Step Ahead Keeping Families Together 2018 Impact Report

IMPACT REPORT

2018 STEP AHEAD:

KEEPING FAMILIES TOGETHER

KEEPING FAMILIES TOGETHER

PROGRAM

IMPACT REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PROGRAM IMPACT REPORT

TABLE OF

CONTENTS

BACKGROUND A

Executive Summary

D

Project Background

E

Project Team

F

04-07

B

11

Research Questions

01

Evaluation Methodology

02

Sample Size, Locations, & Methodology

03

12-13

08-10

C

IMPACTS 05

Psychosocial Impacts

06

18-23

Economic Impacts Educational Impacts

32-34

PAGE

2

I.

29-31

04

Health Impacts

35-37

24-28

14-15

16-17

Family Life Impacts

II.

Other Impacts

38

Conclusion

39-40

References

41-42

PAGE

3

KEEPING FAMILIES TOGETHER

PROGRAM

IMPACT REPORT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BACKGROUND

01 Family Impacts

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Relationships in my family have improved

83%

KFT FAMILIES

In 2018 an independent researcher carried out a study of the impacts* of Step Ahead’s Keeping Families Together program in Thailand. The Keeping Families Together (KFT) program aims to equip local communities to care for orphans, widows, and vulnerable families in their own communities.

A total of 47 vulnerable families in Thailand participated in the research. Families who had completed the KFT program were compared to a control group of similarly vulnerable families in the same communities.

Significant impact was found in the following areas: family, emotional, economic, educational and health.

These are all areas identified in research as areas essential to strengthening families. Following are some highlights.

57%

CONTROL GROUP I am more confident in my positive parenting skills

100% KFT FAMILIES

60%

CONTROL GROUP

results compare experiences before completing KFT training or 1 year ago for the control group *

PAGE

4

PAGE

5

KEEPING FAMILIES TOGETHER

02 Psychosocial Impacts

PROGRAM

IMPACT REPORT

03 Economic Impacts

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BACKGROUND

04 Educational Impacts Feel extremely confident their children will stay in school

I feel more hopeful about the future

Saving money, decreasing debt, or both

73% 83% KFT FAMILIES

55% CONTROL GROUP

KFT FAMILIES

PAGE

6

KFT FAMILIES

52% CONTROL GROUP

Continued to follow the family financial plan that they made in the program even after completing the program

I feel better in general

75%

75%

32% CONTROL GROUP

59% KFT FAMILIES

KFT FAMILIES

05 Health Impacts

59% CONTROL GROUP

Reported that their families’ health has improved since completing the KFT program

58% KFT FAMILIES

39% CONTROL GROUP

PAGE

7

KEEPING FAMILIES TOGETHER

PROGRAM

IMPACT REPORT

PROJECT BACKGROUND Step Ahead Foundation was founded in 2002. The KFT program was opened in 2006 shortly after the Asian Tsunami, starting with three families. It is now being run in four locations across Thailand and Southeast Asia.

Directly and with its partner, Orphans Promise, it has served a total of 220 families and 504 children since 2006.

The KFT program was developed to help respond to the needs of Thai families to support their children at home.

Globally, 80-90% of children who live in orphanages or so-called children’s homes have at least one living parent.1 There are various factors which result in children being placed in institutions, among them are poverty, family breakdown, disability and recruitment or trafficking of children into institutions.

PAGE

8

PROJECT BACKGROUND

BACKGROUND

2006 3 families

2018

Chiang Mai Isaan

220

families

504

children

Bangkok Phangnga

PAGE

9

KEEPING FAMILIES TOGETHER

PROGRAM

IMPACT REPORT

Research shows significant negative outcomes for children who are placed in institutions. They are more likely to be at-risk for trafficking, both while they live at the institution and after they age out of institutional care.2 Children in institutions experience high rates of physical and sexual abuse, neglect, malnutrition and “toxic stress� which can have impacts that last into adulthood.3 Growing up in institutions has been found to stunt physical growth, result in lower IQ rates, behavioral abnormalities, and attachment disorders.4 The KFT program seeks to address the needs of and strengthen families and mobilize local communities to care for orphans, widows and vulnerable families through holistic development training, economic initiatives, educational opportunities, psychosocial support, and health access. This helps to keep children out of institutions and provide family-based care for vulnerable children.

