February 2012
This report was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). It was 
prepared by Carole Berrih, international consultant and Jacques Kachuka, local consultant.
EVALUATION
Reducing the separation and abandonment of children 
in the Democratic Republic of Congo
Final project evaluation report
Reducing the separation and abandonment of children in the 
Democratic Republic of Congo
Final project evaluation report 
Bena Dianyi center, Mwene Ditu
International consultant: Carole Berrih
Local consultant: Jacques Kachuka
February 2012 
Translated from the original French 
The opinions expressed in this document are those of the author and do not necessarly 
represent the views of the USAID nor of its services
2 
Executive summary
From 2006 to 2009 and with an extension to 2011, Save the Children UK (SC) carried out a project 
funded by USAID which was aimed at reducing child separation and abandonment in the DRC. 
This evaluation had three main goals: 
1. To assess the project’s results against its objectives, considering relevance, effectiveness, 
fairness and impact. 
2. To evaluate the project implementation methodology and the management of its 
partnerships. 
3. To analyze the efficiency of the project in terms of the balance between resources used and 
results obtained, and its sustainability. 
Coherence 
The project consisted of three main components: legal protection, reunification and reintegration, and 
community mobilization. 
The intervention’s holistic approach was appropriate to the needs of separated and abandoned 
children. The project was coherent: it sought to intervene both upstream (prevention and awareness) 
and downstream (legal support for children, reunification and reintegration). 
It responded to the needs of children and parents, although the implementation methods used could 
have been better tailored had they been part of a detailed evaluation of the needs of beneficiaries and 
partners. 
The project took on board good practice and recommendations from the previous project, and was in 
line with national and international policies on child protection. 
Effectiveness and fairness 
The project’s main activity of reunifying children with their families was successful. The failure rate six 
months after reunification was less than 15%, even though the income generating activities (IGAs) 
designed to support reintegration were generally not successful. Indeed, a lack of preparation, 
expertise and follow-up was noted in reintegration activities conducted by Save the Children. In 
addition, certain target groups could have been better integrated into the project, such as child 
mothers. 
At a broader level, SC contributed to the dissemination in several DRC cities of nationally and 
internationally recognized good practice in supporting vulnerable children (approach to family 
reunification, standards of care in centers). 
The project surpassed expectations in terms of its effectiveness in the area of legal protection of child 
victims. The results are more mixed for children in conflict with the law. Prison visits were effective and 
resulted in the release of hundreds of children from very poor conditions that do not meet international 
standards. However, unfortunately there was insufficient monitoring of children following their release. 
Furthermore, the project created and strengthened new mechanisms of community mobilization 
(community child protection networks (RECOPEs), children's clubs, early warning systems), which 
have carried out numerous community awareness activities. Over 800 causeries (small discussion 
groups) and more than 50 theater for development performances on child protection have been held 
over the last two years. 
Some notable breakthroughs were made with partners during the project, the most important being the 
adoption of the Child Protection Act in 2009. 
It is also noteworthy that gender equity has been a cross-cutting theme that has informed the majority 
of activities. 
3 
Impact 
SC did not always provide itself with the resources to match its ambitions. No study was undertaken to 
measure the actual impact of reunification activities on the problems of separated and abandoned 
children in the project cities. However, all stakeholders emphasized that SC’s intervention mitigated 
the negative impacts of a very difficult environment. In Kinshasa, all partners and members of the 
community have noticed a marked drop in the number of children accused of witchcraft in the revivalist 
churches. In each city, parents believe their behavior towards their children has changed as a result of 
the project’s activities. 
Effective stakeholder capacity building enabled local organizations to become more professional and 
an integral part of the child protection system. The project also helped strengthen the referral system 
and placed local authorities at the heart of child protection, particularly the Division of Social Affairs 
(DIVAS) and the Division of Justice. 
SC has also helped create synergies between individuals and organizations that had previously been 
working in the same areas unbeknownst to one another. 
The project also had some negative effects. In particular, conflicts were created in communities 
following the financing of certain community organization income generating activities (IGAs), and 
between revivalist churches and the rest of the community. 
Partnerships 
The methodology used to implement partnership agreements was not always appropriate, with some 
negative impacts on partner relations. 
Most partners, whether transit centers, RECOPEs or legal protection organizations, feel that the 
relationships between partners were not balanced, the contracts having been predetermined and 
lacking the flexibility of negotiation or addition of clauses. Targets were set without consideration of the 
situation on the ground, resulting in the breakdown of agreements with three operational partners. 
This led to significant pressure on partners who were sometimes criticized for not meeting targets. 
In addition, three other partnership agreements were dissolved when it came to light that funds 
destined for families had been misappropriated. 
Project management methodology 
To great benefit the project included children as agents of change in the majority of activities of which 
they were to be the beneficiaries. 
A full range of tools was put in place to enable the monitoring of activities on the ground. Despite this, 
there were deficiencies in the monitoring of and supervisory visits to certain activities. 
Efficiency
The project’s cascade financing was not very cost effective. Partners felt that the amounts provided in 
the partnership agreements were insufficient. Further, the amounts allocated were fixed: the same 
amount was paid regardless of whether the reunification took place in the city or tens of kilometers 
away. 
In addition, the allocation of funds to partners was not linked to reunification results: the agreements 
provided for a fixed monthly amount towards target achievement. There was no financial flexibility to 
reflect whether the partner met, failed to meet or surpassed the target. This frustrated those partners 
that surpassed the targets and led to some partnerships breaking down. 
Moreover, considerable sums were invested in activities that were not properly prepared or monitored, 
such as the IGAs. 
Finally, although the profiles of the SC project staff matched business requirements, the number of 
staff allocated seems small in relation to the project’s scale. 
Sustainability
To help ensure sustainability, workshops on the exit strategy were held with partners before the end of 
the project in all project cities, with the exception of Mwene Ditu. Although in Bukavu IGAs were 
implemented at the end of the project to empower the RECOPEs and the organization concerned with 
4 
legal protection, no such activities were conducted in Mbuji Mayi or Kinshasa, even though they had 
been requested in the exit strategy workshops. Some partners felt that the workshops had not been 
useful and that that their requests had not been taken on board. 
The legal protection activities that were heavily dependent on funding have been weakened by its 
withdrawal. In Bukavu, they stopped altogether because the person who was running them changed 
their field of activity. In Mbuji Mayi, the SC project enabled the organization concerned with legal 
protection to meet a new donor, the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the DRC 
(MONUSCO), which now funds an activity that deals with sexual violence. 
All the transit centers we visited apart from the one in Bukavu continue to reunite children with their 
families, albeit to a lesser extent than during the project. Few IGAs continue to run in families that 
were supported by the project. Furthermore, although school renovations have enabled many children 
to study in better conditions, few of the vulnerable children identified and enrolled under the project still 
attend. 
Most RECOPEs established by the project are still running, but their financial fragility makes them 
vulnerable. Apart from one RECOPE in Bukavu, none of them have the means to fund their activities. 
The majority of RECOPEs and children's clubs in all project cities have continued conducting activities 
to raise awareness, albeit far fewer than during the project. 
In Mbuji Mayi, the community mobilization actors have regrouped in a new structure, la Synergie des 
Mobilisateurs Communautaires (alliance of community mobilizers), a draft statute for which was 
drafted in partnership with DIVAS and is currently being notarized. This new organization will seek out 
donors. 
Needs assessment and adaptation to a changing context
Lesson learned: 
A needs assessment is essential before any project, and it must be supplemented by an analysis 
informed by beneficiaries and partners of the most appropriate way to implement activities. Regular 
project monitoring should enable rapid response to the identification of priority needs that were not 
apparent at the start of the project. 
Recommendations: 
• Conduct a needs assessment before the implementation of any project, with greater 
participation of beneficiaries and partners in planning activities. 
• For each activity systematically incorporate measurable targets and indicators as per the 
SMART approach (Specific, Measurable, Agreed-upon, Realistic and Time-based). 
• Strengthen project monitoring and evaluation (M&E) by reducing the number of indicators and 
simplifying them, and by having a staff member responsible for M&E on each site. 
• Analyze new needs as they arise and tailor activities as appropriate. 
Project implementation
Lesson learned: 
Deficiencies revealed by evaluations and studies conducted during a project should result in the 
reorientation of activities. 
Activities need to be better organized and monitored. 
SC should concentrate on activities that it specializes in. 
Recommendations: 
• Tailor the implementation of activities to the recommendations made by previous evaluations. 
• Improve the monitoring of activities by increasing the number of staff involved in the project 
and avoiding giving staff members too many responsibilities. 
• Develop activity plans in close collaboration with partners. 
• Focus its intervention on areas in which SC has expertise. 
5 
• Advocate that other partners implement activities that are outside SC’s field of expertise. 
• Avoid delay in implementing activities, particularly after an initial training, for example in the 
case of IGAs. 
• Involve children more in the decisions that affect them. 
• Organize workshops to exchange experiences between teams from different sites. 
Partnership implementation
Lesson learned: 
Partnership agreements should be negotiated with the partners, so that they reflect their needs and 
capacities. 
Recommendations: 
• Rather than using standard contracts, negotiate them with partners to ensure a balanced 
relationship and consideration of the actual costs of activities. 
• Take into account a partner’s capacity when forming a contract. One way to enable 
responsiveness to a partner’s capacity would be to agree an initial contract of short duration 
with a negotiated objective, and to regularly review the objective with the partner. 
• Design the partnership agreements so that there is room for maneuver in case of the 
unexpected, and flexibility when results are difficult to achieve. 
Impact assessment
Lesson learned: 
As a minimum, surveys should be taken at the start and end of the project in order to be able to 
assess the project’s impact on the overall goal. 
Recommendations: 
• Conduct systematic surveys at the beginning and end of the project to measure the impact of 
the activities on the project goal. 
Sustainability assessment
Lesson learned: 
The project’s sustainability could have been improved by greater involvement of communities at all 
stages of the project, in particular in the negotiation of partnership agreements with schools. 
Although workshops were held to prepare for SC’s withdrawal, they should have been centered on 
concrete activities with a better follow-up of recommendations. 
Recommendations: 
• Involve the community in the negotiation of partnership agreements and their monitoring 
• When choosing partners, give preference to those that operate in the relevant sector 
• Hold exit strategy workshops at least a year before the end of the project, and provide the 
resources to support project viability, including ring-fenced budgets for the exit strategy. After 
these workshops, negotiate and sign contracts with partners that state both parties’ obligations 
during the final year. For example, for SC this could be training in fundraising, financial 
empowerment of the organization, or IGAs. This would support the closure of the project and 
might help avoid conflicts in the community after SC’s withdrawal. 
• Advocate the resumption of certain activities by partner organizations, and, in conjunction with 
other institutions, advocate at a high level that the state be more involved in financing and 
supporting child protection activities (e.g. the construction of state-run day care and education 
centers; funding child transport). 
6 
Contents, list of tables and acronyms
Contents
Executive summary ................................................................................................................................. 2
Contents, list of tables and acronyms ..................................................................................................... 6
Contents ............................................................................................................................................... 6
Tables and figures ............................................................................................................................... 8
Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................. 8
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 9
1.1. Background and objectives of the study .................................................................................. 9
1.2. Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 9
1.3. Limits and weaknesses of this evaluation ............................................................................. 10
2. RELEVANCE OF THE INITIAL PROPOSAL ................................................................................. 11
2.1. Project overview .................................................................................................................... 11
2.1.1. Legal protection .............................................................................................................. 12
2.1.2. Reunification and reintegration ....................................................................................... 13
2.1.3. Community mobilization ................................................................................................. 13
2.2. Analysis of overall project coherence .................................................................................... 14
2.3. Consistency with the needs of target groups ........................................................................ 14
2.4. Geographic focus of the intervention ..................................................................................... 15
2.5. Consistency with national and international policies and strategies ..................................... 15
3. PROJECT EFFECTIVENESS AND EQUITY ................................................................................ 16
3.1. General analysis of the logical framework ............................................................................. 16
3.2. Analysis of activity implementation ........................................................................................ 16
3.2.1. Legal protection .............................................................................................................. 17
3.2.2. Reunification and reintegration ....................................................................................... 18
3.2.3. Community Mobilization ................................................................................................. 20
3.3. Coverage of intended beneficiaries ....................................................................................... 20
3.3.1. Identification of target groups ......................................................................................... 20
3.3.2. Gender mainstreaming ................................................................................................... 21
4. PROJECT IMPACT........................................................................................................................ 22
4.1. Positive effects ....................................................................................................................... 22
4.2. Unforeseen adverse effects ................................................................................................... 24
5. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ..................................................................................................... 24
5.1. Assessment of partnerships .................................................................................................. 24
5.1.1. Choice of and changing partners ................................................................................... 24
5.1.2. Partnership implementation ............................................................................................ 26
5.2. Project implementation methodology .................................................................................... 27
5.2.1. Participation of children .................................................................................................. 27
5.2.2. Arrangements for monitoring and evaluating the project, and their effectiveness ......... 27
7 
5.2.3. Harmonization across the various intervention areas .................................................... 28
6. PROJECT EFFICIENCY ................................................................................................................ 28
6.1. Financial management and allocation of funds ..................................................................... 28
6.2. Staff allocation ....................................................................................................................... 30
7. PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY ........................................................................................................ 30
7.1. Assessment of the withdrawal plan ....................................................................................... 30
7.2. Assessing the sustainability of activities ................................................................................ 32
7.2.1. Legal protection .............................................................................................................. 32
7.2.2. Reunification and reintegration ....................................................................................... 33
7.2.3. Community Mobilization ................................................................................................. 33
8. OVERALL ASSESSMENT, LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................ 34
Annexes (in French) .............................................................................................................................. 37
Annex 1 : Bibliography ....................................................................................................................... 37
Annex 2 : Schedule ............................................................................................................................ 38
Annex 3 : List of partners met ............................................................................................................ 40
Annex 4 : Discussion guides .............................................................................................................. 41
8 
Tables and figures
Table 1: Number of beneficiaries interviewed for the evaluation .......................................................... 10
Table 2: Correspondence of expected results between the 2006-2009 project and its extension of 
2009-2011.............................................................................................................................................. 12
Table 3: Some data on the number of beneficiaries by gender ............................................................ 22
Figure 1: Change in the number of abused children benefiting from legal support .............................. 17
Figure 2: Change in the number of reunifications ................................................................................. 18
Figure 3: Breakdown of costs relating to the activities .......................................................................... 29
Acronyms
APDDEF: Action pour la Protection et la Défense des Droits des Enfants et des Femmes (action for 
the protection and defense of the rights of children and women) 
BCN: Better Care Network 
BICE: Bureau International Catholique pour l’Enfance (International Catholic Child Bureau) 
CCL: child in conflict with the law 
CODE: Coalition des ONG des Droits de l’Enfant (coalition of NGOs for the rights of the child) 
CPA: Child Protection Act 
CRC: The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 
DIVAS : Division des Affaires Sociales (Division of Social Affairs) 
DRC: Democratic Republic of Congo 
EGEE: Etablissement de Garde et d’Education de l’Etat (state establishment for care and education) 
EWS: early warning system 
FAT: famille d’accueil transitoire (foster family) 
GTPE: Groupe de Travail sur la Protection de l’Enfant (working group on child protection) 
IDMRS: identification, documentation, médiation, réunification et suivi (identification, documentation, 
mediation, reunification and monitoring) 
IGA: income generating activity 
LIZADEEL: Ligue de la Zone Afrique pour la Défense des Droits des Enfants et des Elèves (African 
league for the rights of children and students) 
M&E: monitoring and evaluation 
MONUSCO: Mission des Nations Unies pour la Stabilisation du Congo (United Nations Organization 
Stabilization Mission in the DRC) 
NGO: non-governmental organization 
OVC: orphans and vulnerable children 
OPJ: officier de police judiciaire (judiciary police officer) 
PEDER: programme diocésain d’encadrement des enfants des rues (diocesan program for the care of 
street children) 
RECOPE: réseau communautaire de protection de l’enfant (community child protection network) 
REEJER: Réseau des Educateurs des Enfants et Jeunes de la Rue (network of educators of street 
children and youth) 
SC: Save the Children 
TD: theater for development 
UNICEF: United Nations Children’s Fund 
USAID: United States Agency for International Development 
9 
1. INTRODUCTION 
1.1. Background and objectives of the study
As part of supporting the efforts of the Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) to 
improve the protection of Congolese children, Save the Children (SC), with funding from USAID, 
implemented a project to reduce the separation and abandonment of children in the cities of 
Kinshasa1
, Mbuji Mayi, Mwene Ditu and Bukavu. 
The original project ran from 2006 to 2009 and was extended to 2011. 
The project objectives were: 
1. To improve children’s access to the children’s justice system and strengthen it to better 
guarantee their rights; 
2. To ensure the sustainable community and family reintegration of 3200 separated and 
abandoned children; 
3. To improve children’s access to protection in the community by raising awareness of children’s 
rights; 
4. To ensure that national initiatives (laws, action plans, strategies) are implemented in 
accordance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC); 
5. To develop a detailed knowledge of the project’s target groups to inform national and 
international interventions and advocacy. 
This study is the final evaluation of the USAID-funded project from 2006 to 2011 and its results. 
The evaluation had three main aims: 
1. To assess the project’s results against the objectives. 
Here we consider the project’s relevance, effectiveness, fairness and impact. 
2. To evaluate the implementation of the project and its partnerships. 
Here we consider the project implementation methodology. 
3. To analyze project efficiency and sustainability. 
Efficiency is examined in terms of the balance between resources used and results obtained. 
1.2. Methodology
The evaluation was external and participatory. The evaluation methodology comprised: 
• A literature review: SC project documents covering the full project duration (budget and budget 
monitoring reports, evaluations, quarterly and annual reports, training modules, monitoring and 
evaluation (M&E) tools); partner organizations’ documents (REEJER, UNICEF). 
• Semi-structured interviews with: 
o employees involved in the project 
o non-institutional partners: associations, transit centers, theater groups, media 
o state partners: state agency representatives, social workers attached to the Division of Social 
Affairs (DIVAS) or the Division of Justice 
o non-state institutional partners: UNICEF, lawyers 
A discussion guide was produced for each group2
. 
 
