full allocation during the first phase. 
The low budget utilization was due to the absence of a distinct program management unit within 
PCI. Even the sub-contracting of grant-making to SoCLi latter, did not improve the utilization of 
the budgetary allocations. Grant-making should therefore have been kept within PCI, because it 
was closely linked to the implementation of program activities. The close link between grant￾making and implementation of activities was in fact evident from the reports of the partners of 
PCI. Lupwa Lwabumi Trust (LLT), for example, observed that: “…the program was 
characterized by long delays in the transfer of resources from PCI”. As a result, there were long 
time lags between provision of training (in income generation) and implementation of income 
generating activities, as the grants from PCI were supposed to provide the seed capital for the 
income generating activities. The delays in the disbursement of resources therefore adversely 
effected the implementation of the activities. It also affected the timeliness with which the 
program activities were implemented. 
Close examination of the expenditure patterns also suggest that, there was poor linkage between 
the implementation of program activities and the disbursement of resources. It is instructive in 
that regard to note that, though the training budget was completely utilized, most of the training 
was carried out over a short period of time towards the end of the program. The training provided 
was therefore not properly linked to the relevant program activities. 
Although we cannot link expenditure to any specific activities and calculate the cost of the 
program per client, because of the absence of detailed budgetary allocations and expenditures for 
the program, it was evident from the activities implemented in the communities that, the 
resources availed to the program were put to good use. The program was also worthwhile, as it 
was the only program that promoted and protected the rights of the at-risk and street children at 
the time. It was also the main program that provided some protection to street children on a 
consistent basis in urban Zambia. 
3.4 Sustainability of the Program Activities 
The main question addressed in this section is: would the activities implemented under the 
program continue without the technical and financial support of PCI and USAID respectively? 
In low-income communities, such as the ones targeted by the Africa KidSAFE program, 
effective community participation is usually the key to the sustainability of the activities. 
Effective community participation was therefore emphasized in the design of the program. 
Interviews with the partners of the program that implemented most program activities, however, 
revealed very little community participation. This was also borne out of the public survey of the 
targeted communities, which revealed very little awareness of the program. Nevertheless all the 
program partners claimed to have taken sustainability issues into account. To that end, measures 
to ensure, the partners would continue to render services to the caregivers of the at-risk and street 
children long after the program were reported to have been taken. 
Close examination of the sustainability plans of the program partners, however, suggested that, 
only the larger partners (such as Fountain of Hope, Jesus Cares Ministries, Rainbow and Friends 
of Street Children, to mention a few) had reliable sustainability plans. The sustainability plans of 
the smaller partners that were solely dependent on the program for funding were mostly 
hypothetical, as they had yet to yield any resources. The larger partners were therefore more 
likely to continue providing some services to prevent the at-risk children from taking to the 
streets, and protecting those already on the streets. 
However, not all the preventive and protective activities were expected to continue. The more 
expensive protective programs, like reintegration and provision of street-based services, in 
particular, were not in the plans of any of the partners, because they required enormous resources 
that were beyond the reach of most partners. Reintegration and street based services had 
therefore ended with the program. 
A number of activities were, nevertheless, expected to continue without the technical and 
financial support of PCI and USAID respectively. The activities that were expected to continue 
included: the Self-Help Groups; provision of parenting skills; and propagation and awareness of 
child rights and child care; as well as the reintegration procedures and guidelines. 
The Self Help Groups were expected to continue, because the successful ones had continued to 
operate even after the withdrawal of the Group Facilitators provided by the program. Most of the 
Self Help Groups that continued to operate were able to do so, because they had acquired 
momentum of their own as solidarity groups. They had therefore expanded their focus, from 
being strictly means of mobilizing savings and capital, to solidarity groups and platforms for 
exchange of ideas on common challenges. Some very poor women and men that found the 
conditions of the micro-finance services prohibitive also saw the Self Help Groups as alternative 
means of mobilizing savings, and obtaining loans at the lowest possible cost. The Self Help 
Groups were, therefore, likely to continue long after the program that had introduced them. 
The technical skills given to members of Self Help Groups during the life of the program were 
also likely to give them a head-start in mobilizing other resources, such as the grants for 
vulnerable women introduced by the MCDSS. This was likely because the Self Help Groups 
already had some of the requirements demanded by the grant making organizations. Recipients 
of grants from the MCDSS, for example, would be expected to have group bank accounts, and to 
have been registered with the Department of Community Development. These requirements were 
not likely to cause problems for the successful Self Help Groups, because exposure to the 
program had equipped them with skills to meet such requirements. Successful Self Help Groups 
like the Twatasha group of Ipusukilo, Kitwe, for example, had already even taken steps to 
register with the Department of Community Development. They had also opened a group bank 
account. 