PAGE

10

BACKGROUND

PROJECT TEAM

PROJECT TEAM The assessment was led by Ms. Lucy McCray, a Thaispeaking expatriate with three years of NGO experience in Thailand, and a Masters in Development Studies from the London School of Economics. Local volunteers helped to assist with translation to local dialects and clarify questions from participants. Graphic design was done by Ms. Kelsey Bryant, a communications specialist with four years of NGO experience in Thailand, currently based in Fort Collins, Colorado.

PAGE

11

KEEPING FAMILIES TOGETHER

PROGRAM

IMPACT REPORT

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

BACKGROUND

Economic Impacts

Educational Impacts

03 04 01 02 05 06 PAGE

12

Other Impacts

Health Impacts

Psychosocial Impacts

Family Life Impacts

The purpose of this evaluation was the assess if Step Ahead’s Keeping Families Together program is having positive impacts on the lives of at-risk Thai families. The specific impacts were based on the holistic development of these families in the following areas:

PAGE

13

KEEPING FAMILIES TOGETHER

PROGRAM

IMPACT REPORT

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY Phase One Preparation and planning were conducted through interviews with Kimberly Quinley, Director of the Families at Risk Program of Step Ahead, and through reviews of similar evaluations. The objectives of the evaluation were identified, along with the data sampling and data collection methods.

As a baseline was not available, a ‘control group’ was deemed necessary to compare changes of families who had participated in KFT programs and those from the surrounding areas who have not been exposed to similar interventions. The evaluator believes this allows for a more accurate assessment of impacts than by merely focusing on the target groups. In addition, group data

PAGE

14

BACKGROUND

EVALUATION METHODOLGY

can be used to serve as baseline indicators to support planning, monitoring and evaluation of the project in the future.

Phase Two Qualitative and quantitative data collection was conducted through a semi-structured KAP (knowledge, attitude and practice) survey/interview of approximately 13 open and 29 closed questions. Given the communal nature of Thai culture, and in order to elicit the most truthful possible response, it was deemed that focus groups would not be a productive method of data collection. In addition, Step Ahead provided intake, mid-term and final assessments of individual families which were analyzed for further quantitative data.

Phase Three Analysis was the final stage, which included identifying key findings, visualizing data, and presenting results to the KFT team for feedback.

PAGE

15

KEEPING FAMILIES TOGETHER

PROGRAM

IMPACT REPORT

SAMPLE SIZE, LOCATIONS & METHODOLOGY In- person interviews took place in two of KFT’s project locations, one urban (Bangkok’s Klong Toey district) and one semi rural (Khao Lak). A total of 8 families who had taken part in the KFT program and 9 who had not were interviewed in Klong Toey. 16 families who had taken part in the KFT program and 14 families who had not were interviewed in Khao Lak. As it was intended to provide examples of the types of impact achieved in the lives of KFT families, the evaluator asked the KFT staff to select participants who were from the surrounding areas as the KFT families and were randomly selected by local volunteers. These families were single parents or grandparents or other guardians, living in poor conditions.

PAGE

16

SAMPLE SIZE, LOCATIONS & METHODOLOGY

BACKGROUND

Interviews took place at participants houses in 91% of the time and in their places of work in 9%.

In addition to in-person interviews, pre, mid and post program assessments of each family were used to triangulate responses and provide greater data about families that had been selected to take part in the KFT program. Topics covered in pre, mid and post assessments include health, livelihoods, financial situations and child development indicators.

In summary, the evaluation covered 47 families in the interviews and 33 families in the assessments. 93% were female headed households.

