Reaching street children in an urban environment : a review of the RESCUE II program in Indonesia for the Displaced Children and Orphans Fund

The project is funded under the Displaced Children and Orphans Fund (DCOF) and is being implemented by Participating Agencies Cooperating Together (PACT). The evaluation covers the period 7/94-1/97 against a PACD of 6/97. The project has scored many successes. Working with nine NGOs, it has assisted some 1,500 street children and helped make communities more aware of street children. The project's main activities, which address education, health, economic skills, training, and public awareness of children's rights, are viewed positively by all involved, including the street children with whom the evaluation team spoke. RESCUE also seems to have helped build a critical momentum at the policy level. On the down side, because their success is difficult to assess, it is not clear whether microenterprise activities are providing viable options for street children. PACT and its local partners are addressing this need to the extent possible. Also, the development of a separate institution for street children (street kids university) has raised some concerns. RESCUE II's attempt to continue the approach of RESCUE I of testing new projects has led to both successes and failures. The modules developed for street literacy were innovative, but, because they were new, organizations had varying degrees of success incorporating them at the local level with only one training session. The training considered most useful was that which presented information, gave participants the opportunity to incorporate it at their sites, and then provided follow up. Most of the NGOs chosen by RESCUE were already involved with street children; primarily because of the dedication of their leaders, most will continue their efforts when RESCUE's involvement ends. NGOs said that RESCUE's presence allowed them to pursue activities that they otherwise would not have undertaken. They also noted that RESCUE was able to promote the coordination of diverse organizations in solving the complex problems of street children and adolescents. PACT also deserves credit for creating, despite the diversity and varied skills of the NGOs, an NGO network that increased opportunities to share ideas and to advocate at the local and regional levels. However, no PACT/RESCUE identity seems to exist; most NGOs relate to the children with whom they work, and networking seems to be a function of geographic location and philosophies about street children. In terms of management, it is to USAID's credit that the Agency supported this project despite the absence of a clear link to one of USAID/Jakarta's strategic objectives. As for PACT, the dissolution of its agreement with its local partner, YKAI, led to an increased management burden that was not matched by an increase in staff. As a result, objectives had to be prioritized and a different leadership style had to be adopted. Although this new leadership was suitable for many NGOs, a mentoring approach may have been more appropriate for groups in the nascent stage, especially those outside Jakarta. Finally, even though most of the NGOs practice a top-down management style, program implementation was democratic and seemed to take into account both the children's and the street educators' suggestions. Lessons learned are as follows: (1) In-country partnerships should be inherent in all programs, to the extent possible. The dissolution of the relationship between PACT and YKAI poses problems for the sustainability of the effort. (2) The street educator approach, which reaches out to the children in their environment and on their turf, seems most appropriate in light of the current environment for NGOs in general and for street children in particular. While street educators with "street sense" are able to quickly develop a trusting relationship with the children, academia-type educators are equally successful in forging positive relationships and serving as their mentors. (3) A successful program/project is characterized by vision, collaboration, and cooperation. Local programs that encompass community participation and have a large vision and outside support appear to be more sustainable.