However, while we are confident that the successful Self Help Groups would continue long after 
the program, we cannot be sure whether these groups would continue to be savings-led rather 
than grant-led. This is because access to grants, such as those being offered by the MCDSS 
might change the orientation and internal dynamics of the groups. 
The propagation of child rights and parenting skills were also likely to continue for sometime to 
come, because the partners that provided public awareness and training in child rights, through 
theatre for development, reported having found the means of carrying on those activities. 
Similarly, the staff of Rainbow and Cicetekelo in Ndola reported that, the provision of parenting 
skills had been taken up by a number of church based groups in the low-income urban 
settlements. The provision of parenting skills was, therefore, likely to continue for some time to 
come. 
The program was also assured of continued influence on the administration and management of 
the child protection services in Zambia, because of the exposure of the social welfare officers 
and child protection officers to child rights, child care and the reintegration procedures and 
guidelines. The Government was moreover expected to adopt the reintegration protocol and 
guidelines developed under the program. Thus, the ideas and practices, relating to upholding the 
rights of children and the integrity of the family introduced by the program, were likely to 
remain part of the child protection policy and administration in Zambia. 
3.5 Impact of the Program Activities 
An assessment of the impact of the Africa KidSAFE program on child protection policy and 
practice in Zambia is attempted in this section. It should, however, be noted that only innovative 
ideas and practices can influence public policies and practices. Such influence also tends to lag 
behind. As a result, the impact is usually only evident after some time. In some cases it can even 
be several years after the introduction of the innovative ideas and practices. Since the Africa 
KidSAFE program only ended a few months ago, the impacts identified and presented here are 
strictly speaking just potential and/or likely impacts of the program. 
The Africa KidSAFE program had a number of innovative ideas and practices for child 
protection policy and administration in Zambia. These were bound to have a bearing on 
Zambia‟s future child protection policy and administration in the short, medium and long term. 
Some of the innovative ideas and activities had already had some short-term influence, because 
they had been tried out on an experimental basis. The reintegration of street children in families 
and communities, for example, was tried out during the life of the program. Such ideas and 
activities, therefore, have had some short-term influence, and could be expected to influence 
Zambia‟s child protection policy and administration in the medium and long term. 
We identified four main innovative activities introduced by the program, which are likely to 
influence Zambia‟s future child protection policy and administration. These are: the provision of 
parenting skills; propagation of child rights and child care; development of the reintegration 
protocol and guidelines; and reintegration of street children back into their families and 
communities. 
The provision of training in parenting skills was a result of the recognition of a lack of parenting 
skills among some parents in the low-income urban settlements. This was not surprising, because 
parenting skills in Zambia have traditionally been obtained through informal education within 
the extended family set-up. In the urban setting, however, some new parents may not have the 
support of their extended families. Such parents were not likely to have adequate parenting skills, 
due to lack of contact with the extended family networks. However, since the provision of 
parenting skills had been taken up by community based church groups, it was likely to be availed 
to new parents that may be in need of those skills. Provision of parenting skills was therefore 
likely to remain one of the major outcomes of the Africa KidSAFE program. To be more 
effective, however, there would be need to institutionalize the provision of parenting skills 
through either the Department of Community Development or the local authorities. 
By training the staff of the partner civil society organizations, DSWOs, CPU and VSU in child 
rights, child care, child law and in the use of the reintegration protocol and guidelines, the 
program helped promote the culture of upholding child rights among the frontline civil society 
and public sector workers dealing with child protection issues on a daily basis. The frontline 
workers‟ participation in the reintegration of street children also helped put the observance of 
child rights into practice. Thus, the knowledge and experience gained by these workers was 
likely to remain with them for the rest of their working lives, and was bound to influence their 
management of child protection services in the short and medium term. Long term influence 
could also be expected, because the Government was expected to adopt the reintegration protocol 
and guidelines developed under the program. 
Participation in the reintegration of street children into their families and communities also 
helped the officials involved to experience first hand, the procedures, processes and the effect of 
reintegration on the lives of the children and families concerned. This experience was likely to 
put reintegration on the list of options for addressing the challenges that come with the 
emergence of street children. The Africa KidSAFE program, therefore, introduced and 
demonstrated the potential of reintegration as an option for the resolution of problems associated 
with children living and working on the street with neither social nor public support. 
