Brief Description

SOS Children's Villages support children in Cape Town, South Africa by focusing on the adoption of poor children and financial and educational assistance to families. This case study looks at the case of participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) being used to support the process of children finding foster homes and adapting to society.

Problems and Purpose

SOS Children's Villages in Cape Town, South Africa faces the challenge of addressing conflicts between children and foster families, as well as helping children integrate into society. The organization's goal is to allocate foster families and support the process of children adapting to their new homes and communities. To achieve this, participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) is implemented to track and monitor projects, correct work direction, and improve operations based on children's feedback. This approach empowers project stakeholders, particularly children, by providing them with participatory and decision-making power, ultimately ensuring project sustainability [1]. Furthermore, PM&E enhances the transparency of the operating system and safeguards the rights of children [2].

Background History and Context

The issue of children is a major social factor that limits development in Cape Town, South Africa. Over a third of families in this area live below the poverty line, and the children in these families face numerous disadvantages. They are often disadvantaged in terms of educational attainment, employment opportunities, and are at high risk of HIV infection [3]. In 1994, SOS Children's Villages initiated a project in Cape Town that provides a family reinforcement program. This program offers material and medical support, income-generating skills training, and counselling on social and educational issues, particularly to families affected by AIDS.

In order to fully understand the impact of the project on children's development and assess whether the project is meeting its objectives, there is a need for evaluation. The evaluation aims to describe the sustainability and transformative impact of the SOS Children's Villages project on the development of local children, facilitate children's participation and rights, and strengthen the monitoring of the project. However, there is currently no direct assessment methodology for this project, which aims to promote participation and rights for children.

To address this gap, the concept of Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation (PM&E) was introduced, emphasizing stakeholder participation in the evaluation process [4]. The use of PM&E will reinforce children's participation levels and their skills in monitoring and evaluating the project. This approach promotes children's participation and rights, improves the quality of the project's services, and provides feedback and recommendations for NGO staff and partners to continually test and improve the program, promoting the development of accountable and transparent SOS Children's Villages.

The key aspect of this approach is the involvement of children in the evaluation process. The core value of this approach is that children have the right to participate in decisions that impact their lives. This approach enables children to learn the skills and methods to participate in the process, which is different from an assessment completed by external consultants. The participants provide ideas and suggestions based on their unique resources, experiences, and needs. Thus, stakeholder involvement is essential for continuous improvement and performance enhancement of the program.  

Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities

SOS Children's Villages Cape Town receives funding from a variety of sources including SOS Children's Villages International, government grants, and community donations [5]. SOS Children's Villages International is a global private charity organization that was established in 1949 by Dr. Hermann Gmeiner in Innsbruck, Austria. Its mission was to help orphans who had lost their parents. The organization has grown and currently operates in many countries around the world. In 1984, SOS Children's Villages International was recognized as an advisory member of the United Nations Economic and Social Commission and receives financial support from the United Nations [6]. With funding from the SOS organization, 15 family houses are able to provide new homes for nearly 150 children. Additionally, a youth facility was established in 2000 to support at least 14 young people with higher education opportunities as they prepare for independent living. Families affected by HIV/AIDS also receive support such as healthcare, education, and counseling, as well as additional paid work opportunities [7].

Non-governmental organizations typically operate with funds provided by donors who demand strict accountability for how those funds are spent [8]. Children's rights to establish organizations and raise funds are restricted compared to the rights of adults. As a result, adults must advocate for and defend the rights of children. Family members and caregivers are among those responsible for upholding children's rights. This approach not only helps children, but also enables profit organizations to demand children's rights [9].

Participant Recruitment and Selection

A summary report [10] on the PM&E process in the SOS Children's Villages project shows that data was collected from various participating groups. Firstly, individual interviews and focus group discussions were conducted by independent researchers to collect data lists. Secondly, data from 600 former participants from family strengthening and 490 former participants from family-like care were collected. Finally, data from 2,360 former participants from care like a family were included. To ensure inclusiveness, participants who have been in the project for at least two years and have left no more than 6 years ago were considered for recording the social impact of participants and the reasons for leaving the project.

To achieve the core objective of the PM&E process in the SOS project, which is to enable participants to live independently and autonomously, guidelines will be observed in the selection of participants. These include: 1) ensuring the best interests of the children are considered, 2) acting in the best interests of the child, 3) not subjecting children to undue rhetorical pressure, 4) meeting the relevant UN regulations on the human rights of children, and 5) valuing the growth of participants over short-term benefits.

