The Godfrey’s

Children Center
Idweli, Tanzania

Evaluation of a community-
based response to the
needs of orphaned and
vulnerable children
Idweli Evaluation — Lundy Foundation © April 2007 1
The OVC Challenge
 Worldwide:
15 million children orphaned by AIDS
 Number expected to double by
2020
 Sub-Saharan Africa:
Home to over 80% of the world’s
children orphaned by AIDS
 Tanzania:
Approximately 12% of all children are

orphans, half of those due to AIDS

Idweli Evaluation — Lundy Foundation © April 2007 2
 Traditional Support for OVC
 OVC traditionally taken in by
extended family
 Rate of OVC population growth
overwhelming traditional support
system
 Most caregivers over-extended
emotionally, physically and
financially
Source: Foster, Levine, Williamson (2005). A Generation
at Risk.
Idweli Evaluation — Lundy Foundation © April 2007 3
 Placement Alternatives for OVC

Institutional
HIGH Placement
Out-of-Village
Foster Placement

Range of
Cost Community-
per based Supports
Child
In-Village Foster
Placement
Extended Family
Placement

LOW Familiarity of Child with Setting HIGH

Idweli Evaluation — Lundy Foundation © April 2007 4
 COSTS BENEFITS
Institutional  Stigmatization  Professional
 Placement  Depression management
 High cost  Accountability to
donors
Out-of-Village  Child removed from  Family setting
 Foster family & friends  Low to moderate
Placement  Potential economic cost
exploitation

Community-  Effectiveness unknown  Contact maintained

 based with family & friends
support  Low to moderate
cost
In-Village  Potential economic  Contact maintained
 Foster exploitation with family & friends
Placement  Relatively low cost

Extended  Potential economic  Familiar & generally

 Family exploitation or supportive setting
Placement homelessness  Low cost

Idweli Evaluation — Lundy Foundation © April 2007 5

 Context: Idweli
 Location: 28 Km from the
city of Mbeya
 Economy: primarily
subsistence farming
 Population: 2,500
- approx. 460 school age
children
 Orphans: approx. 40% of
Idweli’s children are orphans
(double or single) Idweli

Idweli Evaluation — Lundy Foundation © April 2007 6

Godfrey’s Children Center: Idweli
 Vision: A participatory decision-making
process involved men, women and
children
 Planning: U.S. and Tanzanian NGO’s
collaborated in the planning process
 Implementation:
NGOs and villagers worked
together to finance
and build the Center

Idweli Evaluation — Lundy Foundation © April 2007 7

 Godfrey’s Children Center (continued)

 Operation: A village-based committee

including men, women and youth governs
the Center
 The Board…
 Selects children, hires staff, supervises
Center manager
 Oversees budget and all other resources
 Recruits volunteers
 Maintains relations with current and future
donors
 Makes decisions regarding building
maintenance and improvements
Idweli Evaluation — Lundy Foundation © April 2007 8
 Godfrey’s Children Center (continued)

 The name honors the late Godfrey Msemwa

of Idweli
 The Center was officially opened by Acting
U.S. Ambassador Michael Owen on June 8,
2005

Idweli Evaluation — Lundy Foundation © April 2007 9

 Godfrey’s Children Center (continued)

 The Center complex includes:

 Two dormitories accommodating
58 children and four elders
 Small hall for meals, after-school
classes, and community gatherings
 Kitchen, toilet, shower
 Space for health care
and recreation
 Land for raising crops
and farm animals

Idweli Evaluation — Lundy Foundation © April 2007 10

 Godfrey’s Children Center (continued)

 The Center provides an environment

where
the children have…
 3 meals per day
 Basic health care
 Preschool and after-school classes
 Compassionate adult nurturing

Idweli Evaluation — Lundy Foundation © April 2007 11

 Godfrey’s Children Center (continued)

 As compared to traditional forms

of institutionalized care that
typically isolate children,
Godfrey’s Children Center allows
orphans to remain integrated
within village life

Idweli Evaluation — Lundy Foundation © April 2007 12

 Godfrey’s Children Center is a
Community-based Alternative

Institutional
HIGH Placement
Out-of-Village
Foster Placement
Range of
Idweli Hybrid: Community-Based
Cost
per Godfrey’s Children Supports
Child Center
In-Village Foster
Placement
Extended Family
Placement