3.6 Summary assessment of the program on the basis of key organizational 
performance indicators 
The assessment of the Africa KidSAFE program on the basis of key organizational performance 
indicators shows that, the program was relevant and some what effective, efficient and 
sustainable. Furthermore, the program was expected to have some short, medium and long-term 
impacts on child protection policy and administration in Zambia, because it introduced frontline 
child protection officers in the public and civil society organizations to child rights, child care 
and the reintegration of street children back into their families and communities. The 
introduction of parenting skills to parents in need of such skills was also likely to positively 
affect the raising of children in low-income urban settlements, and spread the child rights in the 
fabric of those communities. 
4.0 Main Findings, Conclusions, Lessons and Recommendations 
In the final section of the end-of-term evaluation of the Africa KidSAFE Program, we tease out 
the main findings and draw some conclusions, lessons and recommendations for future child 
protection programs. We begin, however, with the main findings and conclusions, before 
drawing some lessons and recommendations. 
4.1 Main findings and Conclusions of the end-of-term evaluation 
By the time the Africa KidSAFE program ended in September 2010, 9,678 OVC had received 
direct services from the program, instead of the targeted 12, 000. In addition, 5, 778 caregivers 
had been trained in caring for OVC. The program had, therefore, narrowly failed to meet its 
target for the number of children that had received direct services, but had exceeded its target for 
the number of caregivers trained in caring for the OVC by 385%. On the basis of these findings, 
we have concluded that, the program achieved its overall goal and helped consolidate and 
expand a safety net of NGOs and CBOs that could effectively meet the immediate and long-term 
needs of the at-risk and street children in Zambia. This conclusion was also supported by the 
continued provision of services to the at-risk and street children by the local partners without the 
technical and financial support of PCI and USAID respectively. Even the smaller local partners 
of the program pledged to continue providing services to the at-risk and street children once they 
had mobilized resources from other sources. 
The performance of the program with regard to meeting its targets for each of its five objectives 
was mixed, as some targets were met, while others were only partially met, and the targets for 
objective 3 [Increased number of children benefiting from high quality street and facility-based 
services] were not met at all. However, the program met all its targets for objective 1 and most of 
the targets for objectives 2, 4, and 5. Accordingly, we have concluded that the program helped 
reduce the number of at-risk children moving from their families and communities to the streets. 
To some extent, the program also had some children reintegrated in families or communities, 
while others were drawn from the streets and referred for residential care. It also helped establish 
procedures and guidelines for the reintegration of street children back into their families and 
communities. Furthermore, the program helped build the capacity of the staff of the District 
Social Welfare Offices, Child Protection and Victim Support Units, as well as those of the 
partner civil society organizations. A good number of caregivers were also trained to make them 
effective participants in interventions aimed at raising the living standards and upholding the 
rights of the at-risk and street children. 
On the less positive side, the program failed to increase the number of street children benefiting 
from high quality street and facility-based services. It also found it difficult to increase public 
and community awareness, advocacy and participation in activities aimed at protecting and 
promoting the rights of street children. Failure to increase the number of children benefiting from 
high quality street and facility-based services was partly due to the reduction in the population 
of street children as most of them were taken to skills camps for rehabilitation and skills training. 
A cut in the budget of the program by the USAID was also the other reason advanced for failure 
to increase public awareness and participation in interventions aimed at improving the welfare 
and upholding the rights of the at-risk and street children. 
On the basis of the performance of the program with regard to meeting its targets for its five 
objectives, we have drawn four main conclusions. These are: 
(1) the program significantly helped reduce the number of at-risk children moving from their 
families and communities to the street; 
(2) the program demonstrated that reintegration could be an effective strategy for addressing 
the challenge of children living on the streets without family or public support; 
(3) the program developed and tested the reintegration protocol and guidelines in accordance 
with the laws of Zambia; and 
(4) by providing training in child rights, child law, child care and child reintegration 
procedures, the program increased the capacity of the Government of Zambia and local 
civil society organizations for implementation of interventions in favor of the at-risk and 
street children. 
We have further concluded that, the Africa KidSAFE program was relevant, because it addressed 
issues of child poverty, which were at the core of the problem. The program was also effective 
because most of its targets were met. Its capacity building initiatives were, however, the most 
effective, while those aimed at increased public participation in interventions aimed at improved 
welfare and observance of the rights of the at-risk and street children were the least effective. 