1
 Specifically, in two of the 24 Kinshasa municipalities: Kimbanseke and Masina
2
 See annex 3.
10 
• Focus groups made up of fifteen project beneficiaries and other community members from the 
following groups: 
o Children freed under the project 
and their parents, with whom they 
had been reunited, 
o Parents who had been reunified 
with their children, 
o Families where reunification had 
failed (children and parents), 
o Community child protection 
networks (RECOPEs), 
o Children’s clubs, 
o Community participants of the 
causeries, religious and other local 
leaders. 
A discussion guide was produced for 
each group3
. 
• A discussion with two foster families 
(FAT) in Bukavu 
• Visits to transit centers 
• Visits to three schools renovated by SC in Kinshasa, Mwene Ditu and Bukavu 
The data collected was triangulated, unless otherwise mentioned in the document. 
Table1: Number of beneficiaries interviewed for the evaluation
Interviewee/City Kinshasa Mbuji Mayi Mwene Ditu Bukavu TOTAL 
Women 
Parent direct beneficiary 32 24 0 12 68 
Others 16 9 14 12 51 
Total women 119
Men 
Parent direct beneficiary 36 9 0 7 52 
Others 34 21 10 30 95 
Total men 147
Girls 
Child direct beneficiary 1 10 10 1 22 
Others 5 2 3 7 17 
Total girls 39
Boys 
Child direct beneficiary 16 5 5 26 52 
Others 7 11 3 19 42 
Total boys 92
TOTAL 147 91 45 183 702
1.3. Limits and weaknesses of this evaluation
The project lasted five years. Because of high turnover of SC staff, some information was no longer 
available at the time of the survey. 
Several documents could not be found, particularly those relating to the first phase (2006-2009) and 
those relating to SC’s base in Bukavu that closed at the end of 2010. 
In Bukavu, no meetings were possible with former project staff as they were unreachable. 
Therefore for that project city the information used for the evaluation is from partners, beneficiaries 
and SC reports. 
 
3
 See annex 3.
RECOPE focus group, Bukavu
11 
In addition, some focus groups could not be held. In Kinshasa, the partner was reluctant to 
organize one with families where reunification had failed. Nevertheless, we were able to meet and 
interview one family. 
In Bukavu, we were unable to meet any children released under the project as the legal protection 
partner was no longer in touch with them. 
2. RELEVANCE OF THE INITIAL PROPOSAL 
To what extent were the objectives of the development intervention consistent with beneficiaries’ 
requirements, the country’s needs, global priorities and partners’ and donors’ policies? 
2.1. Project overview
With the support of USAID, Save the Children has been working in the area of child protection in DRC 
since 2001. From 2001 to 2006, SC ran a project in two city centers: Kinshasa, the capital, and Mbuji 
Mayi, capital of Kasaï Oriental province. It focused on street children, children accused of witchcraft 
and children who had been wrongfully imprisoned. This led to a better understanding of vulnerable 
children’s situation and to the reunification of more than 5000 children with their families. The project 
also strengthened stakeholder capacity and increased community awareness. 
Consequently, and with USAID’s continued support, SC implemented a project from 2006 with the 
overall objective of reducing the child separation and abandonment. The project ran from 2006 to 
2009 in four cities: Kinshasa (Kimbanseke and Masina districts), Mbuji Mayi, Mwene Ditu, and 
Bukavu and its surrounding areas. 
USAID-funded SC project locations
The project received extension financing from 2009-2011 with the same geographic and thematic 
focus. Although there are differences between the original project’s logical framework and that of the 
extension, it is clear from the documents that the objectives, activities and results overlap (see Table 2 
below). 
12 
Table 2: Correspondence of expected results between the 2006-2009 project 
and its extension of 2009-2011
Expected results
2009-2011 
extension 
document 
2006-2009 
project 
document 
Improve child victims’ access to justice 1.1 1.2 
Improve the handling of cases of children in conflict with the law 1.2 1.2 
Improve the quality of care in transit centers 2.1 2.1 
Ensure the reunification of children with their families 2.2 2.2 
Ensure the sustainability of reunification 2.3 2.2 
Ensure the functionality of community systems 3.1 1.4 
Strengthen community knowledge about protection risks 3.2 1.3 
Implement a communications campaign on children’s rights 3.3 1.3 
Ensure the right to education 3.4 1.4 
Improve the implementation of legislation concerning child protection 4.1 3.1, 3.2 
Develop knowledge and understanding of the situation of target groups 5.1 1.1 
The project led by Save the Children from 2006 to 2011 had three main components: legal protection, 
reunification and reintegration, and community mobilization. The project also contained a research 
component that we have considered as cross-cutting. 
2.1.1. Legal protection
The project sought to intervene in the area of legal protection for two target groups: abused children 
and children in conflict with the law (CCL). 
Protection of child abuse victims
The project aimed to improve abused children’s access to justice, by: 
• establishing community-based systems able to identify victims and refer them, 
• providing legal assistance for children through partner organizations. 
It also planned to increase the number of juvenile court judges. 
Protection of children in conflict with the law
SC aimed to strengthen the capacity of judicial actors (judges, lawyers, police) through initial and 
refresher training and the dissemination of national and international legislation. The project planned 
to facilitate prison visits by judges and social workers, and to further support social workers in their 
monitoring and survey work. 
Legal assistance to 1600 CCL was envisioned in the project extension. 
Legislation on child protection
Coordination activities with state and non-state partners were envisioned in order to ensure a 
consistent approach to child protection. The project also foresaw support for the development of a 
centralized system for collecting and analyzing data, and support for the preparation and 
dissemination of legislation and ministerial decrees on child protection. 
13 
2.1.2. Reunification and reintegration 
Reunification 
The heart of the project was reunification. 
The project planned to support centers that temporarily house separated and abandoned children, by 
training and supporting staff to implement acceptable standards of quality and management. In 
Bukavu, a pilot project to support foster families was envisioned. 
Part of the plan for the extension phase was to facilitate the reunification of 3,200 children with their 
families. An early warning system (EWS) was planned to immediately identify new children living on 
the streets. 
The project also planned to support local actors in the reunification process. This was to be through 
financial support and training in the identification, documentation, mediation, reunification and 
monitoring procedure (IDMRS), which SC developed. A survey of 25% of children that had been 
reunited with their families was to be carried out at each center six months after reunification. The aim 
was for 90% to still be living with their families. 
Reintegration
The mid-term evaluation of the 2006-2009 project made some recommendations to better ensure 
sustainable reunification4
. Because one of the major obstacles to sustained reunification is the family’s 
economic situation, the evaluator suggested the development and implementation of income 
generating activities (IGAs). 
It was anticipated that this be conducted in conjunction with partners with proven expertise in the area. 
The renovation of schools was planned in areas with high rates of separation and abandonment of 
children. Agreements had been made with schools that had already been renovated, which ensured 
free schooling for the most vulnerable children. Monitoring was to be conducted jointly with the 
RECOPEs, families and school managers. 
2.1.3. Community mobilization 
Supporting the RECOPEs
The project and its extension aimed to strengthen community child protection systems. The initial 
project established community child protection networks (RECOPEs), organizations composed of 
members elected by the community, and their component children’s clubs. The purpose of these 
groups was to facilitate family reunification through awareness-raising sessions and to protect 
children against abuse and mistreatment. 
In the second part of the project, and drawing on SC’s experience in countries such as Uganda, it was 
decided to build RECOPE planning and management capacity, and to coordinate their activities with 
other stakeholders, notably in developing a referral system for vulnerable children. 
Community awareness
The project envisaged the use of several methods to improve community awareness: 
• talks for parents and children by the RECOPEs and their children’s clubs 
• billboards 
• street theater 
• mass media campaigns (television, radio) 
 
4Nzita, September 2008
14 
2.2. Analysis of overall project coherence
The project’s holistic approach to the problems of separated and abandoned children was appropriate. 
The project was coherent. 
It sought on one hand to intervene upstream of the problem by organizing sessions to raise parents’ 
awareness about child protection, and by supporting community prevention mechanisms in the form of 
the RECOPEs. This would influence and prevent the causes of child separation and abandonment, for 
example by raising awareness of the fallacy of child witchcraft and increasing the denunciation of 
abuse. The project also planned to raise awareness through theater and campaigns in the media. 
On the other hand, the project also sought to intervene downstream to help the children already living 
outside their families. As children are often subject to arrest, the project envisioned legal support to 
CCL and support to the juvenile justice system to provide them with greater legal protection. 
The project aimed to reunite children with their families and provide financial support to the most 
vulnerable families in the form of IGAs. Agreements were made with renovated schools to ensure free 
schooling for vulnerable children. The objective of these reintegration activities was to ensure the 
children stayed reunited with their families and to prevent new separations. 
In addition, there were activities to support partner organizations involved in reunification, such as 
training on the implementation of acceptable standards, and activities to strengthen advocacy and 
coordination and consultation between stakeholders. The combination of these approaches gave 
the project balance in its response to child separation and abandonment, with the various activities 
complementing each other. 
The prior existence of support facilities for children in the intervention cities and SC teams qualified 
in the field of child protection meant that the project was built on solid foundations. 
2.3. Consistency with the needs of target groups
In April 2006, some months before the start of the 2006-2009 project, an independent consultant 
produced an evaluation of a previous USAID-funded project that had similar goals5
. Focus groups 
were then conducted with children and parents. This participative approach enabled a statement of 
needs to be produced, the selection of target groups for the new project to be refined, and some 
activities to be realigned. The evaluation highlighted the impact of certain tools developed in the 
previous project (theater performed by children, informal discussions with pastors and with parents), 
tools that were used again in the 2006-2011 project. 
Similarly, the 2009 project extension took into account some of the recommendations of the mid￾term 2008 evaluation which had conducted focus groups with beneficiaries, and introduced new 
activities such as the establishment of IGAs for reunited families. 
Based on discussions with beneficiaries and communities in general, the project as a whole 
responded to the requirements of children and families. All beneficiaries and partners 
acknowledged the importance of this project, which is all the more relevant as SC is one of the main 
international NGOs to deal with the problems of separated and abandoned children. In Mwene Ditu, 
SC is the first and still the only international NGO to have been involved in the reunification of children 
with their families and their reintegration therein. In Mbuji Mayi, SC is one of two international NGOs to 
be intervening in the field of child protection, the other being the International Catholic Child Bureau 
(BICE), and their activities on the ground complement each other. 
However, although the decision to introduce new activities in 2009 was well received, they were 
implemented without a detailed evaluation of the needs of beneficiaries and partners. Many of them 
expressed regret for not having participated in the development of the project, which they believe 
would have avoided the pitfalls, notably in the design of the IGAs6
. 
 