The SOS Children's Villages project in Cape Town recruits participants through a two-stage selection process [15]. The project site, consisting of 15 family homes and 150 children, is located in a local community in Cape Town, South Africa. The primary participants are children seeking foster care and adoption, and up to 14 adolescents who can be supported for higher education. To collect views on the project, SOS Kinderdorf International distributed 19 questionnaires in surrounding communities in Cape Town, South Africa, and conducted interviews. The data collected through the questionnaire was classified and counted, and relevant statistics were analyzed by combining the interviews with relevant personnel. 

Methods and Tools Used

The approach used in this case study was PM&E, a process where stakeholders work collectively to maintain the project's sustainability. It involves monitoring the project implementation process and evaluating the results achieved from the project as methods [16]. The tool of PM&E should depend on the project type and participants [17]. Hence, PM&E was used in the case of SOS Children's Village to improve engagement with beneficiaries by setting criteria for the acceptance of children, collecting information, enhancing cooperation between internal and external workers, and long-term project tracking.

There are three types of PM&E methods that staff can use for children and young people involved in SOS projects:

1. Personal communication: Researchers can obtain data on the study through interviews and conversations with different child participants. For further research into a particular area, a more in-depth study can also be carried out using a questionnaire (preferably with adults for children aged 6-10 years) [18]. Establishing a feedback mechanism can also help SOS project staff better identify and solve problems.
2. Team building: The case referred to two team-building mechanisms for focus groups and workstations. The former involves group discussion on a specific topic for children aged 5 years and above, for a period of time ranging from 0.5 hours to 2 hours, depending on the age of the participants [19]. The latter refines the workshops and involves more staff, better honing the participants' social skills.
3. Independent observation: Observation can be effective in specific situations, such as with children too young to communicate, and can be combined with other approaches to better promote the SOS project. Observers can also be child participants, as they grow older and more capable [20].

To better comprehend the connection between the project investigation process and the results achieved, semi-structured interviews can be used. Horizontal communication is indispensable to support research methods and diversify social perspectives [21]. It is important to note that the PM&E method is different from the traditional M&E method, as it adds the attribute of "individual" to the M&E combination, negating the notion that M&E programs are too demanding for marginalized groups to participate in [22].

What Went On: Deliberation, Decisions, and Public Interaction

In this case, PM&E was used to evaluate the goals and objectives of the SOS program [23]. A group meeting was held in Cape Town to gather the children who receive services and other relevant stakeholders [24]. They shared their views on the quality of services provided by the Children's Village project and expressed their needs. In addition, they were encouraged to discuss how these needs could be better met by providers. The participants consisted of 45 young people aged between 10 and 18 from different families in the Children's Village project [25]. The participants also included "mothers" from the SOS project, social workers, psychologists and teachers. The children participated in the PME with their own independent groups for a few days, to ensure that they could share their experiences more honestly. There were three facilitators, depending on the number of groups. The main objective of these facilitators was to help the participants understand and participate in the assessment activities.

The meeting began with icebreaker games and a discussion on the policies and services of the Children's Village Project. Discussions focused on understanding the experiences of the stakeholders, especially the children, regarding the SOS project [26]. The stakeholders had an in-depth discussion about how they behave in everyday life. For example, how the children and their mothers interact in their ordinary lives, and the children were interviewed about their impressions of this project to understand the potential needs of children [27]. The following days were dedicated to further discussion of what improvements could be made to the program. Through discussion of the services that the children needed to improve the program, the qualitative data collected was associated with the Children's Village project cyclical planning to analyze project progress and areas that needed improvement, such as improving project strategies, accountability, and corrective measures [28]. 

Influence, Outcomes, and Effects

PM&E was successfully applied to the SOS Children's Villages project and achieved its intended results. Tewolde's analysis of the PM&E outcomes of SOS Children's Villages shows that the reintegration program is a key part of the project, aiming to help children find foster families or suitable immediate communities [29]. The PM&E participants include children, information seekers, SOS social and external social workers, and every member of the different parts of PM&E is fully involved, resulting in strong democratic collaboration. Beneficiaries and affected people should be involved in the project and make an agreement on the monitoring objects and evaluation methods in PM&E [30]. The success of the PM&E process has proven that it is effective in the SOS Village project.