Some program activities were also sustainable and could therefore be expected to continue 
playing a positive role in enhancing the welfare and the rights of the at-risk and street children in 
Zambia. Furthermore, some program activities could be expected to continue having a positive 
influence on child protection policies and practices in Zambia. The Africa KidSAFE program, 
therefore, achieved its goal and most of its specific objectives. Thus, the program helped 
consolidate and expand a safety net of NGOs and CBOs that can effectively meet the immediate 
and long terms needs of the at-risk and street children in the low-income urban settlements that 
were targeted by the program. 
4.2 Lessons from the Program 
Apart from the unintended outcomes, there were also lessons learnt from the implementation of 
the Africa KidSAFE program. Some of the lessons are given below: 
(1) Implementation of the Africa KidSAFE program demonstrated that it was possible to 
create a network of civil society organizations focused on addressing specific social 
problems even in the context of scarce financial and human resources; 
(2) Provision of adequate capacity building aimed at improved management anchored in 
transparency and accountability was helpful to small civil society organizations in 
resource poor areas, as they enhanced their capacity to diversify sources of funding for 
their interventions; 
(3) The program underestimated the time required for a number of interventions, especially 
those relating to public and community mobilization, reintegration, and mobilization of 
Self Help Groups; 
(4) The program also underestimated the resources required to implement some of its main 
interventions. In particular, the resources required to effectively carry out the 
reintegration of children back into their families was grossly underestimated; 
(5) The success and survival of nearly half of the savings-led Self Help Groups promoted by 
the program under economic empowerment showed that it was possible to resuscitate and 
promote the culture of saving even amongst the poor; 
(6) Despite the mixed results obtained in terms of the proportion of successful cases of 
reintegration of children back into their families and communities, the program 
demonstrated that sustainable reintegration could be possible, if not rushed and if the 
push factors that forced the child out of the family in the first place were addressed, and 
the child and caregiver/family were reconciled; 
(7) The program showed that the children reintegrated directly from the streets were more 
likely to return to the streets, because they were still addicted to life on the streets, 
especially in terms of their behavior. This was in part due to most street children having 
been addicted to drugs, especially “stika” (glue inhaled on the streets for short-term 
“relief”). Successful reintegration therefore required treatment of drug addiction; 
(8) Experience acquired by the staff involved in the reintegration process resulted in 
improved coordination between the institutions involved, and resulted in better 
management of the challenges which previously frustrated the reintegration process; 
(10) Children who had spent more than six months on the streets found reintegration in 
families much more difficult. To successfully reintegrate such children, it was essential to 
prepare them for family life by initially taking them to transit homes or camps. Such 
facilities, however, required trained counselors who could provide intensive counseling to 
help the children reform and learn to live in a family set-up, without drugs and other 
services associated with street life. 
4.3 Recommendations 
Given the findings and conclusions and lessons learnt from the implementation of the Africa 
KidSAFE program, it is our considered view that, the program correctly attributed the movement 
of children from their families and communities to the streets, to extreme poverty and 
deprivation, as well as, other social problems, including child abuse and exploitation. Below are 
the recommendations for future programming of street children interventions: 
1) Given the conflicts that arose between partners resulting from operating in the same 
geographic areas, in future programs involving multiple partners, the partners should 
operate exclusively in specific areas. This is essential to avoid wasting time on conflicts; 
2) Future street children programs should focus more on prevention of streetism through 
economic empowerment programs for the vulnerable households and ensuring that the 
out of school children are given alternative skills training and linked to job opportunities. 
3) Economic empowerment activities in low income urban settlements should not be 
confined to any particular model, because different models suit different social groups. 
For example, while some social groups found Self Help Groups highly relevant to their 
needs, they were not relevant to other social groups, especially those with no ability to 
even save a minimal mandatory contribution required for Self Help savings. In this case 
future programs should consider giving some form of social cash transfers to these 
households or groups. Social cash transfers have proved cost-effective in addressing child 
poverty in experiments carried out in middle and low-income countries, including South 
Africa and Zambia respectively (see for example, Barrientos and Dejong, 2006 and 
Schubert and Slater, 2007); Micro financing services should also be encouraged; 
4) The program revealed very high levels of illiteracy, especially among poor women. This 
significantly limited their options for poverty reduction. There is therefore need to 
improve the literacy levels among poor women in particular in order to address the 
different facets of poverty effectively. The MCDSS should therefore be encouraged to 
extend its adult literacy programs to the low-income urban settlements to help reduce 
illiteracy and enhance the opportunities for poverty reduction; and 
5) Finally, given the achievements made in raising the standards of care, and the critical 
work that went into the promotion of reintegration, we recommend that future child 
protection programs in Zambia should engage the MCDSS and the MYSCD with a view 
to helping them make a paradigm shift from the traditional social welfare models to the 
human rights and human development based paradigms used by the multi-lateral and 
bilateral development agencies. This is essential to build on the achievements of the 
Africa KidSAFE program. 