Klong Toey

17 FAMILIES 8 9

KFT

CONTROL

Koh Lak

30 FAMILIES 16 14 KFT

CONTROL PAGE

17

KEEPING FAMILIES TOGETHER

01

PROGRAM

IMPACT REPORT

FAMILY LIFE IMPACTS Children develop best in family environments. The KFT program helps to strengthen family relationships and parenting skills, with the goal of helping to strengthen families holistically. KFT training supports families by providing training and workshops on issues such as the value of families, children, child protection, positive parenting, and communication. Not only does this provide a healthier environment for a child to develop, but it is also a significantly cheaper intervention than sending a child to an institution.5 Supporting parents with genuine, deep relationships that can support them PAGE

18

FAMILY LIFE IMPACTS

IMPACTS

emotionally, informationally and instrumentally has been shown to produce “positive parental mood; positive perceptions of Before, we would and responsiveness to 6 just follow our one’s children”. KFT programs are doing this emotions. through their training, We wouldn’t listen. and through meaningful Now, we listen first, relationships with KFT and we talk to our children again after. staff who check in on KFT program participants regularly. 83% of KFT families reported that the relationships in their families have improved since completing KFT training, compared to 57% of the control group. Higher rates were reported by KFT families about having someone to talk to when they had a problem in their family (only 38% said they had no one to talk to, compared with 44% of the control group). Additionally, both groups reported that they would be most likely to talk to a family member or neighbor when they had a problem ( 50% of KFT families, and 44% of the control group). This shows the importance of strengthening family relationships and increasing resilience in communities.

“

”

PAGE

19

KEEPING FAMILIES TOGETHER

96% KFT families reported to ‘strongly agreeing’ that it was important for families to stay together

PROGRAM

IMPACT REPORT

86% of the control group comparatively

KFT families were much more likely to be ‘extremely confident’ in their ability to keep their family together.

50% of the control group comparitively

PAGE

20

83%

KFT families were ‘extremely confident’ in their ability to keep their family together

IMPACTS

FAMILY LIFE IMPACTS

“[IF “[IF WE WE HAVE HAVE AA PROBLEM PROBLEM IN IN OUR OUR FAMILY] FAMILY] WE WE ARE ARE QUIET, QUIET, WE WE COME COME TOGETHER TOGETHER TO TO TALK, TALK, TO TO EXPLAIN, EXPLAIN, TO TO UNDERSTAND. UNDERSTAND. WE WE TEACH TEACH [OUR [OUR CHILDREN], CHILDREN], ENCOURAGE ENCOURAGE THEM, THEM, AND AND WE WE TALK TALK ONE ONE ON ON ONE ONE IN IN AA PRIVATE PRIVATE PLACE, PLACE, IN IN OUR OUR HOME” HOME” PAGE

21

KEEPING FAMILIES TOGETHER

PROGRAM

IMPACT REPORT

75% of KFT families ‘strongly disagreed’ with the use of harsh physical or verbal punishment, compared to 52% of the control group. 17% of KFT families ‘agreed’ that harsh verbal or physical punishment was appropriate, compared to 43% of the control group.

Both the control and KFT families felt similarly confident about their abilities to keep their children safe (79% of the KFT families, and 70% of the control group), with both groups citing my outside factors like their children’s’ friends, drugs and alcohol abuse in the community as the reason for their uncertainty.

KFT Families were more likely to correctly define or give examples of domestic violence (83% compared to the control group, 62%).

When asked if the primary caretaker would consider taking a better paid job in a bigger location, even if it meant leaving children in the care of someone else, the control group reported a higher likelihood to ‘strongly disagree’ at 82% compared to 75% of KFT families. While initially concerning, when asked to explain their answer, many in the control group reported that they would be logistically unable to do so as they were already caring for children of at least one absent parent who had migrated in search of better work and left the children in their care.