LOW Familiarity of Child with Setting HIGH

Idweli Evaluation — Lundy Foundation © April 2007 13
 Evaluation of the
Children’s Center
Idweli Evaluation — Lundy Foundation © April 2007 14
 Factors of Well-Being

Psychosocial Physical
OVC
Well-Being

Socioeconomic

Evaluation of well-being through 3 lenses

Idweli Evaluation — Lundy Foundation © April 2007 15

 Evaluation Questions
 Does living at the Center positively
impact the psychosocial well-being of
resident orphans?
 Does living at the Center positively
impact the orphans’ physical health?
 Is the support provided by the Center
socially and economically sustainable?
 What culturally appropriate measures
and methods are effective in
scientifically evaluating the well-being of
IdweliOVC inLundyTanzania?
Evaluation — Foundation © April 2007 16
 Evaluation Design Team
Evaluation and statistical analysis
Community development
Leadership and collaboration
Cultural competency
Social anthropology
Familial relationships
Child psychology and development
Psychiatry

AREAS OF
EXPERTISE

Idweli Evaluation — Lundy Foundation © April 2007 17

 Tanzanian Field Team

 Fieldwork coordinator
 10 trained field work assistants
 Ethnographer
 Typists and translators

Idweli Evaluation — Lundy Foundation © April 2007 18

 Survey Instruments
Quantitative and Qualitative

 Psychosocial Well-Being
 Children’s Depression Inventory
 Social Support Questionnaire
 Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire
 School Performance Survey
 Children’s Sense of Well-Being
 Caring for Children

Idweli Evaluation — Lundy Foundation © April 2007 19

 Survey Instruments (continued)

 Physical Well-Being
 Physical Health Survey

 Socioeconomic Sustainability
 Children’s Center Development Process
 Support and Sustainability Survey
 Loan Recipient Interviews
 Household Budget Survey

Idweli Evaluation — Lundy Foundation © April 2007 20

 Sampling Design
 Four sample groups of children:
 Center orphans (n=51)
 Village orphans — living with
extended family (n=40)
 Village non-orphans — living with
both parents (n=99)
 Children in households receiving
microfinance loans (n=19)
Idweli Evaluation — Lundy Foundation © April 2007 21
 Sampling Design (continued)

 Interviews and focus groups

conducted with:
 Children and their parents or
caregivers (n=209)
 Children and adults who
participated in the Center
development process
(n=19)
 Key informants (n=70)
Idweli Evaluation — Lundy Foundation © April 2007 22
Findings

Children’s
Psychosoci
al
Well-Being

Idweli Evaluation — Lundy Foundation © April 2007 23

Findings: Psychosocial Well-Being
 Depression:
 Center orphans were significantly
less depressed than either orphans
living in the village with extended
family or children living with both
parents (F=5.41; p<.05)

Idweli Evaluation — Lundy Foundation © April 2007 24

 Psychosocial Well-Being (continued)

 Emotional & Behavioral

Functioning:
 No significant differences among
sample groups of children with
respect to emotional and
behavioral functioning
…despite indications in previous
research that OVC are more likely to
demonstrate emotional and behavioral
problems
Idweli Evaluation — Lundy Foundation © April 2007 25
 Psychosocial Well-Being (continued)

 School Performance:
 Center children had better school
attendance than village orphans and
expressed greater optimism and
hopefulness about being
able to shape a positive
future for themselves,
specifically through
knowledge and study
Idweli Evaluation — Lundy Foundation © April 2007 26
Findings

Children’s
Physical
Health

Idweli Evaluation — Lundy Foundation © April 2007 27

Findings: Physical Health
 After 8 months at the Center, the
children did not differ significantly in
terms of weigh, height, and other
measures of physical well-being from
other village children even though
Center children
were chosen from among the neediest

in the village

Idweli Evaluation — Lundy Foundation © April 2007 28

Findings

Social
Integratio
n

Idweli Evaluation — Lundy Foundation © April 2007 29

Findings: Social Integration
 Center orphans reported having the same
number of people they can turn to for social
support as village orphans and non-orphans
 Center orphans expressed no feelings of
stigmatization or isolation
 Many Center orphans visit with family
members on weekends
 Many Village children attend preschool
and after-school programs at the Center

