Transferability of Interventions? Challenges in the National Program for Children and Youth “at Risk” Talal Dolev National Program for Children and Youth “at Risk” May 2010 מדינת ישראל

Introducing the Program Recommendations of National Committee Reduce Risk among Children (13 indicators) Inter - Ministerial National Commitment 56 local authorities (45%) of the children Multiyear Budget – 155 million NIS annually Significant Investment Shift in priorities Focus on children Empower local authorities Accountability and quality assuranceAccountability and quality assurance New Policies, organizational, professional and financial mechanisms

Inclusive mapping of all children “at risk” with common instrument Structured process of planning and prioritizing Monitoring implementation, outputs and outcomes : follow-up on every child Structured processes of adapting/ re-planning based on conclusions Utilizing information in the Program The mapping planning and monitoring instruments and processes developed in partnership with Myers JDC Brookdale institute and implemented with their assistance

How Far Along Are We? mapping 55 communities completed the mapping process 150,890 children were Identified planning 55 communities constructed and approved service plans A broad range of programs were selected (over 200) most have not been broadly implemented implemen tation 40 communities have begun to implement programs Thousands of children are already receiving services The community info base for monitoring is being launched

The Roles of Information in the Program  Keeps the focus on the children  Strengthens creation of common language and definitions  Provides a basis for transparency and helps create trust  Provides basis for dialogue between local and regional levels  Provides basis for further policy development at the national level  Provides accountability to public and politicians  Supports innovative and “fresh” image of the program

Two (of the) Issues / Challenges / Dilemmas How to promote continuous collection and utilization of data at the local level Developing “friendly” instruments Developing tools and processes for “laymen” users Developing effective “carrots and sticks” What will we really be able to learn about programs and how to improve them How reliable will the data be Are there methods to learn about programs across communities What do we need so we can improve programs on the one hand and provide communities with more solid basis for decisions on the other