5
 Gambino, April 2006
6
 See Chapter 3: efficiency
15 
2.4. Geographic focus of the intervention
The project ran from 2006 to 2011 in four target cities: Kinshasa, Bukavu, Mbuji Mayi and Mwene Ditu. 
In 2006 a survey conducted by the NGO REEJER and funded by UNICEF found that over 13,000 
children were living on the streets of Kinshasa7
. 
Community mobilization was conducted in two of the capital’s 24 municipalities (Masina et 
Kimbanseke), while the project’s other components (legal protection and reunification/reintegration) 
were implemented across the whole city. According to the SC team, these two municipalities were 
chosen based on an analysis of which municipalities were originally home to the abandoned and 
separated children in the partner transit centers. We were not able to verify this. If so, the project’s 
geographic focus was appropriate: the municipalities where more children were abandoned were the 
ones targeted for prevention, while legal support and child reunification happened throughout the city. 
The intervention in Mbuji Mayi and Mwene Ditu followed a survey in 2006 of children from broken 
families, funded by SC and conducted by the National Institute of Statistics8
. The survey recorded 
2036 street children in Mbuji Mayi and 449 in Mwene Ditu. Following this survey, SC implemented 
community mobilization activities in three municipalities out of five, prioritizing those where the need 
was greatest. Legal protection and reunification activities were conducted throughout the cities. The 
project’s geographic focus was consistent with the 2006 data. 
However, SC’s partners in Mbuji Mayi emphasized that the economic crisis had severely undermined 
families in all municipalities, particularly from 2009 onwards, and that the needs of the two 
municipalities where community mobilization had not been implemented had become at least as 
pressing. Towards the end of the project SC implemented some activities to meet those needs, but 
their impact was insufficient. It is unfortunate that SC reacted too late in this respect. 
The project established RECOPEs in Bukavu and the surrounding area, the latter being appropriate 
given the flow of children into the city. However, legal protection activity was limited to Bukavu city. 
According to the partner we met, this was despite the fact that several legal aid actors were already 
working with children in the city to the exclusion of those outside it. In his view, needs outside the city 
were very great. We were unable to verify this information. 
2.5. Consistency with national and international policies and strategies
Children from broken families are one of the target groups of a new national action plan for orphans 
and vulnerable children (OVC) living in the DRC (2010-2014). It defines OVC as “children who have 
lost their father, their mother or both their parents, or who live outside the family unit”9
.
The guiding principle of the plan is that the main responsibility for child protection lies with the 
family10. It emphasizes reintegration into the family and states that transit centers should only be a 
temporary solution for OVC11. SC’s approach has been in line with this: family reunification has been 
at the heart of their activities, as opposed to placing children in institutional accommodation. SC’s 
intervention has also resulted in many accommodation centers focusing on family reunification. 
The action plan emphasizes building the capacity of the Ministry of Social Affairs, supporting 
families and strengthening community prevention mechanisms. SC was already doing these 
things several years before the publication of this document. 
Further, SC adapted to changes in context. The Child Protection Act of 2009 was completely 
integrated with the project, resulting in awareness sessions, training of judicial staff and social 
workers, distribution of copies of the text, and advocacy. 
In this sense, SC’s project was consistent with national child protection policy. 
 
7
 UNICEF REJEER census, Kinshasa, December 2006
8
 INS 
9
 National action plan for orphans and vulnerable children in DRC (2010-2014), p.24.
10 Ibid, p.42.
11Ibid, p. 53.
16 
It was also fully consistent with the guiding principles of the "Better Care Network" (BCN), a 
group of organizations specialized in the field of child protection: UNICEF, CARE USA, Firelight 
Foundation and Save the Children. The two main goals of BCN are: 
• To reduce child separation and abandonment - which was the overall objective of SC’s project; 
• Reuniting children with their families, whenever possible and appropriate - which was at the heart 
of the project. 
The project was also in line with the priorities of donors and other international organizations in 
the DRC. Since 2002 USAID has been giving financial support to several child protection programs. 
Other donors, such as the World Bank, DFID, GTZ, and the French and Belgian development 
organizations, also support NGOs in similar areas. Two UN agencies are closely involved in child 
protection: UNICEF, which leads the Groupe de Travail sur la Protection de l’Enfant (GTPE - working 
group on child protection), and MONUSCO, which focuses on the problems of sexual violence and 
legal protection. 
3. PROJECT EFFECTIVENESS AND EQUITY 
To what extent were the development intervention’s objectives achieved or expected to be achieved, given their 
relative importance?
3.1. General analysis of the logical framework
The logical framework of the initial project (2006-2009) was, in general, well written and specific. 
The indicators were generally in line with the SMART approach (Specific, Measurable, Agreed-upon, 
Realistic and Time-based). However, no staff were dedicated to project monitoring and evaluation 
(M&E). According to the personnel interviewed, the data required by donors was compiled monthly 
and quarterly to facilitate reporting, but there was no document that dealt specifically with monitoring. 
This information could not be verified: we only found quarterly reports from the mission prior to 2009. 
To remedy this shortcoming, a staff member was specifically assigned to M&E from 2009 onwards. 
However, the monitoring itself was complicated by omissions in the project extension’s logical 
framework. 
Indeed the logical framework was rather vague. Quantifiable targets were either listed as both 
"expected outputs" and "indicators" or were simply not given, even though an audit conducted by 
USAID in 2008 emphasized the importance of having specific, measurable objectives for each 
activity12. To remedy this lack of precision, SC teams set targets for certain activities after the start of 
the project extension. An “output tracker” document was developed for monthly monitoring of the 
project. At the end of Year 4, the objectives were reviewed to better take into account the results of the 
past year. 
Nevertheless, these monitoring activities did not produce all the necessary data. There are 
inconsistencies in the output tracker document; deliverables were often underestimated or 
overestimated. Thus there are often stated success rates of 600% or 700%. However, the data 
seems reliable for the most part, even if it cannot be systematically compared to a relevant result. 
3.2. Analysis of activity implementation
Our survey of beneficiaries, partners and available documents shows that the project has been very 
effective in some areas, but the evidence is mixed in others. There is universal agreement that the 
security environment only had minimal impact on the implementation of activities. The only reported 
impact was that some activities were suspended during the unrest of the pre-election period. 
 
12USAID/GUEYE audit, November/December 2008
17 
3.2.1. Legal protection
Protection of child abuse victims
The project was successful. Our survey of partners reveals that community members referred many 
abuse cases to legal protection partners and that they were monitored well. According to the data 
available, 170 perpetrators were prosecuted in the four project cities between 2009 and 2011, and 230 
children received legal support at court. The number of denunciations increased sharply during the 
project. 
In Mbuji Mayi, the project exceeded expectations: SC’s negotiations with a hospital led to free 
medical certificates for child victims, essential to initiate court proceedings against perpetrators. In 
Bukavu, the lawyer in charge of legal protection took on cases relating to daughters’ inheritance: girls 
are often denied their inheritance simply because of their gender. 
Figure1: Change in the number of child abuse victims receiving legal support
Protection of children in conflict with the law
The project was partially effective. The judicial system actors are particularly pleased with their 
training on the Child Protection Act, although according to partners the training of judiciary police 
officers (OPJs) remains insufficient, and because the mobility of trained personnel is high, SC had to 
repeat training at certain sites. 
SC support to prison visits was successful. There is general agreement that the OPJ no longer keep 
children in prison to the same extent in the target cities. Children released from prison and their 
parents confirm the effectiveness of the legal support. According to the available data more than 800 
children were released from prison in the three cities during the last two years of the project. 
However, once the children were released, the project was unable to overcome the difficulties of 
monitoring CCL from broken families. Many returned to the streets, usually after a few days in a 
semi-open center, and were then not monitorable by social workers. According to the legal personnel 
interviewed this is a significant problem that means they don’t know where to place these children. The 
issue is exacerbated by the lack of EGEEs (state establishments for care and education) or other 
suitable infrastructure. 
18 
Implementation and dissemination of the Child Protection Act (CPA)
The project was successful. The CPA was adopted in 2009, thanks to the support and advocacy of 
SC, UNICEF and other organizations, both national and international. SC was particularly well-suited 
to deal with this legislative change, and soon after publication began to publicize and circulate the new 
legislation, and to support the Kinshasa juvenile court. According to those partners interviewed, not 
enough of this work was done in Bukavu before the SC base closed. 
3.2.2. Reunification and reintegration 
Reunification 
In terms of reunification, which was the heart and raison d’être of the project, the objectives were 
met and even exceeded. All families and partners surveyed stressed the effectiveness of the 
reunification program. In just the last two years, 3,283 children were reunited with their families in 
the four project sites (the target was 3,200). 
According to the partner organizations in charge of reunification, improving reception sites and 
professionalizing teams through training on the IDMRS process were instrumental in achieving this 
result. 
Figure 2: Change in the number of reunifications
The foster family pilot project in Bukavu was fairly successful, but it did not reach its target of sixty 
children being cared for by ten families. Six families signed agreements with SC to care for children. 
These families were provided with mattresses, clothing, and hygiene products, and were responsible 
for caring for children prior to their reunification. Each family was compensated to the tune of US$3 per 
day per child. This system worked well during the project and the two families surveyed gave positive 
feedback about their experiences. However, the project ended when SC left Bukavu because it had 
been dependent on the compensation payments. 
Reunification appears to have been largely sustainable. In the last year of the project, the 
percentage of reunified children still with their families six months after reunification was 87%, i.e. 
there was a failure rate of 13%. This success rate is close to the 90% target. 
However, the success rate probably could have been higher. We will see later that the partners had 
to increase the reunification rate because they felt under constant pressure to achieve the targets 
outlined in their contract13
. 
 
13 See Chapter 5.1: Analysis of partnerships
19 
Reintegration by IGA
The reintegration results are weaker. In general, the majority of IGAs were not very successful, even 
though there was often US$10-15 remaining one year from the start. There were several causes: 
• The IGA grant given to each family was very small (US$75 in Bukavu, US$100 in the other cities), 
and was often not enough to purchase the necessary equipment. For example, buying a bag of 
secondhand clothes costs US$150-300 at market in Kinshasa. In addition, the IGA money was 
often used by very poor families to help deal with the first unforeseen need, such as health care, 
or other problems. Because of this, one of SC’s partners refused to implement the IGA system in 
Kinshasa. 
• The IGA grant was allocated per reunified child, regardless of the number of children at home: a 
family with five children received the same amount as a family with only one child. 
• The IGAs were very slow to start, in some cases a year after project identification and training of 
beneficiaries. The budgeted amounts were often not appropriate to the situation. 
• In Kinshasa and Bukavu, where there were many families to support and the logistical resources 
of SC were limited, the IGA budget was given to partner organizations which were in turn charged 
with making purchases in discussion with families. In Kinshasa, the misappropriation of funds
by three partners led to the dissolution of their contracts. In Mbuji Mayi and Mwene Ditu, 
purchases were made directly by the SC logistics team. Although this approach avoided fund 
misappropriation, it could not be used to deal with a large number of families. This would have 
required a dedicated logistics team albeit for a short period. At the time, SC’s logistical team was 
spread over other projects. 
• The method for monitoring IGAs had not been well explained to partners. Not knowing how to 
follow up, partners were unable to support families whose IGAs were not working. 
• In Bukavu, the partner responsible for IGAs changed in August 2010, just months before the 
closure of SC’s base. No training on IGA management was conducted with families. 
For many parents, although the system was not sustainable the IGAs were useful and helped them 
through a difficult period. One parent explained that although one of his children had died, thanks to 
the IGAs he was able to save the others. 
Schooling
The project was partly successful. A dozen schools were renovated in the four cities between 2006 
and 2011. 
This initiative helped to ensure that a large 
number of children received schooling in a 
decent environment, over and above the 
targeted children for whom it was free. 
In Kinshasa, success was limited. 
Because the city spans such a large area 
some reunified children lived so far from 
the nearest renovated school that they 
gradually stopped attending. 
Because the project teams did not monitor 
these children, they were unaware that 
they had stopped attending in the course 
of the year. 
The project was successful in the other 
cities, at least up to its completion14
. 
 Tshibangu school, Mbuji Mayi, renovated by the project 
 
14 See Chapter 7: Project sustainability
20 
3.2.3. Community Mobilization 
Supporting community mobilization mechanisms
Supporting the RECOPEs was a success. Several RECOPEs and children’s clubs were created 
during the project. All RECOPE members (adults, girls and boys) were directly elected by 
communities. In turn, the members elected their leadership. One RECOPE was established per 
municipality, along with a corresponding children’s club. 
Once a RECOPE was established, SC provided various types of training so that it could implement 
activities independently. Thus the RECOPEs were trained in areas such as planning, management, 
and child protection. This enabled them to conduct awareness-raising activities in the community. 
Everyone said they were pleased with this support. 
EWSs were established that enabled rapid detection of a new child arriving on the streets or in the 
markets. 
Community awareness
The project was successful. The awareness-raising activities were highly valued both by beneficiaries 
and by the RECOPEs and children’s clubs that conducted them having been trained by SC personnel. 
Over 800 causeries were held by RECOPEs in the last two years of the project, affecting over 50,000 
people. In addition, 54 theater for development performances were given by children’s clubs, reaching 
more than 3500 people (mostly adults). All beneficiaries surveyed said they learned a lot about child 
protection from the community awareness activities. They also said they understood children’s needs 
better, and that having acquired a good knowledge of children’s rights they had changed their 
behavior towards their own. We return to this activity in detail in the section on project impact. 
In addition, awareness was raised using the media (television and local radio). Professional theater 
companies also contributed by giving numerous performances about child protection. 
3.3. Coverage of intended beneficiaries
3.3.1. Identification of target groups 
The 2006-2011 USAID-funded project had targeted several target groups of children15 : 
• Children accused of witchcraft: According to some NGOs, accusations of witchcraft are 
responsible for 70-80% of child separation and abandonment. 
• Children in conflict with the law. These children are often arbitrarily arrested and detained for 
long periods. 
• Orphaned children or those made vulnerable by HIV/AIDS. Such children are neglected and 
particularly discriminated against. 
• Child abuse victims. It was essential to target such children as they do not have enough access 
to legal or other forms of support. 
• Child workers. These children are mostly found in urban areas where they work or beg in order to 
support themselves. In Mbuji Mayi, many work in the mines. 
• Child mothers. Many girls become mothers as a result of having been raped. Invariably they do 
not know how to support a child and receive no support from their families. The majority live on the 
streets and turn to prostitution for survival. 
Every group was reached successfully apart from child mothers, orphans and those made vulnerable 
by HIV/AIDS. 
 