PAGE

22

IMPACTS

01

FAMILY LIFE IMPACTS

“ [If we have a problem in our family] we talk together, we sit down together, privately, and talk about the issue. At KFT we learned to talk and give advice, and if there are things we can’t control, then we let them go.

”

PAGE

23

KEEPING FAMILIES TOGETHER

PROGRAM

IMPACT REPORT

02

PSYCHOSOCIAL IMPACTS Healthy emotional wellbeing of parents positively impacts an entire family. Strong, supportive relationships help children attach to their parents and fosters positive outcomes for children including self-esteem and self-confidence. A parent’s emotional wellbeing is a key factor in family strength as it will determine their decision making, impacting every area of family life.

The KFT program helps to support family emotional wellbeing many ways. They provide training, support with positive relationships through KFT staff, and PAGE

24

PSYCHOSOCIAL IMPACTS

IMPACTS

provide practical support to address many causes of caregiver stress, for example livelihoods support. This method has been backed up by significant evidence.7

CONTROL KFT 55% 83%

Families who reported being more hopeful about the future CONTROL KFT 39% 67%

Families who reported that their life had improved since time of KFT training While overall life improvement involves many uncontrollable factors, this at least reflects general positive outlook of KFT families.

PAGE

25

KEEPING FAMILIES TOGETHER

PROGRAM

IMPACT REPORT

Clearly, KFT training is resulting in large increases in emotional resilience among families: KFT CONTROL FAMILIES FAMILIES

92%

32% 45%

13%

Families who reported feeling worse

of families ‘strongly agreed’ that KFT training had helped them learn new ways of solving problems in their families.

KFT training is equipping at-risk families with new skills and resources that they need to help solve problems in their communities and families.

PAGE

26

Many KFT families cited their close and supportive relationship with their KFT staff member as a positive influence in their life:

100% 75%

Families who said they felt better emotionally after the time of completing KFT training

PSYCHOSOCIAL IMPACTS

IMPACTS

88%

of KFT of families families that ‘strongly agreed’ reported that they could feeling safe talk to their KFT with their KFT staff member staff member. about anything.

12% of families ‘agreed’

46% of KFT families reported being close with their KFT staff member, and 54% reported being like family.

Many families said they felt so close because of the regular visits and support of the KFT staff.

“ She’s like my sister! She is

very good. She listens, she advises, and she teaches us.

” PAGE

27

KEEPING FAMILIES TOGETHER

02

PROGRAM

IMPACT REPORT

54% said they’d like to see their KFT staff member more, while 46% said how much they saw them now was enough. After graduating from the KFT program, KFT families are still able to visit and advise with KFT staff, who continue to work in their community.

This commitment to the community surely plays a role in why so many families are so content with their relationships with KFT staff.

“ [She has taught me] how to

stay together, no matter what, when the kids have problems, do not send them away, talk to them instead.

”

PAGE

28

IMPACTS

03

ECONOMIC IMPACTS

ECONOMIC IMPACTS Economic stability in the family environment is essential to fostering an environment in which families can thrive and function well. Steady sources of income mean that families can meet their own nutritional, health and educational needs and have a sustainable means of supporting themselves.

While Thailand is classified as an upper middle-income country 8, which has achieved significant reductions in poverty in the past 30 years, it is also one of the most unequal countries in the world.9 This inequality has PAGE

29

KEEPING FAMILIES TOGETHER

PROGRAM

IMPACT REPORT

meant that those who are poor have remained poor while the country develops around them, causing economic strain, and stress.

Furthermore, financial poverty is a primary factor in why families send their children to orphanages.

The economic benefits provided by the KFT program were cited regularly by participants in the program.

Equally, stress associated with economic concerns was expressed by those who had and who had not participated in the program.

The support by the KFT program through their income generating grants, which support the purchase of physical items to help in generating income, were mentioned by KFT families as having long-term benefits.

59%

of families in the KFT program continued to follow the family financial plan that they made in the program even after completing the program.