The PM&E application primarily influences children, followed by the government. The PME process within the SOS Children's Villages project emphasizes the central position of the child among the participants, and the degree of children's participation in PM&E is related to their age, social experience, and mentality [31]. Child participation guarantees the child's right to information and participation, protects their integrity and self-esteem, and makes it possible to better understand children's needs and aspirations. Moreover, PM&E encourages consultation and collaboration between the government, NGOs, social workers, and foster parents, avoiding disagreements between stakeholders that prevent achieving common targets. It links children's development issues closely to government policies, which establish policies and programs that take children's priorities into consideration [32].

In conclusion, PM&E has strengthened the relationship between government organizations, beneficiaries, and SOS Children's Villages, and it promotes standardized project procedures, including acceptance of children, communication between staff and foster families, and policy decisions focusing on children's rights.

Due to the official lack of published data about SOS Children's Villages in Cape Town, the results of PME applied to the project are analyzed by combining the officially published annual report with Tewolde's research results. The project worked with relevant government departments to introduce National Child Protection Week in May 2020 based on the views of children and increased social allowances for children during COVID-19. In addition, senior managers have planned 10 highly rated development strategies for the next four years, including 7 items for the local Children's Village to choose, such as smart equipment, project localization, etc. [36]. The high participation rate and cooperation efficiency among stakeholders, especially children, show that the PME applied to Children's Villages contributes to the successful link between strategies and local conditions. However, some SOS Children's Village workers have insufficient knowledge about participatory monitoring and evaluation, which affects the implementation of the Children's Village project [37]. This is a problem with PM&E in SOS Children's Villages. 

Analysis and Lesson Learned

This case study highlights the importance of PM&E where relevant. To systematically assess the strengths and limitations of the SOS Children’s Villages project in Cape Town, both quantitative and qualitative analysis should be used. To critically evaluate whether the PM&E process is democratic, it is necessary to focus on the six democratic goods that are necessary for the construction of democratic institutions, as identified by Smith. Efficiency and transferability are also key factors in evaluating stakeholder commitment to participation costs. Analyzing the organizational structure and elements of the project process, assessing the extent to which all stakeholders participate in the project, and evaluating whether the project has met the SOS objectives are all part of the analysis of PM&E at SOS Children's Villages. Therefore, a well-defined monitoring content and reasonable evaluation procedures make the entire system more efficient. Transparency is mainly expressed in the openness of the democratic process to the participants. The outcome demonstrates that the transparency rating of the PM&E process for the SOS project in Cape Town is extremely high.

SOS owns a director, project coordinator, financial administration coordinator, two workers in charge of different affairs, a specific secretary, a project assistant, and several ‘SOS mothers’ in terms of organizational structure. The staff and responsibilities of SOS’s PM&E process are open and transparent, from the findings of the project director to all the ‘SOS mothers’ who collaborated and communicated with each other, high engagement of the different actors of data and information of the harmonization and re-entry program, particularly in relation to the RM&E process. In addition, Smith mentioned the importance of strengthening the use of information technology to promote democratic participation because official information is essential for democratic transparency and needs to be known to the broader public. However, the official website of SOS Children's Villages lacks details on the PME aspect of the project, so SOS Children's Villages needs to enhance the disclosure of details to ensure transparency.

The participants of the SOS Children's Village project have strong initiative and working ability, which promotes the implementation efficiency of the project. They share the pressure of the financial and time costs required for the implementation. It was proven that even before the harmonization different agencies within the SOS organization started the reintegration program, building the program team together with two international workers, the local children, and the potential families directly receiving them got together to talk with each other and integrate their views, including the children’s views, and how the program was going to work. Schmidt et al. claim that the successful reintegration of all the local children in their new families necessitates the cooperation and collaboration of the agencies involved, as well as family members, in order to unify the program. They note that if birth parents accept to engage in the process with other people, reunification may become a possibility. To analyze the inclusiveness of this project, it is important to focus on the fairness of selection rules and procedures, and the equal enjoyment of power by all participants. Based on the above description of the recruitment and participation process of participants, it can be seen that each part of this project gives participants sufficient opportunities to express their views, and there is no problem of some groups being marginalized.

PM&E can be seen as a socially negotiated process, where the various needs and perspectives of stakeholders are considered, but the final goal is to reach a group consensus[46]. The premise of consensus involves the distribution of equal participation rights and actual decision-making control, which Smith mentions[47]. The method of translating the PM&E concept into practice is ambiguous, and the key issue affecting the PM&E process is the level at which stakeholder groups share a privileged position with other participants[48], but there is no detail about the method of equal power sharing. Power sharing between actors and other stakeholders, especially bureaucratic actors, is key to popular control[49].

