Final Evaluation of the project ENABLE – Enabling communities to combat child trafficking through education project in Indonesia Team of evaluators from GAMMA from QK University presenting its design for the evaluation (Group 3): Amri, Ash, Gustavo, Kristina, Marian, Markéta, Qemal

Project Area

Reduced no. of children trafficked in Indonesia Financial resources, trainers and training programmes, human resources, technical assistance Train parents and community leaders on child trafficking Parents & community leaders know how children are trafficked Train social workers on trafficking Impact Output Outcome Activities Inputs X no of victims enrolled in school Increased no. children at risk going to school Increased no children victims of THB going to school Effective implementation of govt. education program for victims & children at risk of THB Awareness Campaign Anti- trafficking included in gov. ed. policy Medical and psychological assistance provided to victims Trafficked children are identified & removed Support networking betw. Police, int. Orgs, CSOs, communities Tech. Assistance to MoE Establish community based rehab. centers Conduct reintegration programs

Assumptions:  Going to school prevents trafficking  Going to school treats trafficking victims  Parents are willing to forego cash benefits  Children want to go and stay in school  Data on child trafficking is available  Community, educators and parents support educational program  Trafficking happens mostly in poor families  Network of service providers exists

Assumptions - continued  Trafficked children can be „cured“  Former victims and non victims can easily integrate  Trafficking victims are identifiable  Parents send children to school up to 18 years  Records / data are available for evaluation  Children traceable  Local leaders have knowledge about children and trafficking

Context:  Demand (urban areas, tourism, neighboring countries)  Laws and criminal proceedings functional  Interregional legal framework  CBOs are active  Natural disasters

Design Matrix QUESTIONSUB-QUESTIONTYPE QTARGE T MEASURES OR INDICATORS DESIGN 1. How many children have received services (by programme)? 1a. How many children were removed from domestic labor (per yr) D - No of children (disaggregated by gender/age/province) Longitudinal 1b. How many children from sexual exploitation? (per yr) D - No of children (disaggregated by gender/age/province) Longitudinal 1c. To what extent did the project reach the planned target on educational services? N x No of children (disaggregated by gender/province/type of institution) Longitudinal DATA SOURCESAMPLE OR CENSUS DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT DATA ANALYSISCOMMENTS 1a. Project Records (MIS) Census 8 years Record Retrieval Form Quantitative count: 1b. Project Records (MIS) Census 8 years Record Retrieval Form Quantitative count: 1c. Project Records (MIS) Census 8 years Record Retrieval Form Quantitative count: - present as line chart so trend over 8 yrs is clear, compare to target x

Design Matrix QUESTIONSUB-QUESTIONTYPE Q TARG ET MEASURES OR INDICATORS DESIGN 2. Did the retention rate of rescued children improve having gone through the programme? - C&E X% more retaine d -Enrollment -Attendance -Drop out rates of rescued victims Post- Only Nonequivalent Comparison Design DATA SOURCESAMPLE OR CENSUS DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT DATA ANALYSISCOMMENTS Project records (MIS) – ENABLE and other organization Interview/Focus Groups: School principles/ Teachers Census 8 years Record Retrieval Form Interviews/FG Quantitative count: present comparison of trend of comparison groups Content analysis Main data form records, interviews or focus groups for triangulation.

Design Matrix DATA SOURCE SAMPLE OR CENSUS DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT DATA ANALYSISCOMMENTS 3 a-d Records (Municipality / NGO) Interviews/FG: Traditional Authorities Census 8 yrsRecord Retrieval Form Interviews/FG Quantitative count: present comparison of trend of comparison groups Content analysis Separate comparison of correlation between prevention of trafficking and enrollment in school - Is it sth. we can do without survey? QUESTIONSUB-QUESTIONTYPE Q TARG ET MEASURES OR INDICATORS DESIGN 3. To what extent is there a relationship between prevention of trafficking and attendance of school? What is the change in the no of missing children in the project communities? (per yr) D - No of children missing by school district / gender / age Interrupted Tme series o o o x o o o How does this compare with other similar community outside the project area? D - No of children missing by school district / gender / age Interrupted Tme series Comparison group What is the change in enrollment rates in the project communities? D - Enrollment rates by year / school / grade / gender Interrupted Tme series o o o x o o o What were changes in enrollment rates outside the project area? D - Interrupted Tme series Comparison group

Díky – Danke – Faleminderit – Thank you – Terimakasih – Obrigado -