15 The following information is from the 2006-2009 USAID project document.
21 
Two studies were made of teenage mothers: one in Bukavu in 2007 (we were unable to find this 
document), the other in Mbuji Mayi by SC in 2008. The latter’s objective was to obtain basic 
information on this target group’s situation at the start of the project16
. 
A mid-term evaluation of the 2006-2009 project in 2008 emphasized that the project’s intervention had 
not been sufficiently focused on the most vulnerable, specifically child mothers and children living 
with HIV. Subsequently, another study17conducted in 2010 again highlighted the shortcomings of the 
project in terms of interventions for child mothers, orphans and children affected by HIV/AIDS. 
Despite these studies and assessments the situation had not changed by the end of the project; these 
two target groups were omitted. Even if they have been affected by the project (for example 
because some street children are affected by or have HIV), nothing was done to include them 
specifically. Several partners told us they believe dealing with child mothers should be a priority. 
No doubt because of this, some partners proceeded in isolation to reunify these children with their 
families. The partners interviewed reported fifteen such cases across the four cities. 
In addition, the situation was ameliorated by the change in communities’ behavior towards children 
due to their increased awareness of child rights as a result of project activities. Child mothers were 
included as parents in the relevant causeries, separate causeries were held on the issue of child 
mothers, and there were theater productions to raise awareness of HIV/AIDS. 
3.3.2. Gender mainstreaming 
Although not all the planned activities that were to be focused on girls took place18
, gender equality 
was a cross-cutting theme that informed the majority of activities. 
For example, gender specification was part of all data collection tools in the field, enabling the 
participation of women and girls in activities to be monitored. Table 3 below shows that girls 
constitute nearly half of all reunified children. Because girls are more frequently victims of abuse, 
particularly sexual violence, than boys, they represent 74% of those who received legal support. They 
represent just 13% of all children in conflict with the law to have been supported by the project, but this 
is because they are less likely than boys to be arrested by the police and/or prosecuted. 
Gender was also taken into account when forming the RECOPEs, with each district electing two men, 
two women, a boy and a girl. Gender equality was also encouraged in the children’s clubs that were 
established during the project. 
 
16 The study reported 823 child mothers in the city, of which 31 (4%) had been rejected by their families. However, 
it suffered from important limitations. Because it used a door to door approach, it seems not to have been able to 
cover the girls on the streets.
17SC, August 2010.
18 I.e. vocational training for girls and the specific targeting of single mothers.
22 
Table 3 Some data on the number of beneficiaries by gender
City Girls Boys TOTAL 
Year 4 + 
Year 5)
Child victims receiving 
legal support 
Kinshasa 107 20 
230 Mbuji Mayi and Mwene 
Ditu 59 21 
Bukavu 3 20 
TOTAL 169 61
Children in conflict with 
the law supported in the 
court system 
Kinshasa 27 271 
575 Mbuji Mayi and Mwene 
Ditu 44 201 
Bukavu 3 20 
TOTAL 74 492
Children reunited with 
their families 
Kinshasa 894 560 
3283 Mbuji Mayi and Mwene 
Ditu 723 1028 
Bukavu 7 71 
TOTAL 1624 1659
4. PROJECT IMPACT 
What are the medium-term and long-term positive and negative effects produced by the intervention? 
4.1. Positive effects
The field visits, reports, focus groups and interviews collectively show that the project has had a very 
significant positive impact on both direct and indirect beneficiaries. 
Number of separated and abandoned children
Studies to ascertain the number of children living on the streets were conducted by SC and its 
partners early in the project19. However, because no survey was conducted at the end of the project it 
is impossible to quantify its actual impact20
. 
Respondents are divided in their estimation of the numbers of separated and abandoned children after 
the project’s end. Some believe there are just as many as before, others that there are fewer. 
Whatever the nominal figures are, they would not tell the whole story, as the socio-economic crisis has 
contributed to an increase in the number of children being separated from their families. Many partners 
feel that SC’s intervention reduced the negative impacts of an extremely difficult environment. 
Partners and members of the community in Kinshasa particularly welcomed SC’s intervention with 
pastors. All respondents noted a marked decline in the number of children accused of witchcraft
in the revivalist churches, where children are sometimes abused during exorcism ceremonies. 
Through organizing peer causeries SC was the leading organization in preventing cases of child 
abuse. 
 
19 In Kinshasa, more than 13,000 were identified in 2006; and a survey funded by SC reported 2,036 in Mbuji 
Mayi and 449 in Mwene Ditu. No data was made available for Bukavu.
20 Although surveys were meant to be taken in 2009 at the end of the initial project, they never were.
23 
Raising awareness in parents and children
All members of the community valued the awareness-raising activities. Everyone said they now have a 
better understanding of children’s rights and the Child Protection Act. This is confirmed by two internal 
evaluations of the level of parents’ knowledge conducted in Mbuji Mayi and Kinshasa21
. 
Many parents feel their behavior towards their children has changed as a result of the awareness￾raising activities conducted by the RECOPEs and the children’s clubs, and their interaction with the 
project partners at the time of reunification and during monitoring. This change in behavior was 
confirmed by the children we interviewed, whether reunited with their families or back on the streets. 
However, such behavioral change is not always enough to prevent separation. These families are 
generally in a very precarious socio-economic situation and often lack the means to give more than 
one meal per day to their children, to the extent that they eat more often living on the street. 
Finally, according to partners the number of denunciations of abuse rose sharply in the community, 
particularly at RECOPE listening posts. This was made possible by awareness-raising sessions and 
community protection systems such as the EWSs and RECOPEs. 
Strengthening partner capacity
The capacity building activities were valued highly by state and non-state partners, whether in training, 
coordination or provision of equipment (such as mattresses or IT and office equipment). 
Training on the IDMRS process and on the implementation of standards enabled partners to 
become more professional and improve their performance, sustainably placing them at the center 
of local child protection. The teams, some of which used to have no theoretical knowledge, are now 
much better trained and prepared for field work. The partners also reported a greater recognition of 
their activity by the authorities and by communities. 
Judicial actors welcomed SC’s legal protection activities. Save the Children is generally seen as the 
only international NGO that contributed to the training of legal staff on the Child Protection Act, its 
dissemination and publicization, helping to overcome government deficiencies in this area. However, 
there still remains much to be done, including training of OPJs. The large scale dissemination of the 
CPA was highly valued. 
By organizing regular meetings with all project partners, SC strengthened the case referral system and 
created synergies between actors who were previously working in the same area unbeknownst 
to one another. In Mwene Ditu for example, before the project began the Peace Court was unaware 
that social workers were monitoring children in conflict with the law. SC contributed to the 
strengthening of the Division of Social Affairs (DIVAS), which is again at the center of the child 
protection system. 
Supporting national and international policies
In contrast to those organizations which advocate accommodation centers, SC has provided 
sustainable support to the family reunification approach through the implementation of its project 
and by training numerous state and non-state partners. The harmonization of interventions on the 
ground is one of the major impacts of the project and is in line with national and international policies 
on separated children. 
The adoption of the Child Protection Act in 2009 is the second major impact. Effective advocacy by 
Save the Children and UNICEF, together with other national and international actors, led to the 
adoption of the CPA. This was a major breakthrough for the protection of children across the 
country, leading to for example: the setting up of juvenile courts, the existence of child rights and 
duties towards children, greater family responsibility, and the protection of children against abuse. 
 
21 SC, Mbuta, October 2011. Due to the absence of a control group these results should be viewed with caution.
24 
Women's empowerment and poverty reduction
Beyond the project objectives, SC has also to a small extent contributed to poverty reduction and the 
empowerment of women through its IGA program: the majority of those trained in IGA management 
were women. Furthermore, a proportion of the projects were a success: some parents are now able to 
pay their child’s school fees. 
4.2. Unforeseen adverse effects
Conflict creation in communities
The project resulted in conflicts between RECOPE members and revivalist churches in Kinshasa, 
where pastors allowed RECOPEs to conduct awareness-raising sessions in their churches. When the 
state wanted to close the churches in order to put an end to child exorcism, pastors blamed the 
RECOPEs. 
Other conflicts were created within a RECOPE in Bukavu following SC’s funding of an IGA: there was 
disagreement among RECOPE members, the IGA failed and conflicts persist within this community. 
Seeing that other partners received higher payments, some project partners decided to expand their 
activities to obtain more funding from SC. In Bukavu, the RECOPEs started implementing family 
reunifications to get more money from SC. Thus the project resulted in new activities that were not 
always controlled or coordinated. 
5. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 
To what extent was the way in which the project management was organized within the structure and 
with partners appropriate for the achievement of results? 
5.1. Assessment of partnerships
5.1.1. Choice of and changing partners 
Each activity was carried out with one or more partners. 
Legal protection
The project had two principal state partners in the area of legal protection: The Division for Justice, 
which operates in the domain of legal protection (legal assistance for children in conflict with the law, 
magistrate training, advocacy) and DIVAS, the government agency responsible for social affairs, 
whose social workers were involved through social surveys and the monitoring of CCL. 
Partnerships were made with local non-state organizations to ensure the implementation of legal 
assistance for child victims and CCL in the cities of Kinshasa, Mbuji Mayi and Bukavu. Only the project 
in Mwene Ditu did not have a partner for this activity. 
In all three cities, there was a change of partners during the project for various reasons: 
• In Kinshasa, the partnership with the LIZADEEL (African league for the rights of children and 
students) broke down due to conflictual relations and a new partnership was established with CODE 
(coalition of NGOs for the rights of the child). 
• In Mbuji Mayi, the partnership with Avocats des droits de l’Homme (lawyers for human rights) 
was terminated in 2008 due to difficulties in achieving objectives; the new partner was APDDEF 
(action for the protection and defense of the rights of children and women) 
• In Bukavu, the partnership with Action pour l’Education aux Droits (action for human rights 
education) was terminated in 2007 and a new partnership was established in 2008 with an individual 
25 
lawyer, Mr. Anaclet. As there were no project staff present at the time of our visit to Bukavu, we do not 
know the reasons behind the termination of the partnership. 
All three of the new partners were already active in the domain of the legal protection of CCL and 
other children. Whereas APDDEF and CODE were organizations, SC also entered into a partnership 
with a lawyer acting alone. As we will see later, this led to the discontinuation of the activity with the 
termination of financing22
. 
Reunification and Reintegration
In the four project cities, SC established partnerships with one or more centers, as well as with DIVAS, 
whose role was the reunification of children with their families and their reintegration via IGAs. DIVAS 
was directly involved in the implementation of the “reunification and reintegration” activity, as were the 
partnering transit centers. 
To select centers, an institutional diagnosis was carried out in the existing transit centers or shelters 
in the cities. In Kinshasa, this diagnosis was carried out as part of a joint UNICEF / REEJER / SC 
mission before the beginning of the project in 2006. The criteria included the age of the structure and 
its financial management capacity. 
Most of the centers with which SC established partnerships had low technical qualifications and 
capacities in terms of taking care of the children. There were very few qualified social workers. This 
did not prevent the partnership being established. SC then provided the centers with in-depth training 
in a large number of areas in order to strengthen their capacity to manage a follow-up center. Norms 
were established and reunification processes developed. 
Several partnerships were dissolved during the project. This was caused by: 
• an inability to achieve objectives. This was the case for the two centers in Kinshasa, three in Mbuji 
Mayi and one in Bukavu 
• the discovery of the misappropriation of funds destined for families: this was the case for three 
centers in Kinshasa (including DIVAS) 
• the lack of financing for activities: this was the case for one center in Kinshasa, which opted to 
work with UNICEF. 
In Kinshasa, rather than carrying out another diagnosis, the decision was made to work more 
intensively with the remaining partners by financing more staff per organization. By avoiding 
additional training this made it possible to accelerate implementation and the achievement of targets. 
Generally speaking, these changes were beneficial where there had been problems in obtaining 
results. Although the number of reunifications fell initially, they started rising again after a few months. 
In Bukavu, the situation was different. The partner, PEDER (diocesan program for the care of street 
children), was the only structure financed by the project. SC turned to DIVAS which provided five 
names of centers, of which Famille Espoir (hope family) became Save the Children’s new partner in 
August 2010, i.e. four months before the close of SC’s base. 
The change of partner was not without consequences in this case. In addition to having decided 
to pay the full cost of schooling for the reunified children using its own funds, in the space of four 
months, Famille Espoir had to: 
• be trained in the management of a transit center and in the IDMRS process, 
• proceed with reunifications, 
• monitor the children in these families, 
• set up IGAs in the families – some families had been pre-identified by the former partner and did 
not know the new one, others were newly reunified families, 
• monitor these IGAs. 
 
 
22See chapter 7: Project sustainability
26 
Although Famille Espoir devoted itself wholeheartedly to the project, it did not have the time or the 
project-specific experience necessary to really appropriate it. In Bukavu, the failure rate for 
reunifications was 21% during these four months23
. 
Community mobilization
For community mobilization, SC worked principally with RECOPEs, children’s clubs and EWSs. All 
these structures were established and strengthened by SC. There were no changes of partner in this 
area. 
SC also created partnerships with theater companies and the media (TV, community radio stations, 
associations of journalists), as well as mobile public awareness teams which assisted RECOPE 
members with their awareness campaigns. 
5.1.2. Partnership implementation 
All the partners we met were happy to have worked with SC and hoped that the partnership would 
continue. 
The study carried out on these partners showed that the chain of communication between their 
structure and SC was generally effective, efficient and fluid. This was made possible in particular 
by the pre-paid phone cards that were attributed to partners. SC took the time to listen to the requests 
and needs of its partners and helped to find solutions when difficulties arose. One person in each 
structure was appointed to be in charge of communication with SC, thereby facilitating exchanges. 
Although SC personnel changed several times during the project, the partners were always informed 
of the changes in advance and given the contact details of the person in question. 
However, one exception was noted in Bukavu: one of the magistrates, who arrived a few months 
before the end of the project, complained of major communication problems. This seems anecdotal 
and is probably due to the magistrate having arrived so close to end of the project. 
Several partners complained of weaknesses in terms of the organization of activities: failure to 
respect activity schedules in Mbuji Mayi and Mwene Ditu and frequent improvisation in the 
implementation of awareness-raising activities in Bukavu. 
In addition, most partners, whether transit centers, RECOPEs or legal protection organizations, felt 
that the relations between the partners were imbalanced and were frustrated by this situation. 
They felt that the agreements were pre-established without any possibility of negotiation or addition 
of clauses, and that targets were set and imposed without taking into account realities in the field. 
For example, the organization operating in the field of legal protection in Kinshasa was supposed to 
take charge of four CCL and eight victims per month, which was far from realistic, and the transit 
centers had monthly targets of between seven and nine children to be reunited with their families. 
As a result, organizations with a good reputation were rejected during the course of the project 
because their reunification rate was below the fixed objectives. This placed considerable pressure 
on partners who were criticized for not having achieved their targets. One of the centers pointed out 
that the work rate could have led to hasty, improvised reunifications. 
The partners were often told that changes were not planned and therefore not budgeted. Only one 
contractual change was accepted in Mbuji Mayi with APDDEF (change from five to ten cases per 
month), even though this was not enough. In areas such as family reunification or the legal follow-up 
of CCL the project would have benefitted from a certain degree of flexibility. 
The organizations also regret their role sometimes being limited to merely executing orders and 
being considered as “children” by SC. In Kinshasa, partners mentioned that SC bought biscuits for 
discussion groups, as well as paper and pens for the first four months of the project. During this period 
no financial autonomy was granted to the RECOPEs, which had an impact on their appropriation of 
 