According to the consultative meetings of the PM&E project in the Cape Town SOS Children’s Village, children are given sufficient opportunity to express themselves because children are easily overlooked as beneficiaries. In some cases related to NGOs, the voice of stakeholders is neglected in the PM&E (Rudqvist and Woodford-Berger, 1996: 45)[50]. In contrast, SOS village workers and the social development department focus more on the children’s conditions and feelings when SOS village helps them to adapt to society. As a result, the status and situation of the different participants in the PM&E process of the project were considered. This case overcomes the problem of imbalanced participation that has emerged in the PM&E process. However, there is still some room for improvement in the organization and efficiency of SOS international's work, which is one of the project's critical shortcomings.

As previously stated, various stakeholders are heavily engaged in the project, including the evaluating and monitoring process. However, current training and staff capacity building are required, particularly to incorporate and adapt participatory evaluating and monitoring models in future SOS projects. Institutions that can build staff capacity and keep them up to date on the latest knowledge in participatory evaluating and monitoring will keep empowering their employees. As a result, this paper strongly advocates for current training and staff empowerment, particularly with regard to participatory M&E approaches to monitoring and evaluation.

Furthermore, there are some aspects of the SOS PM&E process that need to be improved. The level of stakeholder involvement in SOS projects must be determined by examining the decision-making and information-gathering processes, as well as stakeholder participation in needs evaluation, indicator selection, data collection, and data analysis, among other things [51]. Stakeholders involved in SOS projects can benefit from quantitative and qualitative analyses that provide final results and recommendations. As mentioned above, the framework is already able to provide a sound theoretical framework, which includes the provision of sound theories as well as child rights approaches and participatory methodological development. In the framework, the research advocates the need for the involvement of the beneficiaries of the project as well as other stakeholders, particularly in the monitoring and evaluation process. Thus, as mentioned above, even though the results of the SOS were mixed, the project had positive results in terms of reunification and children's social reintegration return to their original families and even to society at large.

In conclusion, based on the analysis conducted, all stakeholders were highly engaged in the SOS project in Cape Town, particularly during the PM&E process. Different agencies within the SOS organizational project team, social workers, children, and potential families of direct intake discussed and communicated together to determine how the program could move forward. Additionally, SOS conducts robust and ongoing evaluation and monitoring of the project, involving various stakeholders in the process. A high level of engagement from all participants in the evaluating and monitoring of SOS Children's Villages in Cape Town was found, despite some efficiency shortcomings. PM&E plays a crucial role in the success of the SOS Children's Villages project in achieving positive outcomes for the reintegration of reunited children into their families and communities.

See Also

https://participedia.net/case/4489

https://participedia.net/case/8584

References

[1] Kibukho, K. (2021). “Mediating role of citizen empowerment in the relationship between participatory monitoring and evaluation and social sustainability”. Evaluation and Program Planning, 85, p.101911. doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2021.101911.

[2] Tewolde, G.B. (2018). “An assessment of participatory monitoring and evaluation in NGOs: a case study of SOS Children’s Village, Cape Town, South Africa”. pp. [online] Available at: https://etd.uwc.ac.za/handle/11394/6570 [Accessed 13 Dec. 2022].

[3] SOS Children’s Villages. (2017). SOS Children’s Village Cape Town. [online] Available at: https://www.sos-childrensvillages.org/where-we-help/africa/south-africa/cape-town [Accessed 13 Dec. 2022].

[4] Chambers, R. (1997). “Whose reality counts (Vol. 25)”. London: Intermediate technology publications.

[5] SOS. (2022). SOS Children's Village Cape Town, Available at: https://www.sos-childrensvillages.org/where-we-help/africa/south-africa/cape-town

[6] Frimpong Manso, K. A. (2012) Preparation for Young People Leaving Care: The Case of SOS Children’s Village, Ghana. Child care in practice : Northern Ireland journal of multi-disciplinary child care practice. [Online] 18 (4), 341–356.

[7] SOS Children's Villages International. (2016) “International Annual Report”.

[8] Tewolde, G.B. (2018). “An assessment of participatory monitoring and evaluation in NGOs: a case study of SOS Children’s Village, Cape Town, South Africa”. pp. [online] Available at: https://etd.uwc.ac.za/handle/11394/6570 [Accessed 13 Dec. 2022].

[9] Tewolde, G.B. (2018). “An assessment of participatory monitoring and evaluation in NGOs: a case study of SOS Children’s Village, Cape Town, South Africa”. pp. [online] Available at: https://etd.uwc.ac.za/handle/11394/6570 [Accessed 13 Dec. 2022].

