SEXUAL ABUSE AND EXPLOITATION OF BOYS IN SOUTH ASIA A ...

2.6 Programmes
Developing an inventory or overview of programme responses in South Asia is challenging
because few comprehensive assessments or evaluations of programmes have taken place at
either national or regional levels. Information about programmes, particularly those that
address the protection and care of children at risk, usually repeats accounts of well-known
activities conducted by a small number of high-profile, urban NGOs and government projects,
excluding the numerous less visible activities conducted throughout the region. Due to the
lack of information and the inability to conduct field investigations, this document suffers
from the same gap.
The literature review has shown extensive fragmentation of programming for individual
populations of sexually abused or exploited boys among many specialized development
‘communities’. For example, programmes addressing children living on the street in Dhaka
may originate from NGOs specializing in children of the street, HIV/AIDS, migration, child
participation, sexual abuse, legal advocacy and others. Linkages between the organizations
are frequently inadequate, and many have different agendas and understanding of the issues.
The fragmentation of programming for individual populations is also prevalent within
individual development ‘communities’, often the result of poor linkages between donor
agencies. This is well illustrated by NGO shelters for trafficked children supported by
multiple donors for ‘capacity-building’. This can result in diffuse interventions as the NGOs
attempt to accommodate the objectives of diverse and sometimes contradictory proposals and
capacity-building strategies.
A frequently discussed but seldom addressed problem is the monitoring and evaluation of
programmes. It is typically weak to non-existent due to inadequate programme planning and
design. Limitations of time and resources frequently preclude carrying out the key steps of
preliminary situation assessments; careful identification of the target group and its needs; and
the development of long-term, detailed strategies. These constraints are primarily imposed by
donors due to short funding cycles (often less than two years), with planning seldom
extending beyond the immediate funding cycle. Local representatives of donor agencies
themselves are constrained by uncertainties about future funding to extend programmes and
requirements to exhibit ‘outputs’ to their management during the limited programme period.
The virtual absence of monitoring and evaluation of programmes to prevent and respond to
sexual abuse and exploitation of children also stems from a lack of clarity as to its function.
Most programme administrators and their donor counterparts view ‘monitoring’ as the
submission of periodic status reports. While reporting is necessary, the essential function of
monitoring – adjusting the programme according to observed needs in order to make it more
effective – is seldom carried out. Often NGOs are neither able nor inclined to change
programme activities in midstream. Typically a programme, once initiated, carries on whether
or not it is working well.
Programme evaluations, like monitoring, are often reports of what happened and what outputs
were produced, not investigations of effectiveness. They seldom clarify the successes and
28