23 These figures were given by Famille Espoir.
27 
the project and the preparation of SC’s withdrawal, as we will see later24. However, SC did change its 
approach during the last year of the project and began to delegate small amounts to its partners. 
5.2. Project implementation methodology 
5.2.1. Participation of children 
The project made sure that children participated in most of the activities, not only as beneficiaries of 
the action, but also as agents of change. 
SC encouraged the participation of children in the everyday life of the transit centers. In some 
centers visited by the mission the children draw up the weekly activity schedule themselves. 
The creation of children’s clubs is another sign of this active participation: the children planned 
numerous interventions, organized children’s discussion groups and Theater for Development
activities (TD). TD consists of sketches performed by children on the basis of situations affecting 
them, this then being the starting point for discussions with the participants (adults and local 
authorities). The objective is to help children make a case for issues which they have identified 
themselves. 
These activities were well appreciated by the children, who felt that this means of expression enabled 
them to know their place better and demand that their rights be upheld. 
However, in Kinshasa, the children feel that their role is often limited to the execution of plans and the 
preparation of schedules and that they are not sufficiently involved in the decision making process by 
the adult RECOPE members. They explained that they would like to take part in decisions 
concerning the adults in the same way as the adults take part in decisions concerning them. 
The children’s clubs in Mbuji Mayi and Kinshasa also explained that they were not invited to take part 
in the workshops for the preparation of SC’s withdrawal. 
Even though they do effectively participate in the project, the children are sometimes limited to a 
lesser role than that of the adults. 
5.2.2. Arrangements for monitoring and evaluating the project, and their 
effectiveness 
A full range of tools was set up to enable the verification of the activities in the field as well as the 
monitoring of these activities. Below is a non-exhaustive list of the tools that were available and that 
we were able to identify during the mission: 
• Reunification forms per child 
• Identification forms for beneficiary families and a family development plan 
• Follow-up report for families with IGA support 
• Partner evaluation form; quarterly partner evaluation form 
• Weekly, monthly and quarterly reports from partners 
• EWS activity reports 
• “Legal assistance” documentation forms for children who are victims of abuse 
• Prison cell inspection reports and follow-up reports for CCL who have been reunited with their 
families 
• Awareness and community mobilization documentation forms on discussion groups together with 
an attendance sheet 
In addition, interviews have shown that the SC teams carried out very frequent field visits to assist 
their partners or check up on their activities, sometimes unannounced. 
 
24 See Chapter 7: Project sustainability
28 
Despite this, certain shortcomings were noted in the area of monitoring in the field. Certain activities 
did not receive sufficient supervision visits. This is the case for the follow-up of children in the 
rehabilitated schools, the follow-up of children released by the project and the monitoring of IGAs. 
Certain tasks are not actually carried out any more due to lack of human resources dedicated to the 
program. In Kinshasa, the person who used to be in charge of tracking the children in the schools 
changed position to work on the legal protection activities, such as carrying out visits to the holding 
cells, providing assistance at the children’s courts and legal assistance in cooperation with the 
partnering NGO. As a result, there was no one left to check on the children in the schools. 
There was also supposed to be a revision of the program every six months taking into 
consideration evaluations and surveys carried out by external consultants. Several examples show 
that even though program reviews were carried out, the programs were not always revised on the 
basis of the reviews. For example, the recommendation to include child mothers and to set 
quantifiable indicators and objectives was not followed up. 
5.2.3. Harmonization across the various intervention areas 
Measures were taken to achieve harmonization in terms of monitoring and evaluation: the “output 
tracker” document is a demonstration of this. In the same way, all of the tools used by the teams were 
the same between bases, which facilitated the collection and analysis of information. However, the 
analysis of data showed a relative absence of harmonization in the implementation of activities 
on the three sites. Only two experience sharing workshops were held between 2006 and 2011, which 
did not make it possible to share all the good practices between sites. This is even more of a pity 
considering that SC had set up frequent experience sharing meetings for its partners at each site. 
These exchanges would probably have made it possible to learn from the experience of the RECOPEs 
in Bukavu, which have been operational for much longer than those of the other cities. Nonetheless, it 
should be noted that on several occasions a member of staff went to another base to provide training 
or share tools. 
6. PROJECT EFFICIENCY 
To what extent were the desired effects obtained with the least possible resources (e.g. funds, 
expertise, time)? 
6.1. Financial management and allocation of funds 
As a financial audit of the program was carried out by the donor, the management of the financial 
resources and the monitoring of the expenditure initiation process were not included within the scope 
of the study. 
The cost-efficiency ratio of the project is not very good, particularly with regard to cascading grants, 
which amount to a total of around US$1,220,000. 
29 
 Figure 3: Breakdown of costs relating to the activities 
Formation – Training; Sensibilisation – Awareness; Visibilité – Visibility; 
Financements en cascade – Cascade financing
The majority of partners were unsatisfied with the amounts provided in the partnership 
agreements, which were considered to be largely insufficient, in particular the transport costs which 
did not even cover actual costs incurred. Amounts were allocated on a lump-sum basis and were the 
same whether the reunification took place in the city or several tens of kilometers away. In terms of 
reunifications, each field officer was attributed: 
• US$90 in transport costs 
• US$10 in meal allowance 
• US$10 in communication costs 
Several visits had to be carried out before the actual reunification could take place. The amounts were 
the same for the four cities involved in the program. 
Several partners also regretted the fact that it was not possible to carry out any child reunifications 
further afield from the intervention areas. In Kinshasa, two partners who considered that the funding 
received was insufficient with regard to results broke off relations with SC. 
The reunification line represented the highest budget line for the activities, with a total cost of around 
US$520,000, i.e. nearly half the cascading grants financing line. In this activity, the breakdown of 
costs between partners was not made on the basis of results. 
The partnership agreement effectively provided a fixed monthly amount to ensure that the objective 
was reached and the amount was committed whether the partner met, failed to meet or exceeded the 
objective. As such, if eight field officers were operating during a given month, the organization was 
allocated 8 x US$90 per month, even if only one or two reunifications were effectively completed. 
This approach was used in order to avoid destabilizing the centers that were not working only for SC 
and to avoid the centers trying to achieve unreasonable numbers of reunifications. 
However, this type of agreement led to frustration on the part of the partners who exceeded objectives. 
It also led to partnerships being terminated. Large amounts were spent for a result that was 
sometimes very limited. This could have been avoided if the agreements had been based on the 
number of reunifications actually achieved or at least if they had been based on the partners’ 
capacities. 
This method was also used for the agreements with the organization in charge of legal protection. This 
budget line corresponded to a total of around US$115,000. In one case, SC accepted the modification 
of the agreement with APDDEF to change from five to ten cases handled per month, even though this 
organization explained that it actually dealt with more than thirty cases each month. 
As for the temporary foster family pilot project, US$90 were spent per month per child, for a period of 
three months, not including reunification costs. However, it is not possible to compare these costs with 
the amount spent by the transit centers, because the accommodation costs were not paid by SC. 
Lastly, considerable amounts were spent for activities that were neither correctly prepared nor 
properly monitored. In the end, these activities were not successful. 
30 
This is the case for the IGAs, whose budget line corresponds to a total of around US$145,000. The 
amount per family was largely insufficient, which meant that the activities could not operate properly. 
The partners feel that they had warned the SC staff about this beforehand. There were also 
considerable delays in implementing this activity: for the first group of families the purchase of 
equipment for the IGAs was made more than six months after the identification of their activity and 
their training, which led to a major loss of information as well as a change in the cost of the projects. In 
addition, according to several partner organizations operating in the area of reunification, SC reacted 
relatively late and continued the project by training a second group of beneficiary families although 
major weaknesses had already been identified from the experience of the first group. 
We should also mention the rehabilitation of schools implemented by SC in order to ensure free 
schooling for vulnerable children. The total budget line for this activity was around US$140,000. In 
Kinshasa, the mission visited a school. Although this school was well maintained and housed more 
than 400 children, the project objective in terms of results for vulnerable children had not been 
reached at all. In 2011 there was no longer a single child reunited with his/her family by SC at school 
although the project was still in progress. This shows the shortcomings in terms of the follow-up of this 
activity. 
6.2. Staff allocation
The SC project staff profiles were coherent with the needs of the activities. The staff members that 
we met were qualified and devoted to the project. 
However, the number of staff members allocated to the project activities seems to be low 
considering the extent of the project: one Senior Field Officer and four Field Officers per site, including 
one person in charge of community mobilization, one in charge of legal protection, one in charge of 
reunification and one in charge of reintegration. The number of people assigned to project monitoring 
was not sufficient in view of the number of families, which left room for the misappropriation of funds 
by three of the ten partners in Kinshasa. 
In addition, there was only one person in charge of M&E for all the sites and this person had to be 
shared with other projects. Furthermore, in Kinshasa, the change of Field Manager during the course 
of the project had repercussions on the way in which the activities were managed. There were claims 
that not enough priority was given to team work, leading to gaps in the monitoring of the activities. 
7. PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY 
To what extent are the benefits resulting from the development action continuing beyond the end of 
the intervention? 
7.1. Assessment of the withdrawal plan
The question of sustainability was taken into account in the project extension document. A strategic 
reflection process was carried out on the RECOPEs, which had been set up in several of the countries 
in which SC operates and which still depend heavily on funding from the organization. One example to 
follow, mentioned in the extension of the project, was the autonomization of the RECOPEs in Uganda 
which went on to become known as “Organization à Base Communautaire” (community based 
organization). The plan was for precise measures to be taken during the first year of the extension: 
• Draw up a withdrawal strategy 
• Concentrate the RECOPE activities on the referral system rather than on the management of 
cases 
• Introduce new activities, such as training on fund collection. 
• Reinforce the coordination of the RECOPEs with governmental social structures. 
A part of these activities was carried out, in particular the preparation of the withdrawal strategy and 
the reinforcement of the coordination of the RECOPEs with the social structures. Apart from these 
aspects, the example of the Uganda RECOPEs was not followed – moreover, no document 
31 
concerning this experience is available at the SC premises in Kinshasa. This aspect never made it to 
the implementation stage. 
In order to help ensure the sustainability of the project, activity withdrawal plan exchange 
workshops were held with partners before the end of the project in Mbuji Mayi, Bukavu and Kinshasa. 
Whereas the exit strategy workshops in Kinshasa and Mbuji Mayi were held twelve and twenty-four 
months respectively before the end of the project, in Bukavu the workshop was organized only two 
months before the closure of the base. The decision to close the base was made only a few months in 
advance of its effective closure. In these circumstances, it is a positive factor that a workshop in 
preparation for the withdrawal was held at all. 
There was a considerable disparity in the extent to which the workshop recommendations were 
taken into account. 
In Kinshasa, according to the interviews and reports available, all the partners were in favor of the 
continuity of those activities which did not require financial backing. As for the other activities, the 
RECOPEs and certain transit centers proposed to create IGAs or develop existing activities in 
order to finance them, such as: community pharmacy, sewing workshop, bakery, cyber café, purchase 
of a fridge in order to sell cold water. 
Yet at the end of the project, no IGA had been set up. SC’s reticence to finance such activities 
essentially stems from problems encountered with the IGAs in the families. In addition, guidelines 
were adopted by the working group on child protection (GPTE)25 insisting on the community nature of 
the RECOPEs and on the voluntary service of its members. As such, it was mentioned that these 
guidelines contradicted the implementation of IGAs. Today, it should be noted that the activities are no 
longer financially viable and the RECOPEs are likely to cease to function correctly on a medium-term 
basis. 
The situation in Mbuji Mayi was similar to Kinshasa, the only difference being that the workshop 
resolutions were often too general. The recommendations seemed to evade the question of the 
need for funds and often mentioned the creation of coordination groups for the different actors (called 
synergies) or the simple continuation of the activity despite the end of the funding. Where there were 
concrete recommendations, such as the creation of self financing activities for the transit centers or 
the search for a vehicle to carry out visits to the holding cells, up to the end of 2011 they had not been 
carried out. The members of the team explained that they gave priority to reinforcing the 
coordination mechanisms rather than initiating expenses. 
 