PAGE

30

IMPACTS

03

ECONOMIC IMPACTS

supported by the KFT 33% Families program were able to begin 13% saving money and decreasing debt after the program, compared to the control group

KFT 33% offamilies

are only decreasing their debt

KFT 8.3% offamilies are only saving money

of control group families are only decreasing their debt

26%

of control group families are only saving money

13%

75% 59% of families were saving money, decreasing their debt or doing both since the time of completing the KFT program.

PAGE

31

KEEPING FAMILIES TOGETHER

04

PROGRAM

IMPACT REPORT

EDUCATIONAL IMPACTS Throughout Thailand there is a high understanding of the importance of education, and both parents and students desire to receive an education. Participation and enrollment levels are high and increasing throughout the country. However, within the current education system, the quality of education is low. Research also highlights a large difference between socio-economically disadvantaged and advantaged schools, and between rural and urban areas.10 Teachers are underpaid and under supported. While education is technically free, families must financially PAGE

32

EDUCATIONAL IMPACTS

IMPACTS

contribute to their child’s education for things like transportation, uniforms, books and other fees. This means that poor families are often unable to support their child’s education, while at the same time they may require the student to help support the family economically. Poor children, especially girls, are at a higher risk of not finishing their education.11

100%

80%

100%

of families in both groups reported sending their children to school. However, upon deeper discussion, at least of the control group reported that their child sometimes misses school, with economic factors being the main reason.

20%

“I UNDERSTAND THE WORLD SO MUCH MORE NOW. I HAVE MORE HOPE, AND I CAN SMILE” PAGE

33

KEEPING FAMILIES TOGETHER

04

PROGRAM

IMPACT REPORT

of families who had completed the KFT program were extremely confident that their students would stay in school, compared with of the control group. KFT families were also marginally more committed to helping their students stay in school, with 86% of KFT families saying they were very committed or extremely committed to helping, compared to 82% of the control group.

Families were committed to helping their students in different ways. Illiteracy of parents is a major problem, but for both KFT and control group families, verbally telling students they were interested in and supportive of their studies was the most popular form of praise.

73%

59%

“ I am not stressed. In the past, I would think ‘how can I do this?’ but now, I am not stressed, I have hope.”

PAGE

34

IMPACTS

HEALTH IMPACTS

05

HEALTH IMPACTS “Everything has gotten better. They helped us, even if it isn’t big, just small things like rice, and things to eat. It makes us proud, and warm hearted.

I miss [the KFT staff] all the time” Those in poverty have disproportionally high levels of health problems. While Thailand has universal health care, there remain barriers to access to healthcare for those living in poverty.

Members of the KFT program are taken for a health check and taught about health and nutrition.

PAGE

35

KEEPING FAMILIES TOGETHER

PROGRAM

IMPACT REPORT

} }

When asked where they learned about nutrition, 25% of non-KFT families said they didn’t learn about these things

}

}

40% of families said they learned about these topics at a doctor

“[If we have a problem in our family] we are quiet, we come together to talk, to explain, to understand. We teach [our children], encourage them, and we talk one on one in a private place, in our home”

36

05

25% said they learned about it from other foundations the government or volunteers

but this inherently limits educational opportunities to those families who are likely to seek out medical care.

PAGE

IMPACTS

58% of KFT families reported that their families’ health has improved since the time of completing the KFT program.

}

HEALTH IMPACTS

52% Families in the KFT program listed KFT staff as a source of education on health and nutrition.

A further 34% said they learned from a doctor.

Compared to only 39% of the control group

PAGE

37

KEEPING FAMILIES TOGETHER

06

PROGRAM

IMPACT REPORT

OTHER IMPACTS KFT programs also teach families and raise awareness about human trafficking and safe migration. Both KFT families and the control group were able to correctly identify situations of human trafficking and unsafe migration, with KFT families generally scoring slightly higher.