REFERENCES 
Allen, Hugh (2005) Economic strengthening/livelihood tools and literature review, Nairobi: 
Hope for African Children Initiative. 
Barnes, Carolyn (2005) Economic strengthening activities benefiting orphans and vulnerable 
children in Africa: Mapping of field programs, Final Draft Repot, AED. 
Barrientos, Armado and Jocelyn Dejong (2006) “Reducing child poverty with cash transfers A 
sure Things?” in Development Policy Review, Vol. 24, no. 5, p. 537-552. 
Bertrand, Jane T. and Manuel Solis (2000) Evaluating HIV/AIDS Prevention Projects: A manual 
for Nongovernmental organizations, Measures Evaluation Manual Series No. 10, Chapel Hill: 
Population Center, University of North Carolina. 
Chanda, A. W. (1999) Gaps in the Law and Policy in implementation of the Convention on the 
Rights of the Child in Zambia, Paper presented to a Workshop on the Treaty Based Rights of 
Women and Children in Zambia, Lusaka. 
Devereux, S., J. Marshall, J. MacAskill and L. Pelham (2005) Making cash count: Lessons from 
Cash Transfer Scheme in East and Southern Africa for supporting the most vulnerable children 
and households, London: Save the Children, UK. 
Government of the Republic of Zambia (1999) Orphans and Vulnerable children a situation 
Analysis, Lusaka: ZAMSIF Study Fund. 
GRZ (2006a) Children on the streets of Zambia: Working towards a solution, Lusaka: Ministry 
of Community Development and Social Services. 
GRZ (2006b) National Child Policy, Lusaka: Ministry of Sport, Youth and Child Development. 
GRZ (2006c) Youth Policy, Lusaka: Ministry of Sport, Youth and Child Development 
General Assembly resolution 2200A 1976 Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 
General Assembly resolution 44/25 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child 
Lemba, Musonda (2002) Rapid Assessment of Street Children in Lusaka, Lusaka: Ministry of 
Community Development and Social Services. 
Lungwangwa, G. and Mubiana Macwan‟gi (1996) Street children in Zambia: a situational 
analysis, Lusaka: UNICEF. 
Magen, Benjamin, Cynthia Donovan and Valerie Kelly (2009) Can cash transfers promote food 
security in the context of volatile prices? A review of empirical evidence, Lansing: MSU 
International Development Working Paper. 
Ng‟ambi, D. N. (2006) Harmonization of National and International Laws to protect children‟s 
rights: The Zambian Case, Unpublished research report, University of Zambia. 
Schubert, Bernd (2007) The Impact of Social Cash Transfers on Children affected by 
HIV/AIDS-Evidence from Zambia, Malawi and South Africa, New York: United Nations 
Children‟s Fund. 
Schubert, Bernd (2005) The pilot social cash transfer scheme in Kalomo District, Zambia, Child 
Poverty Research Group, Working paper, No. 52. 
Subbarao, K., Angel Mattimore and Kathrin Plangemann (2001) Social protection of Africa‟s 
orphans and other vulnerable children, issues and good practice, program options, Washington, 
D. C.: The World Bank. 
Subbarao, K and D. Coury (2004) Reaching Out to Africa‟s Orphans-A framework for Public 
Action, Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. 
Tacon, P. and Geoffrey Lungwangwa (1991) Street children in Zambia, unpublished research 
report, Lusaka: Ministry of Community Development and Social Services. 
United Nations (2006) Building inclusive financial sectors, New York: United Nations 
UNAIDS, UNICEF and USAID (2002) Children on the Brink: A joint report on orphan 
estimates and program strategies, New York: UNAIDS/UNICEF/USAID. 
United Nations Children‟s Fund (2008) Social protection in Eastern and Southern Africa: A 
framework and strategy for UNICEF, Nairobi: UNICEF Eastern and Southern Africa. 
Wietler, Katharina (2007) The Impact of Social Cash Transfer on informal Safety-Nets in 
Kalomo District, Zambia: A qualitative study, Berlin: GTZ. 
World Bank (2009) Conditional cash transfers: Reducing present and future poverty, Policy 
Research Report, Washington, DC: The World Bank.