25 GPTE terms of reference for community structures.
32 
In Bukavu, it was not possible to find the report on the workshop that was held in 2010. According to 
the partners, IGAs financed by SC were 
planned for the RECOPEs and Famille 
Espoir as well as the provision of equipment 
and means of transport. In this city, two 
organizations, the Nyangezi RECOPE and 
Famille Espoir, still have functional IGAs
and have managed to maintain the child 
protection activities. The IGAs make it 
possible to finance public awareness 
campaigns via the community radio station, 
the transport of participants to meetings and 
to pay for the cost of schooling for reunified 
children. According to the Nyangezi 
RECOPE, a nursery school for 75 children 
was financed thanks to the IGAs, but we 
were not able to visit it. The other IGAs were 
not successful, and in one case, the IGAs 
even created conflict between the 
members of the RECOPEs, leading to the 
dissolution of the RECOPE in question. 
Famille Espoir Canteen, Bukavu 
Apart from the IGAs, equipment supplies were also planned in order to enable the partners to continue 
operating, but in the end no equipment was received, except for one motorbike (DIVAS). 
Generally speaking, many consider that the plans were not respected. 
7.2. Assessing the sustainability of activities 
The evaluation mission noted the continuation of certain activities five months after the end of the 
project in Mbuji Mayi and Kinshasa – and after nearly seventeen months for the activities in Bukavu. 
There is not enough hindsight for the moment to be able to tell whether the activities will actually be 
sustained on a medium-term basis. Therefore, for the time being, we will report on what we observed 
in the field. 
7.2.1. Legal protection 
The legal protection activities are heavily dependent on external financing, such as for the payment of 
fees for legal assistance for CCL and victims of abuse, the existence of means of transport for visits to 
the holding cells and travel costs for CCL. 
In Mbuji Mayi and Kinshasa, the legal assistance continued, whether for the CCL or for child 
victims, but the number of beneficiaries fell sharply. The project nonetheless brought APDDEF, 
SC’s partner in Mbuji Mayi, into contact with MONUSCO, which now finances follow-up for victims of 
sexual violence. Certain activities that benefit child victims have therefore continued, but with a much 
more limited field of action. 
In Bukavu, the lawyer in charge of the project completely changed intervention area and now operates 
in the field of labor law in mines. No organization has taken over the project’s activities. 
Without any means of transport, the magistrates continue to visit holding cells in all the areas except 
for Tshilinge (on the outskirts of Mbuji Mayi), but less frequently. The same goes for social workers 
carrying out social studies and follow-up. According to the partners, children have again been held in 
cells for several days in a row, although this is less frequent than before. 
33 
7.2.2. Reunification and reintegration 
Most of the transit centers that we visited continue to carry out family reunifications, but the results 
are not as good as during the project. This is due to the fact that no one has replaced SC as far as the 
payment of transport costs is concerned: the reunification activities effectively require several visits to 
the family (mediation, monitoring of the children). These centers continue to operate using their own 
funds. 
The only center that receives funds thanks to the IGA financed by SC, in Bukavu, has stopped 
carrying out reunifications, having given priority to the payment of schooling costs for children who 
have been reunified with their families in order to ensure the sustainability of those reunifications. The 
effects on the children are therefore tangible. 
SC had assisted the transit centers with the implementation of tools to collect and monitor data. 
These tools are still used in all the functional centers visited by the mission and have been well 
appropriated. 
The temporary foster family pilot project in Bukavu was not sustained: no organization took over 
the financing of this activity. This was not the case for other SC projects: in Uvira, UNICEF took on the 
financing for a few families. 
As far as reintegration is concerned, a few rare IGAs continue to operate. No organization took over 
this activity. 
Furthermore, even if school renovations enabled a large number of children to study in better 
conditions, field visits and interviews conducted show that very few vulnerable children have 
continued their schooling thanks to this project in Kinshasa and Bukavu. In Kinshasa, we 
noticed that the children had stopped going to the school that we visited. In Bukavu, these children 
only continued to go to one school: according to the partners we met, the other schools turned away 
the children who did not pay school fees as soon as SC had withdrawn. In Mbuji Mayi and Mwene Ditu 
however, the project’s effect is sustained and several children who have been reunified with 
their families continue to attend school. 
7.2.3. Community Mobilization 
Generally speaking, the activities have continued, but on a reduced basis. The EWS continue to 
identify children in need, but to a lesser extent. Most of the RECOPEs and children’s clubs have 
maintained community awareness activities, even if the number of activities has decreased 
considerably in all the cities due to the absence of financing. Most of the RECOPEs set up by the 
project still exist, but their financial fragility makes them vulnerable: apart from one RECOPE in 
Bukavu, no other RECOPE has the means of financing its activities. In Mbuji Mayi, theater sessions 
still take place occasionally: the theater groups set up by the project make use of these sessions to 
pass on messages in favor of the protection of children. 
The partnership relations sometimes had a negative impact on the sustainability of the project, 
such as in Bukavu and Kinshasa where several of the RECOPEs that we met felt that they had been 
considered as “agents” of SC. Some consider that there is no need to continue the project since the 
departure of SC. In such cases, there was no real appropriation of the project by the communities. 
In Mbuji Mayi, all those involved in the community mobilization activities (RECOPE, theater groups, 
APPDEF, DIVAS, EWS, press, community health centers) grouped together within a new structure, la
Synergie des Mobilisateurs Communautaires (alliance of community mobilizers), in partnership 
with DIVAS. Internal rules have been drafted and are currently in the hands of the notary. This 
structure will start to look for funding. Coordination meetings between the child protection actors that 
were initiated by SC continue although less regularly. In Bukavu, Famille Espoir uses part of the funds 
from its IGA to cover the payment of transport costs for participants at the meetings. 
34 
Office used by La Synergie des Mobilisateurs Communautaires in Mbuji Mayi, belonging to a 
psychosocial clinic 
8. OVERALL ASSESSMENT, LESSONS LEARNED AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS 
Overall, the project was well conceived and coherent. It addressed existing needs. The project’s main 
activity of reunifying children with their families was successful. The failure rate six months after 
reunification was less than 15%. As the success rate of IGAs was low, we can conclude from this that 
the quality of the reintegrations themselves was high. 
At a broader level, SC contributed to the dissemination in several DRC cities of nationally and 
internationally recognized good practice in supporting vulnerable children (approach to family 
reunification, standards of care in centers). 
Some notable breakthroughs were made with partners during the project, for example: the adoption 
of the Child Protection Act, training of magistrates, juvenile court support, denunciation of child 
abuse, and community awareness. 
However, SC did not provide itself with the resources to match its ambitions. Nevertheless, although 
no study was undertaken to measure the actual impact of reunification activities on the problems of 
separated and abandoned children, partners and beneficiaries have noticed a sustainable 
improvement of the situation in several areas. For example, fewer children attending the revivalist 
churches, and the change in parents’ behavior. The project also helped strengthen the referral system, 
and placed local authorities at the heart of child protection, particularly the Division of Social Affairs 
and the Division of Justice. 
The methodology used to implement partnership agreements was not always appropriate, with some 
negative impacts on relationships with partners. Not enough support towards financial 
independence was given to the community structures created through the project. Teams sometimes 
lost sight of this objective because of focusing on activity implementation. The same was true for 
partner organizations involved in legal protection. This may affect the sustainability of the project’s 
preventive effects. 
35 
Needs assessment and adaptation to a changing context
Lesson learned: 
A needs assessment is essential before any project, and it must be supplemented by an analysis 
informed by beneficiaries and partners of the most appropriate way to implement activities. Regular 
project monitoring should enable rapid response to the identification of priority needs that were not 
apparent at the start of the project. 
Recommendations: 
• Conduct a needs assessment before the implementation of any project, with greater 
participation of beneficiaries and partners in planning activities. 
• For each activity systematically incorporate measurable targets and indicators as per the 
SMART approach (Specific, Measurable, Agreed-upon, Realistic and Time-based). 
• Strengthen project monitoring and evaluation (M&E) by reducing the number of indicators and 
simplifying them, and by having a staff member responsible for M&E on each site. 
• Analyze new needs as they arise and tailor activities as appropriate. 
Project implementation
Lesson learned: 
Deficiencies revealed by evaluations and studies conducted during a project should result in the 
reorientation of activities. 
Activities need to be better organized and monitored. 
SC should concentrate on activities that it specializes in. 
Recommendations: 
• Tailor the implementation of activities to the recommendations made by previous evaluations. 
• Improve the monitoring of activities by increasing the number of staff involved in the project 
and avoiding giving staff members too many responsibilities. 
• Develop activity plans in close collaboration with partners. 
• Focus its intervention on areas in which SC has expertise. 
• Advocate that other partners implement activities that are outside SC’s field of expertise. 
• Avoid delay in implementing activities, particularly after an initial training, for example in the 
case of IGAs. 
• Involve children more in the decisions that affect them. 
• Organize workshops to exchange experiences between teams from different sites. 
Partnership implementation
Lesson learned: 
Partnership agreements should be negotiated with the partners, so that they reflect their needs and 
capacities. 
Recommendations: 
• Rather than using standard contracts, negotiate them with partners to ensure a balanced 
relationship and consideration of the actual costs of activities. 
• Take into account a partner’s capacity when forming a contract. One way to enable 
responsiveness to a partner’s capacity would be to agree an initial contract of short duration 
with a negotiated objective, and to regularly review the objective with the partner. 
• Design the partnership agreements so that there is room for maneuver in case of the 
unexpected, and flexibility when results are difficult to achieve. 
36 
Impact assessment
Lesson learned: 
As a minimum, surveys should be taken at the start and end of the project in order to be able to 
assess the project’s impact on the overall goal. 
Recommendations: 
• Conduct systematic surveys at the beginning and end of the project to measure the impact of 
the activities on the project goal. 
Sustainability assessment
Lesson learned: 
The project’s sustainability could have been improved by greater involvement of communities at all 
stages of the project, in particular in the negotiation of partnership agreements with schools. 
Although workshops were held to prepare for SC’s withdrawal, they should have been centered on 
concrete activities with a better follow-up of recommendations. 
Recommendations: 
• Involve the community in the negotiation of partnership agreements and their monitoring 
• When choosing partners, give preference to those that operate in the relevant sector 
• Hold exit strategy workshops at least a year before the end of the project, and provide the 
resources to support project viability, including ring-fenced budgets for the exit strategy. After 
these workshops, negotiate and sign contracts with partners that state both parties’ obligations 
during the final year. For example, for SC this could be training in fundraising, financial 
empowerment of the organization, or IGAs. This would support the closure of the project and 
might help avoid conflicts in the community after SC’s withdrawal. 
• Advocate the resumption of certain activities by partner organizations, and, in conjunction with 
other institutions, advocate at a high level that the state be more involved in financing and 
supporting child protection activities (e.g. the construction of state-run day care and education 
centers; funding child transport). 
37 
Annexes
Annexe 1 : Bibliographie
COMITE D’APPUI AU TRAVAIL SOCIAL DE RUE, NGOIE KALANGA P. J., Eléments de gestion d’un 
centre d’hébergement, Juillet 2011 
GAMBINO A, Rapport d’évaluation du projet sur les enfants séparés et abandonnés « Fermer ‘Le 
robinet de la honte’ », Avril 2006 
INSTITUT NATIONAL DE LA STATISTIQUE, Direction provinciale du Kasai oriental, Rapport de 
l’étude sur les filles mères dans la ville de Mbuji Mayi, Janvier 2008 
INSTITUT NATIONAL DE LA STATISTIQUE, Direction provinciale du Kasai oriental, Recensement 
des enfants en situation de rupture des liens familiaux, Mbuji Mayi et Mwene Ditu, Avril 2006 
 
