Kenya OVC-CT Programme Operational and Impact Evaluation

More documents

Recommendations

Info

occur by chance. They will need attention in the data analysis, which is designed to address suchdifferences, as outlined in section 1.2.2 Characteristics of OVCsTable 2.4 below shows the characteristics of the OVCs themselves. This excludes non-OVCchildren living OVC households, who will benefit from the programme and will also be tracked inthe study. However, this table presents information only on OVCs.Table 2.4Characteristics of OVCsTreatment locationsControl locationsRecipient –ConditionsRecipient –No conditionsRecipient –OverallOVC status - proportion of OVCs with following characteristics (%):Orphan (single or double) 95 94 94 97 96 91 90 90 93Single orphan 55 57 56 63 62 64 66 65 63Double orphan 39 38 38 33 35 28 24 25 30Chronically ill 4 5 4 3 4 4 4 4 4Looked after by a caregiver who ischronically illNon-recipientOverall16 20 18 8 10 19 17 18 14Living in a child-headed household 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Proportion of OVCs cared for by… (%)Parent 50 47 49 57 55 64 63 64 59Grandparent 36 32 34 18 21 14 15 15 18Other relative 14 20 17 26 24 21 21 21 23Non-relative 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Age (%):0-5 15 15 15 16 15 19 18 18 176-10 31 32 32 33 33 32 35 34 3311-15 42 40 41 38 38 37 35 36 3716-17 12 13 12 14 13 12 11 12 13Gender:Proportion male 57 54 56 52 53 51 46 48 51N = number of OVCs (unweighted) 1,805 2,287 4,092 593 4,685 1,931 529 2,460 7,145Source: OPM OVC-CT evaluation baseline data (2007).ControlNon-controlOverallOverallSome 93% of OVCs are orphans. A significant number are also affected chronic illness of the careror (more rarely) themselves. OVCs most commonly fall into the age group 11-15, which willprobably reflect the increasing chance of losing a parent as the child ages. Controls have a slightlyhigher proportion of children under five years of age.A parent is most likely to be the main carer of OVCs, reflecting the fact that single orphans aremuch more common than double orphans. Grandparents are also quite often the main caregiversfor OVCs, with 18% being cared for by a grandparent. However, it appears that children with other14
familial relationships are, overall, more common still. The care of children who are completelyunrelated appears to be very rare.Programme recipients are more likely to be cared for by grandparents than are controls (or carersin OVC households as a whole), no doubt due to the age-based prioritisation process used by theprogramme.Around half of OVCs in the population as a whole are boys, as might be expected. However theprogramme appears to have selected somewhat more boys than girls as recipients – 56%,compared with 44% girls. This is quite a substantial difference from the overall population andshould be checked in programme records. If it is confirmed in for the programme as a whole, theprogramme might need to assess what factors are driving the under-selection of girls and what canbe done to address it.2.3 Characteristics of caregiversIt is important to identify the characteristics of the caregivers. The following table shows caregivers’age, gender and job type.Caregivers are considerably more likely to be female, as might be expected. Around 22% ofcaregivers in the study population as a whole are over 60, reflecting the important role ofgrandparents in caring for OVCs. This is somewhat higher in control households compared withthe population as a whole, and reaches 37% in recipient households, due to the programmeprioritising the most elderly care givers in its prioritisation process.Most caregivers report having some kind of income-earning activity, although 27% of carers inrecipient households report that they have none, compared with 20% in the study population as awhole. The most common activity is farming. This will include small-scale subsistence farming thatmay bring in a quite limited income. Carers in control households are more likely have an incomeearningactivity than those in the recipient households.15
Page 1 and 2: KENYA OVC-CT PROGRAMME OPERATIONAL
Page 3 and 4: AcknowledgementsThe authors would l
Page 5 and 6: in the evaluation locations and 22%
Page 7 and 8: It seems likely that some form of p
Page 9 and 10: C.4 Comparison with the internation
Page 11 and 12: Table C.4 Real monthly consumption
Page 13 and 14: 1 Introduction1.1 The OVC cash tran
Page 15 and 16: The programme was developed under a
Page 17 and 18: The baseline survey will be followe
Page 19 and 20: least until the follow-up survey. A
Page 21 and 22: Control household - a control house
Page 23 and 24: OVC households make up the study po
Page 25: Treatment locationsControl location
Page 29 and 30: 3 Targeting effectiveness - are cas
Page 31 and 32: Table 3.1Comparison between study a
Page 33 and 34: not so different; a significant par
Page 35 and 36: Bcov erage = ×100A + BCoverage and
Page 37 and 38: Table 3.3Distribution of poorest OV
Page 39 and 40: The corollary of this is that a sig
Page 41 and 42: 3.5.1 Design issues - if applied co
Page 43 and 44: Table 3.9 Proportion of OVC househo
Page 45 and 46: the programme enrolment process, wh
Page 47 and 48: Table 4.1Health and nutrition indic
Page 49 and 50: As for the child health indicators,
Page 51 and 52: suggest that there are some differe
Page 53 and 54: Table 4.7Supply of education servic
Page 55: In general, the recipient and contr
Page 58 and 59: Kenya OVC-CT Programme Operational
Page 76 and 77:
Kenya OVC-CT Programme Operational
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102:
show all

Kenya OVC-CT Programme Operational and Impact Evaluation

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?