When seeking feedback from the community, many KFT families cited the livelihood support and educational scholarships as particularly useful. Two families mentioned the program being too short to result in sustainable PAGE

38

IMPACTS

OTHER IMPACTS & CONCLUSION

change. More than one family asked Step Ahead to continue to support other families in the community.

Both KFT families and the control group mentioned needing scholarships for their students.

CONCLUSION Step Ahead is having a significant impact on vulnerable families through their Keeping Families Together program. They are meeting the needs of poor and vulnerable families and systematically strengthening families and communities to care for their own children in the community. They are doing this through impacting the emotional, relational, educational and economic lives of these families.

Families and communities impacted by KFT and Step Ahead programs see the value of them and the benefit they are having in their communities.

Both KFT families and the control group mentioned a high level of trust in Step Ahead, and many families PAGE

39

KEEPING FAMILIES TOGETHER

PROGRAM

IMPACT REPORT

expressed appreciation for the work being done by Step Ahead in their communities. Many that had completed KFT training said they would like other members in the community to benefit as well; “Help others in the community- it doesn’t need to be us, others also need help”, one KFT family member said.

KFT is helping to lead change away from institutionalization of children in vulnerable communities. As one control group member put it, “I have moved away from my kids before, but it wasn’t good for them.You get money but it is not good for them. I choose the kids first now”.

IMPACTS

REFERENCES

REFERENCES 1. Csáky, C., Keeping children out of harmful institutions: why we should be investing in family-based care, Save the Children, 2009; United States Department of State, 2018 Trafficking in Persons Report - United States of America, 28 June 2018, available at: https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/282798.pdf [accessed 31 October 2018] 2. United States Department of State, 2018 Trafficking in Persons Report - United States of America, 28 June 2018, available at: https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/282798.pdf [accessed 31 October 2018] 3. Lumos, Children in Insititions: The Risks, https://lumos. contentfiles.net/media/documents/document/2017/03/ Factsheet_Lumos_Risks.pdf; Hope and Homes for Children, Ending Institutional Care: Questions and Answers, https://www. hopeandhomes.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/DI-MythBuster-QA.pdf; 4. Csáky, C., Keeping children out of harmful institutions: why we should be investing in family-based care, Save the Children, 2009; Costa, M., End the Silence: The Case for the Elimination of Institutional Care of Children: https://www.hopeandhomes.org/ wp-content/uploads/2016/12/End-the-Silence-Policy-Paper-FinalCopy.pdf 5. Berens, A., Nelson, C., The science of early adversity: is there a role for large institutions in the care of vulnerable children?, The Lancet, 2015. ; arter, R., Family Matters: A study of institutional childcare in Central and Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union, Everychild, 2005.

PAGE

40

PAGE

41

KEEPING FAMILIES TOGETHER

PROGRAM

IMPACT REPORT

6. Center for the Study of Social Policy. Social Connections: Protective and Promotive Factors, 2 of 5.

7. Greenberg, A.& Sherr, L. (2009): Social welfare and cash transfer meeting, Carmona, Spain. Vulnerable Children and Youth Studies: An International Interdisciplinary Journal for Research, Policy and Care, 4:S1, 6-9; Greenberg, A. (2009). Strengthening the social welfare sector: Expanding the reach and effectiveness of cash transfers’, Vulnerable Children and Youth Studies, 4: 1, 81 — 85; Center for the Study of Social Policy. Social Connections: Protective and Promotive Factors, 2 of 5.

8. http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/pressrelease/2011/08/02/thailand-now-upper-middle-income-economy 9. http://www.oecd.org/countries/thailand/globalisationinequality-and-thailand-4-0.htm 10. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002457/245735e. pdf; https://bangkok.unesco.org/content/20172018-globaleducation-monitoring-report-thailand-highlights 11. https://bangkok.unesco.org/content/20172018-globaleducation-monitoring-report-thailand-highlights

PAGE

42

PAGE

43

2018 IMPACT REPORT - KEEPING FAMILIES TOGETHER