MINISTERE DES AFFAIRES SOCIALES, ACTION HUMANITAIRE ET SOLIDARITE NATIONALE, 
Plan d’action national en faveur des orphelines et enfants vulnérables vivant en RDC (2010-
2014),Octobre 2009 
NZITA KIKHELA P. D., Evaluation à mi-parcours du projet « Reduction of the separation and 
abandonment of children in DRC », Septembre 2008 
REEJER / UNICEF, Recensement des enfants de la rue de la ville province de Kinshasa, Décembre 
2006 
SC, Etude sur l’évolution de la situation des groupes cibles du programme USAID, Août 2010 
SC, LUABA B., Guide pratique de mise en place des systèmes d’alerte précoce (SAP), Mars 2007 
SC, MBUTA F., Evaluation interne des activités de sensibilisation à travers les causeries des parents 
sur les droits et protection de l’enfant dans les villes de Mbuji Mayi et Mwene Ditu, et à l’approche 
Boite à image dans les sensibilisations, Octobre 2011 
SC, MBUTA F., Evaluation interne des activités de sensibilisation à travers les causeries des parents 
sur les droits et protection de l’enfant à Kimbanseke et Masina, et à l’approche Boite à image dans les 
sensibilisations, Octobre 2011 
SC, Rapport de l’atelier d’échange sur le manuel des partenariats et la pérennité des acquis du projet 
à Kinshasa, Juin 2011 
SC, Rapport de l’atelier de revue annuelle et échange sur la pérennité des acquis du projet, Mbuji 
Mayi, Octobre 2010 
SC, Atelier de réflexion portant sur le plan de retrait progressif de SC auprès des RECOPE 
Kimbanseke et Masina, Décembre 2009
SC, Rapports trimestriels et annuels 
Rapport de consultance ESA, août 2010 
USAID, GUEYE A., Bilan et leçons apprises de l’audit USAID, novembre – décembre 2008. 
38 
Annexe 2 : Planning
dimanche 5 Analyse documentaire, préparation des 
outils 
lundi 6 
Envoi inception report, cadrage mission 
avec responsable protection, réunion 
skype avec consultant national 
Réunion skype avec consultant international 
mardi 7 Analyse documentaire. Préparation 
planning et RDV 
Lecture inception report 
mercredi 8 
jeudi 9 Organisation RDV et logistique Analyse documentaire + Voyage 
international 
vendredi 10 Voyage international 
samedi 11 KIN 
8h-9h30: Equipe protection Kinshasa (Madho) 
10h-11h: Visite centre PECS et entretien responsable et éducateurs 
11h30-13h: Entretien GETS 
14h00-17h: analyse des fiches de suivi et 
monitoring 
11h30-13h: Entretien avec les parents d'enfants 
réunifiés 
15h-16h: FG leaders religieux et chefs de 
quartiers Masina 
dimanche 12 KIN 
8h30-10h: Visite centre Banayaproveda et entretien responsable et éducateurs 
11h-12h30: FG adultes RECOPE Kimbanseke et Masina 
12h30-13h30: FG enfants RECOPE 
Kimbanseke et Masina (club d'enfants) 
13h-14h: FG parents bénéficiaires des causeries 
Kimbanseke 
lundi 13 KIN 
9h-9h40: Entretien UNICEF 
10h-11h30: Entretien USAID 10h-11h30: FG magistrats
12h30-13h30: FG DUAS 
14h-14h30: visite école MaswaKimbanseke (Directeur + Président Comité de parents) 
15h-16h: Entretien CODE 15h-15h45: FG enfants libérés et réunifiés 
15h45-16h30: FG parents enfants libérés 
mardi 14 MBM Départ pour MBM. 
14h30-17h: Entretien équipe projet 
mercredi 15 MBM 
9h30-10h40: FG avec les membres des 
RECOPE et bourgmestre 
11h-12h: FG personnels juridiques 
12h-13h: Entretien APDDEF 
14h-14h45: Entretien Centre BetuBana 
14h30-15h45: FG familles des enfants 
réunifiés 
16h45-17h45: FG clubs d'enfants 
9h-10h: Entretien Saint Vincent de Paul 
10h-11h15: FG SAP 
11h30-12h30: FG DIVAS 
13h-14: Centre BenaTshibuabua 
14h30-15h40: FG Familles enfants rechutés 
16h-16h45: FG enfants libérés réunifiés 
jeudi 16 MweneDitu
7h-10h: départ MweneDitu. 
10h-10h50: FG bénéficiaires de causeries 
11h-11h30: Entretien Procureur 
12h-13h: Entretien DIVAS 
13h15-13h30: visite école Musangilanyi 
13h30-14h15: Entretien centre BenaDianyi 
10h-10h50: FG membre des RECOPE 
11h-11h40: Président TriPaix 
12-13h: FG enfants réunifiés 
14h-17h: retour MBM. 
 MBM 8h15-9h: Entretien avec média + troupes théâtrales 
vendredi 17 KIN Départ de MBM pour KIN. 
samedi 18 KIN 
8h-9h30: fin entretien Madho 
10h-11h: REEJER 
11h15-12h30: Entretien centre OSEPER 
responsable et éducateurs 
Relecture fiches, analyse données 
8h-11h: Remplissage fiches 
12h30-13h30: Visite une famille avec échec 
réunification 
14h-15h: FG SAP Gambela 
dimanche 19 KIN Analyse données, rédaction rapport Remplissage fiches, analyse de données 
39 
lundi 20 Goma Départ de KIN pour Goma. 20h: Entretien Suivi et évaluation. 
mardi 21 BUKAVU 
Matin: Bateau Goma - BKV. 
11h30-15h30: analyse données et 
organisation planning 
16h-16h30: Briefing sécurité Bukavu 
UNDSS 
12h-13h: FG Clubs d'enfants RECOPE 
13h-14h: FG RECOPE 
15h-17h: FG RECOPE + clubs d'enfants 
mercredi 22 BUKAVU 
9h: Me Anaclet 
11h-12h: Magistrat 
12h30-14h: Famille espoir 
16h: RDV Responsable DIVAS. 
10h30-11h30: FG parents enfants réunifiés 
11h30-12h30: FG enfants réchutés 
12h30-14h: FG enfants échec réunification 
15h-19h: remplissage fiches 
jeudi 23 BUKAVU 
9h-13h: :analyse données et rédaction 
rapport 
15h-16h: UNICEF 
10h-11h: Famille d'accueil 
11h-12h: travailleurs sociaux 
vendredi 24 KIN Départ de BKV pour KIN. 
samedi 25 KIN Redaction rapport, debriefing 
dimanche 26 
Rédaction et envoi rapport 
Soir: Voyage international Rédaction et envoi rapport 
lundi 27 Voyage international 
mardi / 
mercredi 
28-
29 Finalisation rapport 
40 
Annexe 3 : Liste des partenaires rencontrés
Cette liste n’est pas exhaustive, mais inclut les contacts de quelques-uns des partenaires rencontrés 
au cours de la mission. 
Nom de la personne Structure et Qualité Contacts
KINSHASA
MADHO LWANGO Senior Field Officer Save the Children Kinshasa 0998211207 
YANN GRANDIN Coordinateur Programme Protection Save the 
Children
0999305672 
CALVIN FEZE Gestionnaire du Centre PECS 0897479917 
ZEPHIRIN HULUNGU Superviseur du Centre GTES Congo 0990027262 
SABALA Président RECOPE MASINA 0998771231 
TATY VELU Superviseur du Centre BANA YA POVEDA 0818138854 
EUSEBE MULWEMA Président RECOPE KIMBANSEKE 0998852570 
THEO Gestionnaire de CODE 0817007154 
Me ANASTHASIE Assistante Sociale CODE 0995261536 
SACRE Responsable de la DIVAS Kinshasa 0998321471 
GABINS TIMA Superviseur du Centre OSEPER 0999946549 
MATONDO coordinateur Adjoint REJER 0812893836 
MUKADI DIV Justice 0814123078 
GHISLAIN LUJANGISU Président SAP GAMBELA 0898963003 
BUKAVU
Famille ESPOIR Gestionnaire de la Famille Espoir Bukavu 0993412571 et 
0853729188 
Me Anaclet Avocat 0997758669 
BASHIMBE 
GANYAWAMULUME 
Président RECOPE CHAHI Bukavu 0853234776 
XAVIER MUBALAMA Président RECOPE KADUTU 0997759178 
Floribert Mubandliwa Child protection officer, UNICEF fmubandilwa@unicef.org
0818305935 
Madame PETRONIKA 
Angele 
Chef de Division provinciale des Affaires sociales 
Bukavu
0990358388 et 
0813547145 
Luc Chef de section Protection de l’enfant DIVAS 
BUKAVU
0997715007 
Mushagalusa Basedeke Magistrat au TriPaix de BUKAVU mushagalusbasedeke@ya
hoo.com 0997828255 
MIRHALI Responsable Famille d’accueil Bukavu 09977799538 
RUBONEKA Responsable Famille d’accueil Bukavu 00998675477 
MBUJIMAYI
Sr MAGUY KENABABU Gestionnaire Centre Saint Vincent de Paul
François KAYEMBE 
Mme THERCIA TCHAMA 
Superviseur et Enquêteurs Sociaux Centre Saint 
Joseph BENACHIBWABWA
Sammy Nicamba Président de la troupe théâtrale Debangloff samdebanglof@yahoo.fr – 
0810318277 – 
0995091231 
Alphonse NSAKA Coordonateur du CECOPE 0856221825 – 
0994654573 
GUILLAUME AMBA Chef de Division DIVAS Mbujimayi
Papy Ndaie Réalisateur et chef des programmes TV papyndaie@yahoo.fr
09981661590 
MWENEDITU
Président du TRIBUNAL DE 
PAIX de MWENEDITU 
Président du TRIBUNAL DE PAIX de MWENE DITU
41 
Annexe 4 : Guides d’entretien
3.1. Guide d’entretien avec les équipes SCUK
Pertinence
1/ Une analyse des problèmes a-t-elle été réalisée dans la phase d’identification des besoins ? Cette 
phase d’identification a-t-elle été construite avec les bénéficiaires du projet ? 
2/ Existait-il avant le début du projet du personnel qualifié en matière d’abandon et de séparation 
d’enfants ? 
3/ Des structures d’accueil des enfants séparés et/ou abandonnés étaient-elles déjà en place avant le 
début du projet ? 
Efficacité
4/ Les actions concernant l’accès au système judiciaire ont-elles été efficaces (enfants victimes et 
enfants auteurs, sensibilisation du personnel judiciaire) ? Les actions de sensibilisation dans les 
communautés et les activités de réunification familiale (dont AGR) ont-elles permis d’améliorer les 
conditions des enfants ? L’appui institutionnel et aux partenaires a-t-il modifié la dynamique globale ? 
5/ Quels sont les obstacles et orientations à creuser pour améliorer la réunification ? 
6/ Pensez-vous que le changement de partenaires pendant le projet a-t-il eu un impact sur les 
résultats ? 
7/ Les conditions de sécurité ont-elles eu un impact sur les résultats ? 
Equité
8/ De quelle manière a été fait le choix géographique du projet ? Une évaluation a-t-elle été réalisée 
durant la phase d’exploration ? 
9/ Une évaluation détaillant l’ensemble des groupes cibles et analysant leurs besoins a-t-elle été 
réalisée durant la phase d’exploration ? 
10/ Des mesures spécifiques ont-elles été entreprises pour assurer l’accessibilité du projet aux 
groupes les plus vulnérables ? 
Impact
11/ Le projet a-t-il eu des impacts positifs qui n’avaient pas été prévus ? A-t-il permis de créer des 
synergies avec d’autres acteurs intervenant sur les mêmes groupes (coordination, complémentarité, 
partage des activités) ?Le projet a-t-il contribué à l’autonomisation des femmes et une meilleure équité 
de genre dans les zones d’intervention du projet ? 
12/ Le projet a-t-il eu des impacts négatifs ? Par exemple, a-t-il créé des conflits qui n’existaient pas 
auparavant dans les communautés ? A-t-il créé une plus grande dépendance vis-à-vis de l’aide 
extérieure ? 
13/ Quel était l’impact et la place de Save the Children dans les évolutions de la réponse nationale à 
la situation des enfants abandonnés et séparés ? 
14/ Quels sont les changements les plus significatifs depuis 2006 en matière d’abandon d’enfants?Y 
a-t-il plus ou moins d’enfants en rupture familiale dans les rues ? 
15/ Quels ont été les impacts du projet sur le renforcement des compétences des partenaires et des 
autorités ? 
16/ Le projet a-t-il permis d’améliorer les transferts de compétences vis-à-vis des acteurs locaux ? 
Mise en œuvre des partenariats
17/ La distribution des rôles et responsabilités entre Save the Children et ses partenaires était-elle 
claire ? 
18/ Quelle était la chaîne de communication avec les partenaires (détailler chaque partenaire)? Etait￾elle effective ? 
19/ Quelle était la chaine de communication entre les partenaires et les groupes cibles ? 
20/ Quels étaient les dispositifs de monitoring et de supervision des partenariats ? 
21/ Comment s’est fait le choix des partenaires ? 
22/ Les équipes techniques des partenaires étaient-elles suffisamment qualifiées ? 
23/ Y a-t-il une coordination entre les partenaires soutenus par Save the Children ? 
42 
24/ Quelles ont été les forces et les faiblesses des relations avec les partenaires sur les résultats du 
projet ? Les partenariats (détailler chaque partenaire) ont-ils été efficaces ? Leur implication et 
mobilisation ont-elles été suffisantes ? Peuvent-elles être améliorées ? Comment ? 
25/ Quelles ont été les forces et les faiblesses du groupe de travail de protection des mineurs sur les 
résultats du projet ? 
Méthodologie
26/ Les enfants ont-ils été impliqués dans la définition et la mise en œuvre du projet ? De quelle 
manière ? Quels ont été les impacts de la démarche participative sur le processus décisionnel, sur la 
place des enfants ? 
27/ Quels étaient les dispositifs de monitoring du projet (collecte de données, analyse, suivi) et les 
moyens de vérification des activités (fiches de présence, suivi, questionnaire) ? Ces moyens étaient￾ils efficaces ? 
28/ Qu’est-ce qui vous semble bien fonctionné dans l’organisation actuelle ? Pourquoi ? 
29/ Qu’est-ce qui vous semble moins bien fonctionné dans l’organisation actuelle ? Pourquoi ? 
30/ Comment fonctionne la gestion financière du projet ? Etait-elle efficace ? 
Efficience
31/ Les résultats obtenus dans chacun des volets sont-ils à la mesure des sommes engagées ? 
32/ Les procédures d’engagement des dépenses étaient-elles claires et ont-elles été suivies? 
33/ Les équipes du projet étaient-elles suffisamment qualifiées par rapport aux standards de ce type 
d’intervention ? 
34/ L’intervention a-t-elle subi des délais ? De quel type et pour quelles raisons ? 
35/ Des activités qui n’étaient pas prévues dans le projet ont-elles été entreprises ? Pour quelles 
raisons ? 
Pérennité
36/ Les structures créées par le projet et les procédures mises en œuvre existent-elles encore et ont￾elles été intégrées à d’autres projets ? 
37/ Les mécanismes communautaires (dont RECOPE) créés par le projet sont-ils encore 
opérationnels et autonomes ? Les activités des RECOPE continuent-elles ? 
38/ Les infrastructures créées sont-elles entretenues ? Les projets d’AGR sont-ils toujours 
opérationnels ?
39/ Les communautés se sont-elles approprié le projet ? Sont-elles toujours aussi impliquées ? 
3.2. Guide d’entretien avec les partenaires non institutionnels
Pertinence
1/ Quelles ont été les grands étapes de votre partenariat avec Save the Children? 
2/ Quel type de soutien de la part de Save the Children vous a été le plus utile ? 
3/ Votre structure existait-elle avant le début du projet ? 
Efficacité
4/ (Selon l’activité principale du partenaire) Les actions concernant l’accès au système judiciaire ont￾elles été efficaces (enfants victimes et enfants auteurs, sensibilisation du personnel judiciaire) ? Les 
actions de sensibilisation dans les communautés et les activités de réunification familiale (dont AGR) 
ont-elles permis d’améliorer les conditions des enfants ? L’appui institutionnel et aux partenaires a-t-il 
modifié la dynamique globale ? 
5/ Les conditions de sécurité ont-elles eu un impact sur ces résultats ? 
Equité
6/ Des mesures spécifiques ont-elles été entreprises pour assurer l’accessibilité du projet aux groupes 
les plus vulnérables (filles, PVVIH)? 
Impact
7/ Le projet a-t-il eu des impacts (positifs ou négatifs) qui n’avaient pas été prévus ? Par exemple, en 
termes de dépendance vis-à-vis des financements ? 
8/ Quels sont les changements les plus significatifs depuis 2006 ?Quels sont les impacts du projet sur 
la problématique de l’abandon d’enfants ? Y a-t-il plus ou moins d’enfants en rupture familiale dans les 
rues ? 
43 
9/ Quels sont les obstacles et orientations à creuser pour améliorer la réunification ? 
9b/ Les enfants ont-ils été impliqués dans la définition et la mise en œuvre du projet ? De quelle 
manière ? 
Mise en œuvre des partenariats
10/ La distribution des rôles et responsabilités entre Save the Children et vous était-elle claire ? 
11/ Quelle était la chaîne de communication entre Save the Children et vous ? Cette communication 
était-elle fluide ? Qui étaient vos principaux interlocuteurs à Save the Children ? 
12/ Quelle était la chaine de communication entre les partenaires et les groupes cibles ? 
13/ De quelle manière Save the Children effectuait le monitoring et la supervision du partenariat avec 
vous ? 
14/ Y a-t-il une coordination entre les partenaires soutenus par Save the Children ? 
15/ Quelle était la qualification de vos équipes techniques ? 
16/ Comment caractériseriez-vous le partenariat avec Save the Children ? Quelles ont été les forces 