[10] Willi R., Reed D. and Houedenou G. (2019) “70 years of impact improving the lives of children without adequate parental care”. SOS Children’s Villages International， Available at: 70 YEARS OF IMPACT

[11] Willi R., Reed D. and Houedenou G. (2019) “70 years of impact improving the lives of children without adequate parental care”. SOS Children’s Villages International，pp.17. Available at: 70 YEARS OF IMPACT

[12] Willi R., Reed D. and Houedenou G. (2019) “70 years of impact improving the lives of children without adequate parental care”. SOS Children’s Villages International，pp.37. Available at: 70 YEARS OF IMPACT

[13] Willi R., Reed D. and Houedenou G. (2019) “70 years of impact improving the lives of children without adequate parental care”. SOS Children’s Villages International，pp.37. Available at: 70 YEARS OF IMPACT

[14] Willi R., Reed D. and Houedenou G. (2019) “70 years of impact improving the lives of children without adequate parental care”. SOS Children’s Villages International，pp.37. Available at: 70 YEARS OF IMPACT

[15] Tewolde, G.B. (2018). “An assessment of participatory monitoring and evaluation in NGOs: a case study of SOS Children’s Village, Cape Town, South Africa”. pp. [online] Available at: https://etd.uwc.ac.za/handle/11394/6570 [Accessed 13 Dec. 2022].

[16] Rossman, G., (2000). “Participatory monitoring and evaluation”. The Center for International Education.

[17] Guijt, I., Arevalo, M. and Saladores, K., (1998). “Participatory monitoring and evaluation”. PLA Notes, 31, p.28.

[18] SOS CHILDREN”S VILLAGES INTERNATIONAL (2012) “Articipatory onitoring and valuation: Methodologies for working with children and young people Scribd.” Scribd. Available at: https://www.scribd.com/document/463206194/2012-PME-for-working-with-children-final-0512 (Accessed: January 2023).

[19] SOS CHILDREN”S VILLAGES INTERNATIONAL (2012) “Articipatory onitoring and valuation: Methodologies for working with children and young people Scribd.” Scribd. Available at: https://www.scribd.com/document/463206194/2012-PME-for-working-with-children-final-0512 (Accessed: January 2023).

[20] SOS CHILDREN”S VILLAGES INTERNATIONAL (2012) “Articipatory onitoring and valuation: Methodologies for working with children and young people Scribd.” Scribd. Available at: https://www.scribd.com/document/463206194/2012-PME-for-working-with-children-final-0512 (Accessed: January 2023).

[21] Smith, G. (2009). “Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation (Theories of Institutional Design)”. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp.94.

[22] Estrella, M., J Blauert, D Campilan, J Gaventa, J Gonsalves, I Guijt, Johnson, D.A. and R Ricafort (2000). “Learning from Change: Issues and Experiences in Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation”. Intermediate Technology Publications.

[23] Tewolde, G.B. (2018). “An assessment of participatory monitoring and evaluation in NGOs: a case study of SOS Children’s Village, Cape Town, South Africa”. pp. [online] Available at: https://etd.uwc.ac.za/handle/11394/6570 [Accessed 13 Dec. 2022].

[24] www.sos-childrensvillages.org (2012). PARTICIPATORY MONITORING AND EVALUATION Methodologies for Working with Children and Young People. [online] Available at: https://www.sos-childrensvillages.org/getmedia/58a4f61b-bb73-4509-8abb-5826988d615d/2012-PME-for-working-with-children-final-0512.pdf?ext=.pdf.

[25] www.sos-childrensvillages.org (2012). PARTICIPATORY MONITORING AND EVALUATION Methodologies for Working with Children and Young People. [online] Available at: https://www.sos-childrensvillages.org/getmedia/58a4f61b-bb73-4509-8abb-5826988d615d/2012-PME-for-working-with-children-final-0512.pdf?ext=.pdf.

[26] www.sos-childrensvillages.org (2012). PARTICIPATORY MONITORING AND EVALUATION Methodologies for Working with Children and Young People. [online] Available at: https://www.sos-childrensvillages.org/getmedia/58a4f61b-bb73-4509-8abb-5826988d615d/2012-PME-for-working-with-children-final-0512.pdf?ext=.pdf.

[27] www.sos-childrensvillages.org (2012). PARTICIPATORY MONITORING AND EVALUATION Methodologies for Working with Children and Young People. [online] Available at: https://www.sos-childrensvillages.org/getmedia/58a4f61b-bb73-4509-8abb-5826988d615d/2012-PME-for-working-with-children-final-0512.pdf?ext=.pdf.