Idweli Evaluation — Lundy Foundation © April 2007 30

Findings

Socioecono
mic
Sustainabilit
y

Idweli Evaluation — Lundy Foundation © April 2007 31

Findings: Socioeconomic Sustainability
 Godfrey’s Children Center costs $1 USD per
child per day
 Extended family placement costs range from
$1.32 cents USD to $2.27 USD per child per
day *
 Center operating costs consistent with other
community-based alternatives
 Center costs per child significantly less than
typical cost of institutionalized care
Source: Stover, Bollinger, Walker and Monasch (2007).
Resource Needs to Support Orphans and Vulnerable Children in
Sub-Saharan Africa.
Idweli Evaluation — Lundy Foundation © April 2007 32
 Socioeconomic Sustainability (continued)

 The Center is becoming increasingly

integrated into the social life of the
village
 The Center will require ongoing
external financial support to maintain
the children’s current level of well-
being

Idweli Evaluation — Lundy Foundation © April 2007 33

In summary…
The Idweli evaluation empirically
demonstrated
that the Godfrey’s Children Center has been
successful in providing its orphans with a
significantly improved quality
As compared to the other sampleof life
groups, Center children are
demonstrating greater psychosocial
well-being. They are…
 Less depressed
 Equally well-supported
from a social perspective
 Express a more positive
attitude toward their future
Idweli Evaluation — Lundy Foundation © April 2007 34
Lessons
Learned
from
Conducting
the
Evaluation

Idweli Evaluation — Lundy Foundation © April 2007 35

Lessons Learned from
Conducting the Evaluation
 Scientifically valid and reliable tools
developed in the U.S. and other
western countries can effectively be
adapted
for use in assessing the psychosocial
well-being of OVC in a rural setting
such as Idweli
 Triangulation of quantitative with
qualitative data allowed for a robust
interpretation of findings
Idweli Evaluation — Lundy Foundation © April 2007 36
 Lessons Learned from Conducting Evaluation (continued)

 Providing adequate training and

supervision of field researchers
is essential to obtaining reliable
data
 Working as a multicultural
research team provided a
broad perspective for
understanding behaviors
and cultural norms
Idweli Evaluation — Lundy Foundation © April 2007 37
Policy
Implications

Idweli Evaluation — Lundy Foundation © April 2007 38

Policy Implications:
Community-Based Approaches
 Research indicates that community
ownership, long-term social integration

and sustainability are more likely to

result when community members
perceive that they…
 Are collaborating in an open and
credible process
 Are directly influencing decisions
made
Idweli Evaluation — Lundy Foundation © April 2007 39
 Community-Based Approaches (continued)

 Community-based alternatives offer

a promising response to the
challenge of a growing population of
OVC in
sub-Saharan Africa

Idweli Evaluation — Lundy Foundation © April 2007 40

Policy Implications: Evaluation
 Systematic evaluation — including
an objective and reliable process of
measurement — is essential to
determining the effectiveness of
community-based placement
alternatives for OVC

Idweli Evaluation — Lundy Foundation © April 2007 41

 Evaluation (continued)

 Ongoing longitudinal evaluation,

assessing psychosocial, physical
and economic outcomes, is critical
to determining if specific placement
alternatives are positively affecting
the long-term well-being of OVC

Idweli Evaluation — Lundy Foundation © April 2007 42

 Evaluation (continued)

 A cost-benefit analysis should be

conducted to determine what level
of expenditure is needed to support
OVC in becoming physically and
psychologically healthy, productive
members of society

Idweli Evaluation — Lundy Foundation © April 2007 43

 Evaluation (continued)

 Systematic evaluation is
expensive and time-
consuming…but essential to
building a solid foundation on
which to develop policies and
implement programs that
positively impact the
overall well-being
of OVC

Idweli Evaluation — Lundy Foundation © April 2007 44

 Epilogue
 U.S. NGO and Godfrey’s governing
board agreed to funding plan through
2008
 U.S. NGO concerned about funding

accountability
 Fired Center’s Accountant and Manager
 Angered Villagers
 U.S. NGO withdrew funding
Idweli Evaluation — Lundy Foundation © April 2007 45
 Epilogue: April 2007 Funding
Response
 Tanzanian AIDS coordinating agency: We
want to think that the funders will always
be there, but we need to clarify how the
Idwelians have contributed to the Center

 Chief: We kept thinking that the funders

would provide … . But they left. We still
want this center for our children, but we
need to look for ways to provide funds. We
can contribute wood and vegetables, and
the land can be cultivated
Idweli Evaluation — Lundy Foundation © April 2007 46
 Epilogue: April 2007 Funding
Reponse
 Villagers: What will the District
[government] contribute? We can
give food, but we need support for
education and medicines
 District Social Worker: Is it really

necessary to take children away from

their families? Isn’t that where
children belong?
Idweli Evaluation — Lundy Foundation © April 2007 47
 Epilogue
 Village voted to keep center open
 Tried to raise internal funds

 Only able to raise 100 USD

 U.S. NGO continued to push for
Center closure

Idweli Evaluation — Lundy Foundation © April 2007 48

 Epilogue
Local politicians were influenced by a
variety of factors that led to the
District Commissioner’s issuing of a
formal closure order.
 A group of volunteer Tanzanian

attorneys responded to the closure

notice but never received a reply
from the District Commissioner’s
office.
Idweli Evaluation — Lundy Foundation © April 2007 49
 Epilogue
 December 2007 the police showed up at the
Center to carry out the District Commissioner’s
closure order.
 When they began tearing down the Center’s sign
by the road, the villagers massed at the Center
and the police retreated.
 A few weeks later, the police returned
unexpectedly, armed with rifles, entered the
Center, and began throwing beds and other
furnishings out of the buildings.
 The children, at gunpoint, were ordered to leave.

 When the villagers heard about this action, they

ran to the Center and began stoning the officers.50
Idweli Evaluation — Lundy Foundation © April 2007
 Epilogue
 In the end, several community
members were arrested for
disorderly conduct
 Buildings were padlocked with their

contents strewn on the grounds

outside
 Where all of its children are currently

living is unknown
Idweli Evaluation — Lundy Foundation © April 2007 51
Senior Research Team
Victor Dukay, Ph.D. — President, Rose Mwaipopo, Ph.D. — Social
Lundy Foundation/U.S. anthropologist and lecturer,
University of Dar es
Harryl Hollingsworth, M..A. —
Salaam/Tanzania
Project Manager, Lundy
Foundation/U.S. Furaha Nsemwa — In-country
Dr. Sylvia Kaaya — Head of (Tanzania) Project Coordinator
Department of Psychiatry and Dr. Fausta Philip — Clinical
Mental Health, Muhimbili University Psychiatry, Department of
College of Health Sciences - Dar es Pediatrics and Child Health,
Salaam, Tanzania Muhimbili Medical
Carl Larson, Ph.D. — Professor Centre/Tanzania
(Ret.), Department of Human Jennifer Thompson, Ph.D. —
Communication Studies, University Consultant in the areas of
of Denver/U.S. conflict, culture and
Laurie Larson, M.S.S. — Qualitative communication /U.S.
Data Dorian Traube, Ph.D. —
Analyst, OMNI Institute/U.S. Quantitative
Dr. Rehabiamu Mahenge — Data Analyst, Assistant
Psychiatrist, Head of Department, Professor,
Mbeya Consultant Hospital/Tanzania University of Southern
California,
Claude
Idweli Mellins,
Evaluation — Lundy Ph.D. —© Associate
Foundation April 2007
School of Social Work/U.S.
52
Children of Godfrey’s Children Center

Idweli Evaluation — Lundy Foundation © April 2007 53

 For further information regarding this study, contact
:
TANZANIA: Dr. Sylvia Kaaya Muhimbili University
College
of Health Sciences Dept. of Psychiatry
and
Mental Health
telephone: +255 713 262 756
skaaya@gmail.com
USA: Vic Dukay, PhD Lundy Foundation
telephone: 303 825 0888 x3
This project was funded in part by a grant
v.dukay@att.net
from the Rockefeller Foundation
www.lundy-africa.org

Idweli Evaluation — Lundy Foundation © April 2007 54