et les faiblesses des relations avec les partenaires sur les résultats du projet ? 
17/ L’intervention a-t-elle subi des délais ? De quel type et pour quelles raisons ? 
18/ Considérez-vous que vos demandes ont été prises en compte et entendues par l’association ? 
19/ Connaissez-vous le groupe de travail relatif à la protection de l’enfant ? Comment qualifiez-vous 
les actions de ce groupe ? Quelles ont été les forces et les faiblesses du groupe de travail de 
protection des mineurs sur les résultats du projet ? 
Pérennité (question à poser selon interlocuteur) 
20/ Les structures créées par le projet et les procédures mises en œuvre existent-elles encore et ont￾elles été intégrées à d’autres projets ? 
21/ Les mécanismes communautaires créés par le projet sont-ils encore opérationnels et autonomes? 
22/ Les infrastructures créées sont-elles entretenues ?Les projets d’AGR sont-ils toujours 
opérationnels ?
23/ Les communautés se sont-elles approprié le projet ? Sont-elles toujours aussi impliquées ? 
24/ Quel a été l’impact de la fin du projet sur les activités ? 
En conclusion
25/ Quels sont les grands défis des enfants abandonnés et séparés des 5 prochaines années ? 
Question subsidiaire
Que savez-vous de la loi de 2009 ? 
3.3. Guide d’entretien avec les partenaires institutionnels étatiques(représentants services de 
l’Etat, travailleurs sociaux)
Pertinence
1/ Quels ont été selon vous les principales difficultés concernant les enfants dans le pays au cours 
des 5 dernières années ? 
2/ Le projet de Save the Children programme vous semble-t-il utile ? De quelle manière ? 
3/ La problématique des enfants abandonnés est-elle une priorité pour les autorités ? 
4/ Le projet de Save the Children est-il en phase avec les politiques et stratégies du pays ? 
5/ Quelles ont été les grands étapes de votre partenariat avec Save the Children et les changements 
significatifs depuis 2006 ? 
6/ Quel type de soutien de la part de Save the Children vous a été le plus utile ? 
Efficacité
7/ (Selon l’activité principale du partenaire) Les actions concernant l’accès au système judiciaire ont￾elles été efficaces (enfants victimes et enfants auteurs, sensibilisation du personnel judiciaire) ? Les 
actions de sensibilisation dans les communautés et les activités de réunification familiale (dont AGR) 
ont-elles permis d’améliorer les conditions des enfants ? L’appui institutionnel et aux partenaires a-t-il 
modifié la dynamique globale ? 
8/ (Si concerné) Pensez-vous que le changement de partenaires pendant le projet a-t-il eu un impact 
sur la séparation et l’abandon des enfants? 
9/ Les conditions de sécurité ont-elles eu un impact sur ces résultats ? 
Impact
44 
10/ Quelles sont les associations qui ont leur place dans la réponse nationale en matière de lutte 
contre l’abandon et la séparation des enfants ? 
11/ Quel était l’impact et la place de Save the Children dans les évolutions de la réponse nationale à 
la situation des enfants abandonnés et séparés ?Le projet de Save the Children a-t-il fait évoluer les 
politiques et stratégies de l’Etat ? Comment ? 
12/ Quels sont les impacts du projet sur la problématique de l’abandon d’enfants ? Y a-t-il plus ou 
moins d’enfants en rupture familiale dans les rues ? 
13/ Le projet a-t-il eu des impacts ou positifs qui n’avaient pas été prévus, par exemple en termes de 
dépendance vis-à-vis de l’aide financière ? 
14/ Quelles sont les relations nouvelles qui ont été liées avec des structures (bailleurs, institutions 
publiques, associations…) depuis 2006 et qui se poursuivent ? 
15/Quels sont les changements les plus significatifs depuis 2006 ? 
Mise en œuvre des partenariats
16/ La distribution des rôles et responsabilités entre Save the Children et vous était-elle claire ? 
17/ Quelle était la chaîne de communication entre Save the Children et vous ? Cette communication 
était-elle fluide ? Qui étaient vos principaux interlocuteurs à Save the Children ? 
18/ De quelle manière Save the Children effectuait le monitoring et la supervision du partenariat avec 
vous ? 
19/ Y a-t-il une coordination entre les partenaires soutenus par Save the Children ? 
20/ Comment caractériseriez-vous le partenariat avec Save the Children ? Quelles ont été les forces 
et les faiblesses des relations avec les partenaires sur les résultats du projet ? 
21/ Considérez-vous que vos demandes ont été prises en compte et entendues par l’association ? 
22/ Connaissez-vous le groupe de travail relatif à la protection de l’enfant ? Comment qualifiez-vous 
les actions de ce groupe ? Quelles ont été les forces et les faiblesses du groupe de travail de 
protection des mineurs sur les résultats du projet ? Que diriez-vous du rôle de Save the Children par 
rapport aux autres acteurs internationaux ? 
Pérennité
23/ Etes-vous toujours impliqué dans le domaine de la protection de l’enfance depuis la fin du projet ? 
Quels sont les obstacles ? 
En conclusion
24/ Quels sont les grands défis des enfants abandonnés et séparés des 5 prochaines années ? 
Question subsidiaire
Que savez-vous de la loi de 2009 ? 
3.4. Guide d’entretien avec les partenaires institutionnels non étatiques (institutions 
internationales)
Pertinence
1/ Quels ont été selon vous les principales difficultés concernant les enfants dans le pays au cours 
des 5 dernières années ? 
2/ Le projet de Save the Children est-il en phase avec les stratégies des institutions internationales, 
plans d’action nationaux ? Lesquels ? 
Efficacité
3/ Considérez-vous que le programme de Save the Children est articulé et complémentaire aux 
actions menées par les autres organisations ? 
4/ (Selon l’activité principale du partenaire) Les actions concernant l’accès au système judiciaire ont￾elles été efficaces (enfants victimes et enfants auteurs, sensibilisation du personnel judiciaire) ? Les 
actions de sensibilisation dans les communautés et les activités de réunification familiale (dont AGR) 
ont-elles permis d’améliorer les conditions des enfants ? L’appui institutionnel et aux partenaires a-t-il 
modifié la dynamique globale ? 
Impact
5/ Quelles sont les associations qui ont leur place dans la réponse nationale en matière de lutte contre 
l’abandon et la séparation des enfants ? 
45 
6/ Quel était l’impact et la place de Save the Children dans les évolutions de la réponse nationale à la 
situation des enfants abandonnés et séparés ?Le projet de Save the Children a-t-il fait évoluer les 
politiques et stratégies de l’Etat ? Comment ? 
7/ Quels sont les impacts du projet sur la problématique de l’abandon d’enfants ? Y a-t-il plus ou 
moins d’enfants en rupture familiale dans les rues ? 
8/ Le projet a-t-il permis de créer des synergies avec d’autres acteurs intervenant sur les mêmes 
groupes (coordination, partage des activités) ? 
9/ Le projet a-t-il eu des impacts négatifs ? Notamment, a-t-il créé une plus grande dépendance vis-à￾vis de l’aide extérieure ? 
10/ Quels sont les changements les plus significatifs depuis 2006 ? 
Mise en œuvre des partenariats
11/ Quelle était la chaîne de communication avec les partenaires ? Etait-elle effective ?Considérez￾vous que vos demandes ont été prises en compte et entendues par l’association ? 
12/ Quelles ont été les forces et les faiblesses du groupe de travail de protection des mineurs sur les 
résultats du projet ? 
13/ Que diriez-vous du rôle de Save the Children par rapport aux autres acteurs internationaux sur 
cette thématique? 
En conclusion
14/ Quels sont les grands défis des enfants abandonnés et séparés des 5 prochaines années ? 
3. 5. Guide d’entretien avec les parents et enfants non réunifiés/rechutés (échec réunification)
Pertinence
1/ Connaissez-vous le programme de Save the Children ? Ce programme vous semble-t-il utile ? De 
quelle manière ? 
Efficacité
2/ De quelle manière la situation des enfants et des parents a changé depuis l’intervention de Save 
the Children ? 
3/ Avez-vous une meilleure connaissance de vos droits ? 
4/ Quelle est votre opinion des enfants vivant dans la rue ? Comment les caractériseriez-vous ? 
5/ (Si concerné) Les AGR des familles ont-ils été bien articulés par rapport aux besoins 
économiques ? 
6/ Pour quelle raison la réunification n’a pas fonctionné ? 
Impact
7/ Le projet a-t-il eu des impacts négatifs, notamment au niveau communautaire ? 
8/ Quels principaux efforts restent-ils à faire concernant les enfants abandonnés et séparés ? 
Méthodologie
9/ (Pour les enfants) Avez-vous été impliqués dans la définition et la mise en œuvre du projet ? De 
quelle manière ? 
Pérennité
10/ Les structures créées par le projet et les procédures mises en œuvre existent-elles encore et ont￾elles été intégrées à d’autres projets ? 
11/ Les infrastructures créées sont-elles entretenues ?(Si concerné) Les projets d’AGR sont-ils 
toujours opérationnels ?
Question subsidiaire
12/ Que savez-vous de la loi de 2009 ? 
3.6. Guide d’entretien avec les parents et enfants réunifiés
Pertinence
1/ Connaissez-vous le programme de Save the Children ? Ce programme vous semble-t-il utile ? De 
quelle manière ? 
46 
Efficacité
2/ De quelle manière la situation des enfants et des parents a changé depuis l’intervention de Save 
the Children ? 
3/ Avez-vous une meilleure connaissance de vos droits ? 
4/ Quelle est votre opinion des enfants vivant dans la rue ? Comment les caractériseriez-vous ? 
5/ (Si concerné) Les AGR des familles ont-ils été bien articulés par rapport aux besoins 
économiques ? 
Impact
6/ Le projet a-t-il eu des impacts négatifs, notamment au niveau communautaire ? 
7/ Quels principaux efforts restent-ils à faire concernant les enfants abandonnés et séparés ?Quels 
sont les obstacles et orientations à creuser pour améliorer la réunification ? 
Méthodologie
8/ (Pour les enfants) Avez-vous été impliqués dans la définition et la mise en œuvre du projet ? De 
quelle manière ? 
Pérennité
9/ Les structures créées par le projet et les procédures mises en œuvre existent-elles encore et ont￾elles été intégrées à d’autres projets ? 
10/ Les infrastructures créées sont-elles entretenues ?(Si concerné) Les projets d’AGR sont-ils 
toujours opérationnels ?
Question subsidiaire
11/ Que savez-vous de la loi de 2009 ? 
3.7. Guide d’entretien avec les RECOPE et clubs d’enfants
Pertinence
1/ / Quels ont été selon vous les principales difficultés concernant les enfants dans le pays au cours 
des 5 dernières années ? 
2/ Connaissez-vous le programme de Save the Children ? Ce programme vous semble-t-il utile ? De 
quelle manière ? La problématique des enfants abandonnée est-elle une priorité pour les 
communautés ? 
3/ Quelles ont été les grands étapes de votre partenariat avec Save the Children depuis 2006 ? 
4/ Quel type de soutien de la part de Save the Children vous a été le plus utile ? 
Efficacité
5/ (Selon l’activité principale des RECOPE, par ex SPA) En quoi le programme de Save the Children a 
été efficace et a permis d’améliorer les conditions des enfants ? 
6/ Quels sont les obstacles et orientations à creuser pour améliorer la réunification ? 
7/ Quelle est votre opinion des enfants vivant dans la rue ? Comment les caractériseriez-vous ? 
Equité
8/ Avez-vous entrepris des mesures spécifiques pour assurer l’accessibilité du projet aux groupes les 
plus vulnérables ? 
Impact
9/ Le projet a-t-il eu des impacts positifs ou positifs qui n’avaient pas été prévus ? 
10/ Quelles sont les relations nouvelles qui ont été liées avec des structures (bailleurs, institutions 
publiques, associations…) depuis 2006 et qui se poursuivent ? 
11/ Quels sont les changements les plus significatifs depuis 2006 ? 
Mise en œuvre des partenariats
12/ Comment caractériseriez-vous le partenariat qui a été noué avec Save the Children ? 
13/ La distribution des rôles et responsabilités entre Save the Children et vous était-elle claire ? 
14/ Quelle était la chaîne de communication entre Save the Children et vous ? Cette communication 
était-elle fluide ? Qui étaient vos principaux interlocuteurs à Save the Children ? 
15/ Quelle était la chaine de communication entre les partenaires et les groupes cibles ? 
47 
16/ De quelle manière Save the Children effectuait le monitoring et la supervision du partenariat avec 
vous ? 
17/ Y a-t-il une coordination entre les partenaires soutenus par Save the Children ? 
18/ Comment caractériseriez-vous le partenariat avec Save the Children ? Quelles ont été les forces 
et les faiblesses des relations avec les partenaires sur les résultats du projet ? 
19/ Considérez-vous que vos demandes ont été prises en compte et entendues par l’association ? 
20/ Connaissez-vous le groupe de travail relatif à la protection de l’enfant ? Comment qualifiez-vous 
les actions de ce groupe ? Quelles ont été les forces et les faiblesses du groupe de travail de 
protection des mineurs sur les résultats du projet ? 
Méthodologie
21/ Les enfants ont-ils été impliqués dans la définition et la mise en œuvre du projet ? De quelle 
manière ? Quels ont été les impacts de la démarche participative sur le processus décisionnel, sur la 
place des enfants ? 
Pérennité
22/ Les structures créées par le projet et les procédures mises en œuvre existent-elles encore et ont￾elles été intégrées à d’autres projets ? 
23/ De quelle manière vos activités continuent depuis la fin du projet ? 
24/ Les infrastructures créées par le projet sont-elles entretenues ? 
25/ Quel a été l’impact de la fin du projet sur les activités ? 
En conclusion
26/ Quels sont les grands défis des enfants abandonnés et séparés des 5 prochaines années ? 
Question subsidiaire
Que savez-vous de la loi de 2009 ? 
3.8. Guide d’entretien avec les communautés, représentants communautaires et bénéficiaires 
de causerie
Pertinence
1/ Quels ont été selon vous les principales difficultés concernant les enfants dans le pays au cours 
des 5 dernières années ? 
2/ Connaissez-vous le programme de Save the Children ? Ce programme vous semble-t-il utile ? 
Efficacité
3/ De quelle manière la situation des enfants et des parents a changé depuis l’intervention de Save 
the Children ? 
4/ Avez-vous une meilleure connaissance du domaine de la protection des enfants? 
5/ Quelle est votre opinion des enfants vivant dans la rue ? Comment les caractériseriez-vous ? 
6/ Quels sont les obstacles et orientations à creuser pour améliorer la réunification ? 
Equité
7/ Toutes les personnes invitées aux causeries ont pu se déplacer ? Y avait-il autant de femmes que 
d’hommes dans les causeries ? Y avait-il des enfants ? Pourquoi ? 
Impact
8/ Le projet a-t-il eu des impacts négatifs, notamment au niveau communautaire ? 
9/ Quels sont les changements les plus significatifs depuis 2006 en matière d’abandon et de 
séparation d’enfants? 
10/ Quels principaux efforts restent-ils à faire concernant les enfants abandonnés et séparés ?Quels 
sont les obstacles et orientations à creuser pour améliorer la réunification ? 
Mise en œuvre des partenariats
11/ Connaissez-vous le groupe de travail relatif à la protection de l’enfant ? Comment qualifiez-vous 
les actions de ce groupe ? 
Pérennité
48 
12/ Les structures créées par le projet et les procédures mises en œuvre existent-elles encore et ont￾elles été intégrées à d’autres projets ? 
13/ Les infrastructures créées sont-elles entretenues ? 
14/ De quelle manière êtes-vous impliqué aujourd’hui dans le domaine de la protection des enfants ? 
En conclusion
15/ Quels sont les grands défis des enfants abandonnés et séparés des 5 prochaines années ? 
Question subsidiaire
Que savez-vous de la loi de 2009 ?