[28] www.sos-childrensvillages.org (2012). PARTICIPATORY MONITORING AND EVALUATION Methodologies for Working with Children and Young People. [online] Available at: https://www.sos-childrensvillages.org/getmedia/58a4f61b-bb73-4509-8abb-5826988d615d/2012-PME-for-working-with-children-final-0512.pdf?ext=.pdf.

[29]Tewolde, G.B. (2018). “An assessment of participatory monitoring and evaluation in NGOs: a case study of SOS Children’s Village, Cape Town, South Africa”. pp. [online] Available at: https://etd.uwc.ac.za/handle/11394/6570 [Accessed 13 Dec. 2022].

[30] Estrella, M., J Blauert, D Campilan, J Gaventa, J Gonsalves, I Guijt, Johnson, D.A. and R Ricafort (2000). “Learning from Change: Issues and Experiences in Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation”. Intermediate Technology Publications.

[31]Moses, S., (2008). “Children and participation in South Africa: An overview”. The International Journal of Children's Rights, 16(3), pp.327-342.

[32]SOS Children's Villages, (2012). “Guide on Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation Methodologies for Working with Children and Youth – SOS Children’s Villages”. SOS Children's Villages International, p. 1-42.

[33]SOS Children's Villages, (2012). “Guide on Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation Methodologies for Working with Children and Youth – SOS Children’s Villages”. SOS Children's Villages International, p. 1-42.

[34]Chawla, L., (2001). “Evaluating children’s participation: seeking areas of consensus”. PLA notes, 42(9), p.13.

[35]Chawla, L., (2001). “Evaluating children’s participation: seeking areas of consensus”. PLA notes, 42(9), p.13.

[36]SOS Children's Village, (2021). “ANNUAL REPORT 2020”. SOS Children's Villages South Africa, p. 1-22.

[37]Tewolde, G.B. (2018). “An assessment of participatory monitoring and evaluation in NGOs: a case study of SOS Children’s Village, Cape Town, South Africa”. pp. [online] Available at: https://etd.uwc.ac.za/handle/11394/6570 [Accessed 13 Dec. 2022].

[38]Smith, G., (2009). “Democratic innovations: Designing institutions for citizen participation”. Cambridge University Press.

[39]Smith, G., (2009). “Democratic innovations: Designing institutions for citizen participation”. Cambridge University Press.

[40] SOS. (2022). “SOS Children's Village Cape Town”, Available at: https://www.sos-childrensvillages.org/where-we-help/africa/south-africa/cape-town

[41] Berceli, D. et al. (2014) “Effects of Self-induced Unclassified Therapeutic Tremors on Quality of Life among Non-professional Caregivers: A Pilot Study. Global advances in health and medicine”. [Online] 3 (5), 45–48.

[42] Smith, G., (2009). “Democratic innovations: Designing institutions for citizen participation”. Cambridge University Press.

[43] Schmidt, E.M., Rothenberg, W.A., Davidson, B.C., Barnett, M., Jent, J., Cadenas, H., Fernandez, C. and Davis, E. (2021). “Psychometric Properties of the Behavior Assessment System for Children Student Observation System (BASC-3 SOS) with Young Children in Special Education”. Journal of Behavioral Education. doi:10.1007/s10864-021-09458-x.

[44] Fu, F., Liu, X. and Zhou, S. (2022). “Research on Outdoor Space Design Strategy of ‘SOS Children’s Village’ Based on the Psychology of Troubled Children”. Frontiers in Public Health, 10. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2022.870288.

[45] Smith, G., (2009). “Democratic innovations: Designing institutions for citizen participation”. Cambridge University Press.

[46] Estrella, M. and Gaventa, J. (1998) “Who counts reality: Participatory monitoring andEvaluation’, a literature review (Vol. 70)”. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies. pp.02-03

[47] Smith, G., (2009). “Democratic innovations: Designing institutions for citizen participation”. Cambridge University Press.

[48] Estrella, M. and Gaventa, J. (1998) “Who counts reality: Participatory monitoring andEvaluation’, a literature review (Vol. 70)”. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies. pp, 17-21

[49] Smith, G., (2009). “Democratic innovations: Designing institutions for citizen participation”. Cambridge University Press.

[50] Rudqvist, A., and Woodford-Berger, P. (1996). “Evaluation and participation: Some lessons. Sida studies in evaluation No.96/1”. Stockholm: Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency.