Monitoring Dual-Generational Programmes in Fragile Settings: Insights from Ethiopia

By: KanuPriya Jhunjhunwala (Head of Education and MEL, Children in Crossfire ), Varsha Ashok (Senior Associate, Busara ) and Priyanka Upreti (Evidence Hub Manager, Global Schools Forum ).

Millions of children today are facing a confluence of crises arising from growing hunger, outbreaks of infectious diseases, conflicts, and climate change. In destabilising settings, the well-being of caregivers and children is deeply interlinked. This is especially true for early years where nurturing, stable relationships with caregivers and other adults becomes essential for a child's development. Dual-generational approaches are those which recognise this interconnectedness and advocate for programming that impacts both children and their caregivers. However, current interventions usually target one group over the other. One of the key reasons is the notable absence of programming frameworks, tools and resources to support practitioners in the design and implementation of dual-generational approaches, including on aspects of monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL).?

To address this, Global Schools Forum (GSF) worked with Children in Crossfire , and the Busara Center for Behavioral Economics to develop a user-friendly MEL toolkit for dual-generational programming focused on early years in emergencies. The toolkit will be launched on Monday 18 November 2024. If you’d like to learn more, sign up for the launch webinar here . ?

In this interview, we capture some emerging insights from this collaborative effort.?

GSF: Why did Children in Crossfire prioritise dual-generation programming? How have you integrated this approach into your programme in Waliso???

Children in Crossfire: Our journey with dual-generational programming has evolved through distinct phases of learning and adaptation. We started in 2007-08 with a community-based programme in Addis Ababa, supporting 60 homeless families. This was our first pilot with a family-based programme, where we offered support on nutrition, housing, livelihood assistance, preschool for young children and transition to school and work for older children and young adults. While this programme has shown success over the past 15 years, scaling was found to be challenging. Programmes of such nature require a long-term view to see results, which isn't always viable with project-based funding. Additionally, managing cross-sector coordination, which is the core of family-oriented programmes, is quite challenging for a single organisation like Children in Crossfire to execute.???

We then made a strategic pivot towards early childhood development (ECD). Our decision was influenced by both ECD's proven return on investment and the limited government provision in Ethiopia at that time.? To inform our work in ECD further, we conducted a needs assessment in the town of Dillela. In line with what we predicted, the assessment revealed that many children lacked physical access to preschools nearby. Even where preschools existed, families had limited awareness of the requirements to enrol their children (like enrolment age and documentation) and were challenged by the prohibitive costs of uniforms, transportation, and food. Importantly, the assessment reaffirmed that we couldn't effectively support children without engaging their entire family environment; and that the development of children is inextricably linked to their family context.?

As a result, the Waliso programme was designed to target the family unit holistically, however, there were three key innovations in the Waliso programme different from the Addis programme:?

• First, we partnered with local organisations who were experts in various domains rather than trying to manage everything on our own. For instance, we worked with Maedot, a local partner with deep expertise in implementing VSLAs to strengthen women's earning potential, and with St Luke’s, a local hospital, to address health, nutrition and water needs of children.???

• Second, we were intentional about meaningful integration across different programming aspects. Rather than running parallel interventions, we ensured each component deliberately supported our central goal of reaching the child through an ecological approach. For instance, we hosted coffee ceremonies, a cherished tradition in Ethiopia, where Maedot trained mothers on responsive parenting techniques while St. Luke's provided health and nutrition workshops Additionally, we identified a subset of the mothers attending the coffee ceremonies who were particularly vulnerable and provided them with support through VSLA to empower them financially. Their children were also enrolled in the local ECD school, ensuring that families are strengthened across generations in a meaningful way.?

• Third, we were deliberate in leveraging existing government systems where possible. This included advocating for improved ECD through the local government school systems. Even VSLAs were the choice of programming, as there were existing systems put in place by the government that helped with easily running this intervention.??

Scaling a dual-generation program remains a funding challenge that demands ongoing innovation. However, we found that treating the implementation of a dual-generation approach as a learning journey was particularly important.?

?You have to give yourself the space to experiment, innovate, adapt, and grow. Embracing this mindset has been key at Children in Crossfire.?

GSF: As part of our engagement, Busara is working with Children in Crossfire to build a monitoring system for dual-generational framework. What have been your most significant learnings or surprises related to the development of MEL systems affecting family outcomes in fragile contexts??

Busara: Our most significant learning has been the importance of shifting from isolated interventions to a systems approach. Traditional approaches in behaviour science research examine how individual actors behave within their environments. This project has reaffirmed that individuals don’t exist outside of their broader community contexts. Instead, behaviors of one group—in this case the caregivers—can significantly impact the future of another group—their children. We translated this insight into MEL, by moving away from a segmented approach that looks at individual beneficiary groups—such as children, women, or community health workers— towards a comprehensive understanding of change at the household level and measuring the interconnected nature of family and community systems.?

We also learned that contextualisation and localisation are not merely "best practices" in such programming but fundamental prerequisites. While these considerations enhance programming in stable contexts, they are must-haves in fragile environments. Involving local stakeholders is essential for accurate risk assessment and outcome prediction. The complex power dynamics in these settings – based on gender, socioeconomic status, and ethnicity – demand careful navigation to safeguard family well-being. This can only be achieved through strong local representation in MEL processes.?

Our strategy of working backward from our ultimate objective—SDG 4.2—while integrating various partners' theories of change into a cohesive framework proved to be effective. This allowed us to capture both immediate outputs and longer-term family outcomes in a way that made sense to all stakeholders involved. It is important to note that the backward approach was also possible in Children in Crossfire's case as they already had strong partnerships in place with existing service providers, which may not always be the case for organisations just starting out on this journey.?

Looking ahead, we recognise the need for more alignment around shared language and outcomes. This is especially important given the limited research available in this area, particularly within fragile contexts. While our work with Children in Crossfire and GSF on building a results framework aims to contribute to this knowledge base, we see significant opportunities for further sector-wide inquiry and alignment.?

GSF: For organisations implementing dual-generational programming in other fragile settings, what advice would you offer, particularly regarding the establishment of effective monitoring and evaluation systems??

Children in Crossfire and Busara: It is vital to approach any programming intervention thoughtfully. Our recommendations would be:?

• MEL needs to be a fundamental part of the programme design and not an afterthought. In the rush to implement programmes, especially in fragile settings, the critical phases of planning and measurement often get overlooked. Practitioners eager to launch dual-generational programmes should intentionally allocate time for the necessary “brain work” on measurement. A well-structured MEL system is ultimately the backbone for successful implementation.??

• Collaboration, particularly with local partners, is absolutely paramount. Dual-generational programmes are inherently multi-sectoral and require multiple expertise in areas like livelihood, nutrition, education etc. It's rare to find a single organisation that can effectively work across all necessary sectors. Additionally, given the evolving and unique nature of fragile settings, having a network of local actors is even more critical in dual-generational programmes.?

• Be deliberate in creating spaces which bring all partners together. It is important to develop a shared understanding of how different programme components contribute to overall outcomes. Each partner may own one piece of the puzzle, but success depends on everyone seeing their role in the bigger picture. This also gives an opportunity to develop indicators from the ground up.?

• Prioritise building capacity for monitoring with local staff and community members in fragile settings. This includes developing tools in local languages, training community members in evaluation techniques, and partnering with local universities. While this approach requires more time and planning, it's crucial for sustainable and effective monitoring in fragile contexts.?

• Account for contingencies in timelines. This is especially true in fragile contexts where unforeseen challenges can delay implementation. For instance, during the implementation of VSLAs, CiC discovered that many families lacked ID cards and other necessary documentation, which limited their participation.?

This project is part of GSF’s broader efforts to build an evidence hub for early childhood education and development in emergencies. The evidence hub codifies promising local solutions, models and approaches to improve education and well-being outcomes of children and families in emergency contexts, through a mix of pilot-based approaches, learning spaces like communities of practice, and systematisation of existing evidence and knowledge.??

All images courtesy of Children in Crossfire.